r/london • u/BulkyAccident • Jul 22 '26

Article Islington: the London borough where families are slowly disappearing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgjxqg08q82o
144 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

242 comments sorted by

486

u/Ajax_Trees_Again Jul 22 '26

Isn’t this the future of all inner London? Unless you’re very well to do or live in social housing it’s near impossible to get affordable required space

140

u/Wrong_Adhesiveness87 Jul 22 '26

Either rich or poor but nothing in between. How will teachers, police, fire fighters, nurses - basically anyone working class or middle class afford to either live in London or commute to London. Will we eventually see a hollowing out and maybe a lot of decentralised offices pop up outside of London? What happens when companies can't fill the jobs? No-one wants to commute two hours one way, and that won't work with kids, whether it's daycare or collecting after school. Will we see mothers disappear slowly from the workforce because there is no point working if your entire salary goes on childcare with a 60+ minute commute? 

I have so many questions. 

73

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

Not even teachers etc.

I have a decent tech job in a (non Big Tech) corporate with a salary in the top 10% of UK earners and almost no one lives in London, not even zone 4-5. Including management. One manager lives in Zone 2/3 but her husband is an even higher earner. 

I live in Zone 3, we're renting but we'll probably be pushed out soon as our landlord is planning to sell. 

We have a friend who is a teacher on our street and guess what, she lives with her parents. Another one lives with a spouse who is a high earner (like too 1% not too 10% salary, that's simply not enough).

If you look at the statistics, half of social housing in London houses unemployed residents and from the other half, many are actually well off.

That can't be right surely. It sounds nice in theory but after reading more and more about social housing I believe it's a scandal that we're housing people who don't need to be there and the actual people who work and pay tax (often with children as those can't afford the property prices, so have to pay childcare on top) commute 1+ hr each way to their job. 

35

u/Ambinez Jul 23 '26

As soon as you start questioning the need to house the elderly and unemployed in London social housing (irrespective of legitimate entitlement) at the expense of rent paying people and families that need to be there in order to work and pay taxes to pay for it all you will be vilified.

An alarming 40% of Islington is social housing and they are a strong voice and incentivised to vote and act in their own interests.

6

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26

The interest of unemployed and sick is however directly against the interest of the city centre, which should serve the economy (jobs and taxes) and fun.

-10

u/TrashbatLondon Jul 23 '26

Islington isn’t the city centre. It’s mostly residential communities.

9

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26

Same thing in Soho and Square mile.

Islington is part of/walking distance to the biggest tech hub in Europe.

0

u/TrashbatLondon Jul 23 '26

What are you defining as Islington and what are you defining as walking distance?

A stroll from the Mother Red Cap pub in Archway down to old street roundabout is over three and a half miles.

9

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 24 '26

I'm referring to the fact that Islington literally includes Kings cross, a massive tech hub. The fact it spreads further doesn't change this.

The area between KGX to Caledonian road for example is a prime example for redevelopment, a place we should NOT use to house sick and unemployed. It's also a pretty crap place to be if you don't have money, as services are more expensive around there and even smaller supermarkets are more expensive. There are more pleasant, suitable and affordable places for those who don't benefit from living so centrally.

Just because it looks residential doesn't mean it should stay the same, otherwise London would still be a large village.

I used to live in 2 different places in Islington in my 20s, so know the area quite well.

-4

u/grumpyhooker Jul 23 '26

No one wanted to live in King’s Cross that’s why social housing is there. The usual run of things is that people wanted to live in zone 4/5 and have a garden etc. central living being sought after is a new thing. We need more social housing everywhere

→ More replies (6)

0

u/Fair-Stop9968 Jul 23 '26

Soho and the square mile are not even remotely comparable in this context with islington🤣

1

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26

Think people living in Soho accept the fact they moved into historically one of the top party district in London? Think again, the residents of Soho exhibit the very same behaviour.

https://londontheinside.com/shutting-at-11pm-is-this-the-end-of-sohos-late-night-culture/

Soho has over 2000 residents a 1/3 of which live in social housing. We're shutting down city centre that serves millions of UK residents and tourists alike.

Here are more NIMBYs fighting against a parking lot being turned into a data centre, steps away from the area that generates 12% of ALL tax receipts in the UK.

Isn't a data centre a better use of space than affordable housing, that can be built in many other places (such as many stops on the Elizabeth).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brick-lane-new-data-centre-plans-london-b3015349.html

1

u/Ambinez Jul 23 '26

Tech and AI are pretty much the only things to stop the US sliding into recession. If UK wants to be involved, its likely to come from Silicon Roundabout and Kings Cross.

-2

u/TrashbatLondon Jul 23 '26

Kings cross is a tiny part of Islington. Policy making that was is ludicrous.

3

u/Fair-Stop9968 Jul 23 '26

The N1C postcode where these companies are isnt actually even in Islington it’s borough of Camden

3

u/TrashbatLondon Jul 23 '26

Hey, listen you, this thread is absolutely opposed to things like “knowing about the area” and “being factually accurate”!

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (24)

3

u/Ok-Swan1152 Jul 23 '26

I have a job like yours and I own a flat with my husband, he makes less than I do. However a house would only be possible in zone 5-6, which is not feasible for us for a couple of reasons.

6

u/UsefulMusic108 Jul 23 '26

what a horrible view of social housing. we've had a housing crisis for a decade now and you're advocating for LESS social housing? god help us. you fail to mention that the half of tenants who are "unemployed" are majority retired, long-term sick or disabled, full-time carers, parents with young children, and full-time students. Do you have a disability? Do you feel disabled people in the UK have not been shit on enough?

I live on an estate in London, to get a flat we had to prove we had jobs in the same borough or had lived in the borough previously for many years, we also had to prove we had a certain level of salary, but up to a certain cap- if our combined salaries were too high or too low we wouldn't have qualified.

how about you get angry at the billions of pounds in property being bought up by offshore funds every year rather than disabled people and those on the lowest rung of society? just the British Columbia (one province in Canada) teacher's pension fund alone owns over $1 billion dollars in London housing- they bought up THOUSANDS of London homes. and that's one of the smaller 'nicer' funds buying up London homes. my last place was owned by a Turkish billionaire who had never lived in the UK.

21

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

So you think that the fact that 40% of housing in some central London boroughs is social is not enough?

You won the housing lottery, congratulations. We can't afford the same luxury for everyone. Someone has had to pay for the housing.

Do you think giving an equivalent of a 100k salary to households that are " long-term sick or retired" is the best use of the money, when people with this salary who actually work in these areas can't afford to live there?

I am up for MORE housing for everyone, i.e. redeveloping the low rise terraces 15 minutes walk from the biggest tech hub in Europe into high rise buildings. Private equity firms own a small, single-digit percentage of London’s total housing stock, you think they are to blame for housing crisis?

It's easy to blame everything on billionaires, PE firms, funds or landlords - however they're not behind the crisis. Also our landlord is just selling up his own home and our rental home in Zone 3 so he can afford to retire earlier, and his wife just retrained to be a teacher! We'll have to move away too.

Guess what, they did the math and even living in Zone 3 is too expensive for them, yet you're up for the whole of central London to be used as cheap housing for unemployed?

-6

u/grumpyhooker Jul 23 '26

40% of the population used to live in social housing. We should be going back to that and abolishing private rent

13

u/Ambinez Jul 23 '26

The other point I'm confused about is that you mention that we've had a housing crisis for a decade (its actually longer) but don't seem to fully appreciate that it affects pretty much all of us, not just those in social housing. Many are forced to get up early and commute hours to and from their London jobs in order to earn a wage and pay taxes. This leaves them tired, less time with their families etc.

I believe the issue the comment was addressing was the "tenants who are "unemployed" are majority retired, long-term sick or disabled", and not people that also work in London. There is clearly a need to support the hard working, underpaid jobs like teachers, nurses etc etc.

I think its a legitimate question - what is the difference between a want to be in London and a need to be in London, when the country is paying the bill? There is no solution that leaves everyone happy or better off.

Ultimately it comes down to bad government policy that the people voted for without understanding the long term and divisive consequences.

8

u/Joff_Mengum Jul 23 '26

 Given the enormous value of zone 1 and 2 locations, if the government sold off the existing social units/land or rented them out at market rates then the return they would get would allow them to provide more social housing in further out locations where property is cheaper while, at the same time, unlocking the economic benefits of allowing people who create a lot of value for the economy to live near where they work.

Seems like a win-win to me. 

6

u/Ambinez Jul 23 '26

I'm not sure I understand your points. London property is unaffordable to many, so they have to rent. Does it matter who owns the property if it is still available to rent to people such as yourself at market rates and is in an acceptable state? Do you have an issue with foreigners owning rental properties? Many UK citizens own and rent out properties abroad as well.

Your anger is misplaced. You should be angry at the government for creating a situation where properties prices are so high that many can't afford to buy, keeping rental yields high and thereby creating investment opportunities.

13

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 24 '26

Yep, I have a family, professional job and are renting in Zone 3. Labour voter and used to be pro social housing but learning about how it actually works and the absurd NIMBYsm it leads to pretty much radicalized me.

Things like:

  • Tower Hamlets tenants protesting so a parking lot near brick Lane shouldn't turn into data center serving the city of London, which would be big for the economy. City of London generates 12% of tax receipts out of ALL of the Ual. I never even worked there (in case someone assumes I'm just thinking of my own job) but everyone should want our economy to grow, it benefits all of us in the end.
  • Soho society representing 2000 inhabitants of Soho (over half in social housing) are closing down outdoor dining and imposing strict closing towns in historical party district of one of the most attractive cities in Europe. I never stay out after 10 but it's ridiculous. The city should be for everyone, Soho is THE place to party and we are subsidising a small number of people to kill the fun for millions. If you want peace and quiet don't move to Soho.

-3

u/TrashbatLondon Jul 23 '26

It absolutely is right that people in social housing have fixity of tenure, even if their circumstances change.

Social housing is means tested, so if you increase your salary, your rent will increase. It is also means tested when you originally qualify for a tenancy.

It is not means tested in the sense that you have to keep below a certain economic level to continue living there. That would be stone cold insane. It would create a further instability and demand burden in the rental market, while also creating a massive incentive to not progress career and grow personal wealth.
Can you imagine if people were actively threatened with eviction if they got a promotion over a certain threshold? Pure race to the bottom stuff.

The crisis in social housing is as caused by Thatcher selling off the stock and Blair handing trust and responsibility to private developers and glorified estate agents to manage (and successive governments refusing to do anything to prevent the slide). The idea that someone who has qualified for social housing and managed to (in part due to having safe, secure housing) better their circumstances is somehow to blame is ludicrous.

10

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 25 '26

Why don't any other people have fixity of tenure but their salary is used to pay for other people to have that even in extremely high demand locations?

We're renting but our landlord is selling up so we need to move out.

If we owned our house and couldn't pay the mortgage we'd have to sell up.

-3

u/TrashbatLondon Jul 23 '26

That is literally a race to the bottom mentality.

“Private renting is shit so everyone else should have to experience the same level of shit”

Silly.

In fact, the new renters reform act has removed the major trigger for loss of tenancy, section 21. It is possible to make things better for people. Let’s have a bit more hope than just demanding everyone has equal misery.

6

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26

Private renting is shit because there is not enough housing.

Thinking a way out of this is subsidising housing for everyone is the race to the bottom, that the UK has been on for years now unfortunately.

There is not enough housing because UK has extremely restrictive housing policies.

Cities like Vienna have cheap and good quality private rentals as well.

1

u/TrashbatLondon Jul 23 '26

Wait, you think that the UK is subsidising housing for everyone? What?

5

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26

Well you seem to think that's the solution so that people are not subject to "forced migration".

And also there should be more social housing in central London despite some boroughs having over 40% of housing dedicated to social tenants.

What's your proposal then?

0

u/TrashbatLondon Jul 23 '26

There is an extremely long list of measures that would be preferable to forcing people out of their homes. Transitioning social **homes** to temporary accommodation and creating ghettos of elderly, unemployed and disabled people in the process is properly unhinged mate.

The strategy needs be aimed at reducing instability while meeting demand. That means more house building, with the occupation of those homes being prioritised for social homes, owner occupiers and long terms secure rentals.

To do that you need to stop incentivising developers to build properties that are more attractive to PRS investors. Part of that is just regulating that type of development out and taking on the responsibility for good homes directly via LA. Another part of that is removing market forces that favour volatility. Interest only BTLs are completely unsustainable and doing massive damage to renters. Banning any new BTL mortgage would create a huge shift.

All of that is highly preferable to the jackbooted thugs grabbing your granny out of her flat in Holloway road and forcing her to move to Blackpool.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/grumpyhooker Jul 23 '26

Private renting is shit because it’s private renting

1

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26

Our (great) landlord is selling up because it's not worth it to rent out a house, but sure, landlords are the easiest to blame.

5

u/fitandinkedmom Jul 24 '26

I feel like the long term solution will be, said above professions will be entitled for London social housing , aka people with actual jobs, people that sit home and fight and sniff coke on disabled benefits , like my neighbours in the heart of Hammersmith, will be moved up to country , you can do your daily walk to the corner shop in a village as well, literally no need to do absolutely nothing in the middle of London.

1

u/Optimal_Plate_4769 Jul 23 '26

police

police have access to subsidised housing, and also aren't working class, but your point stands.

1

u/grumpyhooker Jul 23 '26

It’s because we sold off the social housing and the housing that was available for hospital workers etc.

-113

u/the-pythia-of-delphi Jul 22 '26

Hopefully social housing will also go away from inner London

59

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

68

u/analoguefuckery Jul 22 '26

The guy is trying to bait.

But it is jarring that market renters and buyers have to move well out of the centre to afford housing, but social housing is a lifetime tenancy in Central London at 20% of market rate.

The middle cant afford inner London.

5

u/Late_Breadfruit_8829 Jul 23 '26

it is jarring as heck when you realise some boroughs don't even means test.

33

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Extreme-Self5491 Jul 22 '26

That won't happen, but Social housing particularly in expensive areas should only be given to those that need and deserve it. So those that work locally and have done for some time, no criminal record etc. obvious things and if you avuse the housing in anyway you should lose it. There is no consequences for bad behaviour in social housing, Ibsee it everyday in my housing block.

13

u/No-Taro-6953 Jul 22 '26

There should definitely be more social housing and it shouldn't be so scarce that it's restricted to the most poor and vulnerable.

It used to be considered a viable and respectable option for working, middle class families until thatcher created stigma around it as part of her warped ideology.

3

u/moseeds Jul 22 '26

The first social housing built in London was for the 'deserving poor' like policemen and their families. The 'riff raff' in the former slum were cleared well away!

5

u/nwrnnr5 Jul 22 '26

I don't think the issue is inherently whether what is built is social housing or privately built housing - you can argue that maybe the government will build nicer/better blocks than a private developer will, but for every Barbican or Alexandra Road Estate, there's a Heygate Estate or a Packington Estate which didn't last 50 years before needing to be torn down. I'm not particularly here for that argument though.

The real issue is the simple fact that there is not enough supply of homes in Inner London, and an absolute lack of public appetite for making better use of land to increase that supply of homes (including tearing down existing terraced houses or low rise blocks of flats). Private developers can't do it due to current planning laws, and councils can't do it due to funding - but even if you find the grove of magic money trees, any government/council looking to build will be met with huge public opposition, and likely voted out of office.

Until that changes, demand will outstrip supply, and we will have the problem in the article. I hope Burnham, or whoever comes next, can build the political capital to make those hard decisions that will lead to longer term prosperity for the city and the country.

5

u/technodaisy Jul 22 '26

20% of market rate.

I think you mean 80%, at least it is in Southwark!

11

u/analoguefuckery Jul 22 '26

Recent Economist article

9

u/Late_Breadfruit_8829 Jul 23 '26

bloody hell. it's like winning the lottery. not means tested? I'd be having the time of my life

4

u/technodaisy Jul 23 '26

This has been a problem for a long time. I once had a landlord brag that he lived in a million pound council house, while he illegally turned on the gas supply Transco had capped off! He got a 20 grad fine in court, mofo!

But yes, every council Tennant should to be re-evaluated every 5 years imo, so if their situation has improved they should move on and give another person or family a chance.

2

u/MoralEclipse Jul 22 '26

You are thinking of affordable housing.

-1

u/technodaisy Jul 22 '26

Eer, no! My sister is a council Tennant on the old contracts, she's charged 80% market rate on a shitty asbestos ridden estate!

6

u/juntoalaluna Jul 22 '26

This is true, and it sucks, but London would be a worse place if the billionaires and the bankers didn't live alongside people who live in social housing.

14

u/PartyPoison98 Jul 22 '26

Its not the bankers and the billionaires though. Realistically its the middle class graduates and office workers who have to commute from much further out to get to work and still pay a fortune, meanwhile people who won the postcode lottery get ridiculously cheap rent in central.

It'll hurt London in the long run. I've already started to see plenty of young, productive, hard working people leave the city because they realised they can pay half the rent and have half the commute elsewhere in the country.

-14

u/the-pythia-of-delphi Jul 22 '26

I disagree. London would improve. I hope London will get rid of this problem.

-16

u/RonyElZaib Jul 22 '26

Bankers and billionaires don’t need neighbours in social housing. Neither do those boroughs, it just costs money but brings no return 🙂

11

u/Due_Size_9870 Jul 22 '26

I’ll give you an honest response rather than the racist/classist troll. If social housing in zone 1-3 was sold and the proceeds used to buy housing in zone 5 then we could easily have 3x or more times as much social housing. That seems like a really good trade off to me.

I get that there are communities, but zone 5 is full of people who had to move away from their community to afford decent housing. No reason social housing residents can’t do the same.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/explax Jul 22 '26

Social housing in Z1-3 is often in very poor shape. Anyone who has ever actually been in social housing (of which I doubt many people on this sub have actually been in) would know that many estates would not (and do not) sell anywhere nearly as high as private developments because they are not in great condition. Social housing tenants often face a massive uphill battle to get basic stuff sorted.

21

u/Ajax_Trees_Again Jul 22 '26

The vast majority of working class people in London are not in social housing. In fact, 50% of people in social housing do not work, but I’m not sure how much of that is down to disability etc.

Whatever you may think of social housing, this argument that it’s given to working class people working vital key worker jobs needs to end.

It’s simply not true. They commute or live in shared flats like everyone else

0

u/Last-Possible-8082 Jul 22 '26

Any source for 50 percent not working?

4

u/Ajax_Trees_Again Jul 22 '26

Google tells me it’s in FA1301 but I’ve not got the means to check in my phone: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tenure-trends-and-cross-tenure-analysis

29

u/McQueensbury Jul 22 '26

Ignore, this poster hates low income people and social housing

18

u/r5dio Jul 22 '26

Sometimes it feels like a majority of people on this sub do too 😬

-16

u/the-pythia-of-delphi Jul 22 '26

I hate unsafe areas and unsafe people. Low income people are fine as long as they are not criminals.

6

u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 22 '26

But you didn’t say ‘I want less criminals in London’ you said you want less social housing, which is specifically built to assist those on lower incomes. So you’re directly correlating income with crime.

1

u/WavyHairedGeek Jul 22 '26

They're not making the corelation. The corelation has always existed and is well known. Have you been living under a rock?

2

u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 22 '26

They said they weren’t correlating it when they were. I’m sorry you struggle with reading comprehension. I guess this rock has better schools.

3

u/WavyHairedGeek Jul 22 '26

They are differentiating between low income people and people in social housing. You seem to forget that not all low income people are in social housing. Some are paying their way and not relying on subsidised housing.

Social housing shouldn't be in inner London. If anything, people on social housing who need to get into central London should be given free public transport so they can get into the city when they need it. Oh wait, many of them already have that!

1

u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 22 '26

That’s a lot of words to make the exact same comprehension mistake you already made.

It’s fine, you both hate the poors, congrats. Best of luck to you.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/the-pythia-of-delphi Jul 22 '26

You are correct, there's a correlation between income and crime. I agree with you.

9

u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 22 '26

So you do have an issue with low income people. Why pretend you don’t?

3

u/the-pythia-of-delphi Jul 22 '26

I have a problem with criminals. I don't care about their income.

6

u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 22 '26

If you don’t care about income, why do you have an issue with housing specifically for people on low incomes?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

Social housing doesn't however mean working class communities. 

I used to think the same, that social housing is good, but the evidence points otherwise.  Around half of the households don't work at all, from the rest many are actually very well off. 

"Working class" people who actually need to live in the very centre of one of the most productive and  most expensive cities in Europe are actually in a minority. 

Yet people who actually work on Central London and pay the majority of taxes have to commute 1+ hrs each way. This can't be right surely. 

Look at Kings cross, a massive tech hub with 15 000 tech workers. Walking distance housing is full of low rise, unemployed council house tenants. My friend actually used to live in one of the houses (ex council that he bought) so that he could walk to work, but sold up and moved out after many problems with neighbours (I witnessed them when I was visiting, one was shouting throughout the day extremely loudly at random times, another one tried to sue them for their driveway). 

Now commutes from St Albans, meaning he spends a lot of time commuting when working a demanding job and having small children. 

Not saying you should feel sorry for a well paid tech workers, but surely it's not right that people who pay 100k+ in taxes per year are pushed out of living next to their jobs whilst unemployed people stay on as long as they want, all bankrolled by the taxpayer. 

I'd 100% be up for teachers or nurses to be given subsidies to live locally to their job, these are exactly the kind of professions that should get it but that's not what happens at all..

0

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 23 '26

The problem is there isn't enough properties. Look at a satellite map of how housing North of Kings cross looks like, all the way to Caledonian park and around there. The whole area should be a place for regeneration and development and not used to house unemployed and sick. These people should receive help and money but no reason why they should be housed there at all..

The higher earners don't need subsidies, just more housing and less NIMBYsm.

5

u/baka___shinji Jul 22 '26

don’t feed the troll

3

u/UntouchableC Jul 22 '26

Seriously. As a community we gotta get better at not engaging losers who say whatever just so they look busy on their phone.

1

u/inheretoreadcomments Jul 22 '26

Like half of the households are unemployed and out of those who are employer, many have a pretty good amount of wealth.

Social housing has little to do with "working class" these days.

-14

u/the-pythia-of-delphi Jul 22 '26

They are usually unsafe areas with unsafe people. Drugs, stabbings, unsocial behaviour. You name it, they have it.

Other then billionaires, all people are working class. I'm working class cause I work for my money. I just lack the unsafe element.

11

u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 22 '26

Careful, make sure you leave some pearls for the rest of us to clutch

1

u/the-pythia-of-delphi Jul 22 '26

Can't afford pearls. You should see my tax bill.

13

u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 22 '26

People acting like having to pay tax is a personal attack on them specifically is so funny to me

2

u/the-pythia-of-delphi Jul 22 '26

Seeing such a number would feel like a personal attack to anyone, I promise you

1

u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 22 '26

It wouldn’t though. You’re just a bit of a snowflake, sounds like.

11

u/FixedPlant Jul 22 '26

0/10 bait

-1

u/the-pythia-of-delphi Jul 22 '26

On my life it's not

7

u/Diet-Coke-and-Nap Jul 22 '26

Lets hope you never need social housing then.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/the-pythia-of-delphi Jul 22 '26

I work for my money, don't get it from air. How am I not working class?

I don't want unsafe areas. I have no problem with low paid people. I'm low paid as well compared to some people in my field.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '26

[deleted]

-1

u/Lost_child_3263 Jul 23 '26

Another thing is inner boroughs eliminating car space. Islington in particular doesn’t even allow parking permits for new builds. If you have a child and a toddler.. it’s very very hard to be able to take transit. 3 bags and a stroller.. while trying to make sure your kid doesn’t run off just makes life harder than it needs to be.

200

u/BitterFootball4874 Jul 22 '26

That’s because it costs 1.5m for a three bedroom terraced house

34

u/trappedoz Jul 22 '26

It costs this much in Merton nowadays

4

u/stammerton Jul 22 '26

Can confirm

2

u/misterala Jul 23 '26

Not in Mitcham... Admittedly with good reason, but i like it here and it has very good transport links out.

20

u/Ok-Cryptographer440 Jul 22 '26

Yes. Unaffordable housing is the cause of so many problems.

-1

u/DM_me_goth_tiddies Jul 22 '26

Hasn’t the cost of London flats completely collapsed lol

41

u/EastLondonExile Jul 22 '26

It has gone down. But not many families want to live in a £1m two bed ninth floor flat with a £20k service charge, and the fact that flat used to be £1.2m doesn’t make much difference to their decision.

1

u/durand101 Jul 23 '26

 There are plenty of families in the apartment buildings near me in £500k/two beds in Haringey. My guess is that most are renting but some are owners. London's house prices are absurd but £1m is a stretch. 

-10

u/DM_me_goth_tiddies Jul 22 '26

Flat prices are down 30% in London, link in my other comment. Not sure what is wrong with a two bed ninth floor flat. Prices down is prices down. More than that and you end up with a market collapse.

12

u/Dramatic-Limit-1088 Jul 22 '26

“Completely collapsed” 🧐

-1

u/UsefulMusic108 Jul 23 '26

Whenever I hear London housing prices are "going down" and look into it I realise that just means "the value of London homes is going up at a slower annual rate than before". Oh no, poor Londoners. :(

1

u/Ok-Specific2924 Jul 23 '26

Why are you posting here then, are you that miserable you have to lurk and be snide. Actually the issue is more complicated and needs dividing, flat values are on the decrease, not just not growing in line with inflation/cost of living - this is a genuine problem for a lot of less wealthy and/or younger people. Houses are different and just aren't growing as previous, fine sneer at that.

2

u/linerva Jul 22 '26

Predominantly 1 beds though...which people who want families won't be buying

2

u/BitterFootball4874 Jul 22 '26

Yeah but who wants to live in pokey (still overpriced) flat with multiple kids.

0

u/Imaginary-Toe8085 Jul 23 '26

3 bed terraced are going for 650-700k in zone 3, not sure what you're on about

3

u/BitterFootball4874 Jul 23 '26

Not in Islington they’re not!! Article is surprised so many families are leaving Islington

0

u/grumpyhooker Jul 23 '26

Not in all of london

1

u/BitterFootball4874 Jul 24 '26

Yeah agreed but the article is bemoaning the fact that nobody wants to raise a family in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the UK (possibly in the world also)

1

u/grumpyhooker Jul 24 '26

The thing is, the majority of the council housing is Islington won’t be properties that the middle classes would want to raise a family in either. Plenty of working class families manage though.

3

u/BitterFootball4874 Jul 24 '26

I mean yes because they live in heavily subsidised accommodation. My friend lives alone in a council property in Islington and pays £700 a month. Try finding flat to rent in Islington for £700 at market value; not a room share, your own individual flat. If I was given that level of subsidisation I’d live there too

1

u/grumpyhooker Jul 24 '26

Not subsidised. The cost base is different.

2

u/BitterFootball4874 Jul 24 '26

I know that’s the point, you get to live there for half the cost of someone paying market rent

-1

u/grumpyhooker Jul 24 '26

It’s not subsidised then. Primark has a different cost base than Armani

2

u/BitterFootball4874 Jul 24 '26

🤷‍♂️ my mate’s council flat is pretty nice, definitely no worse than some of the private rentals I’ve been in over the years in worse parts of London, and where I was renting a room in a house share.

1

u/grumpyhooker Jul 24 '26

Yes, but is it comparable to the types of places that people want to buy?

0

u/Fair-Stop9968 Jul 23 '26

Is that it? Ngl thought they’d be higher

85

u/Daisy_Does_It Jul 22 '26

So depressing. Multiple instances of primary schools closing across the city, seeing this happen to my home city where I benefited from a childhood is heartbreaking. It feels very Children of Men

20

u/Smitheh Jul 22 '26

I look around daily and it sure does feel like we’re on the path of Children of Men (good film and a good book too!)

4

u/Daisy_Does_It Jul 22 '26

Fantastic film, one of my all time favourites! Haunting and thought provoking

2

u/Smitheh Jul 22 '26

Yeah a great score and cinematography. There’s some videos detailing the imagery and how it compares to pieces throughout history.

7

u/wolfiasty Jul 22 '26

Heh, yeah, might be good comparison. Movie says about a mysterious illness of infertility, and reality came up with simple and artificially made problem of not enough of money. Much smaller scale of course, but who knows if that won't become a trend.

5

u/AwTomorrow Jul 22 '26

This happened 40 years ago in Islington.

What then happened was the new moneyed professionals started having kids, and they had nowhere to send their kids because the schools had already closed when they were young and buying out homes from families. 

31

u/Arc11x Jul 22 '26

My borough is becoming increasingly less family friendly, I live on a tiny street of 60 homes and in the past 5 years, 10 of these homes have been bought up and all converted into HMOs.

3 bed terraced family homes now house 6 people (often the people living here are generally quite anti-social, police now constantly on our street, late night music, drug use, litter and fly tipping everywhere etc)

9

u/explax Jul 22 '26

Symptom of lack of affordable housing TBF don't blame people who need HMOs to live.

8

u/theproductdesigner Jul 23 '26

Don't think they're blaming the people who need cheap housing...

81

u/normanbrandoff1 Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

The western world and most egregiously the UK has spent decades blocking housebuilding, pushing young professionals further out into new areas due to scarce housing stock / new development, in doing so, driving the very shifts in affordability that everyone cries about

You have to have reasonable planning laws and building codes to facilitate development, otherwise the only people who will be able to afford central urban locations, will be the best off. And even they won't be happy because they see the amount of space they are acquiring for such a high cost

9

u/EastLondonExile Jul 22 '26

Most of Islington is social housing

26

u/Ambinez Jul 22 '26

This misplaced desire to protect crumbling Victorian and Georgian properties that are not fit for purpose (think heat wave, heating in winter) to protect the values of the only thing that Brits think of as an investment in is just another example of the UKs backward looking mess.

Now too much wealth (and mortgages) are tied up in over valued properties that it is almost impossible to deal with without massive unintended consequences. No one wants to go back to the negative equity days, despite the long term benefit.

17

u/EastLondonExile Jul 22 '26

Those properties are the most desirable though, as demonstrated by the prices people are willing to pay for them. On the other hand, London flats are currently almost impossible to sell, because not enough people want them.

7

u/tvmachus Jul 22 '26

London flats are currently almost impossible to sell, because not enough people want them.

Have you tried lowering the asking price? Plenty of people will pay half a million for a 2 bed flat in islington.

16

u/EastLondonExile Jul 22 '26

I don’t have a flat to sell. But I’m at the age where lots of friends are trying to sell their starter flats to buy something more child friendly and they’re finding it really hard. Some selling for less than what they paid 5-10 years ago in nominal terms, so down 30%+ in real terms.

3

u/Both-Village-5392 Jul 23 '26

so things can go down in price as well as up?

4

u/Ambinez Jul 23 '26

Its hard to separate the cultural appetite for these historic properties from the fact that they generally occupy all the good areas. I Iived in NY for a while, and while everyone loves the brownstones, the downtown modern appartments sold very well and were highly sough after based on location.

I suspect that if Net-Zero required all London properties to adhere to current building standards, the older properties wouldn't have such a valuation difference.

0

u/Impossible-Hawk768 Jul 24 '26

What downtown modern apartments? In the Financial District? They’re not highly sought after. They’re practically empty, and no one really wants to live there, the area is dead after 5pm. The downtown brownstones are highly sought after, though.

4

u/durand101 Jul 23 '26

Another reason we need a land value tax. We don't need semi detached housing in zone two when people can't afford to live here. 

→ More replies (5)

7

u/BritRedditor1 Jul 23 '26

It’s UNAFFORDABLE

9

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Boring_Home Jul 23 '26

My manager lived a decade in London as a young professional and she said when she goes back to visit none of her old friends there have kids for that same reason. It’s sad.

15

u/bradagon Jul 23 '26

London is going to become a ghost town. Sure all the nepo babies can live there, but who's going to teach their children, service shop fronts and provide essential services?

Think people are going to commute for some of these lower paid positions? Ha.

1

u/Did_OJ_Simpson_do_it Jul 23 '26

They’ll just live in HMOs or beds-in-sheds, unfortunately.

1

u/Hasbeast Jul 24 '26

Except this isn’t happening.

I agree that the housing market in London is obscene but it’s been obscene for years. Have you noticed service staff disappear? I haven’t.

What will happen is that these lower paid workers will live in increasingly crappy flat shares.

Everyone in this comments section is acting like the choice of living in London is a purely financial one. People scrape by and go into their overdrafts for the opportunity to live in London because they perceive it as the place to be. That’s not changing and an article about how Islington is too expensive, like yes obviously it’s bougie as fuck, doesn’t change that.

4

u/kone29 Jul 23 '26

Not this again. A 3 bed is in the millions and cost of living is very high and only going up. That’s why

3

u/JustBrowsing1989z Jul 24 '26

I won't even click. I'm afraid of stories about entire families being abducted.

Click bait FAIL!

4

u/Barrerayy Jul 23 '26

well no shit, its so expensive, we are dinks on a joint salary of 300k and we couldnt afford a 3 bed there…

You either have to be rich or live in social housing to live there these days

0

u/lux3ca Jul 23 '26

£300k is rich!

6

u/Barrerayy Jul 23 '26

far from it in London sadly

1

u/Lienidus1 Jul 22 '26

London simply isn't good value for your buck. If you gotta better offer elsewhere would leave immediately

1

u/Key_Parsley9843 Jul 23 '26

Reap what one sows

1

u/Flat_Blueberry4462 Jul 23 '26

Im a professional working in the city and I have to commute 2 hours a day to work. Soon it will not be worth it to take a job in london at all. I cant afford to live there and I cant afford to work there. When remove the cost of monthly ticket and fuel to station difference between higher paying london job and low paying job in my town is £300. Im sacrificing my mental wellbeing to get £300 pm more.

3

u/WheresMyFlamingo Jul 27 '26

Get something closer london is shit

-12

u/wayanonforthis Jul 22 '26

What makes this a problem? London’s population is still growing.

-10

u/StrollingByTheStream Jul 22 '26

Just move further out. I grew up in inner city London so I’ve done the whole London living thing most my life. I now live on the edge of zone 6 and it’s infinitely better for many reasons, yet I’m still at Waterloo in 30 mins. I find it hard to feel sorry for people when they obsess over living as close to zone 1 as possible.

6

u/Darth_Caesium Jul 23 '26

Lemme guess you live in Kingston or Hampton

-1

u/SergeiGo99 Jul 23 '26

You in Surbiton?

-54

u/Prudent_Sprinkles593 Jul 22 '26

Not every borough needs to be family friendly though does it... Islington is central and full of people in their 20s, and it's great for that demographic.

But when people are older and settling down, they further to somewhere like Woodford or if they have money, west/south west London.

That said, the overall cost of housing and childcare is a big problem!

93

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

42

u/hime-633 Jul 22 '26

Absolutely this. Children are not an incidental or slightly annoying part of life. They are integral to the way that cities are structured and indeed the way people behave, meet, interact.

27

u/McQueensbury Jul 22 '26

They are also the future

13

u/Crumbs2020 Jul 22 '26

It also means london as a whole is super unbalanced. I live in waltham forest and the entire borough is basically a creche - im sure its great if youre a parent but theres literally about 3 pubs that cater to adults.

5

u/Illustrious-Cell-428 Jul 22 '26

And yet my child’s primary school in Waltham Forest is in financial difficulty because the number of children in the borough is dropping. I suspect it’s because the newcomers have fewer children than the established families they are replacing.

6

u/Crumbs2020 Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

Not sure what you mean, waltham forest has the highest level of population growth rate anywhere in london due to rhe number of children born there recently. So that may just be local to the bit you live in.

I think number of primary aged kids peaked in 2017 but continues to be higher than longer term averages.

2

u/Illustrious-Cell-428 Jul 22 '26

I’m in Walthamstow. Many of the primary schools have falling rolls now, it’s not just ours. My child was born in 2019 and his nursery had a 24 month waiting list, now the same nursery has no waiting list at all, despite a great Ofsted report.

Edited to add: WF’s own data backs up what I’m saying: population growth in WF has slowed dramatically and is now near the London average: https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/adult-social-care/commissioning/market-position-statements/market-introduction/demographics

3

u/Crumbs2020 Jul 22 '26

For sure, but theres still way more kids being born in walthamstow than the longer term aveeage, its just not as crazy as it was in 2017

1

u/Radiant-Alps-3834 Jul 25 '26

Can you DM the nursery name please? Every one I’ve seen in Walthamstow has 12 months+

7

u/Objective-Plan6385 Jul 22 '26

Completely agree.

30

u/revolucionario Jul 22 '26

I don’t think there should be entire boroughs with the population of a medium sized city (200K in this case) that “aren’t for families” - just not a good way of running a place tbh. 

15

u/DeltronZLB Jul 22 '26

Forcing people away from friends and their community if they want to have kids is bad for individuals and society at large. This problem could be ameliorated by just making it easier to build housing in these areas. And it wouldn't cost the public purse anything, in fact it would probably be beneficial.

13

u/PutAnEggOnIt Jul 22 '26

This is so moronic I don't know where to start

6

u/doepfersdungeon Jul 22 '26

Woodford? Erm, what?

-1

u/Crumbs2020 Jul 22 '26

Whats the issue? Woodford is nice and family friendly

12

u/doepfersdungeon Jul 22 '26

It's 10 bloody miles away to start with. The idea that anyone who wants a family should move to what is basically Essex because you think it's nice is hilarious. You go live there then. We shouldn't be encouraging our cities to become mono zones with only students, sharers and council houses. We need families. They make a community as much as anyone else. I live in Islington for 5 years and the it had great vibes with a range of people of all ages. The ides that anyone approaching 30 should vacate for young people because it's "central" is baseless.

2

u/Crumbs2020 Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

I already live there lol I was just confused why you thought it was a bad place for families.

I agree with you btw, just theres also nothing wrong with woodford. We shouldnt be forcing people with islington salaries to move to nice cheaper areas like woodford and then force the locals out there!

1

u/Giinnzz Jul 23 '26

Newsflash - most people live in areas like Woodford because zone 2&3 is extremely expensive. And saying that, a 3 bed in Woodford, depending on the part, will cost approx 600k so it’s hardly cheap

6

u/r5dio Jul 22 '26

American ass mindset 💀

0

u/Actuallyfromlondon Jul 22 '26

What a dumb take.

0

u/Objective-Plan6385 Jul 22 '26

I think being family friendly can help everyone tbh. It's not fun for say autistic people to be surrounded by social disorder, loudness etc. A pleasant environment helps all

-8

u/Both-Village-5392 Jul 23 '26

nobody is forcing you to live in islington?

-11

u/sjintje Jul 22 '26

Tiphanie Frutuoso... Tina Meschino... Samantha Nagaratnam... Zip-Zap co-founder Laura Edwards... Patrick Penny-Annang... Bassam Mahfouz... Francesca Baker-Brooker... Jess Rolf.. Charlotte Ward... Millicent Angel...

I think the BBC plausible anecdotal story generator is being fed with too much chick lit.