> But the price jump from one bed to two bed was much larger than any of the other jumps.
That price jump isn't particularly surprising given London's one bed flats are competing against a vast number of individual rooms in shared properties rented out (which is regarded as a normal living arrangement in London, including for professionals, somewhat older people and to an extent couples). Obviously people who need an extra bedroom aren't really in that market, and the second bedroom is also easily [sub]let out separately.
I mean, we can talk about price jumps between bedroom counts if you want but I'm not sure it's very relevant to the article, which is saying there's only "stabbyville" and "safe" places given other fixed requirements. If you need a studio in London, they exist all through the price spectrum, area spectrum, and other dimensions. I suspect the 'jump' you see from one bed to two is that, on average, two beds are in nicer areas, or they are houses rather than flats, freehold rather than lease, etc. Bedroom count is correlated with other features that also increase the average price. But that doesn't mean there aren't two beds in cheaper areas too.
The typical tradeoff in London is price vs proximity to work/transport. For most people. Safety comes in at the very bottom end, but still you can live far out and commute. I'm not saying that's a pleasant experience, or that being poor is a pleasant experience in general, but the tradeoff and choice exists. If you have a job in central London that you'd commute to though, fact is you are already probably well off compared to most of the country. It's a bit like how student debt mostly affects the middle class. Same with expensive season tickets for the train.
No, it's just that the market is more realistic elsewhere. No one is squeezing 12 people into a 3-bed flat in Newcastle, because there are no people who want to live in such conditions in Newcastle - £300 a month gets you a private room with all utilities and council tax included. But if in London people pay £1000+ for just one room or similar amounts to share, then suddenly it becomes a much more lucrative market.
I live in London, it is expensive for sure.. I have seen some pretty ridiculous flats for around the same cost as the one in the article, one with a shower cubicle in the bedroom comes to mind... not quite as bad as toilet but still you don’t want a wet bedroom.
Some of the landlords are just taking the piss, there are much better places for better value in decent areas just don’t get tricked by the snakey estate agents like foxtons and look around you can find reasonably good value..
> The only co-living options in the UK are currently in London
The only places branded with this buzzword, certainly. There are many, many people sharing a house with other people they don't otherwise know. And, of course, student accommodation. I wonder how much these rooms (which the article says were built for students) were actually going to cost for the students that would have lived there before it was bought and "rebranded".
The other place £2800 a month for a flat share is insane though - I live 20 minute on the train from Waterloo station, and that price will rent you a 1300sqft three-bedroom house. I guess it must be exponentially increasing as you get closer in.
You say that as if living in a shared house was some sort of social stigma.
Most single young (under say 35) professionals in London share flats, and I'm including lawyers, investment bankers, doctors, etc.
One reason is that price drops disproportionately with the number of rooms, for example for a 1-bed flat you might pay £200/week but for a similar 2-bed you'd pay only £240/week. You could pay 1000/month for a "half-decent" 1-bed flat, or alternatively you could share a great 2-bed flat for the same price. And many people chose to make the second decision. Also it makes much more sense in terms of buying household products and makes "luxuries" such as hiring a cleaner much more affordable.
If you really want to live on your own it makes more sense to live in one of london commuter belt suburbs where you can get a flat for 600/month.
No this is a London thing because London property prices are ridiculous. For the price of a London bedsite you'd be able to buy a detached house in most other places in the UK.
Yes the London market is a bit nuts, but if you're paying anything close to 25k/year (that's 480/week!) for a 2 bed in a "not great" part of London then either you have very high standards or you're being seriously ripped off.
A 2 bed flat for 400K is definitely what I would call expensive housing! It may not be central-London prices but it's certainly high, and unaffordable for many people.
My experiences are from Edinburgh, Cambridge and secondhand reports of various London suburbs. Certainly I don't know very many people who regard renting as a choice which makes economic sense for them if they could buy (which they can't).
London may be a bit strange due to overseas money putting up prices.
London doesn't have this problem if I am not mistaken. But housing is very very expensive still. So much that a 3 bedroom 120sqm apartment can be more than 6 million dollars even outside Central London depending on the area.
The point of this piece is not that living in Barcelona and commuting to London is sensible -- it's that the North London property market has gone totally batshit insane.
No, seriously: renting a 2 bedroom flat in a not brilliant suburb of London costs around £25,000 a year, or US $40,000. Then you can add council tax (another £2000), water, electricity, and gas bills, and travel. Upshot: the fixed costs of living in London are on the order of US $50,000 per year (two beds) or around $40,000 per year (one bed). Note that I focus on the two bed option because that's the practical minimum for a family unit, or for someone who telecommutes from home. Note also that the average gross income in London is a little under £28,000 per year (before tax).
Upshot: normal people and normal families can't afford to rent in London any more. The only thing propping up these insane prices is the scarcity induced by the current bubble in the foreign investment housing market. The crash, when it comes, is going to be epic.
>Prices are commensurate with London income levels. Otherwise people wouldn't live in London.
I feel like most people are moving to the outer zones. Buying flats in zone 1-3 is obviously out of reach for most people, even for most developers not working in The City. From what I've seen, even 1-bedroom flats cost at least £310k near Seven Sisters (Zone 3).
I have to admit though that I was mostly looking for flats to rent, not for sale in the last few months so I'm not an expert.
A single bedroom, that when built as the spare room for kids to play in or a visitor, costs £400/month.
Myself and several friends have left London. Perhaps I've been replaced by a 21 year old British graduate, but this seems less likely than 10 years ago.
UK renting is just idiotic at present all over, although especially bonkers in our capital city.
Remember that 1 bed flats are especially in demand at present as a result of the (in)famous bedroom tax[1]. A single person or a couple are only allowed 1 bedroom if they need to claim housing benefit (unemployed or low-wage, and remember that in London 'low waged' is a pretty high threshold, e.g. teachers, social workers, retail staff, bus drivers &c).
Bear in mind that building 1 bedroom flats has (hitherto) been regarded as a waste of money for housing associations or councils, so that really only commercial lets are available (at usually twice or three times the rent of a HA/council flat with 2 beds), so, ironically, the tax payer will be paying more to move couples out of 2 bed high rise flats in rough areas which are hard to let into expensive private let 1 bed flats. There will be no takers for the high rise flats (unsuitable for children) so they will be mothballed then expensively demolished.
Yes, bonkers, but the UK is run by the Daily Fail and other populist idiots.
Where in the UK? I won’t go as far as to say it’s impossible that this is true, but I haven’t come across anywhere like that in the last year. Are you renting a full home or a room? A desirable location (a major city) or the middle of nowhere? I can’t imagine any UK city where you could find an apartment on Airbnb for £1200/month — at best you’d get a room for that price. If you’re willing to rent a room then sure, you’ll be able to benefit from people who don’t care about the economics, but for actual apartments, the economics don’t make sense.
(And if you’re willing to rent a room, you can pay less than the long term local price with some savvy)
I think you'll find that 1) the housing problem is strictly localized to London and surrounding areas, rather than Britain as a whole, and 2) it's mostly due to rich speculators keeping buildings empty, rather than everyday immigrants looking for cheap accomodation.
For someone looking for somewhere to live London's main problem isn't price, it's that the flatshare market moves crazily fast.
reply