Urban Studies

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ball, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Urban Studies, Vol. 33, No. 6, 859-876 (1996)
DOI: 10.1080/00420989650011636
© 1996 Urban Studies Journal Limited

London and Property Markets: A Long-term View

Michael Ball

School of Urban Development and Policy, South Bank University, Wandsworth Road, London SW8 2JZ, UK

This paper examines the relationship between investment in built structures, economic growth and economic cycles in the UK from the middle of the 19th century and relates its findings to the development of London. A rising price of built structures relative to investment in equipment has existed throughout virtually all of the time-period. This, it is argued, has encouraged suburbanisation. In addition, a long-term rise in demand for housing is putting additional pressure on living space in the city. London has benefited however from the high level of building investment in modern economies, particularly in attracting key building-intensive activities, like financial services. Long-phases of building activity are shown in the data and they are argued to have a destabilising effect on London's economic growth. These relationships between the relative price of investment goods, long phases of higher and lower activity in their provision and the London economy, reinforce the need for a London-wide planning authority; and, if the social returns of building investment are greater than the private returns, as they probably are, for public infrastructure expenditure and for subsidies for new building investment in the city.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Urban StudHome page
E. D'Arcy and G. Keogh
The Property Market and Urban Competitiveness: A Review
Urban Stud, May 1, 1999; 36(5-6): 917 - 928.
[PDF]