York among the most expensive places in Britain to buy a house

York Press: York among the most expensive places in Britain to buy a house York among the most expensive places in Britain to buy a house

HOUSE prices in York have soared to nearly six times the average buyer’s earnings – making it one of the most expensive places to live in the UK, a new report says.

But when it comes to getting on the property ladder, the city lags way behind Oxford, where a mortgage offer is likely to be more than 11 times the size of a pay packet.

Oxford tops the league of surging house prices according to the research by Lloyds Bank.

In the top 20 least affordable places to live, York came in at the bottom of the table at number 20. “York was the only northern city to make the line-up of the UK's least affordable cities, at number 20,” a bank spokesman said.

“A home in York costs nearly six times average wages, while one in nearby cities like Hull and Sheffield would set someone back just over four and-a-half times their earnings.”

The research involving 62 large towns and cities showed the price of a home in a large town or city has grown by 5 per cent over the last year.

The average is £184,215 or 5.8 times someone's average earnings, compared to 5.6 times a year ago. In York, Yorkshire and the Humber, the average is 5.98.

Stirling and Londonderry were the UK's most affordable cities to live in, with typical prices 3.3 times the Scottish city’s wages and 3.6 times the Northern Ireland pay.

But Housing Minister Kris Hopkins said: “Home ownership is now at its most affordable since 2007.

"Leading developers have said they'll build more as a direct result of this increased demand, on top of the 420,000 new homes we've delivered since 2010."

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:08pm Mon 10 Mar 14

sheps lad says...

Now tell us something we don't know!
Now tell us something we don't know! sheps lad
  • Score: 22

3:16pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Pedro says...

sheps lad wrote:
Now tell us something we don't know!
The Mayfly has a lifespan of only one day. However the male does have two penises.
[quote][p][bold]sheps lad[/bold] wrote: Now tell us something we don't know![/p][/quote]The Mayfly has a lifespan of only one day. However the male does have two penises. Pedro
  • Score: 32

3:22pm Mon 10 Mar 14

garethjv says...

Pedro wrote:
sheps lad wrote:
Now tell us something we don't know!
The Mayfly has a lifespan of only one day. However the male does have two penises.
reminds me of the old Confucious saying:
Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day,
but man with two holes in pocket,he not feel too cocky.
[quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sheps lad[/bold] wrote: Now tell us something we don't know![/p][/quote]The Mayfly has a lifespan of only one day. However the male does have two penises.[/p][/quote]reminds me of the old Confucious saying: Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day, but man with two holes in pocket,he not feel too cocky. garethjv
  • Score: 9

4:06pm Mon 10 Mar 14

TheTruthHurts says...

Of course it is more expensive.

York is nice, people want to live here of course house prices will be more expensive. With respect would you really expect to pay the same in York for a comparable house in Hull?

And really ranked number 20 out of 62 doesnt seem too bad, i think it shows the north south divide more than anything else.
Of course it is more expensive. York is nice, people want to live here of course house prices will be more expensive. With respect would you really expect to pay the same in York for a comparable house in Hull? And really ranked number 20 out of 62 doesnt seem too bad, i think it shows the north south divide more than anything else. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 21

4:14pm Mon 10 Mar 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

"The average is £184,215 or 5.8 times someone's average earnings"

That's funny because only LAST MONTH the press reported that the "Average" salary in York was around £23,700.

My calculator tells me that this amounts to £31,761. So which one is it because I'm getting very confused? Are house prices in York too high or is the "Average" salary too low, or it it both?
"The average is £184,215 or 5.8 times someone's average earnings" That's funny because only LAST MONTH the press reported that the "Average" salary in York was around £23,700. My calculator tells me that this amounts to £31,761. So which one is it because I'm getting very confused? Are house prices in York too high or is the "Average" salary too low, or it it both? pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 21

4:26pm Mon 10 Mar 14

The Junkyard Angel says...

If you haven't bought in York then God help you. £150,000 plus for a 2 up 2 down but what choice do you have eh ?? You have to get on the market before the 'buy to let brigade' buy up all the remaining properties. York will be a graveyard for those who are born here and who want to buy but are priced out of the market forever.
If you haven't bought in York then God help you. £150,000 plus for a 2 up 2 down but what choice do you have eh ?? You have to get on the market before the 'buy to let brigade' buy up all the remaining properties. York will be a graveyard for those who are born here and who want to buy but are priced out of the market forever. The Junkyard Angel
  • Score: 22

6:48pm Mon 10 Mar 14

bill bailey says...

The Junkyard Angel wrote:
If you haven't bought in York then God help you. £150,000 plus for a 2 up 2 down but what choice do you have eh ?? You have to get on the market before the 'buy to let brigade' buy up all the remaining properties. York will be a graveyard for those who are born here and who want to buy but are priced out of the market forever.
Yes you are right, The average income is give or take a bit is 26k but with confusing averages supplied but various Quangos to satisfy government departments to make "THINGS LOOK GOOD" we really don't know, Lets say the average married couple bring in 30k that equates to a mortgage of 90k
that they could borrow., if they wanted to buy a house of 170k they need to have assets of 80k on top of that overheads to buy ant fit out another 10k that means they need 90k to buy a 170k house ( If you can find a decent one for that price) I shouldn't think there are many couples in York buying a house using these figures.
[quote][p][bold]The Junkyard Angel[/bold] wrote: If you haven't bought in York then God help you. £150,000 plus for a 2 up 2 down but what choice do you have eh ?? You have to get on the market before the 'buy to let brigade' buy up all the remaining properties. York will be a graveyard for those who are born here and who want to buy but are priced out of the market forever.[/p][/quote]Yes you are right, The average income is give or take a bit is 26k but with confusing averages supplied but various Quangos to satisfy government departments to make "THINGS LOOK GOOD" we really don't know, Lets say the average married couple bring in 30k that equates to a mortgage of 90k that they could borrow., if they wanted to buy a house of 170k they need to have assets of 80k on top of that overheads to buy ant fit out another 10k that means they need 90k to buy a 170k house ( If you can find a decent one for that price) I shouldn't think there are many couples in York buying a house using these figures. bill bailey
  • Score: 13

7:02pm Mon 10 Mar 14

The Junkyard Angel says...

bill bailey wrote:
The Junkyard Angel wrote:
If you haven't bought in York then God help you. £150,000 plus for a 2 up 2 down but what choice do you have eh ?? You have to get on the market before the 'buy to let brigade' buy up all the remaining properties. York will be a graveyard for those who are born here and who want to buy but are priced out of the market forever.
Yes you are right, The average income is give or take a bit is 26k but with confusing averages supplied but various Quangos to satisfy government departments to make "THINGS LOOK GOOD" we really don't know, Lets say the average married couple bring in 30k that equates to a mortgage of 90k
that they could borrow., if they wanted to buy a house of 170k they need to have assets of 80k on top of that overheads to buy ant fit out another 10k that means they need 90k to buy a 170k house ( If you can find a decent one for that price) I shouldn't think there are many couples in York buying a house using these figures.
Yes I'm glad you agree Bill, York is a great place to live but in years to come the first time buyers will be outsiders with cash to spare( BTL ) and our first time buyers will be living in Selby and Goole. The 'Yorkie' as we know it will be gone !
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Junkyard Angel[/bold] wrote: If you haven't bought in York then God help you. £150,000 plus for a 2 up 2 down but what choice do you have eh ?? You have to get on the market before the 'buy to let brigade' buy up all the remaining properties. York will be a graveyard for those who are born here and who want to buy but are priced out of the market forever.[/p][/quote]Yes you are right, The average income is give or take a bit is 26k but with confusing averages supplied but various Quangos to satisfy government departments to make "THINGS LOOK GOOD" we really don't know, Lets say the average married couple bring in 30k that equates to a mortgage of 90k that they could borrow., if they wanted to buy a house of 170k they need to have assets of 80k on top of that overheads to buy ant fit out another 10k that means they need 90k to buy a 170k house ( If you can find a decent one for that price) I shouldn't think there are many couples in York buying a house using these figures.[/p][/quote]Yes I'm glad you agree Bill, York is a great place to live but in years to come the first time buyers will be outsiders with cash to spare( BTL ) and our first time buyers will be living in Selby and Goole. The 'Yorkie' as we know it will be gone ! The Junkyard Angel
  • Score: 18

9:37pm Mon 10 Mar 14

piemagico says...

pbrowne2009@live.co.
uk
wrote:
"The average is £184,215 or 5.8 times someone's average earnings"

That's funny because only LAST MONTH the press reported that the "Average" salary in York was around £23,700.

My calculator tells me that this amounts to £31,761. So which one is it because I'm getting very confused? Are house prices in York too high or is the "Average" salary too low, or it it both?
The answer is that the higher number is for full-time jobs (on which the Lloyds survey is based - average salary £32k) and the lower number is for all jobs (including part-time). Probably also some jiggery-pokery about using the mean or median average according to whether the press release wants homes to sound unaffordable (Shelter story) or affordable (Lloyds story).

Two solutions to York's crisis:
- Create a law that makes it illegal to buy a house and rent it out to someone.
- Build enough homes to house the people that want to live here.

Take your pick!
[quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: "The average is £184,215 or 5.8 times someone's average earnings" That's funny because only LAST MONTH the press reported that the "Average" salary in York was around £23,700. My calculator tells me that this amounts to £31,761. So which one is it because I'm getting very confused? Are house prices in York too high or is the "Average" salary too low, or it it both?[/p][/quote]The answer is that the higher number is for full-time jobs (on which the Lloyds survey is based - average salary £32k) and the lower number is for all jobs (including part-time). Probably also some jiggery-pokery about using the mean or median average according to whether the press release wants homes to sound unaffordable (Shelter story) or affordable (Lloyds story). Two solutions to York's crisis: - Create a law that makes it illegal to buy a house and rent it out to someone. - Build enough homes to house the people that want to live here. Take your pick! piemagico
  • Score: 8

9:44pm Mon 10 Mar 14

eeoodares says...

Why did the builders stop building in York if there was so much demand? Its almost like they were dis-incentivised to continue building. But who would do that?
Why did the builders stop building in York if there was so much demand? Its almost like they were dis-incentivised to continue building. But who would do that? eeoodares
  • Score: 14

2:32am Tue 11 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

piemagico wrote:
pbrowne2009@live.co.

uk
wrote:
"The average is £184,215 or 5.8 times someone's average earnings"

That's funny because only LAST MONTH the press reported that the "Average" salary in York was around £23,700.

My calculator tells me that this amounts to £31,761. So which one is it because I'm getting very confused? Are house prices in York too high or is the "Average" salary too low, or it it both?
The answer is that the higher number is for full-time jobs (on which the Lloyds survey is based - average salary £32k) and the lower number is for all jobs (including part-time). Probably also some jiggery-pokery about using the mean or median average according to whether the press release wants homes to sound unaffordable (Shelter story) or affordable (Lloyds story).

Two solutions to York's crisis:
- Create a law that makes it illegal to buy a house and rent it out to someone.
- Build enough homes to house the people that want to live here.

Take your pick!
I say a bit of both....
cap number of private rents in a street to, for example, just 10% of the total number of houses in that street - the capitalists can't complain that Buy to Let has been outlawed and they can't make money, because it'd be untrue; some of them would be able to make money, but as many of them as today (certainly nowhere near the current amount around Badger Hill and Hull Road areas)... that frees up more houses to buy.

Then build an orbital village/town just outside York with its own schools, surgery, vets, shops, dentist, post office... and base it somewhere in the area between Stockton on the Forest and Wheldrake so that a rapid transit system (modern tramway) can be built along the empty corridor that used to be the Derwent Valley Light Railway to connect the new area straight to the city centre and rail station in not more than 30 minutes. Having its own facilities would mean people in the development would not necessarily have to venture into York for every requirement they have, as well as being able to build up some sort of a 'community feel', but when the people did need to go into York there would be a nice shiny new electric tram waiting for them (or even if it wasn't waiting for them, they'd not have more than a 10 minute wait during the day, or 20 minutes after 8pm until 1am). Facilites would be needed for the development to work.. look at the Brecks Lane development in Strensall, there's a bit that looks like a 'village square', but because there's not even a bus that goes that far in everybody just gets in the car for every journey, leading to a very insular and 'cold' area devoid of any actual community spirit or life.
[quote][p][bold]piemagico[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pbrowne2009@live.co. uk[/bold] wrote: "The average is £184,215 or 5.8 times someone's average earnings" That's funny because only LAST MONTH the press reported that the "Average" salary in York was around £23,700. My calculator tells me that this amounts to £31,761. So which one is it because I'm getting very confused? Are house prices in York too high or is the "Average" salary too low, or it it both?[/p][/quote]The answer is that the higher number is for full-time jobs (on which the Lloyds survey is based - average salary £32k) and the lower number is for all jobs (including part-time). Probably also some jiggery-pokery about using the mean or median average according to whether the press release wants homes to sound unaffordable (Shelter story) or affordable (Lloyds story). Two solutions to York's crisis: - Create a law that makes it illegal to buy a house and rent it out to someone. - Build enough homes to house the people that want to live here. Take your pick![/p][/quote]I say a bit of both.... cap number of private rents in a street to, for example, just 10% of the total number of houses in that street - the capitalists can't complain that Buy to Let has been outlawed and they can't make money, because it'd be untrue; some of them would be able to make money, but as many of them as today (certainly nowhere near the current amount around Badger Hill and Hull Road areas)... that frees up more houses to buy. Then build an orbital village/town just outside York with its own schools, surgery, vets, shops, dentist, post office... and base it somewhere in the area between Stockton on the Forest and Wheldrake so that a rapid transit system (modern tramway) can be built along the empty corridor that used to be the Derwent Valley Light Railway to connect the new area straight to the city centre and rail station in not more than 30 minutes. Having its own facilities would mean people in the development would not necessarily have to venture into York for every requirement they have, as well as being able to build up some sort of a 'community feel', but when the people did need to go into York there would be a nice shiny new electric tram waiting for them (or even if it wasn't waiting for them, they'd not have more than a 10 minute wait during the day, or 20 minutes after 8pm until 1am). Facilites would be needed for the development to work.. look at the Brecks Lane development in Strensall, there's a bit that looks like a 'village square', but because there's not even a bus that goes that far in everybody just gets in the car for every journey, leading to a very insular and 'cold' area devoid of any actual community spirit or life. Magicman!
  • Score: 7

5:42am Tue 11 Mar 14

Guy Fawkes says...

Two solutions to York's crisis:
- Create a law that makes it illegal to buy a house and rent it out to someone.
- Build enough homes to house the people that want to live here.


Neither will solve the problem. Banning private landlords would simply make it impossible for anyone who actually needs a short-term home to obtain one, and mass-building without banning BTL would simply result in the homes being bought up in cash by the baby boomer (and foreign investor) BTL-ers.

What would solve the problem is an end to the policy pursued by all governments since 1997, of promoting and defending an unsustainable house price bubble by sacrificing whatever needs to be sacrificed. In particlar, interest rates need to go back up to their long-term historical norms of 7-9% right now. This would encourage saving and investment in the productive economy (i.e. the job-creating economy, not bricks and mortar which does not), and if homeowners had to factor in IRs at this sort of level, house prices would fall to long-term sustainable levels, too.

Also, schemes such as help to buy and the one in which the government pays your mortgage interest if you lose your job need to end. No such protection is offered for private tenants, so why should it be for homeowners? If homeowners want that safety net, they should have to pay for their own unemployment insurance.

Finally, whereas I wouldn't go as far as banning BTL, I would certainly regulate it so intensively that only professional property managers would be in the business. Amateur landlords wouldn't - they'd sell up rather than risk the consequences of getting it wrong. I'm talking about compulsory exams and licensing for all landlords, mandatory jail sentences for failing to get safety-critical maintenance done, all council tax paid by the owner of the property up front, with no discount or exemption if it's a rental property during a void (this is what happens in virtually every other developed country - local government taxation is built into the rent), and serious action to deal with the obscene fees and invasion of privacy inflicted by letting agents.

But none of this is going to happen any time soon. The senior politicians in all three of the major parties are BTL-ers themselves, and they know full well that over 50s are the most likely to vote. Therefore, they have less to lose alienating younger generation tenants and older generation landlords. For this reason I emigrated last year after 13 years of living in York with no prospect of ever earning enough to buy a property that isn't either tiny or in a bad area. When I did so, the tax I used to pay in the UK and the money I used to spend in the local economy went with me. What the politicians don't get is that more young to middle-aged professionals who earn a respectable salary, but not 6-10x average, will go too, leaving behind a country full of pensioners and low-skilled immigrants from Eastern Europe, which won't be good for the long-term health of the economy.
[quote]Two solutions to York's crisis: - Create a law that makes it illegal to buy a house and rent it out to someone. - Build enough homes to house the people that want to live here. [/quote] Neither will solve the problem. Banning private landlords would simply make it impossible for anyone who actually needs a short-term home to obtain one, and mass-building without banning BTL would simply result in the homes being bought up in cash by the baby boomer (and foreign investor) BTL-ers. What would solve the problem is an end to the policy pursued by all governments since 1997, of promoting and defending an unsustainable house price bubble by sacrificing whatever needs to be sacrificed. In particlar, interest rates need to go back up to their long-term historical norms of 7-9% right now. This would encourage saving and investment in the productive economy (i.e. the job-creating economy, not bricks and mortar which does not), and if homeowners had to factor in IRs at this sort of level, house prices would fall to long-term sustainable levels, too. Also, schemes such as help to buy and the one in which the government pays your mortgage interest if you lose your job need to end. No such protection is offered for private tenants, so why should it be for homeowners? If homeowners want that safety net, they should have to pay for their own unemployment insurance. Finally, whereas I wouldn't go as far as banning BTL, I would certainly regulate it so intensively that only professional property managers would be in the business. Amateur landlords wouldn't - they'd sell up rather than risk the consequences of getting it wrong. I'm talking about compulsory exams and licensing for all landlords, mandatory jail sentences for failing to get safety-critical maintenance done, all council tax paid by the owner of the property up front, with no discount or exemption if it's a rental property during a void (this is what happens in virtually every other developed country - local government taxation is built into the rent), and serious action to deal with the obscene fees and invasion of privacy inflicted by letting agents. But none of this is going to happen any time soon. The senior politicians in all three of the major parties are BTL-ers themselves, and they know full well that over 50s are the most likely to vote. Therefore, they have less to lose alienating younger generation tenants and older generation landlords. For this reason I emigrated last year after 13 years of living in York with no prospect of ever earning enough to buy a property that isn't either tiny or in a bad area. When I did so, the tax I used to pay in the UK and the money I used to spend in the local economy went with me. What the politicians don't get is that more young to middle-aged professionals who earn a respectable salary, but not 6-10x average, will go too, leaving behind a country full of pensioners and low-skilled immigrants from Eastern Europe, which won't be good for the long-term health of the economy. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 8

8:02am Tue 11 Mar 14

piemagico says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
Two solutions to York's crisis:
- Create a law that makes it illegal to buy a house and rent it out to someone.
- Build enough homes to house the people that want to live here.


Neither will solve the problem. Banning private landlords would simply make it impossible for anyone who actually needs a short-term home to obtain one, and mass-building without banning BTL would simply result in the homes being bought up in cash by the baby boomer (and foreign investor) BTL-ers.

What would solve the problem is an end to the policy pursued by all governments since 1997, of promoting and defending an unsustainable house price bubble by sacrificing whatever needs to be sacrificed. In particlar, interest rates need to go back up to their long-term historical norms of 7-9% right now. This would encourage saving and investment in the productive economy (i.e. the job-creating economy, not bricks and mortar which does not), and if homeowners had to factor in IRs at this sort of level, house prices would fall to long-term sustainable levels, too.

Also, schemes such as help to buy and the one in which the government pays your mortgage interest if you lose your job need to end. No such protection is offered for private tenants, so why should it be for homeowners? If homeowners want that safety net, they should have to pay for their own unemployment insurance.

Finally, whereas I wouldn't go as far as banning BTL, I would certainly regulate it so intensively that only professional property managers would be in the business. Amateur landlords wouldn't - they'd sell up rather than risk the consequences of getting it wrong. I'm talking about compulsory exams and licensing for all landlords, mandatory jail sentences for failing to get safety-critical maintenance done, all council tax paid by the owner of the property up front, with no discount or exemption if it's a rental property during a void (this is what happens in virtually every other developed country - local government taxation is built into the rent), and serious action to deal with the obscene fees and invasion of privacy inflicted by letting agents.

But none of this is going to happen any time soon. The senior politicians in all three of the major parties are BTL-ers themselves, and they know full well that over 50s are the most likely to vote. Therefore, they have less to lose alienating younger generation tenants and older generation landlords. For this reason I emigrated last year after 13 years of living in York with no prospect of ever earning enough to buy a property that isn't either tiny or in a bad area. When I did so, the tax I used to pay in the UK and the money I used to spend in the local economy went with me. What the politicians don't get is that more young to middle-aged professionals who earn a respectable salary, but not 6-10x average, will go too, leaving behind a country full of pensioners and low-skilled immigrants from Eastern Europe, which won't be good for the long-term health of the economy.
Some reasonable ideas but all to bring down demand to meet supply. Why not bring up supply to meet demand?
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]Two solutions to York's crisis: - Create a law that makes it illegal to buy a house and rent it out to someone. - Build enough homes to house the people that want to live here. [/quote] Neither will solve the problem. Banning private landlords would simply make it impossible for anyone who actually needs a short-term home to obtain one, and mass-building without banning BTL would simply result in the homes being bought up in cash by the baby boomer (and foreign investor) BTL-ers. What would solve the problem is an end to the policy pursued by all governments since 1997, of promoting and defending an unsustainable house price bubble by sacrificing whatever needs to be sacrificed. In particlar, interest rates need to go back up to their long-term historical norms of 7-9% right now. This would encourage saving and investment in the productive economy (i.e. the job-creating economy, not bricks and mortar which does not), and if homeowners had to factor in IRs at this sort of level, house prices would fall to long-term sustainable levels, too. Also, schemes such as help to buy and the one in which the government pays your mortgage interest if you lose your job need to end. No such protection is offered for private tenants, so why should it be for homeowners? If homeowners want that safety net, they should have to pay for their own unemployment insurance. Finally, whereas I wouldn't go as far as banning BTL, I would certainly regulate it so intensively that only professional property managers would be in the business. Amateur landlords wouldn't - they'd sell up rather than risk the consequences of getting it wrong. I'm talking about compulsory exams and licensing for all landlords, mandatory jail sentences for failing to get safety-critical maintenance done, all council tax paid by the owner of the property up front, with no discount or exemption if it's a rental property during a void (this is what happens in virtually every other developed country - local government taxation is built into the rent), and serious action to deal with the obscene fees and invasion of privacy inflicted by letting agents. But none of this is going to happen any time soon. The senior politicians in all three of the major parties are BTL-ers themselves, and they know full well that over 50s are the most likely to vote. Therefore, they have less to lose alienating younger generation tenants and older generation landlords. For this reason I emigrated last year after 13 years of living in York with no prospect of ever earning enough to buy a property that isn't either tiny or in a bad area. When I did so, the tax I used to pay in the UK and the money I used to spend in the local economy went with me. What the politicians don't get is that more young to middle-aged professionals who earn a respectable salary, but not 6-10x average, will go too, leaving behind a country full of pensioners and low-skilled immigrants from Eastern Europe, which won't be good for the long-term health of the economy.[/p][/quote]Some reasonable ideas but all to bring down demand to meet supply. Why not bring up supply to meet demand? piemagico
  • Score: 2

8:43am Tue 11 Mar 14

MrsHoney says...

Perhaps people should get over this obsession with owning their own homes. A culture of renting should be encouraged (although I realise at present rents are stupidly high). In the past it was quite normal for people to rent for life. I would've been quite happy to if 1. rents were lower and 2. you were allowed to decorate your home, or even just hang a picture if you wanted! That's how it used to be.

Decent houses are expensive everywhere, I regularly have a look when we're visiting other towns and it seems you can't afford to buy wherever you go.
Perhaps people should get over this obsession with owning their own homes. A culture of renting should be encouraged (although I realise at present rents are stupidly high). In the past it was quite normal for people to rent for life. I would've been quite happy to if 1. rents were lower and 2. you were allowed to decorate your home, or even just hang a picture if you wanted! That's how it used to be. Decent houses are expensive everywhere, I regularly have a look when we're visiting other towns and it seems you can't afford to buy wherever you go. MrsHoney
  • Score: 4

12:23pm Tue 11 Mar 14

gurgles says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
Of course it is more expensive.

York is nice, people want to live here of course house prices will be more expensive. With respect would you really expect to pay the same in York for a comparable house in Hull?

And really ranked number 20 out of 62 doesnt seem too bad, i think it shows the north south divide more than anything else.
with respect Hull has far better architecture than York and there are places in Hull just as pleasant if not more pleasant than York . . .
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: Of course it is more expensive. York is nice, people want to live here of course house prices will be more expensive. With respect would you really expect to pay the same in York for a comparable house in Hull? And really ranked number 20 out of 62 doesnt seem too bad, i think it shows the north south divide more than anything else.[/p][/quote]with respect Hull has far better architecture than York and there are places in Hull just as pleasant if not more pleasant than York . . . gurgles
  • Score: -3

12:53pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Justin7 says...

gurgles wrote:
TheTruthHurts wrote:
Of course it is more expensive.

York is nice, people want to live here of course house prices will be more expensive. With respect would you really expect to pay the same in York for a comparable house in Hull?

And really ranked number 20 out of 62 doesnt seem too bad, i think it shows the north south divide more than anything else.
with respect Hull has far better architecture than York and there are places in Hull just as pleasant if not more pleasant than York . . .
Yes, the stunning views of chavs pulling wheels off parked cars in Bransholme is wonderful. :D
[quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: Of course it is more expensive. York is nice, people want to live here of course house prices will be more expensive. With respect would you really expect to pay the same in York for a comparable house in Hull? And really ranked number 20 out of 62 doesnt seem too bad, i think it shows the north south divide more than anything else.[/p][/quote]with respect Hull has far better architecture than York and there are places in Hull just as pleasant if not more pleasant than York . . .[/p][/quote]Yes, the stunning views of chavs pulling wheels off parked cars in Bransholme is wonderful. :D Justin7
  • Score: 5

1:09pm Tue 11 Mar 14

meme says...

builders stopped building in York because of councils Draconian affordable policies.
York's a fantastic place and the world and his dog have woken up and realised this. There are few places as nice to live in UK despite all the complaints
Certainly in North there is nothing like it that's why prices are high and its nothing to do with buy to lets who should be welcomed, as they provide houses for people to rent who would not have a roof over their head.
I love peoples comments like 'build enough homes for people to live in' great in theory but impossible in practice in a City like York where any site is complained about by NIMBYS anywhere in the City even the tip at Beckfield lane.
CoYC don't have the stomach to allocate enough land as there would be local uproar but insist that sites like York central will deliver enough. Well they wont unless they are all flats. Its called fantasy land more formally called called..............
. Council policy!
builders stopped building in York because of councils Draconian affordable policies. York's a fantastic place and the world and his dog have woken up and realised this. There are few places as nice to live in UK despite all the complaints Certainly in North there is nothing like it that's why prices are high and its nothing to do with buy to lets who should be welcomed, as they provide houses for people to rent who would not have a roof over their head. I love peoples comments like 'build enough homes for people to live in' great in theory but impossible in practice in a City like York where any site is complained about by NIMBYS anywhere in the City even the tip at Beckfield lane. CoYC don't have the stomach to allocate enough land as there would be local uproar but insist that sites like York central will deliver enough. Well they wont unless they are all flats. Its called fantasy land more formally called called.............. . Council policy! meme
  • Score: 3

2:02pm Tue 11 Mar 14

GixerGaz says...

Its the same for renting too and why I now live in Doncaster!

Yes, its not York (by a long way) but its all I can afford!
Its the same for renting too and why I now live in Doncaster! Yes, its not York (by a long way) but its all I can afford! GixerGaz
  • Score: 3

5:48pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Pedro says...

GixerGaz wrote:
Its the same for renting too and why I now live in Doncaster!

Yes, its not York (by a long way) but its all I can afford!
Feel for you. Managing to hang on in York despite it all. Maybe have to move to Filey or Scarborough if things carry on like they are though.
[quote][p][bold]GixerGaz[/bold] wrote: Its the same for renting too and why I now live in Doncaster! Yes, its not York (by a long way) but its all I can afford![/p][/quote]Feel for you. Managing to hang on in York despite it all. Maybe have to move to Filey or Scarborough if things carry on like they are though. Pedro
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree