1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Build a slum today - the Johnson way...

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Andrew Flannigan, Jul 5, 2020.

  1. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Scphoto and RogerMac like this.
  2. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    You'll also find that (as has happened in the past) the Councils won't have drawn up weak legally binding agreements on the % tenants which can be housed by the Council, resulting in the developers reducing (from say 10 flats to 2) the initially agreed number of Council-housed tenants.
     
  3. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Whilst I agree that there are problems, if I had the option of a "rabbit hutch" or the streets I think I would opt for the rabbit hutch.

    What is required is good, solid, legislation that ensures minimum standards and limits to rents to prevent landlords from exploiting the situation. Whether that will happen is another matter.
     
  4. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Do we still have standards for council houses? For a time, houses built for the private owner occupied market had poorer standards than council houses.
     
  5. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    Parker Morris?
     
  6. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Yes Thanks. Abolished in 1980. I would like to see updated standards brought back for all housing.
     
  7. LesleySM

    LesleySM Well-Known Member

    Who are they going to rent to? Those flats will only surely be big enough for 1 person or maybe a couple, Fine. There's always been a massive shortage of affordable housing for single people or childless couples (my HA at last annual report only has something like 8% of its rental stock that is 1-bedroom. I am just so lucky to have got my place, it's not big but big enough for me (And Dave when he was here) and it is more than a reasonable rent for the area (I have friends paying more than me for bedsits around here)) but what happens when they have kids? Do we end up with a family stuck in a 1-bedroom flat because there is shortage of 2-3 bedroom places
     
  8. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Yes.
     
  9. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    The sensible option would be to accompany these rabbit hitched with a massive effort to build larger houses/apartments . But I have given up on expecting sense from this crowd of wankers
     
  10. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Which crowd would this be, no government this century has built council houses. Neither has any recent government set out standards for housing, which is why we have tiny, expensive housing and landlords who have no real interest in anything except their income from rents.

    There are actually plenty of office buildings that are empty that could be converted into high quality housing but as long as speculative building is permitted we will have offices instead of housing. If you have a home you can work from it, if you have an office you can't live there.
     
  11. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

  12. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    But plenty of social housing as required part of private developments.
     
  13. SqueamishOssifrage

    SqueamishOssifrage Well-Known Member

    I have pondered over the mandatory inclusion of social housing in plans to get planning permission for a development. Although it sounds like a good idea, is it really? It does seem to slow down development, and it appears that there are never quite as many low-cost houses built as planned for.

    As a 'capitalist running dog' I wonder if market forces wouldn't do a better job. Let developers build all the upmarket homes they want, and sell them for a high price. Soon, the number of people who can afford to buy or mortgage these properties will dwindle, and eventually dry up to a mere trickle. Then the only market would be for low-cost housing, so the developer either builds them or goes broke. If they go belly-up, then that puts a lot of experienced builders on the job market, so local authorities could snap them up at a bargain price, and build the low-cost housing themselves.

    Of course, this is the wrong web-site on which to propose, this, as we shall soon see! :p:D
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2020
  14. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    Does it not depend on where you build these homes?
    I'm sure there are plenty high cost low standard homes built in popular cities and areas where cost to the purchaser is not an issue.

    It is simply supply and demand as SO (above) says.

    We have had hundreds of new build properties built here on the Islands and I would be happy to live in any one of them. I watched them go up and I heard how well they were fitted out. The Housing Association is excellent and maintenance and upgrading done so often, I am jealous.

    You take your chances where you choose to live and pay the consequuences.
     
  15. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    Supply and demand is all well and good, but at some point, the public purse has to bail out an unplanned mess.

    Graeme
     
  16. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    You mean like Westminster?
     
  17. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Trailing your coat, eh? ;)

    Incidentally, my prefered political system is "socialist-capitalist-communist-anarchy", which is pretty much what Britain has been operating for most of my life.
     
  18. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Add to that the fact that the social housing depresses the value of the private places too. My son's now has a reputation for drugs and general misbehaviour and all of it up the social end. I'd keep them well apart.
     
  19. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    A friend works as a site manager for Linden homes. They're only working on the social housing on their development because that's where the demand currently is.
     
  20. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    The fundamental problem with mandating social housing in new developments is that builders tend to chose land outside town centres. That means that those on low incomes who are housed in these new developments are some distance away from the amenities and, in many cases, won't have personal transport. This, because they can't congregate with their mates in town, they congregate where they live. There being no amenities in these areas they bring in what they want. In many cases, I suspect, they don't want to be on an out of town development in the first place. In simple terms, the social housing is in the wrong place.

    Building social housing where it isn't required/popular is arguably worse than not building any at all. What this government is doing, whilst far from ideal, is to construct housing where it is required. As a temporary measure it is better than has been done for many years but it isn't the solution. Thus the question becomes, what is the solution? I have to say that I don't know but it would appear that cheap, simple housing in town centres that can be made available to those with nothing is a great start. Then the people so housed need to be rehabilitated, and they don't all want that, so that they can become/return to being self supporting. This is what happens in the successful projects. If industrial buildings are available in the right places I am in favour of conversion but there need to be enforceable standards and rents need to be strictly managed, such housing must not be about profit.
     

Share This Page