In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
07:06:54 on Thu, 10 Sep 2015, remarked:

The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment
sites, mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's
Gardens, is more reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable housing
(40% on newer developments).

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging
half a million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more
expensive for freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in
the 700-800k bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.

Last week's property supplement has a 1 bed flat in St Matthew's Gardens
with an asking price of £260K.

Not sure if that's evidence of a high price (£260k a bedroom vs
£125k) or what.

You can't get anything for £125k in Cambridge these days.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
16:31:07 on Wed, 9 Sep 2015, remarked:

There are a few brown-site developments in the City Centre, but they
are usually at the high end of the market (eg £500k for two beds).

The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment
sites, mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's
Gardens, is more reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable housing
(40% on newer developments).

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging
half a million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more
expensive for freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in
the 700-800k bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.

Both developments have affordable housing elements which wouldn't be
visible by the means you are looking at.

Assuming the leasehold flats in those developments are the
"affordable" element, then they also appear. But the audience for
affordable housing is so restricted it doesn't help the average
person find somewhere to live. They are stuck with the "unaffordable"
half, which is even more expensive than it would otherwise be, on
account of the cross-subsidy.

Although some flats and houses might have been sold as affordable they would
be unlikely to remain in that category when resold. Most affordable housing
there is social rented. Similarly, plenty of flats will not have been in the
"affordable" count, including the example I gave.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
12:58:04 on Thu, 10 Sep 2015, David Cantrell
remarked:

I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in
London and its immediate surroundings there is little land left to
build on unless you first knock something down.
Whereas where I live in Mid-Cambs, a place with a severe housing
shortage, the vast majority of new homes are on green fields sites.
Assuming the developers can be bothered to build them, which for a
couple of the developments north of Cambridge they can't.

Are you sure it's because they can't be arsed, or because they don't
have the necessary capital, or because there is insufficient labour
available with the relevant skills at the price they're willing to pay,
or any other reason?

They've already bought the land (which is perhaps half the cost),
there's no shortage of labour, but they know that having added it all
up and included the stealth taxes of s106/affordable housing subsidy
they don't expect enough people will be able to buy the houses in the
current economic climate.

They can afford them but not at the profit level they want.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 11:52:10
on Thu, 10 Sep 2015, remarked:
The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment
sites, mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's
Gardens, is more reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable housing
(40% on newer developments).

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging
half a million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more
expensive for freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in
the 700-800k bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.

Last week's property supplement has a 1 bed flat in St Matthew's Gardens
with an asking price of £260K.

Not sure if that's evidence of a high price (£260k a bedroom vs
£125k) or what.

You can't get anything for £125k in Cambridge these days.

Exactly, so what's your point?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:52:10
on Thu, 10 Sep 2015, remarked:
I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in
London and its immediate surroundings there is little land left to
build on unless you first knock something down.
Whereas where I live in Mid-Cambs, a place with a severe housing
shortage, the vast majority of new homes are on green fields sites.
Assuming the developers can be bothered to build them, which for a
couple of the developments north of Cambridge they can't.

Are you sure it's because they can't be arsed, or because they don't
have the necessary capital, or because there is insufficient labour
available with the relevant skills at the price they're willing to pay,
or any other reason?

They've already bought the land (which is perhaps half the cost),
there's no shortage of labour, but they know that having added it all
up and included the stealth taxes of s106/affordable housing subsidy
they don't expect enough people will be able to buy the houses in the
current economic climate.

They can afford them but not at the profit level they want.

The gross profit on developments like this (which doesn't account for
the marketing or head office admin fees) is about 20%

Why would they build houses and sell them for 80% of the market price,
and lose money doing it??
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
11:52:10 on Thu, 10 Sep 2015, remarked:
The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment
sites, mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's
Gardens, is more reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable
housing (40% on newer developments).

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging
half a million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more
expensive for freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in
the 700-800k bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.

Last week's property supplement has a 1 bed flat in St Matthew's
Gardens with an asking price of £260K.

Not sure if that's evidence of a high price (£260k a bedroom vs
£125k) or what.

You can't get anything for £125k in Cambridge these days.

Exactly, so what's your point?

You claimed 2-bed flats were around 400k. They aren't that much.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 12:56:12
on Thu, 10 Sep 2015, remarked:

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging
half a million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more
expensive for freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in
the 700-800k bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.

Last week's property supplement has a 1 bed flat in St Matthew's
Gardens with an asking price of £260K.

Not sure if that's evidence of a high price (£260k a bedroom vs
£125k) or what.

You can't get anything for £125k in Cambridge these days.

Exactly, so what's your point?

You claimed 2-bed flats were around 400k. They aren't that much.

There are several cheaper, but this one isn't:

69 St. Andrews Road CB4 1DH

Flat, Leasehold, 2 Beds, 2 Baths, 1 Recept

Last sold: Jan 2014 £350,000
Zoopla current valuation: £400,000

Previous sales: Apr 2008 £343,000 Nov 2003 £270,000

67 is similar, at £392k; 65 at £398k
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 18:19:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


e27002 aurora;149992 Wrote:

Here we differ. The years of tepid socialism were culminating in
piles of garbage in the street, a growing rat population, and the dead
were unburied. Can you imagine how this added to the emotional load
of the families and friends of the recently decease?

Margaret Hilda Baroness Thatcher was raised up to restore our United
Kingdom. She achieved so much before the cowards in the tory party
had their palace coup.

This included trades union legislation and the defeat of Scargill and
co. Decent people were making a living again and the UK's national
esteem was being restored.

The refuse not being collected and the dead lying unburied were not
normal,
consistent features of life in the 1970s.

The pertinent word there was "culminating". It would take a book to
describe the bad legislation, wildcat strikes, and corruption leading
up to 1979.

Remember Leyland Vehicles merging into BMH and the resulting BL and
the wholesale destruction of the domestic auto industry.

Thank goodness Jaguar and Land Rover survived.

There were the many, many great British Companies whose products and
profitability declined until they died or were sold off to foreign
corps. I sadly saw the Decca Group decline.

The Wilson and Heath years saw desperate attempts to gain control of
the economy with dumb policies like "Prices and Incomes". Not to
mention Capital Controls. Remember the GBP50 max to spend outside the
UK. This hurt the working man's family on vacation in Spain. It sure
didn't affect the very wealthy who had means of taking their wealth
out of the UK.

There were the ludicrous tax rates. Having relieved the working man
of his income at source they then had to subsidise his poverty with
low rents etc.

We lost the close friendship of so many Commonwealth allies.


Thatcher did not restore the U. K.

One begs to differ. I was overseas during many of the Baroness's
years in Office. Respect for the UK rose tangibly.

and because of her, huge numbers of
decent people were unable to make a proper living.

There was pain in the early Thatcher years as we transitioned back to
a real economy. The days of subsidising stupidity were over.

During the middle Thatcher years there was ample good work for those
willing to use there gumption.

We lost a lot of ground in the latter years because the lard ass
Lawson decided to prepare the UK for the Euro by tracking the deutsche
mark. In so doing he induced inflation and crashed the economy.

We can all be grateful the Baroness saved the UK from the Euro.

I was lucky. I was already a home-owner before 1979. In the 1970s,
before
Thatcher, normal people on normal incomes could aspire to owning their
own
home. Thatcher destroyed that dream. She created a housing shortage and

My experience was quite the contrary. My local authority had refused
to sell me my council house. The Baroness's government's legislation
forced their hand. The GBP I put down on that house may have been the
best money I ever spent.

Several years later I sold the same house for about 125% profit and
was able to buy a delightful ranch in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

You omit to mention that the housing boom was followed by a slump. I
sold a house in 1997 that I had bought in 1989 for the same price. In
the interim it had dropped by GPB10,000.

then, at the behest of her financial backers who could not compete, she

killed off building societies who dominated the mortgage market.

IIRC the Building Societies tried to convert themselves into Banks.
For the most part it did not go well. Strangely the US Savings and
Loans faded at about the same time.

I feel
sorry
for today's young people, most of whom have given up dreaming of their
own
home.

Three of my four sons own homes. My oldest son owns two. My youngest
son, a bus driver, owns a decent semi.

Now, about that County Line. . . :

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 11:41:38 GMT, d wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:46:46 +0100
"tim....." wrote:
"Robin9" wrote in message
killed off building societies who dominated the mortgage market. I feel
sorry
for today's young people, most of whom have given up dreaming of their
own
home.

What utter nonsense

whatever Thatcher do, or did not do wrong, creating a housing shortage was
not one of them,

That came much later (mostly on the watch of Mt T Blair)

Letting in 8 million immigrants , most of them on Labours watch, might
have something to do with the housing shortage and NHS queues. Though no
doubt the left will continue to put their fingers in their ears and sing
La La La whenever this is mentioned, inbetween calling the person who said
it a Waaaacist! naturally.

A reasonable interchange of educated, professional, cultured people is
a very good thing. It brings fresh ideas and energy and helps
international goodwill. Unfortunately the UK has become the dumping
ground for every one else's trash.

Our educted minds leave. Then we pay our unskilled to stay home while
eastern Europe's bottom feeders do their jobs.

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:28:06 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:06:21AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:50:44 on Mon, 7
Sep 2015, Robin9 remarked:
In some years they built more than 400,000 houses. Today we can't
manage even 300,000.
That's because Gordon Brown caused a serious recession and people
couldn't easily pay for new houses. Whole "new towns" have been put on
hold as a result.

I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in
London and its immediate surroundings there is little land left to build
on unless you first knock something down. ALL of the new developments
near my place - and there are a lot of them - are on the site of some
now demolished building.

Are you NUTS? I have lived in an unending urban sprawl, Los Angeles.
Green belt is the most wonderful blessing. IMHO it should not be
messed with in any way.