Of course there's the catch-22: if those locations were not so desirable as speculation assets, would the 2-3 bed houses (aĊ flats) still cost several millions?
Re:London: the city that ate itself
by crdoconnor on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @04:17AM
(#9803709)
>If you're a Russian with enough cash to spare to buy a central London property just as an investment asset, the taxes have to be in triple-digit million ranges to become noteworthy.
Higher taxes don't just mean higher taxes for the Russian, they also reduce the value of his property as an investment.
>Expensive, multi-million-dollar apartments are not affordable by working-class people.
Hence the use of the word "space", not "apartment".
Expensive multi million apartments wouldn't get built if people weren't incentivised to buy them, and instead property developers would be building houses normal people can afford to live in.
If you're a Russian with enough cash to spare to buy a central London property just as an investment asset, the taxes have to be in triple-digit million ranges to become noteworthy.
> I really don't see why Russians who spend two weeks in London a year need to occupy a huge apartment in South Ken. That space could be used for Londoners who are being pushed into zone 5.
Expensive, multi-million-dollar apartments are not affordable by working-class people.