The fall in home ownership is not just a southern problem

Good luck. Image: Getty.

The latest instalment of our series, in which we use the Centre for Cities’ data tools to crunch some of the numbers on Britain’s cities. 

We talk a lot about the house prices in this country. Once upon a time, we used to talk about how brilliant high house prices were; but at some point it’s started to dawn that high house prices serve mainly to transfer money to the old and rich from the young and poor, and these days, we’re more likely to talk about how terrible they are.

But still, there’s sometimes a tendency to think that it’s fundamentally just a London, or at least, a southern problem. Sure, London house prices are crazy, the thinking runs: but there are plenty of other places you can still afford to buy. What are these kids whining about?

Anyway, it’s bollocks.

To explain why, let’s start with a map. The housing affordability ratio is the value of the average home and the average pay packet. Historically, it’s generally hovered at around 4, which is good because four times salary is the maximum multiple of your salary that banks generally think is a good idea to led you as a mortgage.

Here’s the housing affordability ratio in 62 British cities in 2016:

Even the cheapest cities are now above 4. A significant number are way, way above 4. That doesn’t mean housing is completely out of reach, of course: people buy in couples; and first-time buyers are probably not buying the ‘average’ house, but a smaller, cheaper property. Nonetheless, this map suggests that even affordable cities are not in fact that affordable.

That said, the situation clearly is much worse in the south. Get above that Bristol-Wash line, and there are, I think, only three cities in the darker colours (a ratio of 7.7 or above): Cardiff, York and Edinburgh.

So why is the idea that house price are a southern problem nonsense? Here’s a chart of how the affordability ratio has changed over the last 10 years. It’s risen in 51 cities, and fallen in only 11.

Click to expand.

In other words, it’s getting worse almost everywhere.

And yet, it’s still risen most strikingly in the cities in the south east. So to really make my case we need another metric.

Here’s one more map. This one shows the change in the percentage of “households renting privately or living rent-free” between 2001 and 2011. That sounds more complicated than it actually is: it basically just means households living in someone else’s private property. In principle, there could be vast numbers of people living at their nan’s or something, but in practice this is almost certainly a measure of the private rental sector (PRS).

The first thing you notice: the PRS has increased in size in literally every city. The smallest increase was in Barnsley, where it changed by 4.2 per cent, from 10.1 to 14.3. At the other end of the scale s Slough, where it increased by over 13 points, from 12.1 per cent to over 25 per cent. That’s a significant shift in the local tenure mix, and likely reflects both the town’s position in the London commuter belt, and the rise of the buy-to-let landlord class.

We can put the change more baldly. In 2001, there were 21 cities where less than 10 per cent of households were renting, and just three where it was more than 20 per cent. Ten years later, literally nowhere had less than 10 per cent of households renting – the lowest was Basildon, at 11.1. Meanwhile, 21 cities were at over 20. One, Oxford, was at over 30.

Still, that was six years ago, so I’m sure things will have improved by now, right?

[Brief pause for hollow laughter.]

 This is not new information, of course. In 2016 the Resolution Foundation put out a report showing how home ownership rates had changed. It showed that they’d fallen pretty much everywhere:

Click to expand.

The other side of the coin was that private renting has soared:

Click to expand.

In all sorts of places that people who can’t afford London are patronisingly told to move to, housing has become more expensive, and people have got stuck renting.

The message is, I hope, clear. Housing has become less affordable almost everywhere. Yes, the situation is worst in the south; but we shouldn’t let this obscure the fact home ownership, something that Britain’s politicians still claim to support, is now in national crisis.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook


 

 
 
 
 

Which British cities have the bestest ultrafast broadband?

Oooh, fibre. Image: Getty.

The latest instalment of our series, in which we use the Centre for Cities’ data tools to crunch some of the numbers on Britain’s cities. 

Between the dark web, Breitbard News and Donald Trump's Twitter feed, it's abundantly clear that terrible things often happen on the internet. But good things happen here, too - like funny videos and kitten pictures and, though we say so ourselves, CityMetric. 

Anyway. The government clearly believes the internet is on balance a good thing, so it's investing more in improving Britain's broadband coverage. But which cities need the most work?

Luckily, those ultrafast cats at the Centre for Cities are on hand with a map of Britain's ultrafast broadband coverage, as it stood at the end of 2016. It shows the percentage of premises which have access to download speeds of 100Mbps or more. Dark green means loas, pale yellow means hardly any. Here's the map:

Some observations...

This doesn't quite fit the pattern we normally get with these exercises in which the south of England and a few other rich cities (Edinburgh, Aberdeen, York) look a lot healthier than the cities of the Midlands, South Wales and the North.

There are elements of that, sure: there are definitely more southern cities with good coverage, and more northern onse without it. But there are notable exceptions to the pattern, too. Those cities with very good coverage include Middlesbrough (88.0 per cent) and Dundee (89.4 per cent), not normally to be found near the top of anyone's rankings. 

Meanwhile, Milton Keynes - a positive boom town, on most measures - lingers right near the bottom of the chart, with just 12.9 per cent coverage. The only city with worse coverage is another city that normally ranks as rich and succesful: the Socttish oil capital Aberdeen, where coverage is just 0.13 per cent, a figure so low it rings alarm bells about the data. 

Here's a (slightly cramped) chart of the same data. 

Click to expand.

If you can spot a patten, you're a better nerd than I.

One thought I had was that perhaps there might be some correlation with population: perhaps bigger cities, being bigger markets, find it easier to get the requisite infrastructure built.

I removed London, Manchester and Birmingham from the data, purely because those three - especially the capital - are so much bgiger than the other cities that they make the graph almost unreadable. That don't, here's the result.

So, there goes that theory.

In all honesty, I'm not sure what could explain this disparity: why Sheffield and Southand should have half the broadband coverage of Middlesbrough or Brighton. But I suspect it's a tempory measure. 

All this talk of ultranfast broadband (100Mbps+), after all, superseded that of mere superfast broadband (just 24Mbps+). The figures in this dataset are 10 months old. It's possible that many of the left behind cities have caught up by now. But it's almost certain we'll be hearing about the need for, say, Hyperfast broadband before next year is out.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook