Cover me in debt, debt to the eyeballs (or advice on buying a shoebox in England)

[Cort Haus]

I like the look of that Shard. An interesting addition to the skyline.

[Dauphin]

I remember back at school (which was at the top of the hill), the only London building I could see on the horizon was Canary Wharf. Now from the same distance you can see a shedload of buildings.

[Drake Tungsten]

London's skyline is still pretty crap, though.

[Dauphin]

Coming from a Nebraskan I can understand that comment.

[Drake Tungsten]

Sadly, Omaha has nearly as many skyscrapers as central London. We don't have St. Paul's, though...

[Cort Haus]

What constitutes a good skyline is a matter of opinion anyway. To some people it's a thousand skyscrapers, to others it's domes and spires.

Because the view to St Pauls is so sacred, there are severe restrictions on what can be built elsewhere. Personally I love the Gherkin, even though others seem to think it sucks.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, I can imagine that given the opportunity and laxed restrictions, London would be as dense as Manhattan very quickly with the value of the land and the significance of London as a financial centre. Isn't it estimated that if it hasn't overtaken New York in significance, it very soon will?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
What constitutes a good skyline is a matter of opinion anyway. To some people it's a thousand skyscrapers, to others it's domes and spires.

Oxford The view from the University Church is one of the prettiest views I've ever seen. But I actually quite like parts of London's skyline. From the top of the Tate Modern you can see Tower Bridge, St. Pauls, The Gherkin, Canary Wharf, Big Ben & Parliament, etc. Indeed, while we lack the huge range and number of skyscrapers US cities have, other than New York, I think London has far more of the old, historically important style buildings on the skyline, with Big Ben, Tower Bridge, St. Pauls and such.

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Isn't it estimated that if it hasn't overtaken New York in significance, it very soon will?

Yep, the grey area is offshore funds. Currently NYC has more official assets under management, but London's considered the bigger offshore centre, and so in total probably has more. Either way, they're the two biggest financial centres in the world, but some margin.

[Cort Haus]

From Primrose Hill you can see Canary Wharf and all its little young siblings, Tower 42 and the Gherkin dominating the cluster in the City, St Pauls, St Pancras, Telecom Tower, Big Ben (St Stephens Tower), the Millenium Wheel and the Crystal Palace tower in the distance.

The view from many of the bridges - especially Blackfriars and Waterloo is stunning. Some cities need to build more and higher to establish their profile - others have hundreds of years of history.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Drogue
Oxford The view from the University Church is one of the prettiest views I've ever seen.

Nonsense. The best place to view Oxford is from the top of the department of biochemistry, because you can't see the department of biochemistry from there

[Drogue]

You can't really from the University Church either, bit far away to make out individually. But more importantly, from the UC, you can't see the rest of the science park either, which you can from biochem. Plus you can't see Univ from biochem

[Solly]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



When you're looking at the housing market, what's the point of taking figures from before 1970? It was a different world before then, with a far lower social aspiration of home ownership.

So what you're left looking at is a low interest rate. Compare it to what was going on in the "housing boom" of the 1980's and try persuading me that interest rates are too high to sustain growth.

So your original "interest rates are low by their historic context" really meant the 70s and 80s, and only if you take nominal interest rates rather than real interest rates. Fair enough, but I wouldn't have used the words "historical context" for around 15 years of unadjusted economic data.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

And I wouldn't have used the term "15 years" to describe a 37-year time-frame, personally speaking.

[Drogue]

The issue isn't really past trends of interest rates, but future expectations. Which in the short term are almost certainly upwards, due to house price rises last year and bouyant consumer spending, but probably relatively stable in the long term.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Drogue
The issue isn't really past trends of interest rates, but future expectations. Which in the short term are almost certainly upwards, due to house price rises last year and bouyant consumer spending, but probably relatively stable in the long term.

You don't need to invoke expectations here. Just look at long-term interest rates.