Quasi 300.000 lavoratori chiave di Medio-Earning “avranno un prezzo interiore di Londra entro il 2035”

Maybe London could hit its share of the housing targets? Have we tried that?

But the government must keep the housing bubble inflated…

Otherwise the country won’t have any growth industries left!

Bear in mind the mayor set his target of affordable housing to 19k maximum.

So 300,000 people..

Some might want to consider moving. Sad, but from the mayor himself.. this issue is never getting better. Even in 10 years, with zero population growth.. he’s still just over half way.

That’s with no delays, bribery corruption and assuming prices actually come down.

But return to office and £1000s in commuters costs.

We are all already priced out of buying there.

Only the very rich and very poor live thetr

We need to accept that rows upon rows of car dependent two and three storey single family homes, like those pictured, are fundamentally unsuited to the scale of population London needs to house. The article completely misses that needing to own and run a car adds around 500 pounds a month to the cost of living in London, compounding the financial pressure on middle income households. These low density neighbourhoods consume vast amounts of land, limit housing supply, and entrench car dependency, and make living more expensive.

What we need instead are high quality four to five storey apartment buildings, like the ones seen throughout central Paris that incorporates mixed use – rather than the boxy ones popping up – concentrated around tube and train stations so that people can walk or cycle to public transport and use that to get where they need to go without relying on a car. Any new key worker infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, or care facilities, must also be built next to transit hubs. It is no use building them in the middle of nowhere where the only connection is a half hourly bus. That just creates more car journeys, more congestion, and more financial strain for the very people these services are meant to support, and those who work there.

The real issue the article misses is that this crisis is not just about affordability or subsidies. It is about the physical shape of our cities. If we keep protecting low density neighbourhoods and pretending we can solve the housing crisis without changing how much housing we are allowed to build, we are fooling ourselves. That’s the root cause of housing being unaffordable. Ignoring that is like complaining about a fire, without tackling the person pouring petrol onto the thing burning.

Housing is expensive because land is scarce. Land is scarce because we do not allow it to be used efficiently. Until that changes, no amount of well intentioned half-arsed fixes will address the actual affordability problem.

Be interesting to see how many jobs A.I has wiped out by then.

That’s the whole idea…then it will be filled with gimmegrants on benefits

> 290,000 households earning less than £90,000

£90,000 isn’t a “middle income”.

It puts you easily in the top 5% of earners.

What? Are they currently priced in? What’s middle income? I suppose two good incomes, higher middle and no kids.