How far will house prices fall [volume 4]
Discussion
okgo said:
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. 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.
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.
Yes perhaps nostalgia aside nothing missed on the estate. But there will be a lot of people displaced from the place and people they know with no hope of being able to live close by.
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!p1stonhead said:
They filmed a few episodes of the bill in our next door neighbours flat
Yes perhaps nostalgia aside nothing missed on the estate. But there will be a lot of people displaced from the place and people they know with no hope of being able to live close by.
They could always get jobs?Yes perhaps nostalgia aside nothing missed on the estate. But there will be a lot of people displaced from the place and people they know with no hope of being able to live close by.
Which are the four months of the year the Richmond Park area traffic is less $hite? Just so I can plan ahead.
I don't understand Kingston's desirability and "value" either. Nor Surbiton. Or New Malden or even Worcester Park really. But values are what they are irrespective of my befuddlement.
The transformation of the central area of Kingston during my lifetime is pretty dramatic and won't have been replicated in all that many other towns to the same degree (as mentioned above).
I don't understand Kingston's desirability and "value" either. Nor Surbiton. Or New Malden or even Worcester Park really. But values are what they are irrespective of my befuddlement.
The transformation of the central area of Kingston during my lifetime is pretty dramatic and won't have been replicated in all that many other towns to the same degree (as mentioned above).
Edited by scenario8 on Thursday 11th May 15:28
scenario8 said:
Which are the four months of the year the Richmond Park area traffic is less $hite? Just so I can plan ahead.
I don't understand Kingston's desirability and "value" either. Nor Surbiton. Or New Malden or even Worcester Park really. But values are what they are irrespective of my befuddlement.
We covered Surbiton earlier on in the thread. There is very little bad about it tbh as long as you have a few quid, the others less so, and not just because I live in Surbiton ;-) . Kingston has schools of note, if your kid isn't a retard. But chances are you'll lose out to some child genius from ten miles away at Tiffins.I don't understand Kingston's desirability and "value" either. Nor Surbiton. Or New Malden or even Worcester Park really. But values are what they are irrespective of my befuddlement.
Winter around RP generally better.
okgo said:
p1stonhead said:
They filmed a few episodes of the bill in our next door neighbours flat
Yes perhaps nostalgia aside nothing missed on the estate. But there will be a lot of people displaced from the place and people they know with no hope of being able to live close by.
They could always get jobs?Yes perhaps nostalgia aside nothing missed on the estate. But there will be a lot of people displaced from the place and people they know with no hope of being able to live close by.
They liked kingston.
Now similar people would be kicked out with no hope of staying (and I mean owning) in the area without a huge salary. How is that 'they could get jobs'?
p1stonhead said:
We owned our flat same as a lot do now and my parents worked full time - mum was a midwife and earned fk all, dad worked at Ford as a mechanic.
They liked kingston.
Now similar people would be kicked out with no hope of staying (and I mean owning) in the area without a huge salary. How is that 'they could get jobs'?
It was a joke. I (for my sins) used to be an estate agent in the area, I remember trying to rent a few flats in there, it was grim full of people walking around in their pyjamas at 2 in the afternoon.They liked kingston.
Now similar people would be kicked out with no hope of staying (and I mean owning) in the area without a huge salary. How is that 'they could get jobs'?
SilverSixer said:
I actually had a walk down there when it first went on the market. I have lived in the area a long time and never knew these houses existed.It is a classic example of the old-meets-new I was talking about earlier. Those houses must be amongst the oldest in the area, but are totally dwarfed by the huge college building and slightly less huge multistorey car park. That one suffers from the noise of the college aircon blowing out at it all day!
I am not usually in favour of tearing down houses to replace with large blocks of flats, but this is the only real possibility for this site in my opinion.
okgo said:
p1stonhead said:
We owned our flat same as a lot do now and my parents worked full time - mum was a midwife and earned fk all, dad worked at Ford as a mechanic.
They liked kingston.
Now similar people would be kicked out with no hope of staying (and I mean owning) in the area without a huge salary. How is that 'they could get jobs'?
It was a joke. I (for my sins) used to be an estate agent in the area, I remember trying to rent a few flats in there, it was grim full of people walking around in their pyjamas at 2 in the afternoon.They liked kingston.
Now similar people would be kicked out with no hope of staying (and I mean owning) in the area without a huge salary. How is that 'they could get jobs'?
If I happened to own there on a lowish wage and was soon to be kicked out I wouldnt be happy but it happens all over the place I guess.
okgo said:
scenario8 said:
Which are the four months of the year the Richmond Park area traffic is less $hite? Just so I can plan ahead.
I don't understand Kingston's desirability and "value" either. Nor Surbiton. Or New Malden or even Worcester Park really. But values are what they are irrespective of my befuddlement.
We covered Surbiton earlier on in the thread. There is very little bad about it tbh as long as you have a few quid, the others less so, and not just because I live in Surbiton ;-) . Kingston has schools of note, if your kid isn't a retard. But chances are you'll lose out to some child genius from ten miles away at Tiffins.I don't understand Kingston's desirability and "value" either. Nor Surbiton. Or New Malden or even Worcester Park really. But values are what they are irrespective of my befuddlement.
Winter around RP generally better.
Devils advocate; state schools' performances in the Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames and ordinary borough of Sutton. Property values. Discuss.
The traffic around the park in the winter is awful, too, really. Just goes to show how bad we now accept as "normal"!
scenario8 said:
Which are the four months of the year the Richmond Park area traffic is less $hite? Just so I can plan ahead.
I don't understand Kingston's desirability and "value" either. Nor Surbiton. Or New Malden or even Worcester Park really. But values are what they are irrespective of my befuddlement.
My view of most of these areas is that they are quite cheap compared to a lot of similar ones in outer London.I don't understand Kingston's desirability and "value" either. Nor Surbiton. Or New Malden or even Worcester Park really. But values are what they are irrespective of my befuddlement.
I live in Surbiton and I really like it personally but can understand if others do not. What isn't in question is that it is cheaper to live here than most of the rest of SW London, e.g. Balham, Wimbledon, Richmond etc, whilst being almost as quick to get into central London as any of them.
New Malden & Worcester Park even more so. I don't like them as much personally, but they are cheaper still, in zone 4 and I don't think they are bad areas.
Kingston is too big to characterise - you could pay £8m to live in the Coombe Estate or £200k to live on the Cambridge Estate - a mile apart but you probably couldn't find two more different places in outer London. If you take the more 'standard' part, it is expensive compared to it's direct neighbours, but still cheap compared to SW London as a whole.
They all look low value compared to commuterland - the nicer parts of Woking, Sevenoaks even Guildford don't take much longer by train, but are a lot cheaper.
scenario8 said:
The transformation of the central area of Kingston during my lifetime is pretty dramatic and won't have been replicated in all that many other towns to the same degree (as mentioned above).
You're right, I can't think of anywhere else. They seem to have modelled it on the towns like Croydon and Woking that were pulled apart in the 1960s. Profit has come first for a long time, but it is working if these ridiculous asking prices are anything to go by.Edited by scenario8 on Thursday 11th May 15:28
p1stonhead said:
We owned our flat same as a lot do now and my parents worked full time - mum was a midwife and earned fk all, dad worked at Ford as a mechanic.
They liked kingston.
Now similar people would be kicked out with no hope of staying (and I mean owning) in the area without a huge salary. How is that 'they could get jobs'?
The answer is that they can't - renting would be hard enough, let alone owning. That is bad news for everyone, the people who want to live there but cannot afford it, the employers in the area who cannot find local midwives or mechanics, and for people who do live there with the increased volume of traffic from people commuting in.They liked kingston.
Now similar people would be kicked out with no hope of staying (and I mean owning) in the area without a huge salary. How is that 'they could get jobs'?
It wouldn't be so sad if this was a desirable part of inner-London, but it is the edge of zone 6!
hyphen said:
North Sutton or South Sutton
That's the key distinction I think. I don't think that what I consider the nicer parts of Sutton are that much cheaper than the equivalent areas in Kingston. It probably doesn't have the ridiculous peaks where certain roads are suddenly 30% more expensive than the surrounds.
I don't like the town centre in Sutton at all. I don't much like the one in Kingston either, but I have lived around there so long that I can bypass the sea of c**p to get to the bits I like, and it does have some nice parts and some good shops and restaurants.
I think that the only other differences have been highlighted by okgo - access to the parks, right by the river, good facilities in surrounding areas.
kingston12 said:
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.
The value of land is determined by what the developer thinks they can sell the finished article for. What makes you think that the developers are making excessive profits?Derek Chevalier said:
kingston12 said:
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.
The value of land is determined by what the developer thinks they can sell the finished article for. What makes you think that the developers are making excessive profits?the amount of risk in developing is huge.
Derek Chevalier said:
The value of land is determined by what the developer thinks they can sell the finished article for. What makes you think that the developers are making excessive profits?
Take a look at Taylor Wimpey for a start. Bellway, persimmon and Redrow. Cheap houses but with leasehold terms attached. Nice little earner on top "excess profit"Derek Chevalier said:
The value of land is determined by what the developer thinks they can sell the finished article for. What makes you think that the developers are making excessive profits?
I can't recall the builder, but there was something in the BBC newsfeed about one of the major constructors who's overall profits were up despite selling less properties but significantly increased the profit on each home. They are/were taking full advantage of HTB.Sounds like good business to me 2bh, but the amount of support that constructors have received via HTB otherwise known as Help to Sell/Help to Debt is rather more shady imo. Let alone the whole issue over ever increasing yearly land costs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff