Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 11:12am Mon 21 Apr 08
The city is awash with a sea of two-bedroom flats which are unsuitable for families and, as reported in the ET on 27th March ([italic]Penthouse loses £100,000 in value over five years[/italic]), are losing vale at an alarming (if you own them!) rate. It's about time these useless, unwanted properties were bulldozed and family homes built in their place.
The city is awash with a sea of two-bedroom flats which are unsuitable for families and, as reported in the ET on 27th March (
Penthouse loses £100,000 in value over five years), are losing vale at an alarming (if you own them!) rate. It's about time these useless, unwanted properties were bulldozed and family homes built in their place.
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 11:46am Mon 21 Apr 08
I agree with Sydney on this. Also the Scottish governemnt needs to make buy to let mortgages illegal so that families will have a chance to buy a home for their family. Too many homes are out of circulation due to the Buy to let landlords looking to hold people to ransom for obscene rents. You just have to look at all those empty trendy yuppie flats littered about the city centre and beside the river which are empty.
I agree with Sydney on this. Also the Scottish governemnt needs to make buy to let mortgages illegal so that families will have a chance to buy a home for their family. Too many homes are out of circulation due to the Buy to let landlords looking to hold people to ransom for obscene rents. You just have to look at all those empty trendy yuppie flats littered about the city centre and beside the river which are empty.
Posted by: john, glasgow on 12:09pm Mon 21 Apr 08
Maybe single people with money and couples with no kids should stop buying four bedroom houses.
Just a thought!
Maybe single people with money and couples with no kids should stop buying four bedroom houses.
Just a thought!
Posted by: Gaff96, Glasgow on 12:33pm Mon 21 Apr 08
[quote][bold]john[/bold] wrote:
Maybe single people with money and couples with no kids should stop buying four bedroom houses. Just a thought![/quote] bang on
john wrote:
Maybe single people with money and couples with no kids should stop buying four bedroom houses. Just a thought!
bang on
Posted by: slam, Glasgow on 12:36pm Mon 21 Apr 08
I don't agree - I would suggest the city centre isn't a good place to bring up young children or families, so building family homes would be pointless. Most family homes need to be built in the suburbs. I agree there are too many 2 beds in town but so what? Just means the builders/sellers are going to drop prices (as is going on now) so it's MORE affordable for those to choose city living.
The buy-to-let comments are typical but misinformed. BTL is getting slated in forums etc like this, but it's all by the man in the street. Property professionals know it's having little impact on house prices and availability.
For factual information on the subject, I would read the report this month from The National Housing and Planning Unit (NHPAU).
I don't agree - I would suggest the city centre isn't a good place to bring up young children or families, so building family homes would be pointless. Most family homes need to be built in the suburbs. I agree there are too many 2 beds in town but so what? Just means the builders/sellers are going to drop prices (as is going on now) so it's MORE affordable for those to choose city living.
The buy-to-let comments are typical but misinformed. BTL is getting slated in forums etc like this, but it's all by the man in the street. Property professionals know it's having little impact on house prices and availability.
For factual information on the subject, I would read the report this month from The National Housing and Planning Unit (NHPAU).
Posted by: glamkitty, Glasgow on 12:47pm Mon 21 Apr 08
Certainly agree about buy to lets. For many reasons.
Certainly agree about buy to lets. For many reasons.
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 12:52pm Mon 21 Apr 08
There are already to many homes taken out of circulation has it is because of buy to let mortgages. They need to be made illegal and the banks must be held to account for the social instability they have created. How does it help society that a young couple cant find a decent home to buy and end up forking out close to £900 a month for a flat they will never own? Ludicrous.
There are already to many homes taken out of circulation has it is because of buy to let mortgages. They need to be made illegal and the banks must be held to account for the social instability they have created. How does it help society that a young couple cant find a decent home to buy and end up forking out close to £900 a month for a flat they will never own? Ludicrous.
Posted by: matthew, Glasgow on 1:00pm Mon 21 Apr 08
I believe this can all be tracked back to the Tory Government introducing the right to buy for tenants .... then not using the money raised to re-invest in housing.
I believe this can all be tracked back to the Tory Government introducing the right to buy for tenants .... then not using the money raised to re-invest in housing.
Posted by: Big Al, Paisley on 2:21pm Mon 21 Apr 08
I moved away from Glasgow a few years ago after I became single, supporting a 'Glasgow mortgage' on my own became impossible. Far too many flats aimed at the new breed of 'professionals' who quite frankly aren't earning as much as the property speculators seem to think they are.
A more realistic pricing system and, as said, homes for families that they can afford would see a return to the city from the likes of me. But hey, Paisley is on the up too...
I moved away from Glasgow a few years ago after I became single, supporting a 'Glasgow mortgage' on my own became impossible. Far too many flats aimed at the new breed of 'professionals' who quite frankly aren't earning as much as the property speculators seem to think they are.
A more realistic pricing system and, as said, homes for families that they can afford would see a return to the city from the likes of me. But hey, Paisley is on the up too...
Posted by: slam, Glasgow on 2:36pm Mon 21 Apr 08
Meep - The National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) was established in response to the pressing issue of housing affordability.
Its a public body, sponsored Local Government, designated to provide independent advice on affordability matters to the Government.
They are quite clear that BTL has attributed to a 7% rise in house prices over the past 5-10 years. This, with a backdrop of 130% increase overall in that time period.
Meep - The National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) was established in response to the pressing issue of housing affordability.
Its a public body, sponsored Local Government, designated to provide independent advice on affordability matters to the Government.
They are quite clear that BTL has attributed to a 7% rise in house prices over the past 5-10 years. This, with a backdrop of 130% increase overall in that time period.
Posted by: jimmyk, Glasgow on 3:39pm Mon 21 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Meep[/bold] wrote:
There are already to many homes taken out of circulation has it is because of buy to let mortgages. They need to be made illegal and the banks must be held to account for the social instability they have created. How does it help society that a young couple cant find a decent home to buy and end up forking out close to £900 a month for a flat they will never own? Ludicrous.[/quote] Meep, who or what will we make illegal next?
No one forced anyone, that I have heard of at least, to buy a house and take on a mortgage.
EVERYBODY does it for the same reason, self interest.
I agree with you to a point about banks. I think they are despicable. They have been very greedy with fees etc. and their lending practices have been extremely self serving if not ethically questionable. AND if someone can come up with a better and safe alternative I would be first in line not to use banks.
But we still have free choice here in this country, and we are mostly better off for it, that's what helps society from a macro perpspective. Not making illegal everything we, as individuals think should be. Where would that end?
There are two distinct societies in Europe that have tried your way, Russia and Germany. Neither came away with many prizes for their efforts.
I agree our society is/has change in recent times and greed is good now. (Gordon Geko appears as a prophet now) but that I blame on poor oversight of government. Our elected officials, at all levels need to be held more accountable to their electors and not their party. Determined and effective oversight of politicians is a start. Threaten them with facing the consequences of their actions and maybe we can get our country back from the greedy!
However, we need "free choice" if we are to continue as a free society.
Meep wrote:
There are already to many homes taken out of circulation has it is because of buy to let mortgages. They need to be made illegal and the banks must be held to account for the social instability they have created. How does it help society that a young couple cant find a decent home to buy and end up forking out close to £900 a month for a flat they will never own? Ludicrous.
Meep, who or what will we make illegal next?
No one forced anyone, that I have heard of at least, to buy a house and take on a mortgage.
EVERYBODY does it for the same reason, self interest.
I agree with you to a point about banks. I think they are despicable. They have been very greedy with fees etc. and their lending practices have been extremely self serving if not ethically questionable. AND if someone can come up with a better and safe alternative I would be first in line not to use banks.
But we still have free choice here in this country, and we are mostly better off for it, that's what helps society from a macro perpspective. Not making illegal everything we, as individuals think should be. Where would that end?
There are two distinct societies in Europe that have tried your way, Russia and Germany. Neither came away with many prizes for their efforts.
I agree our society is/has change in recent times and greed is good now. (Gordon Geko appears as a prophet now) but that I blame on poor oversight of government. Our elected officials, at all levels need to be held more accountable to their electors and not their party. Determined and effective oversight of politicians is a start. Threaten them with facing the consequences of their actions and maybe we can get our country back from the greedy!
However, we need "free choice" if we are to continue as a free society.
Posted by: John, Glasgow on 4:10pm Mon 21 Apr 08
This is John 2 from Glasgow.
Regarding the comments on all the flats and buy to let market, please get your facts right. Our wonderful government (Mr Gordon Brown)encouraged people to go into the buy to let market. He told people that if you invest your money into the buy to let market and put the profits into your pension it would be tax free. [bold]GUESS WHAT GUYS[/bold] Gordon Brown FCUK'D these people as well and gave into big insurance companies and the city who thought they would lose out from all these small investors.
This is John 2 from Glasgow.
Regarding the comments on all the flats and buy to let market, please get your facts right. Our wonderful government (Mr Gordon Brown)encouraged people to go into the buy to let market. He told people that if you invest your money into the buy to let market and put the profits into your pension it would be tax free.
GUESS WHAT GUYS Gordon Brown FCUK'D these people as well and gave into big insurance companies and the city who thought they would lose out from all these small investors.
Posted by: JayBrown, Helensburgh on 4:11pm Mon 21 Apr 08
'John'. I don't think people should be banned from buying any type of house. If a single person wants to buy a 4 bedroom house they should be able to. Most housebuilders operate on a first come first served basis so they just need to get out there and put their names down!
As for the Tory Government, i didn't see people complaining when Margaret Thatcher introduced 'the right to buy'. It gave people, who wouldn't have been able to afford a house, the opportunity to own their own!
I agree with 'slam', the city centre is not ideal for a young family! Where in the world do you see a four bedroom home in the city centre!!!
'John'. I don't think people should be banned from buying any type of house. If a single person wants to buy a 4 bedroom house they should be able to. Most housebuilders operate on a first come first served basis so they just need to get out there and put their names down!
As for the Tory Government, i didn't see people complaining when Margaret Thatcher introduced 'the right to buy'. It gave people, who wouldn't have been able to afford a house, the opportunity to own their own!
I agree with 'slam', the city centre is not ideal for a young family! Where in the world do you see a four bedroom home in the city centre!!!
Posted by: Ian, Glasgow on 4:17pm Mon 21 Apr 08
I agree, we have far too many flats being built in the city and most of the new developments seem to bne even more flats?! I've friends of mine moving from Edinburgh (both are now working in Glasgow) and a lot of the new build family homes are in the surrounding suburbs like Clarkston and Newton Mearns. That said though, a colleague of mine has just bought a new 4-bed home in Crookston and my Edinburgh friends have reserved a new build in Robroyston.
I agree, we have far too many flats being built in the city and most of the new developments seem to bne even more flats?! I've friends of mine moving from Edinburgh (both are now working in Glasgow) and a lot of the new build family homes are in the surrounding suburbs like Clarkston and Newton Mearns. That said though, a colleague of mine has just bought a new 4-bed home in Crookston and my Edinburgh friends have reserved a new build in Robroyston.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 4:31pm Mon 21 Apr 08
That more people are choosing to live and work in Glasgow is undoubtedly good news for us all. While not denying that there are still improvements that can be made in almost every aspect of the city, people are opting to come to Glasgow as visitors or to settle permanently in ever increasing numbers.
Proof positive that Glasgow is a city on the up.
That more people are choosing to live and work in Glasgow is undoubtedly good news for us all. While not denying that there are still improvements that can be made in almost every aspect of the city, people are opting to come to Glasgow as visitors or to settle permanently in ever increasing numbers.
Proof positive that Glasgow is a city on the up.
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 4:38pm Mon 21 Apr 08
I agree with the point over free choice in buying but... good houses are being taken off the market by the buy to let monkeys. Its going to get to the point where its like London where tens of thousands of properties are lying empty due to buy to let landlords unwillin to lower the obscne rents that nobody wil pay. How does that benfit society, having all that property lying empty for months even years ? and all because buy to let owners are thinking of a "return" on their investment that never going to happen. No buy to lets mortgages are a irresponsible product that banks should be held accountable for. Again i say how is it socially responsible that a young couple cant find a flat to buy close to the childs school and have to fork out almost £900 a month in rent for a property they will never own? Ludicrous. Buy to let mortages are a plague on modern life.
I agree with the point over free choice in buying but... good houses are being taken off the market by the buy to let monkeys. Its going to get to the point where its like London where tens of thousands of properties are lying empty due to buy to let landlords unwillin to lower the obscne rents that nobody wil pay. How does that benfit society, having all that property lying empty for months even years ? and all because buy to let owners are thinking of a "return" on their investment that never going to happen. No buy to lets mortgages are a irresponsible product that banks should be held accountable for. Again i say how is it socially responsible that a young couple cant find a flat to buy close to the childs school and have to fork out almost £900 a month in rent for a property they will never own? Ludicrous. Buy to let mortages are a plague on modern life.
Posted by: TheWorldTraveller, Scotland on 5:16pm Mon 21 Apr 08
Get real. If we want the population of Glasgow to exceed 600,000, then re-draw the boundary of the councils. For example, include Rutherglen, Stepps or Bearsden and see the population soar!
Get real. If we want the population of Glasgow to exceed 600,000, then re-draw the boundary of the councils. For example, include Rutherglen, Stepps or Bearsden and see the population soar!
Posted by: slam, Glasgow on 5:19pm Mon 21 Apr 08
The problems we face today with housing in Glasgow, like the rest of the UK, are due to rising incomes, low and stable interest rates, household growth and limited housing supply. These are the more significant drivers of house price inflation.
The problems we face today with housing in Glasgow, like the rest of the UK, are due to rising incomes, low and stable interest rates, household growth and limited housing supply. These are the more significant drivers of house price inflation.
Posted by: Scotland0705, Glasgow on 6:02pm Mon 21 Apr 08
I agree with "The WorldTraveller". Wasn't it in the 90's that Glasgow had a boundary shift to Lanarkshire which they lost Rutherglen and half of Toryglen???The pop. hasn't fell considerably, just that loss. I agree that there are too many flats being built in Glasgow and all in the one area - City Centre and Glasgow Harbour/Partick. If you started rejuvenating the surrounding areas such as Drumchapel and Easterhouse then mabye people will start to come back.
I agree with "The WorldTraveller". Wasn't it in the 90's that Glasgow had a boundary shift to Lanarkshire which they lost Rutherglen and half of Toryglen???The pop. hasn't fell considerably, just that loss. I agree that there are too many flats being built in Glasgow and all in the one area - City Centre and Glasgow Harbour/Partick. If you started rejuvenating the surrounding areas such as Drumchapel and Easterhouse then mabye people will start to come back.
Posted by: gordon, glagow on 6:45pm Mon 21 Apr 08
I absolubtly agree with World traveller - get the suburbs in to the city. They to the city every day and dont pay a penny to maintain the roads and other services they use.
Also agree with the distinct lack of family homes. Its simply not possible for many families to live in the city at this point as anything bigger than a 2 bed flat is not affordable. Glasgow also desperatly requires better schools, this is another factor that pushes families out of the city. There is no reason why families, in theory,could not live in the city. People in mainland Europe do it all the time. If there was affordable family homes and a decent school they would come.
I absolubtly agree with World traveller - get the suburbs in to the city. They to the city every day and dont pay a penny to maintain the roads and other services they use.
Also agree with the distinct lack of family homes. Its simply not possible for many families to live in the city at this point as anything bigger than a 2 bed flat is not affordable. Glasgow also desperatly requires better schools, this is another factor that pushes families out of the city. There is no reason why families, in theory,could not live in the city. People in mainland Europe do it all the time. If there was affordable family homes and a decent school they would come.
Posted by: Big Al, Paisley on 10:12pm Mon 21 Apr 08
[quote][bold]gordon[/bold] wrote:
I absolubtly agree with World traveller - get the suburbs in to the city. They to the city every day and dont pay a penny to maintain the roads and other services they use. Also agree with the distinct lack of family homes. Its simply not possible for many families to live in the city at this point as anything bigger than a 2 bed flat is not affordable. Glasgow also desperatly requires better schools, this is another factor that pushes families out of the city. There is no reason why families, in theory,could not live in the city. People in mainland Europe do it all the time. If there was affordable family homes and a decent school they would come. [/quote] Why should people living outwith the city pay to maintain the roads and "other services they use" when they already pay for where they live. Do I expect Glaswegians to pay for the roads in Paisley...? NO !
Oh and what about all the Glaswegians that work outwith the city, should they pay for the roads and services wherever they go on a daily basis ?
Are you suggesting that Glasgow should be for 'Glaswegians' only and that everyone else whould live/work within their political boundaries. What about the money they spend in Glasgow's shops, bar's and restaurants, boosting Glasgow's economy whilst, taking away from their own areas that can't compete with the great big 'neighbour' on their doorstep...
gordon wrote:
I absolubtly agree with World traveller - get the suburbs in to the city. They to the city every day and dont pay a penny to maintain the roads and other services they use. Also agree with the distinct lack of family homes. Its simply not possible for many families to live in the city at this point as anything bigger than a 2 bed flat is not affordable. Glasgow also desperatly requires better schools, this is another factor that pushes families out of the city. There is no reason why families, in theory,could not live in the city. People in mainland Europe do it all the time. If there was affordable family homes and a decent school they would come.
Why should people living outwith the city pay to maintain the roads and "other services they use" when they already pay for where they live. Do I expect Glaswegians to pay for the roads in Paisley...? NO !
Oh and what about all the Glaswegians that work outwith the city, should they pay for the roads and services wherever they go on a daily basis ?
Are you suggesting that Glasgow should be for 'Glaswegians' only and that everyone else whould live/work within their political boundaries. What about the money they spend in Glasgow's shops, bar's and restaurants, boosting Glasgow's economy whilst, taking away from their own areas that can't compete with the great big 'neighbour' on their doorstep...
Posted by: gordon, glagow on 11:52pm Mon 21 Apr 08
Big Al - the fact is that Glasgow is a very deprived city by in large. The schools are the worst performing in Scotland and some areas score highest in terms of social deprivation than parts of Eastern Europe. We need peopleto live and pay taxes in our city, not just work there and go and live elsewhere. Especially since most wealthy people skip the council tax boundary and live in areas where they pay less. So it works both ways. People come in here, but the dont pay the tax to support the roads and infastructure they use. People dont choose to go shopping in Paisley, they come Glasgow. Or more likely, they go to Braehead, which is sucking away from both Glasgow and smaller towns. In Glasgow's case it is even more prevailing with rich commuter suburbs where people have all the advantages of the city but dont pay a penny. Local Authorities like East Ren, have the best schools and low council tax, but a vast majority of residents dont work or socialise there. These arent towns like pasiley that has had its high street ruined by competition, these are residential areas that are effectively part of the city.
Glasgow may have a lot to offer people coming in and out, but for those of us that live here they have a definate negative effect. May I remind you that a vast majority of the big business from retail profits private purses and not your average Glaswegian.
Maybe people would spent their money in Paisley if they had to pay to enter Glasgow?
Big Al - the fact is that Glasgow is a very deprived city by in large. The schools are the worst performing in Scotland and some areas score highest in terms of social deprivation than parts of Eastern Europe. We need peopleto live and pay taxes in our city, not just work there and go and live elsewhere. Especially since most wealthy people skip the council tax boundary and live in areas where they pay less. So it works both ways. People come in here, but the dont pay the tax to support the roads and infastructure they use. People dont choose to go shopping in Paisley, they come Glasgow. Or more likely, they go to Braehead, which is sucking away from both Glasgow and smaller towns. In Glasgow's case it is even more prevailing with rich commuter suburbs where people have all the advantages of the city but dont pay a penny. Local Authorities like East Ren, have the best schools and low council tax, but a vast majority of residents dont work or socialise there. These arent towns like pasiley that has had its high street ruined by competition, these are residential areas that are effectively part of the city.
Glasgow may have a lot to offer people coming in and out, but for those of us that live here they have a definate negative effect. May I remind you that a vast majority of the big business from retail profits private purses and not your average Glaswegian.
Maybe people would spent their money in Paisley if they had to pay to enter Glasgow?
Posted by: Big Al, Paisley on 1:25am Tue 22 Apr 08
[quote]Maybe people would spent their money in Paisley if they had to pay to enter Glasgow? [/quote]
Again I raise the issue of Glasgow being too expensive for people to live in. As I suggested in a much earlier post, I myself left Glasgow because I could no longer compete within the property market. Now that said, I do work in Glasgow and no that's not a form of 'industrial tourism' either.
I'd happily pay my taxes in Glasgow, but unfortunately Glasgow has priced itself out of the market. You mentioned Braehead 'sucking the life out of Glasgow'...I must admit I have little sympathy for Glasgow, which already laden with shopping centres and even more now, tried to aggressively have the whole of Braehead re-zoned out of Renfrewshire in order to collect all of the rates for the centre. Fortunately the judge saw sense and awarded the centre's entire rateable income to Renfrewshire. Compensation you might say for the decimation of Paisley as a retail centre...
Maybe people would spent their money in Paisley if they had to pay to enter Glasgow?
Again I raise the issue of Glasgow being too expensive for people to live in. As I suggested in a much earlier post, I myself left Glasgow because I could no longer compete within the property market. Now that said, I do work in Glasgow and no that's not a form of 'industrial tourism' either.
I'd happily pay my taxes in Glasgow, but unfortunately Glasgow has priced itself out of the market. You mentioned Braehead 'sucking the life out of Glasgow'...I must admit I have little sympathy for Glasgow, which already laden with shopping centres and even more now, tried to aggressively have the whole of Braehead re-zoned out of Renfrewshire in order to collect all of the rates for the centre. Fortunately the judge saw sense and awarded the centre's entire rateable income to Renfrewshire. Compensation you might say for the decimation of Paisley as a retail centre...
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 2:45pm Tue 22 Apr 08
Gordon, Big Al,
Local taxes are a small part of local government income - about 15% for the Council Tax, I think. Glasgow has the particular problems of disproportionately low-band housing (i.e. too many A+Bs), and a dependent population that either can't or won't pay. But this is (at least partly) compensated for by the Government's grant to Glasgow.
Braehead probably should be been part of Glasgow (along with Bearsden, Giffnock, etc). but since business rates are pooled nationally and not redistributed according to whence they came, it doesn't seem to matter so much.
There's a good case for giving Councils more responsibility for setting and raising their own local taxes, and for these being kept locally - but the boundaries need to be right from the beginning.
Gordon, Big Al,
Local taxes are a small part of local government income - about 15% for the Council Tax, I think. Glasgow has the particular problems of disproportionately low-band housing (i.e. too many A+Bs), and a dependent population that either can't or won't pay. But this is (at least partly) compensated for by the Government's grant to Glasgow.
Braehead probably should be been part of Glasgow (along with Bearsden, Giffnock, etc). but since business rates are pooled nationally and not redistributed according to whence they came, it doesn't seem to matter so much.
There's a good case for giving Councils more responsibility for setting and raising their own local taxes, and for these being kept locally - but the boundaries need to be right from the beginning.
Posted by: buccleuch, Glasgow on 4:25pm Tue 22 Apr 08
Bring back the original Glasgow boundary.
Why on earth was the fact that the city boundaries have been shrunk not mentioned in thi s article.
Bring back the original Glasgow boundary.
Why on earth was the fact that the city boundaries have been shrunk not mentioned in thi s article.
Posted by: Ian, Glasgow on 5:21pm Tue 22 Apr 08
[quote][bold]buccleuch[/bold] wrote:
Bring back the original Glasgow boundary. Why on earth was the fact that the city boundaries have been shrunk not mentioned in thi s article.[/quote] Boundaries should be expanded to show the real size of the city. The urban area around Glasgow accounts for around 1.2 million people. There is no reason why it cannot be split into say three managable sections but it should be wholly part of the City of Glasgow.
buccleuch wrote:
Bring back the original Glasgow boundary. Why on earth was the fact that the city boundaries have been shrunk not mentioned in thi s article.
Boundaries should be expanded to show the real size of the city. The urban area around Glasgow accounts for around 1.2 million people. There is no reason why it cannot be split into say three managable sections but it should be wholly part of the City of Glasgow.
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 7:14pm Tue 22 Apr 08
I think the figures quoted in the article are adjusted so that they are referring to the same area whatever year is quoted.
The other point about Glasgow's boundary and population is that - like everywhere else - average household sizes have fallen. In effect, you need more houses and space for the same number of people (single person households have increased greatly). But - perhaps uniquely in Scotland - Glasgow's boundaries don't allow it to spread out - so people hop across the boundary. In reality they haven't actually left the city (as a physical entity) at all, just crossed an imaginary line.
All that said, even the entire Clyde Valley's population trend hasn't been great - largely due to economic weakness/lack of opportunity and high mortality, I suspect.
I think the figures quoted in the article are adjusted so that they are referring to the same area whatever year is quoted.
The other point about Glasgow's boundary and population is that - like everywhere else - average household sizes have fallen. In effect, you need more houses and space for the same number of people (single person households have increased greatly). But - perhaps uniquely in Scotland - Glasgow's boundaries don't allow it to spread out - so people hop across the boundary. In reality they haven't actually left the city (as a physical entity) at all, just crossed an imaginary line.
All that said, even the entire Clyde Valley's population trend hasn't been great - largely due to economic weakness/lack of opportunity and high mortality, I suspect.
Comment | Read Comments (27)
