How far will house prices fall [volume 4]

[p1stonhead]

kingston12 said:

hyphen said:

With an expected large majority, Theresa has the ability to really change things, but will she? New Garden towns and villages from scratch seem preferable to overbuilding in towns with overstretched infrastructures.

I don't think she will. The current administration seem content with high prices, why would a slightly higher majority change their view?

Increased supply would slow price inflation in the long term, but not in the short term.

I'd definitely prefer new areas to be developed rather than over-populating existing towns, but developers have got used to very high profits from the doing the latter, so will have to be stopped from doing that first.

In terms of pricing, I'll be interested to see how much the new flats being built in the middle of Kingston at the moment go on the market for. Hideous location (right on one way system, no parking, pollution, poor infrastructure), but I still expect the prices to be right up there with the highest in the area.

This is being replicated everywhere as far as I can see.

Unless the government does compulsory purchase on a lot of land (which would have to be at market rate+) and then builds houses itself at cost for people, I dont see how the millions of apparently needed houses can be built. Housebuilders are not going to build for a loss nor will they relinquish their land when its going up in value.

No one can get around the cost of building things, the value of land, and the popular places people want to live (the South East). All three are just a recipe for high priced housing. Building 500k houses in Lincolnshire is probably possible, but who is going to want them?

Those flats in Kingston will be a fortune.

[kingston12]

scenario8 said:

Might be for another thread but genuinely how large could we expect the Conservative majority to be? I suspect it may not be quite as large as others may expect. It's about 17 now isn't it? Not particularly large for sweeping changes to property law or inheritance law when those possibly affected the most will be in expensive parts of the SE who typically vote blue.

It might not be quite as large as Theresa May hoped for when she called the election, but I still think it will be a lot more than now.

Lots of confidence from the Lib Dems that they will pick up a couple of Tory seats in my area of SW London and a few more in SW England, and that might happen but I don't think it will be nearly as many as the Tories gain from Labour.

It would be interesting to see what they tried to push through if they got a really big majority.

[kingston12]

p1stonhead said:

No one can get around the cost of building things, the value of land, and the popular places people want to live (the South East). All three are just a recipe for high priced housing.

The value of the land is a genuine problem, the high cost of building is one we have made for ourselves by allowing developers to make excessive profits. If that was pared back, it would bring prices down.

Say a 2 bed flat in the Kingston development starts at £650k. How much do you think that actually cost the developer to build including the land, materials and labour costs? It is a bit unfair because Kingston is more developer-friendly than most local authorities, but the will be walking away with a lot of money.

p1stonhead said:

Building 500k houses in Lincolnshire is probably possible, but who is going to want them?

If you put a 45 minute rail link to London in, people might be a bit more interested!

[p1stonhead]

kingston12 said:

p1stonhead said:

No one can get around the cost of building things, the value of land, and the popular places people want to live (the South East). All three are just a recipe for high priced housing.

The value of the land is a genuine problem, the high cost of building is one we have made for ourselves by allowing developers to make excessive profits. If that was pared back, it would bring prices down.

Say a 2 bed flat in the Kingston development starts at £650k. How much do you think that actually cost the developer to build including the land, materials and labour costs? It is a bit unfair because Kingston is more developer-friendly than most local authorities, but the will be walking away with a lot of money.

But how can the profit allowed on a development be dictated/pared back in a free market? Its the market which dictates the profit - if there was no demand, the value of the developments would drop and the profits would go down. They are not entitled to a certain profit no matter what their costs or what the development sells for.

kingston12 said:

p1stonhead said:

Building 500k houses in Lincolnshire is probably possible, but who is going to want them?

If you put a 45 minute rail link to London in, people might be a bit more interested!

Possibly but thats another story!

[hyphen]

Speaking of Kingston Flats, I have seen the ones going up opposite Sainsbury's.

I remembered them as I was puzzled as to how the advertised communal cinema room will even work? who decides the film when its a few hundred strangers.

Make your choice

£1M for a 3 bed flat?
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

Or a range of detached houses a street away, like this 5 bed
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

[p1stonhead]

hyphen said:

Speaking of Kingston Flats, I have seen the ones going up opposite Sainsbury's.

I remembered them as I was puzzled as to how the advertised communal cinema room will even work? who decides the film when its a few hundred strangers.

Make your choice

£1M for a 3 bed flat?
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

Or a range of detached houses a street away, like this 5 bed
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

Or a 3 bed for £350k in the estate I grew up in!

This is the exact same as the flat we had but ours was a lot nicer inside!

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

We sold ours for £150k in 2010. The place was (well by kingston standards) rough as fk. I cant imagine any scenario where £350k is even close to reasonable to live there.

[scenario8]

In honesty both offer poor value to me. But are probably viewed differently by the market.

[p1stonhead]

scenario8 said:

In honesty both offer poor value to me. But are probably viewed differently by the market.

Agree. Both shocking.

I cant actually work out where the posh flat is - Is Sainsburys gone Kingston12/hyphen?

Edit - Never mind its the old gas works. What a ste part of town!

Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 11th May 14:42

[WCZ]

I know a couple of people who sold their property in london and moved here to Manchester, bought a £500k penthouse in the city, a £300k second property as BTL then got a lower paying but less stressful job and seem to be enjoying life more.

Also people sell up then retire in other countries (perhaps harder now we're leaving the EU?)

[kingston12]

p1stonhead said:

But how can the profit allowed on a development be dictated/pared back in a free market? Its the market which dictates the profit - if there was no demand, the value of the developments would drop and the profits would go down. They are not entitled to a certain profit no matter what their costs or what the development sells for

No, the market dictates the revenue generated by selling the flats, not the overall profit.

The developers should be made to work on a much tighter profit margin. Ultimately, the developer should be responsible for the cost of provision of extra infrastructure (schools, health, transport etc.) that is required by the new residents. As it stands, they are just able to take a massive profit margin and run.

This would obviously make property development a much less attractive business, so this would have to be phased in over time, or (shock, horror) the councils themselves might have to build some flats without the profit.

[p1stonhead]

kingston12 said:

p1stonhead said:

But how can the profit allowed on a development be dictated/pared back in a free market? Its the market which dictates the profit - if there was no demand, the value of the developments would drop and the profits would go down. They are not entitled to a certain profit no matter what their costs or what the development sells for

No, the market dictates the revenue generated by selling the flats, not the overall profit.

The developers should be made to work on a much tighter profit margin. Ultimately, the developer should be responsible for the cost of provision of extra infrastructure (schools, health, transport etc.) that is required by the new residents. As it stands, they are just able to take a massive profit margin and run.

This would obviously make property development a much less attractive business, so this would have to be phased in over time, or (shock, horror) the councils themselves might have to build some flats without the profit.

Developers do have to contribute under S106 all the time. Its not always proportional to their profits granted, but being too punitive would just mean they land bank until more lenient legislation comes in or the land is worth so much that they didnt even need to build it. Rich people already own all of this land so its not going to help the common man. Until a land tax is introduced (which it wont be), its just the system we have.

[kingston12]

hyphen said:

Speaking of Kingston Flats, I have seen the ones going up opposite Sainsbury's.

I remembered them as I was puzzled as to how the advertised communal cinema room will even work? who decides the film when its a few hundred strangers.

Make your choice

£1M for a 3 bed flat?
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

Or a range of detached houses a street away, like this 5 bed
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

That is another thing that doesn't seem to make sense with all of this new building. There has always been a premium attached to brand new and charater properties when compared to everything else in between, but this is ridiculous.

I am sure this has been replicated in towns up and down the country, but the centre of Kingston has been ripped out and replaced with a much higher density situation totally at odds with the facilities and infrastructure on offer in the area.

What remains of the original area (like the house that you linked) still remain nice imo, and look very good value in comparison to the flats.

[kingston12]

p1stonhead said:

Or a 3 bed for £350k in the estate I grew up in!

This is the exact same as the flat we had but ours was a lot nicer inside!

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

We sold ours for £150k in 2010. The place was (well by kingston standards) rough as fk. I cant imagine any scenario where £350k is even close to reasonable to live there.

I think that estate is going to be knocked down to make way for something of even higher density. I wonder what will be on offer to owners of the current flats?

[Angrybiker]

kingston12 said:

p1stonhead said:

No one can get around the cost of building things, the value of land, and the popular places people want to live (the South East). All three are just a recipe for high priced housing.

The value of the land is a genuine problem, the high cost of building is one we have made for ourselves by allowing developers to make excessive profits. If that was pared back, it would bring prices down.

Say a 2 bed flat in the Kingston development starts at £650k. How much do you think that actually cost the developer to build including the land, materials and labour costs? It is a bit unfair because Kingston is more developer-friendly than most local authorities, but the will be walking away with a lot of money.

p1stonhead said:

Building 500k houses in Lincolnshire is probably possible, but who is going to want them?

If you put a 45 minute rail link to London in, people might be a bit more interested!

they might be a little less interested once they compare the additional thousands they'd have to chuck down the drain on train tickets and would money that be better served going towards mortgage capital...

[Angrybiker]

FN2TypeR said:

superkartracer said:

Maybe we'll go back to the days of families sharing a house.

Mortgages handed from one generation to the next, it wouldn't surprise me.

it's how the swiss do it

[p1stonhead]

kingston12 said:

p1stonhead said:

Or a 3 bed for £350k in the estate I grew up in!

This is the exact same as the flat we had but ours was a lot nicer inside!

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

We sold ours for £150k in 2010. The place was (well by kingston standards) rough as fk. I cant imagine any scenario where £350k is even close to reasonable to live there.

I think that estate is going to be knocked down to make way for something of even higher density. I wonder what will be on offer to owners of the current flats?

Wow really thats interesting. Even though its a bit ste, its also quite sad if it happens.

Most were not owned in the time I was there but I suspect a lot are now. Even if they got a hypothetical 50% on top of market value (which they wont), they wont be able to buy anything of equivalent size within god knows how many miles.

Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 11th May 15:16

[hyphen]

kingston12 said:

I am sure this has been replicated in towns up and down the country, but the centre of Kingston has been ripped out and replaced with a much higher density situation totally at odds with the facilities and infrastructure on offer in the area.

Do you think the people will vote out the council due to this in next local elections, or are the opposition the same?

[SilverSixer]

~ *Weirdest house in Kingston klaxon* ~

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

[p1stonhead]

SilverSixer said:

~ *Weirdest house in Kingston klaxon* ~

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

• valuable plot for sale klaxon*

Easy 3 houses on that - £600k value on each. Or a block of flats.

[okgo]

p1stonhead said:

Wow really thats interesting. Even though its a bit ste, its also quite sad if it happens.

Most were not owned in the time I was there but I suspect a lot are now. Even if they got a hypothetical 50% on top of market value (which they wont), they wont be able to buy anything of equivalent size within 10 miles.

It is a total dump, lets be honest. Nostalgia aside, nothing will be missed. Apart from places to film The Bill crime scenes.

Kingston is piss poor value, I debated moving to around Kings Road area but the sad fact is that the station is dogst, the town is full of tosspit students, and the traffic around Richmond Park is so bad 8 months of the year that you'd end up hating it. People go there for schools and little else.