In message , at 14:39:58 on Sat, 12 Sep
2015, tim..... remarked:
Know any £125k flats on sale today?

No, but that wasn't the point

which was:

showing that there are 400K+ flats available doesn't negate the claim
that the average (median) price is now 250-300K

In the two developments mentioned by Colin, or throughout the City?

city wide

Remember the context: this is about how much a flat would cost if a
builder had a brown fields development under way at the moment.

IME Developers want to charge premium prices for their new-builds far
in excess of what they cost to build

The price is based on the cost of the land, plus s106/affordable housing
stealth taxes, plus the cost of the access roads, utilities and bricks
and mortar, plus a modest profit margin.

whether they get away with it depends upon the strength of the local market

I agree that the cost of the bricks and mortar for a typical Cambridge
brown fields site is perhaps a third of the selling price, but it's only
one of the many contributing factors.

Rather than bang their head against a brick wall (cheaply built or
otherwise) developing sites where no-one has the funds to pay for the
resulting properties, they bide their time.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:39:58 on Sat, 12 Sep 2015,
tim..... remarked:
Know any £125k flats on sale today?

No, but that wasn't the point

which was:

showing that there are 400K+ flats available doesn't negate the claim
that the average (median) price is now 250-300K

In the two developments mentioned by Colin, or throughout the City?

city wide

Remember the context: this is about how much a flat would cost if a
builder had a brown fields development under way at the moment.

IME Developers want to charge premium prices for their new-builds far in
excess of what they cost to build

The price is based on the cost of the land,...

Oh how naive of you

the minimum selling price may be based upon what you say but the actual
selling price is based upon what the developer thinks punters will pay,
often the latter is significantly in excess of the former

tim

In message , at 17:51:26 on Sun, 13 Sep
2015, tim..... remarked:
IME Developers want to charge premium prices for their new-builds far
in excess of what they cost to build

The price is based on the cost of the land,...

Oh how naive of you

the minimum selling price may be based upon what you say but the actual
selling price is based upon what the developer thinks punters will pay,
often the latter is significantly in excess of the former

I disagree. Having studied this business model in some detail, the
minimum selling price for property is around 80% of what they are
marketed for. And why would a developer go to all that trouble to
then sell at cost?
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:25:18PM +0100, e27002 aurora wrote:
wrote:
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.

I like the green belt too - one of the reasons I chose to live in
Croydon was because I like having countryside nearby. However, I think I
like *more* the idea of people being able to afford to live in homes
that aren't just little flats crammed into any available space. I can
always travel a few minutes more to get to the countryside.

And no, "move to Derby" (or wherever) isn't really a solution to the
problem. We already know that the demand is for homes in the south east.

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

Do not be afraid of cooking, as your ingredients will know and misbehave
-- Fergus Henderson

On 2015-09-14 11:40:33 +0000, David Cantrell said:

And no, "move to Derby" (or wherever) isn't really a solution to the
problem. We already know that the demand is for homes in the south east.

Largely that is because that is where the jobs are. An economic policy
that sought to reduce that would be a good start.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

British Leyland died under Thatcher, not before Thatcher. In the 1970s the
Government had taken a stake in BL which Thatcher sold off to her beloved
British Aerospace. I don't recall the financial details but, knowing Thatcher, I
imagine she sold it for less than its real value, thus cheating the British people
and rewarding her friends.

The fact that the innumerable strikes and stoppages in the 1970s did not kill
off British industrial companies proves that the underlying strength of those
companies must have been considerable. It was only after 1979 that these
companies, many of which exported on a large scale, went to the wall. The
inescapable truth is that British industry could contend with strikes, three day
weeks and stop/go economic strategies but could not survive the credit
squeeze, high interest rates and high value of the pound that Thatcher
and her dim-witted, uncomprehending Chancellor, Geoffrey Howe brought in.
It should always be remembered that most of the companies that went under
during the Thatcher/Howe period were making a theoretical profit. They were
not trading at a loss but they ran out of money. Michael Edwardes, the boss
of British Leyland, commenting on how high interest rates were killing British
manufacturing, said it would be better for the U. K. if North Sea oil was left
under ground!

Thatcher of course ignored him. She needed North Sea oil revenues to finance
her tax cuts for the rich and unemployment benefits for the growing number
of people out of work because the now much reduced U. K. economy was not
generating the same tax returns it had in the 1970s. So while Norway used its
North Sea oil revenues both to finance a huge investment in infrastructure
and to set aside a future investment fund, our North Sea oil revenues were
frittered away and at the end of the 1970s one of Thatcher's legacies was a
country with a crumbling infrastructure.

Your comment about subsidising rents is comically relevant to today's
Thatcher created situation where rents are astronomical and have to be
subsidised by the tax payer: about £23 billion this year, I believe.

I note your confession that you did not feel up to buying your property in the
open market as the rest of us did. Instead you waited until Thatcher flogged
it to you at an enormous discount, then sold it at a vast profit and cleared off
to America. An authentic Thatcher idolator!

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:40:33 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:25:18PM +0100, e27002 aurora wrote:
wrote:
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.

I like the green belt too - one of the reasons I chose to live in
Croydon was because I like having countryside nearby. However, I think I
like *more* the idea of people being able to afford to live in homes
that aren't just little flats crammed into any available space. I can
always travel a few minutes more to get to the countryside.

Building more houses is just curing the symptoms, not the cause.

--
Spud

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:33:17 +0200
Robin9 wrote:
The
inescapable truth is that British industry could contend with strikes,
three day
weeks and stop/go economic strategies but could not survive the credit
squeeze, high interest rates and high value of the pound that Thatcher
and her dim-witted, uncomprehending Chancellor, Geoffrey Howe brought
in.

Wow, thats a nice looking glass view of history.

ITYM that british industry could cotend with the high interest rates and high
value of the pound but could not survive the strikes and a 3 day week. The
pound has been high many times over the intervening decades since - much
higher in fact - but without major british companies going to the wall because
of it. Now I wonder why that is...

--
Spud

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:51:26 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015,
tim..... remarked:
IME Developers want to charge premium prices for their new-builds far in
excess of what they cost to build

The price is based on the cost of the land,...

Oh how naive of you

the minimum selling price may be based upon what you say but the actual
selling price is based upon what the developer thinks punters will pay,
often the latter is significantly in excess of the former

I disagree. Having studied this business model in some detail, the minimum
selling price for property is around 80% of what they are marketed for.
And why would a developer go to all that trouble to
then sell at cost?

who said anything about selling at cost?

my argument is they try to sell for MORE (much more) than the minimum amount
(FTAOD your definition of this figure)

Have you been paying attention at all?

tim

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On 2015-09-14 11:40:33 +0000, David Cantrell said:

And no, "move to Derby" (or wherever) isn't really a solution to the
problem. We already know that the demand is for homes in the south east.

Largely that is because that is where the jobs are. An economic policy
that sought to reduce that would be a good start.

Like we haven't spent the last 40 years trying.

Just what is this magic solution you've been keeping to yourself?

tim