On 19/10/2020 21:27, Sam Wilson wrote:

not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most
of the time anyway.

I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone
ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats
which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the
homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it
it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner wrote:

I was using an ultra-wide angle lens, which makes things look further away
than they are. It hides just how close those expensive flats are to the
busy railway. The trains are not running quickly, but they still make some
noise.

The blocks are also close to each other, so many of the flats look straight
out on to the next block. That would be expected in cheap flats, but these
aren't.

If they’re being used as investments/money laundering opportunties that may
not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most
of the time anyway.


Could be, though the prices of the ones I saw when researching the block
names weren't stratospheric enough for them to be likely investment
properties. Ones with a river view might come into that category.

Of course, some could be pied-Ã*-terres for affluent London workers who
might spend about half their time in them, and half in more agreeable
surroundings out of town. Their proximity to the US embassy and the large
planned Apple offices in the old power station may also be factors. I
wonder if the embassy might lease some for visiting staff on short term
assignments?

I did wonder if any of the blocks had an underground link to the fortified
embassy?

On 19/10/2020 22:00, Recliner wrote:

I did wonder if any of the blocks had an underground link to the fortified
embassy?

Encouraging large numbers of staff to live in a single building outside
the compound seems like a security risk.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Towa Tei - 1999 - Last Century Modern

Basil Jet wrote:
On 19/10/2020 22:00, Recliner wrote:

I did wonder if any of the blocks had an underground link to the fortified
embassy?

Encouraging large numbers of staff to live in a single building outside
the compound seems like a security risk.


I was thinking more of the embassy possibly owning or leasing a whole block
of flats, which might have enhanced security, plus US-style amenities. In
any case, I assume the whole vicinity will have high security, not just the
big cube inside its moat.

Arthur Figgis wrote:

I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone
ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats
which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the
homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it
it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck?

And of course ignores the benefits of unoccupied flats - i.e. although they
still pay council tax on the full value of the property, they create zero
polution or congestion and make no demand on services. I supose this is somewhat
offset by the fact that they aren't spending any money in the area either.

Basil Jet wrote:

Encouraging large numbers of staff to live in a single building outside
the compound seems like a security risk.

Not exactly the same, but it depends on the country. I've seen expat/consulate
compounds in a number of countries, including China. One with detatched homes in
Beijing is overlooked by a Marriott. There's a company called DRC that has
several towers in one of the embassy districts with flats for rent to expats.

Arguably easier to provide security to a compound over individal residences.
Whether it's mandatory to live in them (either by the host country, or embassy
security), I could not say. A director in my company who moved her family to
Shanghai chose such a location for access to schools and western social
opportunities.

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:

I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone
ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats
which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the
homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it
it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck?

And of course ignores the benefits of unoccupied flats - i.e. although they
still pay council tax on the full value of the property, they create zero
polution or congestion and make no demand on services. I supose this is somewhat
offset by the fact that they aren't spending any money in the area either.


If there's too many of them, they create very sterile areas, with few
shops, pubs, restaurants or other local amenities.

In fact, some of these foreign-oriented blocks are almost designed to do
that: they're attached to a luxury hotel, that provides all services. The
idea is that the foreign owners use them as holiday or guest homes,
occupied for a few weeks or months a year, with the occasional occupants
getting whatever they need from the host hotel.

They probably never use the marble kitchen, fancy washing machine, etc.
Just let the hotel know when they're arriving on a visit, and it organises
limo transport from the airport, stocks the fridge as required, makes
bookings in the hotel restaurants or gourmet room service, dry cleaning,
and anything else the concierge can organise. And, of course, at the end of
the visit, the hotel organises limo transport to the airport, and cleans up
the flat to perfection.

I think this is what what some rich parents of foreign students in Britain
do. They can visit London for school/college holidays, and indulge in some
shopping/shows/sporting events at the same time. And it's an essential
bolthole if their home country has a coup or just an aggressive
anti-corruption drive. In between, it's a fairly secure home for some of
their dodgy wealth.

On 20/10/2020 01:53, Recliner wrote:
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:

I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone
ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats
which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the
homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it
it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck?

And of course ignores the benefits of unoccupied flats - i.e. although they
still pay council tax on the full value of the property, they create zero
polution or congestion and make no demand on services. I supose this is somewhat
offset by the fact that they aren't spending any money in the area either.


If there's too many of them, they create very sterile areas, with few
shops, pubs, restaurants or other local amenities.

No more so than the fully-occupied two-storey buildings in the suburbs.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
The Monkees - 1969 - Instant Replay

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 19/10/2020 21:27, Sam Wilson wrote:

not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most
of the time anyway.

I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone
ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats
which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the
homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it
it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck?

2017, so it may be out of date, and it’s the Guardian so some of our
residents here may discount it, and occupancy is mentioned in pasing,
though with a reference to an earlier report, but it does say: many London
properties are foreign owned; some of them are rarely occupied.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 19/10/2020 21:27, Sam Wilson wrote:

not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most
of the time anyway.

I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone
ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats
which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the
homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it
it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck?

2017, so it may be out of date, and it’s the Guardian so some of our
residents here may discount it, and occupancy is mentioned in pasing,
though with a reference to an earlier report, but it does say: many London
properties are foreign owned; some of them are rarely occupied.

There certainly are many investment properties that are little used, but I
wonder what proportion of the flats in these new blocks along the Thames
come into that category? Is it as low as 20% or as high as 80%? I simply
don't know.

Many of the Nine Elms projects are Asian-funded, and they may plan to
market the properties first to people back home. Ironically, some of the
skyscrapers overlooking the SIS building will be Chinese-owned.