SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002   11,000+ members   72,000+ posts

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | About SE23.com | Advertising | Contact | |
 Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (7): « First < Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next > Last »
Gentrification
Author Message
crassbelch
Banned Troll

Posts: 130
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #61
13-01-2016 02:18 PM

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Find all posts by this user Reply
chrisse23


Posts: 13
Joined: Oct 2013
Post: #62
13-01-2016 02:34 PM

We already have tinkered with the market via planning laws. That's why supply is not keeping up with demand.

Find all posts by this user Reply
John Daker


Posts: 47
Joined: Apr 2015
Post: #63
13-01-2016 02:53 PM

The issue with a lack of affordable rented accommodation in London goes back a long way. It seems to me that if the local councils had been given the receipts from council house sales in the 1980's and beyond to build more social housing we not have such a dearth of affordable rented accommodation in the capital.
Luckily FH still has a fair reservoir of social housing so I can't see gentrification driving out the key workers (in the broad sense not the narrow sense it is usually used in) just yet.

Find all posts by this user Reply
crassbelch
Banned Troll

Posts: 130
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #64
13-01-2016 03:01 PM

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #65
13-01-2016 03:15 PM

Now I was in my younger days a staunch trade unionist and a member of the communist party - yet as ive grown older and learnt and read more - I now realise that they only to get on, is to study/learn and get yourself a good job, with hopefully promotion and moving up the food chain, then you can afford to buy nice things/homes, agree with him on lots of what he posts

Find all posts by this user Reply
chrisse23


Posts: 13
Joined: Oct 2013
Post: #66
13-01-2016 03:19 PM

The irony being that most of that "historic character" predated the introduction of planning permission in 1948.

Find all posts by this user Reply
crassbelch
Banned Troll

Posts: 130
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #67
13-01-2016 03:27 PM

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Find all posts by this user Reply
chrisse23


Posts: 13
Joined: Oct 2013
Post: #68
13-01-2016 03:42 PM

The irony is that when people could build what they wanted on their own land, they built houses that you are interested in buying 150 years later. When they introduced restrictions on what could be built, they started building the kind of "soviet style" buildings that you detest.

Find all posts by this user Reply
crassbelch
Banned Troll

Posts: 130
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #69
13-01-2016 03:55 PM

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

This post was last modified: 13-01-2016 03:58 PM by crassbelch.

Find all posts by this user Reply
BMqpr


Posts: 27
Joined: Jul 2011
Post: #70
13-01-2016 04:50 PM

The 1919 Housing and Town Planning Act (The Addison Act) is when councils had to come to the fore to supply housing, with a lot of people widely regarding them as 'homes for heroes'.
You had the construction of new suburban ‘garden’ estates, situated on the outskirts of cities. These consisted mainly of 3 bed houses for families and the design of these estates aimed to create self-contained communities of low density. Facilities, including churches, schools and shops, were (supposed to be) provided; pubs were initially excluded! On most of these estates, house were provided with a generous garden to encourage occupants to grow their own vegetables. It took a lot of people out of slum housing.
Where slum housing was demolished newer homes were built so the working class could stay near their roots and places of work.
WW2 then created lots more space between Victorian and Georgian properties, especially across South London, into which a lot of high rise were built, at the time they seemed cutting edge and the answer, hindsight is a wonderful thing though.

I've been following this thread with interest, I've been a resident of Forest Hill for nigh on 20 years and yes the area has 'gentrified' in that time, mainly in a couple of spurts but each time I start to worry that it would lose some of its old character it settles down and doesn't go too far. I'm all for having a butcher and deli's, and use them fairly reguarly but it is nice to keep somewhere like the Bird in Hand where it is cheap and cheerful and is nothing fancy.

As a friend of mine who has lived here all his 40+ years always says, don't worry about Forest Hill, it'll always be all right, after all, this is only Forest Hill.

Do you want no provision of council / social housing in the area, I wasn't sure from your posts?

Find all posts by this user Reply
crassbelch
Banned Troll

Posts: 130
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #71
13-01-2016 05:23 PM

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

This post was last modified: 13-01-2016 05:31 PM by crassbelch.

Find all posts by this user Reply
BMqpr


Posts: 27
Joined: Jul 2011
Post: #72
13-01-2016 05:34 PM

Wow, that's some manifesto, can't say I agree but I need a little time to think about it before replying fully.

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #73
13-01-2016 06:00 PM

Quote:
Council tenants displaced [...] should be thankful for the many years we have paid for them to live in the heart of the most desirable cities in the world. They've saved an awful lot of expense due to our generosity.

Not much sense of social solidarity there. I don't feel I'm being 'generous' in helping to support people who have less money than I have. Nor do I expect thanks. It's a matter of social justice.

Find all posts by this user Reply
sandy


Posts: 190
Joined: Oct 2006
Post: #74
13-01-2016 06:06 PM

I think I am beginning to get it - the other person is being ironic (has to be!)

Find all posts by this user Reply
BMqpr


Posts: 27
Joined: Jul 2011
Post: #75
13-01-2016 06:10 PM

Do you think most (if not all) tenants of council housing are long term unemployed?

Find all posts by this user Reply
crassbelch
Banned Troll

Posts: 130
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #76
13-01-2016 06:10 PM

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Find all posts by this user Reply
crassbelch
Banned Troll

Posts: 130
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #77
13-01-2016 06:16 PM

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #78
13-01-2016 06:41 PM

That figure includes students and other people who would not be expected to work, including those who are sick or disabled. Of the others, I expect many have pretty limited work abilities and skills, and of those many would in practice be unlikely to be able to acquire them. And the report you quote points out the external barriers (low pay, insecurity of employment, child care problems) which deter people in that position from actively seeking work.

Find all posts by this user Reply
crassbelch
Banned Troll

Posts: 130
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #79
13-01-2016 07:03 PM

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

This post was last modified: 13-01-2016 07:07 PM by crassbelch.

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #80
13-01-2016 07:43 PM

I'm not sure what 'better for the economy' means in this context. Do you mean it would encourage growth of GDP? If so, how? 'Better for society in general'? - similarly, I don't see how. And it would certainly make things a lot worse for many of the people you're planning to evict.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (7): « First < Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields