Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Priced out of Paris

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 186 posts

Re: Priced out of Paris

#41

Post by twic »

rdouble wrote: post #22
stevoski wrote: post #4

The article talks a lot about cities now being the domain only of "one-percenters" and "global elite". This is demonstrably false. Consider the UK. UK's population: 62 million London population: 8 million 13% of the UK's population, therefore, resides in London. To say that only the "1%" can afford London is clearly not the case. In France's case, 15% of the population live in Paris. Perhaps we can't all live in Lond…

The 1% buy multiple properties in many different cities. There have been articles about how the City of London has neighborhoods of empty luxury apartment developments owned by various sheikhs and russian/central asian commodities oligarchs. In SF when you buy a house you are also competing with dozens of investors from overseas paying cash who don't have any intention of ever living there. I believe that the Vancouv…

Nitpick: the City of London does not have neighborhoods of empty luxury apartment developments, because the City of London is the one square mile of the city where the financial industry lives. It's equivalent to the Financial District in New York. The only significant chunk of residential building is the Barbican, which is not empty, just awful.

The name of the city as a whole is simply London. You could even call it the city of London if you were being poetic. But as soon as you capitalise it, you're talking about the City of London, and that's something different.

Yes, that is confusing, arbitrary, irritating, and only justified by arcane details of history which predate the printing press by five hundred years. That's because this is England we're talking about.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#42

Post by mafribe »

rdouble wrote: post #22
stevoski wrote: post #4

The article talks a lot about cities now being the domain only of "one-percenters" and "global elite". This is demonstrably false. Consider the UK. UK's population: 62 million London population: 8 million 13% of the UK's population, therefore, resides in London. To say that only the "1%" can afford London is clearly not the case. In France's case, 15% of the population live in Paris. Perhaps we can't all live in Lond…

The 1% buy multiple properties in many different cities. There have been articles about how the City of London has neighborhoods of empty luxury apartment developments owned by various sheikhs and russian/central asian commodities oligarchs. In SF when you buy a house you are also competing with dozens of investors from overseas paying cash who don't have any intention of ever living there. I believe that the Vancouv…

Where are these "neighborhoods of empty luxury apartment[s]"? It is true that the The City of London, understood as the financial district of Greater London, doesn't have many residents, but this has always been the case. It has never been a residential area. Almost all housing space there is offices.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#43

Post by njs12345 »

andyking wrote: post #24
stevoski wrote: post #4

The article talks a lot about cities now being the domain only of "one-percenters" and "global elite". This is demonstrably false. Consider the UK. UK's population: 62 million London population: 8 million 13% of the UK's population, therefore, resides in London. To say that only the "1%" can afford London is clearly not the case. In France's case, 15% of the population live in Paris. Perhaps we can't all live in Lond…

Even if my pay was doubled, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in or near London. However, I can afford a comfortable lifestyle in rural Yorkshire (house, car, holidays, internet access, good food, days out etc etc) on a modest pay packet. The rent for my 17th century cottage with garden in a Yorkshire village wouldn't get me a room in a shared house in an undesirable part of London. I don't understand the pull of…

If you don't mind me asking, how much do you earn? If you're on the median UK national income and you double it you'd very easily be able to live in a nice place in London. Your lifestyle would of course be very different, but not necessarily worse (I'd rather take good public transport than drive, for instance). Housing is the only thing that's objectively worse, unless you have kids, that is..

Re: Priced out of Paris

#44

Post by goatforce5 »

kiba wrote: post #25
chrisvineup wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah start with that stupid Eiffel Tower its a bloody eyesore!

Unfortunately, the desire to keep historical buildings conflict with the need to add density. Clearly, people should make some tradeoff, but it should not be "never demolish any old buildings".

If you propose a building in London that would obstruct the view of St Pauls Cathedral for someone many miles away, that can be grounds to have your application denied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view

Re: Priced out of Paris

#45

Post by rdouble »

mafribe wrote: post #42
rdouble wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1% buy multiple properties in many different cities. There have been articles about how the City of London has neighborhoods of empty luxury apartment developments owned by various sheikhs and russian/central asian commodities oligarchs. In SF when you buy a house you are also competing with dozens of investors from overseas paying cash who don't have any intention of ever living there. I believe that the Vancouv…

Where are these "neighborhoods of empty luxury apartment[s]"? It is true that the The City of London, understood as the financial district of Greater London, doesn't have many residents, but this has always been the case. It has never been a residential area. Almost all housing space there is offices.

I think I combined the info in this article with another article about empty buildings elsewhere in London that someone else pointed out

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2013/04/mysterious-residen...

Re: Priced out of Paris

#46

Post by rdouble »

twic wrote: post #41
rdouble wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1% buy multiple properties in many different cities. There have been articles about how the City of London has neighborhoods of empty luxury apartment developments owned by various sheikhs and russian/central asian commodities oligarchs. In SF when you buy a house you are also competing with dozens of investors from overseas paying cash who don't have any intention of ever living there. I believe that the Vancouv…

Nitpick: the City of London does not have neighborhoods of empty luxury apartment developments, because the City of London is the one square mile of the city where the financial industry lives. It's equivalent to the Financial District in New York. The only significant chunk of residential building is the Barbican, which is not empty, just awful. The name of the city as a whole is simply London. You could even call i…

I actually know the difference between City of London and London because I watched that one clever Youtube video explaining it. However, I don't really have the details internalized as I've not been to London.

To explain what I meant, I was thinking of this article that I read about One Hyde Park: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2013/04/mysterious-residen...

I had merged this info in my head with another link that someone else had already posted, about empty buildings in London owned by offshore corporations.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#47

Post by twic »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #37
andyking wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if my pay was doubled, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in or near London. However, I can afford a comfortable lifestyle in rural Yorkshire (house, car, holidays, internet access, good food, days out etc etc) on a modest pay packet. The rent for my 17th century cottage with garden in a Yorkshire village wouldn't get me a room in a shared house in an undesirable part of London. I don't understand the pull of…

Couldn't agree more, I live in Newcastle (Upon Tyne) and wonder why all my friends headed down south after uni - for "the salary" was their reasoning but none of them have savings and their salary goes into rent, commuting and maintain an expensive social life. I'd much rather be here in Newcastle and be able to afford to live and save - just wish the weather were a little better

It's great that you two feel that way. As someone who grew up in cities in the south and now lives in London, i'd rather saw my own leg off than live in rural Yorkshire. There just isn't anything there that appeals to me. Newcastle would be less scary - i'd only give up a foot to avoid living there.

This is not in any way a slight against either Yorkshire or Newcastle. Just an observation that one man's meat is another man's poison.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#48

Post by twic »

gadders wrote: post #36
stevoski wrote: post #4

The article talks a lot about cities now being the domain only of "one-percenters" and "global elite". This is demonstrably false. Consider the UK. UK's population: 62 million London population: 8 million 13% of the UK's population, therefore, resides in London. To say that only the "1%" can afford London is clearly not the case. In France's case, 15% of the population live in Paris. Perhaps we can't all live in Lond…

Up until shortly, it was also the case that if you were on state benefits (specifically housing benefit) you could afford to live in a nice neighbourhood in London as the state paid your rent for you. Fortunately this is being capped now so that non-working people will be subject to the same issues as working people.

Your fingers seem to have slipped while typing "rather worse issues".

Re: Priced out of Paris

#49

Post by twic »

datr wrote: post #5

I don't want to undermine this piece too much as I think it is an important issue and what I'm about to say doesn't address all of the details. But I also believe it's an issue that will be partially solved by automated cars. As soon as it becomes palatable to live further from the city and commute; and, to a lesser extent, free up space from car parks, this problem will be dramatically reduced.

Automated cars? No. it's fantasy to think these will have a substantially different effect to railways.

Automated bulldozers and high-rise house-building machines, though ...

Re: Priced out of Paris

#50

Post by twic »

salmonellaeater wrote: post #13

The article implies that it's a big problem for commodities to go to the people willing to pay the most for them. Housing is just another commodity; is it surprising that the people who derive the most value from being in a city center (professionals in finance, law, business) end up paying the most for the privilege?

Housing is simply not just another commodity. An utterly fundamental aspect of commodities is that their production is price-elastic, and governed by supply and demand: if demand increases, prices rise, so, supply increases, prices fall again, and the market remains efficient.

The housing supply has very little price elasticity, at least in London. This is for the very simple reason that there is hardly any space to build new housing, and enormous barriers to demolishing existing housing to free up such space. So, when prices go up, as they do every year, supply does not expand accordingly.

I'm sorry, but to brush the problem off with an assertion that houses are just another commodity is simply to advertise one's ignorance of economics.

Post reply on HN