QUOTE
Belfast has the tenth least affordable housing market in the English-speaking world, according to a new US-based study.
The 2008 Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey has found that on average, home owners in Belfast pay almost nine times more than their average annual income, putting home-ownership beyond the reach of many families.
And while housing prices in London far exceed prices in Northern Ireland, our counterparts there fork out seven times their average annual income.
Demographia conducted the study on 227 urban markets in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US, the UK and Ireland and used the "Median Multiple" method, which is recommended by the United Nations and World Bank, to rate each area.
Demographia determined that a city's housing market was "affordable" when the cost of an average home was three (or less) times the average household income, "moderately affordable" for 3.1 to 4 times the average, "seriously unaffordable" for four times the average and " seriously unaffordable" for five times.
Belfast is 8.8 times - making it almost three times more than it should be.
And while the UK as a whole did not fair well, Australian and New Zealand markets faired the worst.
Los Angeles was the least affordable city, followed by Salinas in California, San Francisco, Honolulu and San Diego.
The south-west coastal city of Mandurah in Western Australia - renowned for its abundance of self-funded retirees - came in at sixth place and was followed by San Jose in California and the Sunshine Coast in Queensland.
Bournemouth and Dorset was ninth. London came in at number 18.
Overall, New Zealand and Australian urban markets have the worst housing affordability at 6.3 times annual household earnings, followed by the UK at 5.5 times, Ireland 4.7, the US at 3.6 times and Canada 3.1 times annual household earnings.
Only US and Canadian cities featured in the top 50 affordable cities, including Dallas and Kansas and Quebec in Canada.
According to one of the co-authors of the survey, the situation in Belfast is unlikely to improve.
Wendall Cox, an international public policy consultant specialising in urban policy, transport and demographics, explained this was because of the UK Government's land use policies.
He said: "What it really comes down to is the prescriptive planning policies of the UK. After the war it took 10 years for the UK to be able to feed itself, right now it can't even house itself.
"But the point is not demand, the issue is land use policies. The only way its going to improve is by a relaxing of the land use regulations."
Mr Cox, who is based in the US, said he could not specifically say why Belfast was the highest rated UK city on the list, only saying that the problem lay with land use policies and demographics, not demand.
The survey is available at www.demographia.com
The 2008 Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey has found that on average, home owners in Belfast pay almost nine times more than their average annual income, putting home-ownership beyond the reach of many families.
And while housing prices in London far exceed prices in Northern Ireland, our counterparts there fork out seven times their average annual income.
Demographia conducted the study on 227 urban markets in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US, the UK and Ireland and used the "Median Multiple" method, which is recommended by the United Nations and World Bank, to rate each area.
Demographia determined that a city's housing market was "affordable" when the cost of an average home was three (or less) times the average household income, "moderately affordable" for 3.1 to 4 times the average, "seriously unaffordable" for four times the average and " seriously unaffordable" for five times.
Belfast is 8.8 times - making it almost three times more than it should be.
And while the UK as a whole did not fair well, Australian and New Zealand markets faired the worst.
Los Angeles was the least affordable city, followed by Salinas in California, San Francisco, Honolulu and San Diego.
The south-west coastal city of Mandurah in Western Australia - renowned for its abundance of self-funded retirees - came in at sixth place and was followed by San Jose in California and the Sunshine Coast in Queensland.
Bournemouth and Dorset was ninth. London came in at number 18.
Overall, New Zealand and Australian urban markets have the worst housing affordability at 6.3 times annual household earnings, followed by the UK at 5.5 times, Ireland 4.7, the US at 3.6 times and Canada 3.1 times annual household earnings.
Only US and Canadian cities featured in the top 50 affordable cities, including Dallas and Kansas and Quebec in Canada.
According to one of the co-authors of the survey, the situation in Belfast is unlikely to improve.
Wendall Cox, an international public policy consultant specialising in urban policy, transport and demographics, explained this was because of the UK Government's land use policies.
He said: "What it really comes down to is the prescriptive planning policies of the UK. After the war it took 10 years for the UK to be able to feed itself, right now it can't even house itself.
"But the point is not demand, the issue is land use policies. The only way its going to improve is by a relaxing of the land use regulations."
Mr Cox, who is based in the US, said he could not specifically say why Belfast was the highest rated UK city on the list, only saying that the problem lay with land use policies and demographics, not demand.
The survey is available at www.demographia.com
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/homefind...icle3372080.ece
If prices don't come down to an affordable level, I'm going to move somewhere else. This tells us nothing that we did not already know but it's interesting to see it posted in the Belfast Telegraph