Want some statistics to back that up? How about the 2001 census, which shows London has a higher population than the next 18 largest cities *combined*:
Rank | City | Population |
1 | London | 7,172,091 |
2 | Birmingham | 970,892 |
3 | Leeds | 715,404 |
4 | Glasgow | 577,869 |
5 | Sheffield | 513,234 |
6 | Bradford | 467,665 |
7 | Edinburgh | 448,624 |
8 | Liverpool | 439,477 |
9 | Manchester | 392,819 |
10 | Bristol | 380,615 |
11 | Cardiff | 305,353 |
12 | Coventry | 300,848 |
13 | Leicester | 279,921 |
14 | Belfast | 276,459 |
15 | Nottingham | 266,988 |
16 | Newcastle on Tyne | 259,000 |
17 | Kingston upon Hull | 243,589 |
18 | Plymouth | 240,720 |
And according to this 2002 report, "Nineteen of the top 20 richest areas in England and Wales are in south-east England" -- in other words, London and the surrounding area.
As usual, I don't have any answers, but given my current search for a house, I noticed that in all the talks of distributing income and improving quality of life, no one has ever suggested limiting home ownership. Think about it: When people buy to let, they are increasing demand for a limited supply of housing (ie prices go up), and then they turn around and rent it to people who can now no longer afford to buy. Neither one has pride of ownership, and neither contributes to the community. It also becomes self-perpetuating as investors look to buy in areas that are appreciating, making those areas more valuable, while making poor areas even less valuable. Now, I'm not saying this is right (I am a libertarian, after all) or even enforceable (limited liability company, anyone?), but I just think it's interesting I've never even heard anyone question property investment as a sustainable and beneficial activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment