Lewisham one of top boroughs for new homes

The Evening Standard reports that boroughs in central south and east London will accommodate the majority of new homes built in the capital in the next decade:

A building spree in six inner-city boroughs — Greenwich, Lewisham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Newham and Wandsworth — will account for almost 60 per cent of the 278,000 new homes planned for London during the next decade. 

Analysis [by estate agents Knight Frank] of the capital’s “development pipeline” reveals likely hotspots and provides valuable research for home buyers, and for investors hoping to buy the right property in the best investment area. And as the population growth in those six boroughs is predicted to be among the highest in London, demand for housing is set to generate prices rises in these areas.

Following the recent news that the Royal Docks will be regenerated as a centre for Chinese businesses in the capital, this is more evidence that London's centre of gravity is moving inexorably eastwards. The increase in housing brings with it its own challenges, but more homes mean more people, mean more life, energy, variety and employment in the area.

13 comments:

Robert said...

Come now Sue. A "Millionaires Row" on Hilly Fields? Of all the people I know who live around the park, I cannot count any millionaires. Most are mortgaged up to the eyeballs and watching the pennies like everybody else. Oh - there is one new celebrity - did that inform your observation?

Brockley Nick said...

"Gasp. Quoting the Evening Standard, an organ funded by developers and estate agents (that's why it's free, no?) can hardly count as a 'report'."

Yes, it's the ad-funded model that underpins most media. That fact alone doesn't invalidate all of its contents, any more than the stuff you produce for your clients is invalidated because they've paid for it. Knight Frank have added up the houses being built in the capital and mapped it. What is your challenge?

"Yes, it is nice to meet new people without having to move a muscle, but this news has nothing to do with solving London's housing crisis."

This article isn't about solving London's housing crisis, it's about the disproportionate concentration of house building in this part of the capital. But, having said that, what do you think would happen to house prices if supply did not grow and demand continues to rise thanks to an increasingly large and wealthy population in London?

Brockley already has a 'millionaires row' up on Hillyfields, so those Brockley residents who own their properties must be very pleased at the equity in their homes, but those renting may not be so happy. Whilst rentals and property in Brockley go through the roof, some would argue there is social cleansing going on up on the hill, as well as down in the valley...

Anyone who uses the term 'social cleansing' may as well evoke Hitler too while they're at it. But yes, house prices are rising, this produces as many losers as winners. Your solution appears to be not to build housing.

"The only glitch in the inevitable process to Brockley millionairism that I can see is that some people with more money than sense actually prefer new build, thinking there will be no maintenance, but the service charges are incredibly high and the buildings have been designed to last only 20 years...it's only a while before they realise..."

Yes, everybody's stupid except you.

"Have I kicked off your debate Nick?"

If arguing with straw men and missing the point of the article counts as debate (and it often does), then yes you have!

CB said...

On the Evening Standard being ad-funded and whether this in fact underpins most media - the ES does not operate in the same way as much of the rest of the mainstream press, because the advertorials are not transparently represented as such. So articles on housing developments are presented as 'news' in the ES, with no references to their being sponsored, whereas the equivalent in other mainstream papers are transparently flagged as so (e.g. http://socialenterprise.guardian.co.uk/social-enterprise-network/2013/jun/26/counting-social-value-enterprise).

compactandbijou said...

I wonder how many are boxy little flats? I think I read somewhere that the size of new build houses and flats has shrunk dramatically since the great housebuilding boom of the 60's?

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/23/britain-has-smallest-homes-in-europe-and-getting-smaller-claims-riba-3662318/


How many of the flats in this boom are going minimalist 37sqmetre boxes?



I guess a 1960s council flat will look positively spacious in comparision.

Tim said...

"Millionaire's row"! I smiled when I read that. It's no big deal being a millionaire. Basically you have to have been born in the right generation, have bought property early in your life, have a final salary pension scheme, and there's a pretty good chance you are there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328915/One-British-households-virtual-millionaires-London-property-boom-stock-market-surge-drive-value-assets.html
So are there people in Hilly Fields who are millionaires? A few perhaps. But so what. These people bought a nice house overlooking a park when they could afford to, and it's appreciated in value with long term inflation and GDP.
Social cleansing? Huh? People with more money will always gravitate towards nicer areas. Hilly Fields is a nice area.
Frankly, people complaining about smaller and smaller apartments are getting boring. Change the record. The world is urbanising and London is one of the great cities. People all over the world will pay up to live in London. They are happy to accept smaller living spaces in return for the rest of what London gives them. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else. (I recommend Abbey Wood. There's a 5 bed place going near the station in a cul de sac for £330k. In a few years that station will be 10 mins from Canary Wharf and 20 from Bond Street).

headhunter said...

Yes I was bemused by this too... Where is this "millionaires row"?

Brockley Nick said...

This was not an advertorial. And I'm not sure that link is a particularly good example of an advertorial being transparently flagged.

Max Calò said...

The analysis of the article is a bit questionable though, it says:

"Analysis of the capital’s “development pipeline” reveals likely hotspots and provides valuable research for home buyers, and for investors hoping to buy the right property in the best investment area. And as the population growth in those six boroughs is predicted to be among the highest in London, demand for housing is set to generate prices rises in these areas."


It could work the opposite way round instead, with so much new built values could just as well keep low because of too much offer.

Fabhat said...

All advertorials in the UK Press have to be flagged as such - or rik a fine/ticking off from the ASA. So while you might think that ES has a heavily pro housing development bias - that feature was governed by the paper's editorial stance and is not simply a disguised advert .

Pete Thornton said...

I guess you have to assume that the analysts at the construction companies will have done their sums right and are building in places that will give them the best return i.e. have strong demand.

Max Calò said...

Only that Barrat received from government £20.5m to start construction which means that their analysis possibly was that there wasn't a profit in it.

Max Calò said...

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, only that probably it isn't positive for buy to let investors, which is the focus of this article.

WhatHouse said...

And even affordable homes being built are being snapped up by foreign investors. http://www.whathouse.co.uk

Brockley Central Label Cloud