# "Young professionals" to infest flats above Iceland



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

The following planning application is before Lambeth planning committee tomorrow:-



> *Location:* 441-443 Brixton Road and 2 Electric Avenue
> 
> *Ward: *Coldharbour
> 
> ...



At present Iceland's on the ground floor, Iceland's workers take their coffee breaks on the first floor while floors two, three and four have been empty for years:-

"The upper floors are currently vacant... The applicant has stated that they have been unused for the past 20 years" (Officer's report)

The report goes on:-



> *The proposed units will offer accommodation to single young professionals and couples*



While I've lived in Brixton Electric Avenue - which should be the jewel in central Brixton's crown - has been a disgrace. 

They trashed the canopies and failed to replace them, left large numbers of flats vacant, failed to repair properly the bomb damage from WW2 and ripped up the lovely curved cobbled street and stuck a load of grotty tarmac down.

It's now proposed to infest a key bit of the avenue with yups. 

Is this an example of "progress" - to be welcomed by all right-thinking people - or should the space be used for something other than yups?

And will they really be content to live above Iceland?

Source


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> It's now proposed to infest a key bit of the avenue with yups.


So are all "single young professional and couples" to be dismissed as yuppies, then, because that would include an awful lot of u75 posters, some of whom would be rather offended to be labelled thus.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

Bugger. I had my eye on those.    

Architecturally, aside from having a hideous sixties monstrosity grafted on to the ground floor, they are absolutely beautiful.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Architecturally, aside from having a hideous sixties monstrosity grafted on to the ground floor, they are absolutely beautiful.


Well, there's still the end building on the corner of Atlantic and Electric Avenue.

The top three floors have (disgracefully) been empty for as long as I can remember.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So are all "single young professional and couples" to be dismissed as yuppies, then, because that would include an awful lot of u75 posters, some of whom would be rather offended to be labelled thus.



Show me this silent majority of u75 posters who can afford to buy a £300,000 flat, because I'm fucked if I can think of very many.


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So are all "single young professional and couples" to be dismissed as yuppies, then, because that would include an awful lot of u75 posters, some of whom would be rather offended to be labelled thus.


By me they are, if they can afford a one bedroom flat in this development. They'll sell for about £180,000-£200,000.

If a yup with £200,000 to spend on a one bedroom flat in central Brixton is offended by being called a yup in this forum, so what? Let them be offended. The poor darlings.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Show me this silent majority of u75 posters who can afford to buy a £300,000 flat, because I'm fucked if I can think of very many.


Have they already announced the prices then?
I couldn't find any on that link.


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Show me this silent majority of u75 posters who can afford to buy a £300,000 flat, because I'm fucked if I can think of very many.


SilentNate? RaverDrew? IsVicthere? Fanta? There's four. You can tell they're wealthy young men about town from the way they post.

Come on Stella. Stop being such an old class warrior. Fanta works hard for his money. Why can't he spend it as he pleases?


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Have they already announced the prices then?
> I couldn't find any on that link.


You know roughly how much a one bedroom flat in that position offering



> *accommodation to single young professionals and couples*



will sell for.

My only fear is that the 



> *single young professionals and couples*



won't approve of Iceland. Perhaps they could start a petition now to get Iceland moved?


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> Come on Stella. Stop being such an old class warrior. Fanta works hard for his money. Why can't he spend it as he pleases?




Hey, If I had the dough I'd buy one. But those prices are way out of my league!


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

Here's a pic. They intend stashing the yups on the left.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> They'll sell for about £180,000-£200,000.


So why are a couple earning just £22,000 each to be dismissed as  "yuppies" when they're earning _below the national average wage?_




> The approach can make a dramatic difference. A couple earning £22,000 each could borrow up to £110,000 — two-and-a-half times joint income — using traditional multiples.
> 
> But Mortgage Intelligence, a broker, says they could get nearly £70,000 more — £178,750 — from Nationwide, which assesses homebuyers on how much they are able to pay.  (Sunday Times)


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> Hey, If I had the dough I'd buy one. But those prices are way out of my league!


I hope I haven't offended you Fanta?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> SilentNate? RaverDrew? IsVicthere? Fanta? There's four. You can tell they're wealthy young men about town from the way they post.


i don't know about fanta or isvicthere, but i doubt sN or raverdrew are going to march down to the estate agents with a case full of cash at any point soon.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

*A single professional writes*

Keep an eye on them for me, will you? I should have a chance if I get a pay rise of about 400 per cent.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> You know roughly how much a one bedroom flat in that position offering


Ah. So it's a random figure you've made up! 

But hey! Don't let that stop you _pre-accusing_ buyers of being yuppies, eh?!


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> I hope I haven't offended you Fanta?



You've just reminded me that if we (better half and little 'un) are to ever get a place with more than 1 bedroom then we'll have to leave Brixton and move further out...


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i don't know about fanta or isvicthere, but i doubt sN or raverdrew are going to march down to the estate agents with a case full of cash at any point soon.



Well, you can add me to that list!


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So why are a couple earning just £22,000 each to be dismissed as  "yuppies" when they're earning _below the national average wage?_


They'd have to be a pair of very small yuppies - mini-yupps - to occupy these flats as a couple.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> Here's a pic. They intend stashing the yups on the left.


here's somewhere else they could stash the yups.

link


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Ah. So it's a random figure you've made up!
> 
> But hey! Don't let that stop you _pre-accusing_ buyers of being yuppies, eh?!


Oh, don't be silly. He could halve the price (to a figure far less than anything in Brixton is going to be) and it's still be far more than most people can afford.

His point is a legitimate one and you know it.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> They'd have to be a pair of very small yuppies - mini-yupps - to occupy these flats as a couple.


So you've seen detailed plans for the flats then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Ah. So it's a random figure you've made up!
> 
> But hey! Don't let that stop you _pre-accusing_ buyers of being yuppies, eh?!


what's "pre-accusing"?


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So you've seen detailed plans for the flats then?



Do you think that most ordinary people are going to be able to afford one of them?

I reckon I earn a good wage compakred to many locally, and I doubt I'll be able afford one.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> SilentNate? RaverDrew? IsVicthere? Fanta? There's four. You can tell they're wealthy young men about town from the way they post.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I'm presuming an irony is intended here which I fail to get. Please explain.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> His point is a legitimate one and you know it.


What is his point?

He doesn't know how much the flats are going to cost, but he's already sneering on about "yuppies".

If we go along with his makey uppey figure of £180,000, that puts it within the scope of a couple on an income on £22,000 each. I'm curious how people on that kind of income can be derided for being "yuppies" when he doesn't know the first thing about them.

Personally, I can't afford that kind of money (I'm on even less) and I wish that the housing was used for social housing and affordable rents, but seeing as it's clear that it's not likely to happen, I'd rather the buildings be put to good use than left to rot away any longer.

If they were "luxury lifestyle penthouse apartments", I would agree with him, but by the sound of it they're just regular, over priced London flats - and I don't agree that anyone who can afford one must automatically become a "yuppie".


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> Do you think that most ordinary people are going to be able to afford one of them?.


I'm not sure what an "ordinary person" is, but I certainly can't afford one (so maybe I'm abnormal?!).

But I don't go along with the notion that anyone who can afford to buy one (and remember, that could be a couple on just £44,000 per annum) is automatically a 'yuppie'. 

Do you?


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

Bet you could afford one Ed, huh? 

Any chance of a loan?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 31, 2005)

A couple on this magic figure you keep quoting £44,000....they could get a mortgage of £132,000. Unless they did a self-assessed income thing and lied, then they'd be forking out over £1100 a month on the repayments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

who are these saracen investments, eh?

they don't seem too obvious on google, though i did turn this up.


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what an "ordinary person" is, but I certainly can't afford one (so maybe I'm abnormal?!).
> 
> But I don't go along with the notion that anyone who can afford to buy one (and remember, that could be a couple on just £44,000 per annum) is automatically a 'yuppie'.
> 
> Do you?



Oh come on, I don't think most local people will even get a sniff...yeah and just because some can doesn't mean they're 'yups'...but it is more likely - IMO - that'll it'll not be locals buying 'em.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what an "ordinary person" is, but I certainly can't afford one (so maybe I'm abnormal?!).
> 
> But I don't go along with the notion that anyone who can afford to buy one (and remember, that could be a couple on just £44,000 per annum) is automatically a 'yuppie'.
> 
> Do you?


yuppie - young upwardly mobile professional.

they might be on £22k now, or maybe even less, but the 'upwardly mobile' bit means that they don't intend to stop on that for long.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> Bet you could afford one Ed, huh?


I'd wager you're earning more than me, chum!


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> A couple on this magic figure you keep quoting £44,000....they could get a mortgage of £132,000. Unless they did a self-assessed income thing and lied, then they'd be forking out over £1100 a month on the repayments.


Read my link and take it up with the Nationwide and the Mortgage Intelligence people.


----------



## noodles (Jan 31, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> Do you think that most ordinary people are going to be able to afford one of them?



Out of curiosity, your definition of an 'ordinary' person is what exactly?


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'd wager you're earning more than me, chum!



The you _must_ be struggling!


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> they might be on £22k now, or maybe even less, but the 'upwardly mobile' bit means that they don't intend to stop on that for long.


So how would "Old Slapper" know their earning projections and be privy to their long term living arrangements?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> The you _must_ be struggling!


Tax to be paid for last year's 'earnings' = 0p


----------



## noodles (Jan 31, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> A couple on this magic figure you keep quoting £44,000....they could get a mortgage of £132,000. Unless they did a self-assessed income thing and lied, then they'd be forking out over £1100 a month on the repayments.



Nice maths... unfortunately also completely ignores the fact that some people (shock horror, I know) may have some equity already... damn yuppies etc etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So how would "Old Slapper" know their earning projections and be privy to their long term living arrangements?


ask os.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Read my link and take it up with the Nationwide and the Mortgage Intelligence people.



Rolleyes indeed. I challenge anyone to fill in a 'how much can I borrow?' online quote on any mortgage company - including Nationwide (who have the highest multiples of the major lenders) and get a £180,000 loan for a couple on £44k.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 31, 2005)

noodles said:
			
		

> Nice maths... unfortunately also completely ignores the fact that some people (shock horror, I know) may have some equity already... damn yuppies etc etc



Why would anyone with equity be trading down to live in a pokey flat above Iceland in Brixton?

Rolleyes indeed.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Why would anyone with equity be trading down to live in a pokey flat above Iceland in Brixton?


I thought they were yuppie flats?!!!!


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Ah. So it's a random figure you've made up!
> 
> But hey! Don't let that stop you _pre-accusing_ buyers of being yuppies, eh?!


Made up eh? Let's look at the prices of some other Victorian/Edwardian properties in central Brixton. That should give us a pretty accurate and non _made up _idea, shouldn't it?

Dover Mansions 



> Availability: Available Now
> *Location: Canterbury Crescent, Brixton, SW9.
> *Bedrooms: Two
> *Price: £280,000-£289,000
> ...


 It has also been documented countless times that property prices in Rushcroft Road _start _ at £250,000. 


Not everyone is in a couple. Not everyone who is in a couple wants to enter into a mortgage with their partner. I have always thought getting married was far less of a commitment than getting a mortagage with someone.  Not everyone wants to mortgage themselves to the hilt. Moreover, not all couples consist of two reasonably high earners.


----------



## noodles (Jan 31, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Why would anyone with equity be trading down to live in a pokey flat above Iceland in Brixton?
> 
> Rolleyes indeed.



Er, perhaps someone new to London? Is it that far-fetched? Or do only Londoners buy flats in London?

Yep, I think another   is called for


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> If we go along with his makey uppey figure of £180,000


You consider that an unreasonable estimate for a development of that type in an area of that type? I thought it an exceedingly conservative estimate.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I thought they were yuppie flats?!!!!


Pokey = small.

Unlike the hole which you are digging.


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> It has also been documented countless times that property prices in Rushcroft Road _start _ at £250,000.



 Fuck sake!


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Pokey = small.
> 
> Unlike the hole which you are digging.


Ah. So _you've_ seen the detailed plans for the flat conversion then?!

Could you post up some of the plans please so I can see just how "pokey" they are?


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 31, 2005)

It would be a great place to live though. 

You could shout your order for fresh veg down to the guys on the market and pull them up a bucket or something.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Made up eh? Let's look at the prices of some other Victorian/Edwardian properties in central Brixton. That should give us a pretty accurate and non _made up _idea, shouldn't it?
> 
> Dover Mansions


Err. But that's for *two* bedroom flats. Oh well.

But just to get this straight: is _anyone_ who buys a flat in Brixton a yuppie in your eyes?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> Fuck sake!


Indeed. I really can't see these Iceland jobbies going for anything under 275,000. And I'm not making that up.


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> But just to get this straight: is _anyone_ who buys a flat in Brixton a yuppie too?



I don't think so, if I had the money then I would and I'm more of a slob than a yuppie. But I still think it is beyond what most locals can afford.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 31, 2005)

noodles said:
			
		

> Er, perhaps someone new to London? Is it that far-fetched? Or do only Londoners buy flats in London?
> 
> Yep, I think another   is called for



You're making it up.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> It would be a great place to live though.
> 
> You could shout your order for fresh veg down to the guys on the market and pull them up a bucket or something.


 Yeah.  We can dream, can't we?

I know! We could have a u75 timeshare. One week a year between 52 of us.  Baggsy Christmas.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Ah. So _you've_ seen the detailed plans for the flat conversion then?!
> 
> Could you post up some of the plans please so I can see just how "pokey" they are?


I think it a reasonable assumption from our experience of these developments. I _have_ seen the plans for the developments of similar description about to go up behind my current gaff: they're scarcely big enough for a cat to swing a mouse.

But I stand to be corrected by future revelations, unlikely though that be. Could be that it's like a Tardis above Iceland and they're going to be enormous. However. Let us suppose they are _not_ as small as I imagine. Well, £180,000 is consistent with the description _pokey_. If, of course, they are _not_ small, then the price will be substantially greater. You can have it either way - they _might_ be cheaper (though I doubt it) and they _might_ be larger (though I doubt it) but not, I think, both ways at once.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 31, 2005)

I reckon those flats will be at least 225,000 for a one bedroom. Thats including a deduction for the stink of piss that will waft in from that much pissed on portion of street.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

It being those of us who cannot afford even to _rent_ a one-bedroom flat who are of course, being pissed on the most.

Still, though, no hard feelings about the housing market eh?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 31, 2005)

If flats in converted office blocks in the mean streets of bloomin Norbury are going for £180,000 - you could add another £50k to the price for yupsville Brixton.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

£150,000 in Walthamstow the other week. One bedroom flat. Zone three.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

atm the cost of the flats is - to me - less material than that no one knows who's building the fucking things. the developers don't seem to exist, unless it's the ones who  appear on some sort of islamick approval list to which i've above posted a link. i tried calling saracen property services to find out if they were handling the flats, but they seem to have shut up shop.


----------



## t0bytoo (Jan 31, 2005)

By most of your lots definition, you'd have to be a yuppie to buy a flat anywhere in Britain these days.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> I don't think so, if I had the money then I would and I'm more of a slob than a yuppie. But I still think it is beyond what most locals can afford.


My objection is this lazy labelling of anyone who buys a house in Brixton as an 'infesting yuppie'.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

t0bytoo said:
			
		

> By most of your lots definition, you'd have to be a yuppie to buy a flat anywhere in Britain these days.


Thing is, you _do_ in most places. Hence the quite justified resntment. If the housing market wasn't so mad and so many people entirely excluded from it, all the yuppies in the world could move wherever they wanted and it wouldn't be remotely such an issue.

Instead you get this line which adds up to "this is how it is, so shut up and stop complaining". Well, that's not going to happen. Why the _fuck_ do I think it's all right for the single young professional market to be so thoroughly catered for when the rather older professional librarian gets told to fuck off?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 31, 2005)

I'd say 99% of people buying property in Brixton/Clapham were yuppies.


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> My objection is this lazy labelling of anyone who buys a house in Brixton as an 'infesting yuppie'.



Real yuppies are buying riverside high-rised palaces for a million-plus! But I still think that buying private flats in somewhere like Brixton is not something most locals can enjoy...


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I think it a reasonable assumption from our experience of these developments. I _have_ seen the plans for the developments of similar description about to go up behind my current gaff: they're scarcely big enough for a cat to swing a mouse.


But like Old Slapper, you haven't actually _seen the plans _for this developement so you're just guessing, right?

Glad that's cleared up.


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> I'd say 99% of people buying property in Brixton/Clapham were yuppies.



Yeah, but you're a stalinist mentalist who no fucker takes seriously!


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 31, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> Yeah, but you're a stalinist mentalist who no fucker takes seriously!



What's a 'stalinist'?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Thing is, you _do_ in most places. Hence the quite justified resntment. If the housing market wasn't so mad and so many people entirely excluded from it, all the yuppies in the world could move wherever they wanted and it wouldn't be remotely such an issue.


So you resent the people buying flats because the housing market is 'mad'?

Don't you think your anger might be a little misplaced?


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> What's a 'stalinist'?



You is.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jan 31, 2005)

The way I am feeling at the moment, I would rather have Yuppies living around here than the little fucking shitbags who have just sprayed grafitti all over my mate's walls on the main road. She is trying to sell her house and the buyer has just dropped out, having seen this vandalism.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> But like Old Slapper, you haven't actually _seen the plans _for this development so you're just guessing, right?


No. _Making a reasonable assumption_. As people do. As even you may occasionally do.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So you resent the people buying flats because the housing market is 'mad'?
> 
> Don't you think your anger might be a little misplaced?


I resent them, I resent the policy, I resent the market and I resent all the fucking whining that takes place _on their behalf_ when people like me are less than fucking chuffed about it.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> No. _Making a reasonable assumption_. As people do. As even you may occasionally do.


I'm making no assumptions about the cost of these flats or their interior plans because, like you, I don't know next to nothing about them yet.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I resent them, I resent the policy, I resent the market and I resent all the fucking whining that takes place _on their behalf_ when people like me are less than fucking chuffed about it.


Blimey. So much hate.


----------



## fanta (Jan 31, 2005)

Oh, and by the way, when I can eventually afford one then I won't want to know any of you lot...

...the pub beckons, a bientot bods.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm making no assumptions about the cost of these flats or their interior plans because, like you, I don't know next to nothing about them yet.


I'm going to make an assumption that their nature and cost may very well be in line with the nature on cost of many similar developments.


----------



## noodles (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I resent them, I resent the policy, I resent the market and I resent all the fucking whining that takes place _on their behalf_ when people like me are less than fucking chuffed about it.



And your solution is what exactly?

You seem to be saying that if you had the cash you'd do exactly what the 'yuppies' are doing.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Blimey. So much hate.


_What_ a patronising remark that is.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> _What_ a patronising remark that is.


Just an honest reaction to your resentment filled post.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I'm going to make an assumption that their nature and cost may very well be in line with the nature on cost of many similar developments.


So if you had the cash available, would you buy a flat?

Or would you live in a bucket somewhere to spare yourself all the resentment from people like yourself?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

Wouldn't "I'm all right Jack" be rather more honest and rather less patronising?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Wouldn't "I'm all right Jack" be rather more honest and rather less patronising?


How about a straight answer. If you had the money, would you buy a flat?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

Oh no, it's the editor doing his "Answer the question!" routine again. One of the less attractive features of this site.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> But like Old Slapper, you haven't actually _seen the plans _for this developement so you're just guessing, right?
> 
> Glad that's cleared up.


 No, it is perfectly reasonable to make an  informed  estimate on the basis of information on very similar developments very nearby, such as those in Rushcroft Road and Dover Mansions.  We can reasonably assume that a one bedroom flat will cost in the region of £225,00, as Mr Retro said. Those with two or more bedrooms will cost a lot more -- from present prices we can again reasonably assume that they will be up to 290,000-300,000 or more for larger flats. These are not made up figures. They are accurate market figures. 

As for Justin's alleged hate. He's not hateful. He's angry. And he has every right to be. Can you not tell the difference between anger and hate?


----------



## noodles (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Oh no, it's the editor doing his "Answer the question!" routine again. One of the less attractive features of this site.



I think your silence speaks volumes.

And it says you're jealous of homeowners, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So if you had the cash available, would you buy a flat?
> 
> Or would you live in a bucket somewhere to spare yourself all the resentment from people like yourself?


 So having leapt in with an ill-informed point of view, you've decided to cover your confusion by personally attacking Justin? 

Given the widespread and heartfelt plaudits he received recently for his honest and moving post on this subject, I'd say you were digging yourself into a hole with a JCB.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Oh no, it's the editor doing his "Answer the question!" routine again. One of the less attractive features of this site.


Now what were you saying about "digging a hole"?

Answer the question please as it's entirely relevant to the debate. Refusing to do so just makes you look a little foolish.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> So having leapt in with an ill-informed point of view, you've decided to cover your confusion by personally attacking Justin?


Where's the attack? I've simply asked him a relevant question, one that really didn't need your intervention.

And ill informed? It's not me claiming to know the prices and internal layout!


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Now what were you saying about "digging a hole"?
> 
> Answer the question please as it's entirely relevant to the debate. Refusing to do so just makes you look a little foolish.


 Attacking Justin to cover the deficiencies in your own argument  makes you look a little sleazy. 

It's not the fucking point. The point is that most people have no choice about where or how they live because they cannot escape rampant market forces.  And they have every right to be angry.

Justin has always been honest about his position on this and it is shared by a great many people who, surprisingly, don't fit your myth of non-yuppie coupledom.


----------



## christonabike (Jan 31, 2005)

If you move up the hill then you will be able to buy a one bedroom flat for £160 000 (still not cheap by a long stretch) but next to Brixton station a one bedroom flat will cost more, seems to be about £80 000 more - (info in case anyone is actually looking into buying)

I would say that flats RIGHT NEXT to tube stations are gonna cost, especially with such a fab line as the Victoria Line

The only sad case here is that the space has been left to rot, where the council could wade in, buy 'em up, and have them as council flats/HA, or whatever


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

christonabike said:
			
		

> The only sad case here is that the space has been left to rot, where the council could wade in, buy 'em up, and have them as council flats/HA, or whatever


Absolutely.  Same old story.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Now what were you saying about "digging a hole"?
> 
> Answer the question please as it's entirely relevant to the debate. Refusing to do so just makes you look a little foolish.


Frankly I couldn't give a tinker's damn whether you consider it relevant or not. I don't like your previous remarks, I don't like youur attitude and I don't like your approach to debate.

I'll answer all the questions people want about home ownership, whether I would like to be part of it and so on. But in my own good time and in my own way. I won't be interrogated, certainly not by you, and certainly not after your previous remarks. You have a habit of tring to get after people on here. It's not a good habit, it destroys rather than contributesd to debate, and I won't respond to it.

Now I'm going to Guildford to play some chess.


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2005)

I fail to see how justin objecting to the frankly absurd and obscene house prices in the UK makes him hate-filled....


----------



## noodles (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> But in my own good time and in my own way.



Next year in braille perhaps?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

how long d'you think people will own those flats for?

i bet that you'll see those flats on the market again in less than  five years, and at a substantial mark-up. have a look on estate agents' websites for flats in brixton less than £180,000, and for those for sale for more. there are very few flats in brixton for less than £180,000 - and in a year or two's time there'll be even fewer. 

if 92% of londoners can't afford to get on the housing ladder now (from the evening standard) then it seems to me that those who can must be in a ltr with another earner, or on well above the average wage. as time goes by, the influx of m/c people will lead to soaring property prices, even worse than now, and those people will change the face of brixton. this may involve at first getting rid of the less picturesque sights like the dealers, but then it'll mean a larger change, larger than people have been moaning about so far. if the kingsland road experience in hackney's anything to go by, it's goodbye decent pubs and hello shite yuppie places. cherish the albert and that while you have them, for in a few years they'll have changed; and likely for the worse.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

noodles said:
			
		

> Next year in braille perhaps?


What is that supposed to mean, noodles?


----------



## noodles (Jan 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> how long d'you think people will own those flats for?
> 
> i bet that you'll see those flats on the market again in less than  five years, and at a substantial mark-up. have a look on estate agents' websites for flats in brixton less than £180,000, and for those for sale for more. there are very few flats in brixton for less than £180,000 - and in a year or two's time there'll be even fewer.
> 
> if 92% of londoners can't afford to get on the housing ladder now (from the evening standard) then it seems to me that those who can must be in a ltr with another earner, or on well above the average wage. as time goes by, the influx of m/c people will lead to soaring property prices, even worse than now, and those people will change the face of brixton. this may involve at first getting rid of the less picturesque sights like the dealers, but then it'll mean a larger change, larger than people have been moaning about so far. if the kingsland road experience in hackney's anything to go by, it's goodbye decent pubs and hello shite yuppie places. cherish the albert and that while you have them, for in a few years they'll have changed; and likely for the worse.



Agreed, but is the solution to this problem to be found in dubbing anyone who can afford a property a yuppie? The vitriol of Justin seems to be misplaced. Perhaps it is more the Government's fault than the 'yuppie'?


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> SilentNate? RaverDrew? IsVicthere? Fanta? There's four. You can tell they're wealthy young men about town from the way they post.
> 
> Come on Stella. Stop being such an old class warrior. Fanta works hard for his money. Why can't he spend it as he pleases?



PMSL    OldSlapper you've made my day !!!

What makes you think I am a wealthy young man about town btw? You've obviously never met me.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Now I'm going to Guildford to play some chess.



Will this debate effect your opening gambit?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I'll answer all the questions people want about home ownership, whether I would like to be part of it and so on. But in my own good time and in my own way. I won't be interrogated, certainly not by you, and certainly not after your previous remarks.... Now I'm going to Guildford to play some chess.


Ah. Gotcha. You're quick to dish out the insults about me 'digging a hole' but when you get caught out with what appears to be a blazing contradiction in your own argument it's time to take your toys away, eh?

(No need for IntoStella to interject here, btw)


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Will this debate effect your opening gambit?


I hope it doesn't.


----------



## kea (Jan 31, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I fail to see how justin objecting to the frankly absurd and obscene house prices in the UK makes him hate-filled....





exactly.
anyone know if these flats will be subject to ken's 50% social housing rule btw? or since they're technically a conversion perhaps they'd be exempt?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

noodles said:
			
		

> Agreed, but is the solution to this problem to be found in dubbing anyone who can afford a property a yuppie? The vitriol of Justin seems to be misplaced. Perhaps it is more the Government's fault than the 'yuppie'?


 Vitriol. The term always used by dishonest tories to describe the genuine and justified anger of people who have been fucked over by them. 

Let us spell out the basics again for the hard-of-thinking: you cannot buy a £250,000 flat unless you earn a fuck of a lot of money. _Even if you are in a couple. _


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

noodles said:
			
		

> Agreed, but is the solution to this problem to be found in dubbing anyone who can afford a property a yuppie? The vitriol of Justin seems to be misplaced. Perhaps it is more the Government's fault than the 'yuppie'?


let's wait and see what the people who get these flats look like. but i would be surprised were they not yuppie scum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Gotcha.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 31, 2005)

kea said:
			
		

> exactly.
> anyone know if these flats will be subject to ken's 50% social housing rule btw? or since they're technically a conversion perhaps they'd be exempt?



Not sure if they are or not so I may be attcked for saying the following as it is not *fact*: 

I bet both my balls they are exempt.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Let us spell out the basics again for the hard-of-thinking: you cannot buy a £250,000 flat unless you earn a fuck of a lot of money. _Even if you are in a couple. _


Yes we know that. That's why I can't afford one. 

But is it right that anyone who can afford one should be instantly dismissed out of hand as an "infesting yuppie"?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Not sure if they are or not so I may be attcked for saying the following as it is not *fact*:
> 
> I bet both my balls they are exempt.


No need.  The proposal is for.. . wait for it... 





> twelve 1 bedroom flats


 That's three less than 15. Handily. Otherwise they would, I am sure, have been affected.


----------



## christonabike (Jan 31, 2005)

I bet they are not £250 000 each

(Unless they have a roof-terrace)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as an 'infesting yuppie'. but they almost certainly are going to be, with the location and likely price of these flats.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

>


What the fuck are you confused about?

And why are you posting up a front page from the Sun for?

If you can't post up anything even remotely on topic, I suggest you don't post at all.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Ah. Gotcha. You're quick to dish out the insults about me 'digging a hole' but when you get caught out with what appears to be a blazing contradiction in your own argument it's time to take your toys away, eh?
> 
> (No need for IntoStella to interject here, btw)


I fail to see how it needs dignifying with a response, tbh.


----------



## Maggot (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Let us spell out the basics again for the hard-of-thinking: you cannot buy a £250,000 flat unless you earn a fuck of a lot of money. _Even if you are in a couple. _


You can if you already own a property, or inherit a lump sum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> What the fuck are you confused about?
> 
> And why are you posting up a front page from the Sun for?


you seem to think you've holed justin's argument below the waterline. hence the picture. but i'm confused because i don't think you have.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

Maggot said:
			
		

> You can if you already own a property, or inherit a lump sum.


but why would you want to buy a flat which hasn't been built yet, if you've all that dosh?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I fail to see how it needs dignifying with a response, tbh.


As expected, you simply couldn't resist.



Is anyone who buys a flat in Brixton an "infesting yuppie" in your opinion, btw?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

Maggot said:
			
		

> You can if you already own a property, or inherit a lump sum.


Both scenarios that are increasingly unlikely.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you seem to think you've holed justin's argument below the waterline. hence the picture. but i'm confused because i don't think you have.


Try using words if you want me to make sense of your posts.

Or, even better, don't bother.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Is anyone who buys a flat in Brixton an "infesting yuppie" in your opinion, btw?


 A smart (and they will be) newly redeveloped Edwardian one-bedroom flat right next to Brixton tube station for £250,000? Almost certainly. Have you SEEN Dover Mansions?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Try using words instead then.
> 
> Or, even better, don't bother.


  yeh. and this 'pre-accusing' thing - what _does_ it mean? or is it a new editorism?


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2005)

given the proximity of the flats to the tube, (Victoria line which IMO is the best in London) I think the amounts mentioned are pretty reasonable/likely.....


----------



## kea (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> That's three less than 15. Handily. Otherwise they would, I am sure, have been affected.




ah. doh! shoulda re-read properly


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yeh. and this 'pre-accusing' thing - what _does_ it mean? or is it a new editorism?


_Je pre-accuse!! _


----------



## christonabike (Jan 31, 2005)

I'm gonna re-assess

£250 000

Quite probably


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> _Je pre-accuse!! _


i don't recall emile zola putting it quite like that.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yeh. and this 'pre-accusing' thing - what _does_ it mean? or is it a new editorism?


It's not really a winning strategy for you to try and play the pedantic card, is it? (or should that be 'pedantick'?)


----------



## innit (Jan 31, 2005)

Is my mate with a very small one bedroom flat in Effra Court a yuppie?  He certainly earns a lot more than me, cos there's no way I could afford it - and I don't earn that far off the national average.  I'm jealous as fuck, but I know it's hardly his fault.  Owning a one-bedroom flat is hardly an unreasonable goal - as unattainable as it may be for most of us.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It's not really a winning strategy for you to try and play the pedantic card, is it? (or should that be 'pedantick'?)


if you look back to the first page of this thread, you'll find i asked you what you meant by the phrase. come on, either it means something - or it doesn't. i don't know why you didn't answer the question then - something to hide?

what do you think it means?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It's not really a winning strategy for you to try and play the pedantic card, is it? (or should that be 'pedantick'?)


and why must it come down to winning? what game are _you_ playing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

_strangely_ if you google for 'brixton' & 'yuppies' the top two results are from urban.


----------



## Bob (Jan 31, 2005)

*An infester writes...*




			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> A smart (and they will be) newly redeveloped Edwardian one-bedroom flat right next to Brixton tube station for £250,000? Almost certainly. Have you SEEN Dover Mansions?



Well it depends what you call smart. Look at the websites of the local estate agents and you'd get something pretty luxury for £250k - in fact you could get a two bed with garden in central Brixton for that price:

Here's one on Canterbury Crescent for £137,500
http://www.haart.co.uk/properties/theproperty.asp?propid=524285&page=2&ref=/properties/search.asp&pdref=

And here's one just of the centre of Brixton on Pulross road for £175000 - much nicer than above Iceland IMHO.

http://www.haart.co.uk/properties/theproperty.asp?propid=410340&page=1&ref=/properties/search.asp&pdref=

So hands up who would refuse to buy somewhere on point of principle if they could afford to. I can think of a lot of friends who do socially useful jobs (e.g. aid workers, teachers) but with maybe one exception nobody who would refuse to buy a place on principle. The same amount of housing will exist regardless of whether you've bought or rented where you live. Or do you object to yuppies renting as well?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> if you look back to the first page of this thread, you'll find i asked you what you meant by the phrase. come on, either it means something - or it doesn't. i don't know why you didn't answer the question then - something to hide?
> 
> what do you think it means?


Christ, you're a fucking pedantic bore at times.

But seeing as you - and only you, please note - simply _has to know_ what is quite probably clear to anyone else if they saw my words in context - I'll explain.

I used the phrase to describe the practice of accusing people of being yuppies before they even know who they are. So the 'infesting yuppie' accusation is a sort of a big metaphorical, jabbing finger floating above Electric Avenue, ready to loudly condemn anyone who buys a flat there, sorry "infests" the building.

I do hope this satisfies you. It's unlikely I'll use the phrase again, though.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> So hands up who would refuse to buy somewhere on point of principle if they could afford to. I can think of a lot of friends who do socially useful jobs (e.g. aid workers, teachers) but with maybe one exception nobody who would refuse to buy a place on principle. The same amount of housing will exist regardless of whether you've bought or rented where you live. Or do you object to yuppies renting as well?


 Another transparent attempt to derail the argument, _which is about the vast majority of  people not being able to afford to buy a home in Brixton._ or much of London for that matter. 

Your "socially useful" friends have not got a cat in hell's chance, whether they would if they could or not. It's a complete non-argument -- no matter how much social housing your friend Keith Fitchett flogs off at auction to the private sector.


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

*an awful lot of u75 posters*

I would like to say to any urban75 yuppie reading this thread that I apologise without reservation for any offence I may have caused.

Looking back over this thread I now realise how offensive my original post was. When I wrote:



> It's now proposed to infest a key bit of the avenue with yups



this was a mis-statement. It should have read:



> It's now proposed to deploy much-needed private capital to redevelop a neglected area of Brixton in the interest of the whole community



Once again, my apologies, especially any yuppie of small stature seeking to infe... inhabit one of these flats as part of a happy yuppie couple.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Well it depends what you call smart. Look at the websites of the local estate agents and you'd get something pretty luxury for £250k - in fact you could get a two bed with garden in central Brixton for that price:
> 
> Here's one on Canterbury Crescent for £137,500
> http://www.haart.co.uk/properties/theproperty.asp?propid=524285&page=2&ref=/properties/search.asp&pdref=


That is _not  _a  conversion in a beautiful Victorian or Edwardian building.  Be honest and compare like with like, bob.

Likewise, despite your HO, a flat right next to the tube is going to fetch a lot more than a comparable one in Pulross Road -- yuppies don't want to get mugged on the way home.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Another transparent attempt to derail the argument, _which is about the vast majority of  people not being able to afford to buy a home in Brixton._ or much of London for that matter.


But everyone's agreeing that it's a disgrace that 'ordinary' people can't afford housing, the prices are a rip off, the housing market has gone mad etc etc.

What I don't agree with is the bigoted notion that anyone who buys a flat in Brixton - regardless of their background or circumstance - can be instantly pre-labelled as an "infesting yuppie".

Do you agree with that sentiment or not?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> I would like to say to any urban75 yuppie reading this thread that I apologise without reservation for any offence I may have caused.


Sarcasm. How hilarious!



Did you ever find the plans for the conversion or do you just, like, instinctively  _know_ the exact interior dimensions of all the proposed  flats?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> That is _not  _a  conversion in a beautiful Victorian or Edwardian building.  Be honest and compare like with like, bob.
> 
> Likewise, despite your HO, a flat right next to the tube is going to fetch a lot more than a comparable one in Pulross Road -- yuppies don't want to get mugged on the way home.


In fact it's ex council!!! 

Fuck me, bob, you've surpassed yourself on the slippery front this time.


----------



## Bob (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Another transparent attempt to derail the argument, _which is about the vast majority of  people not being able to afford to buy a home in Brixton._ or much of London for that matter.
> 
> Your "socially useful" friends have not got a cat in hell's chance, whether they would if they could or not. It's a complete non-argument -- no matter how much social housing your friend Keith Fitchett flogs off at auction to the private sector.



Starting pay for a teacher in London is c.£21k - so two teachers would earn £42k- so borrowing 3.5* their income they could borrow £147k. And that's for somebody straightout of teaching college so aged about 22. So yes quite a few people could afford this on quite normal jobs - and my post is relevant in that it shows that people can afford this.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Starting pay for a teacher in London is c.£21k - so two teachers would earn £42k- so borrowing 3.5* their income they could borrow £147k. And that's for somebody straightout of teaching college so aged about 22. So yes quite a few people could afford this on quite normal jobs - and my post is relevant in that it shows that people can afford this.


To buy a godforsaken hellhole of an ex council flat on Canterbury Gardens estate? Have you ever been in there?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> But everyone's agreeing that it's a disgrace that 'ordinary' people can't afford housing, the prices are a rip off, the housing market has gone mad etc etc.
> 
> What I don't agree with is the bigoted notion that anyone who buys a flat in Brixton - regardless of their background or circumstance - can be instantly pre-labelled as an "infesting yuppie".
> 
> Do you agree with that sentiment or not?


 I have already said that in this particular case, it's obvious that the flats are to be _purpose-built_ for ''infesting yuppies''.


----------



## Bob (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> To buy a godforsaken hellhole of an ex council flat on Canterbury Gardens estate? Have you ever been in there?



Seemed quite nice when I went there.    Far nicer than where I've spent most of the last five years in Vauxhall living.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> My objection is this lazy labelling of anyone who buys a house in Brixton as an 'infesting yuppie'.



I wasn't aware that anyone had made a statement about people buying a *house* in Brixton being an "infesting yuppie", I thought they'd mentioned a specific development. Is that what you mean, or are you just on a free-style rant?

As it is, I think the developer in this case (going by the information posted) is pulling the usual (allowable but morally dubious) practice of developing under 14 units so that they avoid having to allow for any element of social housing. While in this case it may be due to space considerations, in most cases it is a deliberate policy to elevate the "exclusive" nature of the development, and allows the developer to charge a premium.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I have already said that in this particular case, it's obvious that the flats are to be _purpose-built_ for ''infesting yuppies''.


Oh well, seeing as you already know the exact circumstances of everyone who's going to buy a flat there, there's not much point discussing it further.

There all yuppies! Every last one of them! My pre-packed prejudice tells me so!


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Seemed quite nice when I went there.    Far nicer than where I've spent most of the last five years in Vauxhall living.


That is beside the point. The point is that it is not a 'luxury'* conversion in an historically interesting and architecturally very beautiful block. It's a piece of ugly 1960s crap that is most probably leaking and riddled with damp. There is absolutely no comparison. 

*AS they ALL are these days.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that anyone had made a statement about people buying a *house* in Brixton being an "infesting yuppie", I thought they'd mentioned a specific development. Is that what you mean, or are you just on a free-style rant?.


Oh well, let's open up that question to the Yuppie Police.

OS/IS (those two abbreviations seem go together so well!): is someone buying a house for, say, £200,000 an infesting yuppie too? Or is only the ones who buy  flats?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> That is beside the point. The point is that it is not a 'luxury'* conversion


Where does it say 'luxury conversion' in that link, please?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 31, 2005)

Where's hatboy when you need 'im?

I can't understand why anyone over the age of 30 would want to live in some flat in Brixton/Clapham/St. Reatham anyway....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> So hands up who would refuse to buy somewhere on point of principle if they could afford to. I can think of a lot of friends who do socially useful jobs (e.g. aid workers, teachers) but with maybe one exception nobody who would refuse to buy a place on principle. The same amount of housing will exist regardless of whether you've bought or rented where you live. Or do you object to yuppies renting as well?



That's hardly a decent argument for the development of expensive (in terms of the supposed national "average" wage) private housing though, is it? What's the odds that if your principled friends were able to access decent and affordable social housing they would in preference to taking out an (in terms of salary to repayment ratio) expensive mortgage?


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

*A further apology to urban75 yuppies*




			
				ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that anyone had made a statement about people buying a *house* in Brixton being an "infesting yuppie", I thought they'd mentioned a specific development. Is that what you mean, or are you just on a free-style rant?


Oh dear. To clear matters up:

As a consequence of my starting this thread someone, somewhere, appears to have developed the 'bigoted notion that anyone who buys a flat in Brixton - regardless of their background or circumstance - can be instantly pre-labelled as an "infesting yuppie".'

I would like to make clear that:

(a) not all bigots are yuppies

(b) not all yuppies are bigots

(c) a person buying a flat in Brixton is not, _a priori_ a bigot or a yuppy.

(d) no one should be "pre-labelled"*

Thank you.


* I'm unsure what that is but not to worry.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh well, let's open up that question to the Yuppie Police.
> 
> OS/IS (those two abbreviations seem go together so well!): is someone buying a house for, say, £200,000 an infesting yuppie too? Or is only the ones who buy  flats?


 What part of "in this particular instance" are you having trouble  understanding? Or are you simply going to continue to bully everyone who disagrees with you? Only you piled in and started being aggressive and abusive here.  People are allowed to have a PoV that you don't share.  Just because topcat has pissed you off, there's no point in taking it out on everybody. 

On the recent Merrett thread you were very much on the side of  ''a pox  on yuppified boozers". Don't you think you're being completely inconsistent?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> That's hardly a decent argument for the development of expensive (in terms of the supposed national "average" wage) private housing though, is it? What's the odds that if your principled friends were able to access decent and affordable social housing they would in preference to taking out an (in terms of salary to repayment ratio) expensive mortgage?


Especially as the only example he can find is a nasty RTB'ed, leaky 60s shoebox on a very unprepossessing estate.


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

By the way, the plans for this infe... much-needed private capital investment-in central Brixton for the benefit of the WHOLE community can be viewed at:



> The Planning Office
> Acre Lane
> Brixton
> 
> ...



And yes. The flats are small as buggery. And there's nowhere for the yupps to park. Poor dears!


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> And yes. The flats are small as buggery. And there's nowhere for the yupps to park. Poor dears!


Yes, having to walk the two and a half feet to the tube station.   It's an atrocity, I tell you.


----------



## Bob (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Especially as the only example he can find is a nasty RTB'ed, leaky 60s shoebox on a very unprepossessing estate.



I think you'll find that's your anti council flat prejudice showing.   

<wanders off to eat>


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

*get on that property ladder!!*

Well that _was_ fun.   

Sorry again to any u75 yuppies I offended _and get those deposits saved for the *Iceland Luxury Apartment Property Oportunity.* _ 

You know it makes sense.


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Sarcasm. How hilarious!


I'm serious. I genuinely don't want to offend any urban75 yupp. 

Ciao


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that's your anti council flat prejudice showing.
> 
> <wanders off to eat>



More likely it's prejudice against most local authorities' seeming inability to hire good architects who don't design shit-poor housing.

A case in point: Where I live a mate (an architect and civil engineer) took a look at my flat and said "great ideas, but it's been put together to look good, not to live good". He was especially unimpressed by the lack of eaves (the roof having flush guttering, pleasing on the eye but not very good at it's job), which meant that heavy rain overflowing the guttering ran straight down the walls and windows, causing very bad damp problems. A simple problem to solve, but my flat had received 27yrs of this before the council remedied this particular design fault.
The same sort of inattention to the fact that people were actually going to (in all their sweaty glory) *live* in a lot of these places is writ large across a lot of urban social housing.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Tax to be paid for last year's 'earnings' = 0p


That is scary. Are you on schedule D? My husband is paying under £100 tax on his music earnings this year, and he earned very very little on the music for this tax year*...I think I need to bring you food parcels on my way into work....



*What's the difference between a pizza and a musician?
A pizza can feed a family of four.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 31, 2005)

A pedant writes: 




			
				Old Slapper said:
			
		

> The report goes on:-
> 
> Quote:
> The proposed units will offer accommodation to single *young* professionals and couples



One small problem - the planning document actually says:



> Dwelling Mix - It is proposed to convert the application site into twelve 1-bedroom flats.  Adopted Policy H17 states that conversions should as far as practical provide a mix of dwellings within the whole building, however Part (h)  allows  for  a flexible  approach to  be  taken for accommodation above shops.  As there is no available amenity area it is not  considered  that  the premises is  suitable for family accommodation.   The proposed units will offer  accommodation  to single professionals and couples.  As such, in these circumstances it is considered that the proposed dwelling mix is acceptable.



No mention of *"young"* - indeed it doesn't appear anywhere in the document.    Whether you come to your definition of "yuppie" from "young urban professional" or (the oh so class-ridden British variant) "young and upwardly-mobile", there is no justification for saying that Lambeth planners are formally recognising yuppies as a breed.

However, I am outraged by the notion that "single professionals" as a group are somehow regarded as mutually exclusive from "single parents".   Use of language that makes that kind of assumption should have no place in a Council report.


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> who are these saracen investments, eh?


Details shown on the planning application form, under "Applicant":



> Name: Saracen Investments
> Address: 668 Streatham High Road, SW16 3QL
> email: contact@saraceninvestments.com
> Telephone: 0208 765 4555
> Fax no: 0208 765 4554


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> What part of "in this particular instance" are you having trouble  understanding? Or are you simply going to continue to bully everyone who disagrees with you? Only you piled in and started being aggressive and abusive here.  People are allowed to have a PoV that you don't share.


And you, naturally, don't think that you ever show any traits like aggression and bullying when people don't agree with you, no?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Just because topcat has pissed you off, there's no point in taking it out on everybody.


Untrue and totally irrelevant.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> No mention of *"young"* - indeed it doesn't appear anywhere in the document.


Oh dear. But hey! Why let the pesky facts get in the way of a stirring anti-yuppie rant!


----------



## OldSlapper (Jan 31, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> However, I am outraged by the notion that "single professionals" as a group are somehow regarded as mutually exclusive from "single parents".   Use of language that makes that kind of assumption should have no place in a Council report.


That didn't occur to me. You're right. The language imples that only single non-professionals get themsleves or their partners up the duff.

Plus, as the plans show a lift is proposed I don't see why a young single parent, be s/he professional, chav or member of the titled aristocracy, place him/herself and infant in the lift and seek "amenity" in Windrush Square or Brockwell Park.

IMV more children are needed in central Brixton, not less.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> I'm serious. I genuinely don't want to offend any urban75 yupp.
> 
> Ciao


The sneering sarcasm aimed at other u75 posters sure seems mighty familiar.

Are you the poster previously known as Anna Key YES/NO?


----------



## dogmatique (Jan 31, 2005)

Look - let's get realistic here - the development will no doubt be cheaply designed and cheaply built tiny flats specifically to maximize profit from a long empty building, no doubt bought on the cheap by a _property developer looking to make the maximum return for his money_.

I'm sure the soundproofing will be non existent, you'll be able to hear every flush, every door close and every argument on the street.

These will _not_ be luxury apartments - but what do you expect the planning application to say?  "Shoddy workmanship and skimping on detail will be at the core of our design, as will the cheapest of components we intend to to deploy."??

Personally I would have preferred a housing association to have made use of this building _years_ ago, but we have this instead.  Shite flats going to anyone daft enough to want to live above Iceland.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> Personally I would have preferred a housing association to have made use of this building _years_ ago, but we have this instead.


Me too. It's a fucking disgrace that such a wonderful building should be left to rot.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 31, 2005)

I have a vague idea that refurbishment of these flats was yet another Brixton Challenge project that never got off the drawing board a decade ago!   I'll see if I still have the document listing all the projects.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> I have a vague idea that refurbishment of these flats was yet another Brixton Challenge project that never got off the drawing board a decade ago!   I'll see if I still have the document listing all the projects.


Can you find out what's happening to the buildings at the north-eastern end of Electric Avenue (on the corner)?

There's a shop underneath, but the rest of the building has been empty for years with broken windows attracting pigeons inside....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Christ, you're a fucking pedantic bore at times.
> 
> But seeing as you - and only you, please note - simply _has to know_ what is quite probably clear to anyone else if they saw my words in context - I'll explain.
> 
> ...


right. so it's the same as prejudice.

thank you.


----------



## hendo (Jan 31, 2005)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> Personally I would have preferred a housing association to have made use of this building _years_ ago, but we have this instead.  Shite flats going to anyone daft enough to want to live above Iceland.



Couldn't agree more.

What a pile of repetitive tripe this thread is. Legitimate concern about the shortage and cost of homes is used to mask foaming hard-left hate of anyone daring to get off their bottom, luck out in the jobs market,  work themselves to the bone, scrape together a deposit and actually, sin of sins, _buy a home_.

It's posted by the usual suspects, who are pleased to share a pint with me when it suits them  but quietly log on and label me and people like me as an 'infestation' of 'yups' (I'm forty)  when my back is turned. 

It's followed by an arch apology and frenzied allegations of bullying when someone picks them up on it.

In the past I've been bothered, but not now. There's something a little bit sad and circular about all this isn't there? 

When I'm on my way to work from Brixton at 6 in the morning there's a pile of people on their way to a myriad of workplaces in this city of ours. They come from all over the world to work here and make themselves a future. Those are the people I respect. They will not give up. I won't either. Must you?

I'm not responsible for the shitty housing market, the appalling estate agents, or capitalism generally. I'm just doing as best I can like everyone else.

In the future though, 'Old Slapper'  if you really feel like that about me and the people like me, don't speak to me. Infact, tell me to fuck off, in order that I'll know where I am. Really - a little honesty is called for, if this is how you really feel. 

I understand what you and Justin have posted about exclusion, and have some sympathy, but don't you think the manifest hate for those who've managed to sort themselves out (to some degree) tends to degrade the principle of your position?

Whatever,  I've some bad news for you.

We're not leaving.

Infact we're staying, and I've a hunch that more like us are on the way. We're not titled, or inheritors of the Duchy of Cornwall, just people who've managed to get a decent job, acquired a half decent income, poolled resources, borrowed an obscene amount of money and got themselves a place in this area of London.

Best start living with it, or resign youself to the future spent posting these fucking 'yup infestation' threads, and minus a couple of friends at that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> atm the cost of the flats is - to me - less material than that no one knows who's building the fucking things. the developers don't seem to exist, unless it's the ones who  appear on some sort of islamick approval list to which i've above posted a link. i tried calling saracen property services to find out if they were handling the flats, but they seem to have shut up shop.






			
				Old Slapper said:
			
		

> Name: Saracen Investments
> Address: 668 Streatham High Road, SW16 3QL
> email: contact@saraceninvestments.com
> Telephone: 0208 765 4555
> Fax no: 0208 765 4554


i think that's the same lot which have the islamick approval i refer to above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

they're bloody at it all over the place:

http://apps.newham.gov.uk/environment/planning/2004/Registered/Regis Nov 2004.htm
http://apps.newham.gov.uk/environment/planning/2004/Registered/Regis May 2004.htm
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/planning/documents/applications/Jul2004/090704webapps.pdf
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/planning/documents/applications/Aug2004/200804webapps.pdf
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...39/155925.pdf+"saracen+investments"+668&hl=en
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...08/155959.pdf+"saracen+investments"+668&hl=en


----------



## Giles (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I resent them, I resent the policy, I resent the market and I resent all the fucking whining that takes place _on their behalf_ when people like me are less than fucking chuffed about it.



You should get a better job, or find another way of earning more money, rather than just whinging about how you can't afford stuff. What do you want, that some "committee of proper prices" tell people what they can buy and sell things for?

Giles..


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> SilentNate? RaverDrew? IsVicthere? Fanta? There's four. You can tell they're wealthy young men about town from the way they post.



what is the it about their posting style that makes you think that they are wealthy young men?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 31, 2005)

That's shite on a stick Giles. Justin does a job which is of great worth. He's a 'backroom boy' on poor pay but without him, there'd be no Doctors. Hope you never get ill mate, with or without health insurance.


----------



## sonicdancer (Jan 31, 2005)

I only know of one of those four that you mention oldslapper and when I was last drinking with him in the Albert he was not wealthy, young maybe yes but not wealthy.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Jan 31, 2005)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> These will _not_ be luxury apartments - but what do you expect the planning application to say?  "Shoddy workmanship and skimping on detail will be at the core of our design, as will the cheapest of components we intend to to deploy."??
> 
> Personally I would have preferred a housing association to have made use of this building _years_ ago, but we have this instead.  Shite flats going to anyone daft enough to want to live above Iceland.



there will be marketed as luxury apartments, but having had recent dealings with a planning application, I strongly suspect they won't be. and yes, it should have been used for council/HA housing.


----------



## hendo (Jan 31, 2005)

sonicdancer said:
			
		

> I only know of one of those four that you mention oldslapper and when I was last drinking with him in the Albert he was not wealthy, young maybe yes but not wealthy.



This is it. The worthwhile points about the evils of the housing market are coupled with offensive labelling and name calling. It degrades the argument.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Jan 31, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> By the way, the plans for this infe... much-needed private capital investment-in central Brixton for the benefit of the WHOLE community can be viewed at:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes. The flats are small as buggery. And there's nowhere for the yupps to park. Poor dears!



apparently, the lack of parking in a planning application can't be used to argue against it. and I am talking about a new building from scratch, not a conversion on a busy high street.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 31, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> This is it. The worthwhile points about the evils of the housing market are coupled with offensive labelling and name calling. It degrades the argument.


agreed, hendo <....edited out as it'll upset someone it isn't intended to......>



I am having to walk away from the keyboard before I get into some choice name calling meself.....


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I resent them, I resent the policy, I resent the market and I resent all the fucking whining that takes place on their behalf when people like me are less than fucking chuffed about it.






			
				Giles said:
			
		

> You should get a better job, or find another way of earning more money, rather than just whinging about how you can't afford stuff. What do you want, that some "committee of proper prices" tell people what they can buy and sell things for?
> 
> Giles..






			
				Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> That's shite on a stick Giles. Justin does a job which is of great worth. He's a 'backroom boy' on poor pay but without him, there'd be no Doctors. Hope you never get ill mate, with or without health insurance.



Justin is spot on, Mrs Magpie is spot on, Giles is talking offensive shite. 'Get a better job' my arse!! 

Have you any _idea_ what librarianship pays, Giles??

Get a better job eh? 

I'm in the same trade as Justin, and the only reason I'm any better off than him is that I've been doing it for a lot longer (in the Civil Service too, even though my pay is still shite relative to a lot of professions). Also, I was extremely fortunate enough in 1991 to be offered a council flat, even more luckily on a  good estate. Such escape from the tyranny of overpriced (obscenely priced) housing only happens to a very lucky few. And I've had my share of misplaced resentment directed at me by people who think social housing should only be allowed to be offered to the extreme poor (which it should, but in a better society there'd be enough social housing for EVERYONE who couldn't afford, or didn't want to shackle themselves to, a crippling mortgage).

Justin is right to be angry, right to be resentful. And he knows perfectly well that there are plenty around even worse off in housing terms than him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> You should get a better job, or find another way of earning more money, rather than just whinging about how you can't afford stuff. What do you want, that some "committee of proper prices" tell people what they can buy and sell things for?
> 
> Giles..


one line of trade - or profession - i've occasionally toyed with going into is that of gravedigger.

if i do, i'd be honoured to have you as an early interee.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2005)

sonicdancer said:
			
		

> I only know of one of those four that you mention oldslapper and when I was last drinking with him in the Albert he was not wealthy, young maybe yes but not wealthy.






			
				hendo said:
			
		

> This is it. The worthwhile points about the evils of the housing market are coupled with offensive labelling and name calling. It degrades the argument.



Just for information, the four Urbanites named by Old Slapper were named by him in an entirely piss taking way -- he knows perfectly well that Drew, Vic, etc. are hardly made of money. Whatever else he said in other posts, he wasn't at that point calling them yuppies as some here seem to have wrongly misconstrued ... OS was being ineffectually satirical.

Just for a correction like. I have some sympathy with some of hendo's other points.


----------



## Giles (Jan 31, 2005)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Justin is spot on, Mrs Magpie is spot on, Giles is talking offensive shite. 'Get a better job' my arse!!
> 
> Have you any _idea_ what librarianship pays, Giles??
> 
> ...



I can understand resentment against "the system" that has caused prices to be so high in London, but why does this always seem to translate into resentment of anyone who does buy their own place? This is what I find annoying. It's as if the people who buy are somehow to be held responsible for the fact that others can't afford to, when its not their fault.

And you choose your own career in the end.

Giles..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> I can understand resentment against "the system" that has caused prices to be so high in London, but why does this always seem to translate into resentment of anyone who does buy their own place? This is what I find annoying. It's as if the people who buy are somehow to be held responsible for the fact that others can't afford to, when its not their fault.
> 
> And you choose your own career in the end.
> 
> Giles..



People's reaction doesn't "translate into resentment of anyone who does buy their own place", it very obviously translates into a *focused* dislike of a certain type of housing development aimed at a fairly specific group (the homebuyers looking for 1 and 2-bed flats, and the developers). Why? Because those of us who live in social housing know that, amazingly enough, that's the sort of social housing that's most desperately needed. It's galling to see these places and know that, unless you come into money, even such basic private housing is beyond your reach. There's possible resentment of the buyers, but usually that's nothing compared to the dislike of property developers, because such people have only one principle; maximise the bottom line.

I expect you'll now attempt to sell me a yarn about the hidden philanthropy of property developers.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> In the future though, 'Old Slapper'  if you really feel like that about me and the people like me, don't speak to me. Infact, tell me to fuck off, in order that I'll know where I am. Really - a little honesty is called for, if this is how you really feel.


You have my sympathies.

I know _exactly_ how you feel.


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2005)

so do people here honestly think that :

a) the flats in a prime location for going out AND public transport won't be aimed at sale to the prime end of the market - wealthy young people with vast disposable income at extortionately inflated prices

b) the vast majority of people that buy the newly developed flats 3 minutes from the tube in edgy, trendy Brixton will NOT be wealthy yuppies with scant regard for brixton, the people of brixton and the history and culture of Brixton. Surely most people that didn't fit into that category would get better value for their hard earnt money, further out of London in a less prime 'trendy' location....  

honest answers without agenda please....

maybe the word infest was a bit strong but I totally agree with the sentiment behind oldslappers post. And after all essentially all 'infest' means is to take over....and Brixton WILL be yuppified and taken over by developers and the residents they bring.....old poorer residents driven out. It's inevitable so the use of the word isn't really strictly incorrect IMO.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2005)

Top posts Violent Panda and chegrimandi ....

Giles. I'd actually agree that the anger is best focussed on the underlying causes not on the people who buy these places, but VP's post above sums up how I feel ...


----------



## Pie 1 (Feb 1, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> When I'm on my way to work from Brixton at 6 in the morning there's a pile of people on their way to a myriad of workplaces in this city of ours. They come from all over the world to work here and make themselves a future. Those are the people I respect. They will not give up. I won't either. Must you?
> 
> I'm not responsible for the shitty housing market, the appalling estate agents, or capitalism generally. I'm just doing as best I can like everyone else.




A supurb post, hendo.


----------



## Ms T (Feb 1, 2005)

innit said:
			
		

> Owning a one-bedroom flat is hardly an unreasonable goal - as unattainable as it may be for most of us.



I think that's it in a nutshell.  Fortunately I bought a flat in Brixton in 1995 when prices were as low as my income was then -- and thank god -- because I wouldn't be able to buy it back now.  The fact is that the majority of people do not qualify for social housing, so they have no choice but to save like fuck and buy into the property market, or resign themselves to giving a large portion of their income every month to a private landlord.


----------



## dogmatique (Feb 1, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> The fact is that the majority of people do not qualify for social housing, so they have no choice but to save like fuck and buy into the property market, or resign themselves to giving a large portion of their income every month to a private landlord.



Damn yuppies.


----------



## oryx (Feb 1, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> so do people here honestly think that :
> 
> a) the flats in a prime location for going out AND public transport won't be aimed at sale to the prime end of the market - wealthy young people with vast disposable income at extortionately inflated prices



If you think that tiny one-bed flats above a shop are attractive to "the prime end of the market" you need to take a reality check. Any wealthy young person with "vast disposable income" is not going to look twice at this development. I used to get (until I put a "no junk mail" sign on my door recently) a rainforest load of estate agents' shit & for those with that sort of money there are far more "desirable" places. To those type of people, anyway. I'm not knocking Brixton - I'd far rather live there than some sterile Sloane wasteland like Fulham, but that's the sort of area the vastly wealthy you speak of will look at.

I reckon it will attract people who will mortgage themselves upto the hilt & will be very vulnerable if any property crash occurs. Flats above shops are notoriously hard to obtain a mortgage on. 

TBH, I feel sorry for the people who'll buy there if there's a property crash. I'll be happy to stand corrected if the scheme fills with Fulham overspill called Miles & Camillla, but I think people will buy there because they have it rammed into them that they MUST get onto the property ladder, that you're a loser if you rent    & other such shite. 

Re. affordabilty - you only need to be a couple at junior management level in the public sector with maybe a small deposit you have saved for. 

It stinks that prices for small one-bed flats are this high. But there is such a property-owning obsession in this country that people will buy them, and what stinks even more is the utterly shameful lack of affordable & decent rented housing, which pushes people into buying ludicrously over-priced shit like this. 

BTW, I'm curious as to what is the definition of a "yuppie". It started out being an American acronym for "young, urban, professional", didn't it? Weren't they the vanguard who moved, 20 or so years ago, into inner city areas because the area was cheap & they were prepared to put up with its shortcomings? By that definition, a goodly contingent of people on U75 are yuppies! I do think I know the sort of people Old Slapper means though - not really young urban professionals anymore, but trust fund kids & overpaid City workers.

@ Giles. What an ignorant & patronising attitude you display to Justin's posts on this thread. Don't you know anything about the public sector - including the fact that some people like working for the good of others & not just to make money?


----------



## behemoth (Feb 1, 2005)

Four derelict houses near me have just been renovated for sale around £130,000, way beyond the means of most Medway locals in the current market. But it's better than having them rot away for years (over 15 years in one case). Even if they become buy-to-let, they will probably be rented by a young couple on modest means rather than "Yuppies" (what a ridiculous 80s term). Only in Brixton could this be seen as a bad thing.

A question for the original poster and anyone opposed to this scheme. How long have you lived in Brixton? What the hell gives you the right to move into an area, deprive a genuine local of housing, and then try to dictate who else can join you there? Bloody hypocrites.


----------



## pooka (Feb 1, 2005)

Who owns this property? The council? If not, is the suggestion that it should be compulsorily purchased for social housing or simply that planning permission should be refused on the grounds that 'yuppies' will live there? Would such a suggestion have even a glimmer of political realism about it?

This thread is so much a re-run of 'Selling Central Brixton to Yuppies' of a couple of years back. Like that thread, it translates into 'Keep my immediate environs the way it is for me and my mates'. 

The various calculations in this thread, about who could and who couldn't afford to buy one of these flats, ignore the fact that many people buying property are also selling property, and so will not need mortgages to the full value.


----------



## Bob (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> More likely it's prejudice against most local authorities' seeming inability to hire good architects who don't design shit-poor housing.
> 
> A case in point: Where I live a mate (an architect and civil engineer) took a look at my flat and said "great ideas, but it's been put together to look good, not to live good". He was especially unimpressed by the lack of eaves (the roof having flush guttering, pleasing on the eye but not very good at it's job), which meant that heavy rain overflowing the guttering ran straight down the walls and windows, causing very bad damp problems. A simple problem to solve, but my flat had received 27yrs of this before the council remedied this particular design fault.
> The same sort of inattention to the fact that people were actually going to (in all their sweaty glory) *live* in a lot of these places is writ large across a lot of urban social housing.



Depends on the design doesn't it? As far as I can see the stuff built in the 50s - 70s was rubbish because the government was trying to reach politically set targets for building hundreds of thousands of flats a year - so did everything on the cheap. But the 1930s LCC red brick stuff is very well built indeed - and Lambeth has huge amounts of this (though not much in Brixton). And the 1980s and 1990s stuff from what I know is not bad either.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> This thread is so much a re-run of 'Selling Central Brixton to Yuppies' of a couple of years back. Like that thread, it translates into 'Keep my immediate environs the way it is for me and my mates'.


No it doesn't and you should know better than to say so. You're well aware that gentrification is a real issue and not a matter of NIMBYism and you're well aware that the inability of many working people to find adequate housing of any sort is a very serious political issue. You might care to deal with those real issues rather than use terms like "translates" which mean "I'm not going to deal with your real argument so I'm going to caricature it so I don't have to".

Personally, I'd argue that the peple who _really_ want to keep things the way they are are the people who are comfortable with the process of gentrification because they are not adversely affected by it.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> What a pile of repetitive tripe this thread is. Legitimate concern about the shortage and cost of homes is used to mask foaming hard-left hate of anyone daring to get off their bottom, luck out in the jobs market, work themselves to the bone, scrape together a deposit and actually, sin of sins, _buy a home_.


can I assume that this means people like me _[haven't_ actually got off our bottoms and worked. Isn't this the problem with _some_ people who become homewoners, that they start reckoning that the people below them in society are there because they don't want to work? Wold it be reasonable for me to, er, resent that implication?



			
				hendo said:
			
		

> I understand what you and Justin have posted about exclusion, and have some sympathy


What use is sympathy here, please? And can I actually detect any of this "sympathy" when it is cast among terms like "foaming-left hate"?




			
				hendo said:
			
		

> but don't you think the manifest hate for those who've managed to sort themselves out (to some degree) tends to degrade the principle of your position?


This is bollocks, isn't it? Can you not tell the difference between hatred and resentment? If you cannot, can I propose you ask a librarian to help you round a dicitonary? Could you also get them to explain to you what "manifest" means?

Isn't it also bollocks to suggest that the people towards whom any resentment is directed are "people who've managed to sort themselves out? Isn't it blindingly obvious that resentment is _actually_ directed at people who _haven't_ had to sort themselves out, people who actually have huge advantages in life? 

And isn't it the case that if when you write off people's genuine grievances in the way that you do, you actually _increase_ their justified grievance? Have you _any idea_ how it actualyl comes across? Are you aware that whether you mean to or not, it comes across to someone like me as "fuck you"? That it comes across as "I've got my house and my car and I've worked hard for it and if you haven't then it's mostly down to you so shut up whinging"?

And so forward, to the General Election of 1979...


----------



## Juice Terry (Feb 1, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> And after all essentially all 'infest' means is to take over....and Brixton WILL be yuppified and taken over by developers and the residents they bring.....old poorer residents driven out. It's inevitable so the use of the word isn't really strictly incorrect IMO.



What about all the older poorer residents who bought their 3 bedroom terraces for 10/20k in 1970 and have now sold them for 400/500k and moved to cheaper areas. Its not just property developers who are making a killing out of all this "yuppification".


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Juice Terry said:
			
		

> What about all the older poorer residents who bought their 3 bedroom terraces for 10/20k in 1970 and have now sold them for 400/500k and moved to cheaper areas.


It's an interesting point. The bloke who sits opposite me at work - a bloke currently resident on Brixton Hill, and just part-buying a shared ownership place in Hammersmith - has parents who have lived in Shepherd's Bush for decades. Their home has gone up in price by some phenomenal figure over that time, from bugger all to about half a million or something insane like that. There's no doubt that many people are doing precisely what you describe - using their house price to finance a move, often on retirement, so somewhere much cheaper like Cornwall or whatever. There's an interesting debate to be had about the limits and consequences of that. But I do very much doubt that people in that situation are moving into flats such as those which are the subject of _this_ debate, such as it is.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> But I do very much doubt that people in that situation are moving into flats such as those which are the subject of _this_ debate, such as it is.


Why not? I could imagine someone who has just sold a house (after their last parent died, for example) wanting to move away from their sleepy village/town into somewhere lively  like Brixton. Naturally, their buying power would be considerably reduced, so somewhere like the Electric Avenue apartments could be suitable for their needs.

I've certainly met a few folks in Brixton who moved here under those circumstances and I wouldn't call them "infesting yuppies".


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Why not? I could imagine someone who has just sold a house (after their last parent died, for example) wanting to move away from their sleepy village/town into somewhere lively  like Brixton. Naturally, their buying power would be considerably reduced, so somewhere like the Electric Avenue apartments could be suitable for their needs.


Hmm. Well, if you think that's a statistically significant demographic trend than I won't contradict you.


----------



## Giles (Feb 1, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> maybe the word infest was a bit strong but I totally agree with the sentiment behind oldslappers post. And after all essentially all 'infest' means is to take over....and Brixton WILL be yuppified and taken over by developers and the residents they bring.....old poorer residents driven out. It's inevitable so the use of the word isn't really strictly incorrect IMO.



I don't see how making some little flats in a long-unused empty space over a shop and then selling them to whoever, actually causes anyone to be "driven out".  And who do you think actually built most of Brixton, if not "developers"? (apart from the council estates, obviously)

Giles..


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Hmm. Well, if you think that's a statistically significant demographic trend than I won't contradict you.


I didn't make that claim. But it shows up that only a bigot would dismiss anyone and everyone who buys property in Electric Avenue as an "infesting yuppie".


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> This thread is so much a re-run of 'Selling Central Brixton to Yuppies' of a couple of years back. Like that thread, it translates into 'Keep my immediate environs the way it is for me and my mates'.






			
				BEHEMOTH said:
			
		

> A question for the original poster and anyone opposed to this scheme. How long have you lived in Brixton? What the hell gives you the right to move into an area, deprive a genuine local of housing, and then try to dictate who else can join you there? Bloody hypocrites



I think both of you strike the nail exactly on the head. I was born locally, lived in Brixton nearly all my life, yet I don't feel the seeming need to see nearly every new restaurant, shop or housing development as worthy of criticism or undesirable sign of yuppie activity. Brixton's always changed in the 30 years I've been here - it seems some poeple just want their version of the past to be preserved in time, regardless of the fact they were once likely attracted by the vigour and non-NIMBY vitality of the place.

Gentrification is a serious issue, as Justin suggests, but suggesting that someone buying a space-limited flat above secluded and glamorous Iceland is likely to be some cash-rich yuppie hellbent on despoiling the neighbourhood is both reductive and ridiculous. They're just likely to be average working people, trying to get on the property ladder in some form of other. 

Truth is, I'm nowhere close to acquiring a flat in the area I grew up either, as much as I'd love to. I earn reasonable money, yet pay far too much out in rent to save a workable deposit. I'm never going to qualify for social housing either, so I'm equally stuck Justin. I'll just keep plugging along, paying the rent ... secure in the knowledge that if one day I do save enough to buy a house in my home town I'll have some professional smartarse and self-appointed Brixtonite accusing me of being a yuppie for having the temerity to work and want some security...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> I don't see how making some little flats in a long-unused empty space over a shop and then selling them to whoever, actually causes anyone to be "driven out".  And who do you think actually built most of Brixton, if not "developers"? (apart from the council estates, obviously)


I'm sure you _can_ see how rising property prices cause demographic changes in given parts of the world. And that if developments _of a certain sort_ are rife in a given part of the world, then that contributes both to said demographic changes and to said rising property prices. These are commonly remarked social phemomena, they're not the invention of foaming hard-left bulletin board posters.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Gentrification is a serious issue, as Justin suggests, but suggesting that someone buying a space-limited flat above secluded and glamorous Iceland is likely to be some cash-rich yuppie hellbent on despoiling the neighbourhood is both reductive and ridiculous. They're just likely to be average working people, trying to get on the property ladder in some form of other.
> 
> Truth is, I'm nowhere close to acquiring a flat in the area I grew up either, as much as I'd love to. I earn reasonable money, yet pay far too much out in rent to save a workable deposit. I'm never going to qualify for social housing either, so I'm equally stuck Justin. I'll just keep plugging along, paying the rent ... secure in the knowledge that if one day I do save enough to buy a house in my home town I'll have some professional smartarse and self-appointed Brixtonite accusing me of being a yuppie for having the temerity to work and want some security...


This strikes me as wrong and unfair on several counts.

1. Where do you get "hellbent on despoiling the neighbourhood"?
2. Do you _really_ believe that 'they're just likely to be average working people, trying to get on the property ladder in some form of other'? Do you think the developers think that?
3. Do you ever think that if current trends continue you _will_ ever save enough to buy a house in your home town? Is it not self-evident that this is becomingnharder and harder, _and will continue to do so unless action is taken to prevent it, action which will be predicated on the assumption that present trends are undesirable_? Do you not see then that just saying "it's all right" not only does not help, it actively makes things worse?
4. Can you really not distinguish between what the critics are actually saying about _certain trends_ and some sort of straw-man resentment of all home ownership? If not, why not?
5. Have you ever read _The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists_?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I'll just keep plugging along, paying the rent ... secure in the knowledge that if one day I do save enough to buy a house in my home town I'll have some professional smartarse and self-appointed Brixtonite accusing me of being a yuppie for having the temerity to work and want some security...


I'll have the "YUPPIE INFESTING SCUM OUT NOW!" banner ready for the day you move in. You'll be shunned in the Albert from the minute you collect your keys and be expected to start frequenting style bahs and Atlantic666 because we don't want your yuppie-homeowning type not fitting the stereotype.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> 1. Where do you get "hellbent on despoiling the neighbourhood"?


In the (criminal) complete absence of any prospect of the building being used for social/council housing, would you rather the buildings remained empty and quietly rotted away?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> You should get a better job, or find another way of earning more money, rather than just whinging about how you can't afford stuff. What do you want, that some "committee of proper prices" tell people what they can buy and sell things for?


I missed this. Jesus. How insufferably arrogant and vile. Have you _any idea_ how hard I've struggled just to be where I am? Or is it axiomatic that I must be some deadbeat because I'm not in a high-paid job? 

I tell you, it's not the incomes of the well-off that causes resentment. It's their thoroughgoing arrogance towards those less well-off than themselves. "I'm better paid than you. So I'm better than you. And I can lecture you about it."

I felt physically ill on reading that post. I'm not joking. "Whinging". Dear Fucking God.



			
				Giles said:
			
		

> why does this always seem to translate into resentment of anyone who does buy their own place?


..oh, and their dishonesty. Because, of course, nobody has said this. At all. At any point.


----------



## Juice Terry (Feb 1, 2005)

Just remembered an anecdote relevant to this debate. Was talking to my 90 year old gran a while back, she grew up in South London. I mentioned Loughborough Junction and how the area was in a run down state and she remembered how posh it was when she was a girl and how her family could never afford to buy a house somewhere so expensive.

Just goes to show how these things go in cycles.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> In the (criminal) complete absence of any prospect of the building being used for social/council housing, would you rather the buildings remained empty and quietly rotted away?


Relevance to point quoted?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Juice Terry said:
			
		

> Just remembered an anecdote relevant to this debate. Was talking to my 90 year old gran a while back, she grew up in South London. I mentioned Loughborough Junction and how the area was in a run down state and she remembered how posh it was when she was a girl and how her family could never afford to buy a house somewhere so expensive.
> 
> Just goes to show how these things go in cycles.


Sort of, and it's a point that's often made about Brixton. Thing is, you can't even afford to buy in the run-down areas now. Or anywhere else.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'll have the "YUPPIE INFESTING SCUM OUT NOW!" banner ready for the day you move in. You'll be shunned in the Albert from the minute you collect your keys and be expected to start frequenting style bahs and Atlantic666 because we don't want your yuppie-homeowning type not fitting the stereotype.



err is there any chance you can stop exaggerating what people are saying for the purposes of furthering your point....it doesn't really add strength to your case.

I know of only one person that has bought a property in Brixton in the last year. She is very posh public school, trust-fund person. Didn't work for 12 months and then bought a house. She fits the bill of yuppie perfectly. And I guarantee she'll be out in two years after collecting nice tidy profit...

what the fuck is wrong with people disliking and castigating this obvious and undeniable phenomenon....  


and ed. I can remember specifically a thread you started not so long ago about the increasing blandness of the brixton high street...I think it was the Vodafone shop that took the brunt of your ire that day. If you don't think these two things are interconnected you're a bit mad!


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> This strikes me as wrong and unfair on several counts.
> 
> 1. Where do you get "hellbent on despoiling the neighbourhood"?
> 2. Do you _really_ believe that 'they're just likely to be average working people, trying to get on the property ladder in some form of other'? Do you think the developers think that?
> ...




1) Maybe it's the happy sounding mentions of yuppies 'infesting' the neigbourhood (welcome back Anna Key, I mean OldSlapper)that makes me feel that these newcomers are seen as having a negative impact.
2) Yes, I do think they're likely to be average working people. If you had a huge amount of money would you choose to live above a piss-streaked down-at-heel supermarket? 
3) To be honest, I may well never save anough for a deposit - depressingly I may have to hope a relative pops their clogs and I inherit just enough to get on the ladder, the same as many others. But this issue is not confined to Brixton, nor best dealt with divisive and childish ideas about yuppies from the same old moaning-faces. There needs to be a more productive discussion.
4) Yes I can, but I'm not the one tarring everyone with predetermined notions of yuppiedom and what motivates homebuyers.
5) Yes


----------



## noodles (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> ..oh, and their dishonesty. Because, of course, nobody has said this. At all. At any point.



Familiar?

_I resent them, I resent the policy, I resent the market and I resent all the fucking whining that takes place on their behalf when people like me are less than fucking chuffed about it._


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> 1) Maybe it's the happy sounding mentions of yuppies 'infesting' the neigbourhood (welcome back Anna Key, I mean OldSlapper)that makes me feel that these newcomers are seen as having a negative impact.
> 2) Yes, I do think they're likely to be average working people. If you had a huge amount of money would you choose to live above a piss-streaked down-at-heel supermarket?
> 3) To be honest, I may well never save anough for a deposit - depressingly I may have to hope a relative pops their clogs and I inherit just enough to get on the ladder, the same as many others. But this issue is not confined to Brixton, nor best dealt with divisive and childish ideas about yuppies from the same old moaning-faces. There needs to be a more productive discussion.
> 4) Yes I can, but I'm not the one tarring everyone with predetermined notions of yuppiedom and what motivates homebuyers.
> 5) Yes


1. A fair point given the language, but is there _not_ reason to think that demographically they _do_ change the area, in a way that is to some people's disadvantage?
2. In fact young professionals often do _precisely_ that. That's how areas get gentrified. And other people are, I think, _less_ likely to buy one-bedroom flats (many people rent, for instance, before getting aplace with a partner). My guess is, you're wrong on this.
3. There does indeed need to be a more productive discussion, but that can't be had on the basis of either (a) persistent caricature and distortion of the arguments against gentrification or (b) the position (not necessarily yours) that "this is happening, so live with it". Which would, by definition, render any discussion purposeless in the first place.
4. I think you _are_ caricaturing here.
5. Sometimes I feel like Owen.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

noodles said:
			
		

> Familiar?
> 
> _I resent them, I resent the policy, I resent the market and I resent all the fucking whining that takes place on their behalf when people like me are less than fucking chuffed about it._


Fanmiliar? 






			
				 Giles said:
			
		

> why does this always seem to translate into resentment of *anyone* who does buy their own place?


 I have highlighted the important bit for your attention.


----------



## noodles (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Fanmiliar?  I have highlighted the important bit for your attention.



You said that in a response to the editor's post:




			
				editor said:
			
		

> So you resent the people buying flats because the housing market is 'mad'?
> 
> Don't you think your anger might be a little misplaced?



Er, so is it just people buying flats above Iceland that you have a problem with? Or in Brixton generally? Or "people buying flats"? At what price boundary does a buyer cease to become an "infesting yuppie"?


----------



## OldSlapper (Feb 1, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> pile of repetitive tripe... foaming hard-left hate of anyone daring to get off their bottom... usual suspects... frenzied allegations of bullying... sad and circular... fuck off... manifest hate...






			
				hendo said:
			
		

> worthwhile points about the evils of the housing market are coupled with offensive labelling and name calling. It degrades the argument.


Indeed.

Hendo. You're gobbling like a turkey. Calm down mate. It's only a bulletin board!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

I don't know. Ask somebody who has used the phrase. I have not.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Relevance to point quoted?


It would be nice - for a change - if you could just answer the question.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

I don't do interrogations. I do discussions. In these, points ideally flow from previous points made.


----------



## robotsimon (Feb 1, 2005)

I think my situation may be closer to the truth of young, professional people buying one-bedroom flats in and around Brixton than the image of hugely-salaried trust-funders. I am not saying those people do not exist but would quetion just how many of them there are.

My other-half and I moved to London (Bethnal Green) about 7 1/2 years ago. We rented a private flat in BG for 2 years with a friend then moved to Balham (because a lot of our friends had moved to that area, no other reason). We have been renting a private one-bedroomed flat in Balham for the last 5 1/2 years.

During this past 7 1/2 years we have spent over £63,000 in rent. We both felt that this was unsustainable and due to saving on our part and the generosity of my g/f's parents, we got a deposit together of £16,000. We have almost bought a one-bedroom, ex-council flat in Camberwell for £153,000. Our mortage repayments will be slightly more than our current rent.

I work for a medical charity and my g/f is a journalist. Our joint income is £47,000 and we are both 30 years old. When we moved to London, our joint income was about £32,000.

I appreciate that we are in an infinitely better housing position than many people but we are certainly not yuppies. We are moving to Camberwell because a) we can afford it and b) because we like it not because it is edgy, cool, 'vibrant' or anything else.

I fully undertand people's resentment at sky-high property prices. It is only within the last year, and with the help of family, that we could contemplate buying anywhere. But once we were able, it seemed like the sensible thing to do.


----------



## noodles (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I don't know. Ask somebody who has used the phrase. I have not.



Ok I'll try again, to frame it to cater for your pedantic nature:

When do YOU cease resenting buyers of flats?

Is it just people buying flats above Iceland that you have a problem with? Or in Brixton generally?


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 1, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> You should get a better job, or find another way of earning more money, rather than just whinging about how you can't afford stuff.


Oh, dear. It's the "let them eat cake" argument.   

Don't like being poor? Well, be rich then instead.  

I mean - why hasn't everyone thought of just getting a high-paid job out of thin air as an answer to their poverty?


----------



## OldSlapper (Feb 1, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Oh, dear. It's the "let them eat cake" argument.
> 
> Don't like being poor? Well, be rich then instead.
> 
> I mean - why hasn't everyone thought of just getting a high-paid job out of thin air as an answer to their poverty?


Isn't Giles a property developer?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I know of only one person that has bought a property in Brixton in the last year. She is very posh public school, trust-fund person. Didn't work for 12 months and then bought a house. She fits the bill of yuppie perfectly. And I guarantee she'll be out in two years after collecting nice tidy profit...
> 
> what the fuck is wrong with people disliking and castigating this obvious and undeniable phenomenon..


But we're not talking about her, are we? Or are you suggesting that everyone who moves in to these "pokey" flats above Iceland are all from "posh public schools" with "trust funds"?

But if there were armies of these people marching into Brixton, then I would share your outrage - but I'm not convinced that is the case. The properties haven't even been converted yet! If they turn out to be as 'pokey' as some have suggested, I doubt if people like your trust fund yuppie pal will be moving in.



			
				chegrimandi said:
			
		

> and ed. I can remember specifically a thread you started not so long ago about the increasing blandness of the brixton high street...I think it was the Vodafone shop that took the brunt of your ire that day. If you don't think these two things are interconnected you're a bit mad!


Hold on. Since when was a Vodaphone shop a sign of yuppification?

Do you think it's only yuppies who buy mobiles or something?!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> I fully undertand people's resentment at sky-high property prices. It is only within the last year, and with the help of family, that we could contemplate buying anywhere. But once we were able, it seemed like the sensible thing to do.


I quite agree - give or take "sensible", which I hope won't prove a misplaced adjective if mortgage rates or prices change dramatically. (When _I_ bought, years ago, it was absolutely at the bottom of the market.) I think the "help from family" bit is enormously significant. Just about _everybody_ I know who has bought recently has had enormous assistance from their family, either in terms of despoit or part-buying or whatever. Without it, I can't imagine how anybody can buy anything.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I don't do interrogations. I do discussions. In these, points ideally flow from previous points made.


Well, let me ask you again.

In the (criminal) complete absence of any prospect of the building being used for social/council housing, would you rather the buildings remained empty and quietly rotted away?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> Indeed.
> 
> Hendo. You're gobbling like a turkey. Calm down mate. It's only a bulletin board!


Ah! More abuse! And this time with a large, FAQ-busting image.

Are you the poster previously known as Anna Key?

YES/NO?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Well, let me ask you again.
> 
> In the (criminal) complete absence of any prospect of the building being used for social/council housing, would you rather the buildings remained empty and quietly rotted away?


And let me once again, if I may, fail to see relevance.



			
				noodles said:
			
		

> Ok I'll try again, to frame it to cater for your pedantic nature


I tend to think of it as "not wishing to have my position completely misstated for ill-motivated reasons".


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 1, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> I don't see how making some little flats in a long-unused empty space over a shop and then selling them to whoever, actually causes anyone to be "driven out".



When those little flats go for absurd amounts of money - unreachable sums to the average worker who has trouble even finding somehwere affordable to *RENT*... there's your answer.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> And let me once again, if I may, fail to see relevance.
> I tend to think of it as "not wishing to have my position completely misstated for ill-motivated reasons".


Just answer the question, pretty please. It's entirely relevant to the debate.

So for the third time of asking: In the (criminal) complete absence of any prospect of the building being used for social/council housing, would you rather the buildings remained empty and quietly rotted away?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Just answer the question, pretty please. It's entirely relevant to the debate.


I consider it otherwise.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> In the (criminal) complete absence of any prospect of the building being used for social/council housing, would you rather the buildings remained empty and quietly rotted away?


I personally would rather they were rented out at affordable rents. By that, I mean affordable to people on under £20k per year salaries - people who seem to be largely forgotten about and considered irrelevant by society.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2005)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> We both felt that this was unsustainable and due to saving on our part and the generosity of my g/f's parents, we got a deposit together of £16,000. We have almost bought a one-bedroom, ex-council flat in Camberwell for £153,000. Our mortage repayments will be slightly more than our current rent.
> 
> I work for a medical charity and my g/f is a journalist. Our joint income is £47,000 and we are both 30 years old. When we moved to London, our joint income was about £32,000.



jesus you sound exactly the same as my mates that have just bought an identically priced property in Camberwell together!! seriously down to the professions, almost and stuff   scary....  


I'm fairly confident your first name isn't *** though...


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I consider it otherwise.


We're talking about the development to buildings in Electric Avenue.

You don't like what's happening to it so how can a question asking for your preferred usage be off topic?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I personally would rather they were rented out at affordable rents. By that, I mean affordable to people on under £20k per year salaries - people who seem to be largely forgotten about and considered irrelevant by society.


Yes. Me too. And I've said it many times. But seeing as that was not an option, would you have preferred that the buildings remain empty (and possibly rotted away) or be turned into the current (ahem) "yuppie" flats?


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Yes. Me too. And I've said it many times. But seeing as that was not an option, would you have preferred that the buildings remain empty (and possubly rotted away) or be turned into the current (ahem) "yuppie" flats?


Either "permitted option" is of no benefeit to ordinary low-paid people, so I find it hard to give a toss.


----------



## Giles (Feb 1, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> Isn't Giles a property developer?



Not really. I am part-owner of a company that buys and renovates run-down flats, houses and shops and then rents them out. We don't do "development" in the sense of major projects like the one being discussed here, or "doing up" places to sell on.

Recently we've mainly been providing student housing down in Canterbury.

Giles..


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

As a general observation, let us suppose, as I do, that we would like a sizeable increase in social housing - something which, by the way, would have a healthy effect on the market for privastre ownership of houses too. In order for this to happen, we need public support for it, and we need public belief that such a thing is possible. We can achieve neither of these things if people adhere to any of the following positions, very different _in themselves_:

1. "This is the way things are, we should just accept it."
2. "I've worked hard for my home, and I think anything that questions what's happening in the housing market is a threat to that."
3. "If you don't like it fuck you, get a better job."

We have to say that it is not just possible but desirable. In order to do this we have to point out the deleterious consequences of the current policy. These will inevitably involve gentrification, buying to let, the view of a home as an investment and so on. We will also have to say that house prices are unsustainable and that they need to fall substantially. As this will involve moving a lot of people - indeed, _precisely those who have found it hardest to get hold of their house_ - into negative equity, and knocking an awful lot off the paper value of _all_ homeowners' property - this is going to be a very difficult argument to win.


----------



## Bob (Feb 1, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Either "permitted option" is of no benefeit to ordinary low-paid people, so I find it hard to give a toss.



Actually it does help ordinary low paid people indirectly - all other things being equal more housing means lower prices & rent.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Actually it does help ordinary low paid people indirectly - all other things being equal more housing means lower prices & rent.


Up to a point Bob. In a given area, an increase in private housing, that moves said area upmarket, is likely to mean _higher_ prices and rent. Of course there may also be benefits to that process, but the higher prices are going to happen, and hurt people.


----------



## Bob (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Up to a point Bob. In a given area, an increase in private housing, that moves said area upmarket, is likely to mean _higher_ prices and rent. Of course there may also be benefits to that process, but the higher prices are going to happen, and hurt people.



Well it might increase prices if it made the area look a bit nicer but a) I'm not sure flats above Iceland will really have much of an effect and b) that would be an argument against doing anything that makes the area nicer (e.g. good rubbish removal).... and it is definitely true that there will be overall more housing in the UK if you build more houses - so lower property prices & rents....


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Up to a point Bob. In a given area, an increase in private housing, that moves said area upmarket, is likely to mean _higher_ prices and rent. Of course there may also be benefits to that process, but the higher prices are going to happen, and hurt people.



Doesn't seem very likely in this case does it though. A couple of space-limited flats above Iceland, made heady by the smells of urine and E-number packed snackfoods below, aren't really going to elevate the area into Nouveau-Knightsbridge are they?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Well it might increase prices if it made the area look a bit nicer but a) I'm not sure flats above Iceland will really have much of an effect and b) that would be an argument against doing anything that makes the area nicer (e.g. good rubbish removal).... and it is definitely true that there will be overall more housing in the UK if you build more houses - so lower property prices & rents....


indeed, but:

1. It's part of a trend - nobody's thinking of this development as just a one-off.

2. Of course anything that makes an area look nicer can have a similar effect, and hence my observation about possible benefits. Note however that this wouldn't necessarily apply to council tenants!

3. There's been lots of these developments across London and it's not like this has led to any downward pressure on house prices, has it? Of course your general principle is perfectly sound, but it's not working that way.




			
				tarannau said:
			
		

> Doesn't seem very likely in this case does it though. A couple of space-limited flats above Iceland, made heady by the smells of urine and E-number packed snackfoods below, aren't really going to elevate the area into Nouveau-Knightsbridge are they?


See 1. above.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Doesn't seem very likely in this case does it though. A couple of space-limited flats above Iceland, made heady by the smells of urine and E-number packed snackfoods below, aren't really going to elevate the area into Nouveau-Knightsbridge are they?


I don't think trendy, style bar-clubbing, posh public school, trust-fund yuppies are going to be too chuffed being woken up by the immense racket coming from the market when it sets up every morning  and I fancy they won't enjoy experiencing the unique 'ambience' of the street late at night either!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I don't think trendy, style bar-clubbing, posh public school, trust-fund yuppies are going to be too chuffed being woken up by the immense racket coming from the market when it sets up every morning either!


One imagines though that one long-term effect of a long-term trend may be that said market changes substantially in nature. And/or is _made_ to.


----------



## christonabike (Feb 1, 2005)

That would not suprise me


----------



## Giles (Feb 1, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> When those little flats go for absurd amounts of money - unreachable sums to the average worker who has trouble even finding somehwere affordable to *RENT*... there's your answer.



What answer? 

Create 12 new flats out of some long-disused upper floors over shop, sell them, 12 people move in (whether infesting yuppies or otherwise).

No-one moves out. No-one is forced out by this development, are they?

Giles..


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> One imagines though that one long-term effect of a long-term trend may be that said market changes substantially in nature. And/or is _made_ to.


The Brixton markets are already under threat, but I don't see how this one development will force the market to change its working practices.

Of course, back in the Edwardian era, Electric Avenue was a very fashionable upmarket shopping destination for the well heeled, so the area's always been in a state of flux.


----------



## christonabike (Feb 1, 2005)

Well, one development stopped the working practices of the duke of e


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Create 12 new flats out of some long-disused upper floors over shop, sell them, 12 people move in (whether infesting yuppies or otherwise).
> 
> No-one moves out. No-one is forced out by this development, are they?






			
				editor said:
			
		

> The Brixton markets are already under threat, but I don't see how this one development will force the market to change its working practices.


*Trend*.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 1, 2005)

This thread although has made me chuckle (see _wrath of a librarian_) I wish you lot would realise how odd this bitching would be seen by people that are really skint.

I've just had a quick try on an mortgage predictor and my and the Mrs combined wage would give us a whopping 93000 mortgage...now pray tell can you buy with that in London?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> *Trend*.


How many other buildings are currently being turned into "yuppie-infested" flats on Electric Avenue then?

Or is this one developement some sort of trend setter?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

DoUsAFavour said:
			
		

> I've just had a quick try on an mortgage predictor and my and the Mrs combined wage would give us a whopping 93000 mortgage.


Where is that?

I reckon mine would go into the minus!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> How many other buildings are currently being turned into "yuppie-infested" flats on Electric Avenue then?
> 
> Or is this one developement some sort of trend setter?


Is it really the only development of its kind in the area in recent times? Or is the similar one round the back of my house a mirage?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> The Brixton markets are already under threat, but I don't see how this one development will force the market to change its working practices.


Which is, of course, why Justin made the point about *long-term changes*, or did you miss that?


> Of course, back in the Edwardian era, Electric Avenue was a very fashionable upmarket shopping destination for the well heeled, so the area's always been in a state of flux.


I made this point on the "Larry Merrett leaves Brixton for Chelsea!" thread. London has been dubiously blessed with a cyclical flow of the "middle and upper classes"/wealthy into and out of the "inner city", so nobody denies that there is "flux".
The problem is that the poor/underclass/working class/whatever you wish to call them are *ALWAYS* the ones that get "pushed out" by this cycle.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Is it really the only development of its kind in the area in recent times? Or is the similar one round the back of my house a mirage?


Do you live on Electric Avenue then?


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 1, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Actually it does help ordinary low paid people indirectly - all other things being equal more housing means lower prices & rent.


Does it? If that "more housing" is just simply more of the overpriced same (which gets sold or rented out at even _higher _ prices), what "trickle down" effect is there?

_EDIT: Justin has made similar points better than I have above._


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> The problem is that the poor/underclass/working class/whatever you wish to call them are *ALWAYS* the ones that get "pushed out" by this cycle.


Yes. And that sucks. But that doesn't make any one who manages to raise the cash to buy a property an "infesting yuppies", does it?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Does it? If that "more housing" is just simply more of the overpriced same (which gets sold or rented out at even _higher _ prices), what "trickle down" effect is there?


What he means is that if you increase the total amount of housing then, as supply has increased, price should fall _even if that additional housing is expensive_. This is perfectly sound _in theory_.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Where is that?



https://www.woolwichmortgages.co.uk/gqs/QuickQuoteSteps.aspx


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

DoUsAFavour said:
			
		

> https://www.woolwichmortgages.co.uk/gqs/QuickQuoteSteps.aspx


It doesn't load! Probably saw me coming.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Depends on the design doesn't it? As far as I can see the stuff built in the 50s - 70s was rubbish because the government was trying to reach politically set targets for building hundreds of thousands of flats a year - so did everything on the cheap. But the 1930s LCC red brick stuff is very well built indeed - and Lambeth has huge amounts of this (though not much in Brixton). And the 1980s and 1990s stuff from what I know is not bad either.



I think you'll find that the point about design was implicit in my post.   

BTW, a lot of the "red brick" was inherited from the GLC, was it not?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Where is that?
> 
> I reckon mine would go into the minus!


Oh yes, it's so terrible where you live.  I just don't know how you stand it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Yes. And that sucks. But that doesn't make any one who manages to raise the cash to buy a property an "infesting yuppies", does it?



I didn't claim that it does, however, in previous posts I've made I have said that I can understand resentment against some people buying such properties.

It seems to me that some of the people on this thread are having difficulty with understanding that it's human nature to resent forces that deprive you of the ability to, for example, live securely in an area where you have settled. Those forces include the development of private rather than social housing.


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 1, 2005)

christonabike said:
			
		

> Well, one development stopped the working practices of the duke of e



No it didn't.

The apallingly poor current landlady did that


----------



## christonabike (Feb 1, 2005)

Yes

She was shit  

I don't go there now

(Could of swore it was summat to do people in the new development complaining of the noise from the garden that meant you could no longer sit out there until the small hours when they opened late)


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I didn't claim that it does, however, in previous posts I've made I have said that I can understand resentment against some people buying such properties.
> 
> It seems to me that some of the people on this thread are having difficulty with understanding that it's human nature to resent forces that deprive you of the ability to, for example, live securely in an area where you have settled. Those forces include the development of private rather than social housing.


In much the same way, I imagine that some homeless people may sometimes resent me for having a place to lay my head. Is this entirely reasonable? No. But what the fuck else do people want from them? Like the man says, they're _human_.

[Edit: and, frankly, I think I would rather have them, resenting me, than any of the people who have just got used to it and don't even notice that there are tons of homeless people about now. Let alone the people wh olay into them for being workshy or whatever.

Actually, I think I might prefer them to homeless people who _don't_ resent me.

_The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No: a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious, is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest. As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinarily stupid. I can quite understand a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under those conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance.
_]


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> indeed, but:
> 
> 1. It's part of a trend - nobody's thinking of this development as just a one-off.
> 
> ...




1) That's maybe true, but perhaps it would be better to choose a site and development really worthy of condemnation as luxury yuppie boltholes rather than this thing above Iceland .

2) Will these flats really make the area look nicer, pushing property values up. I didn't realise that they weren't flats previously, and I doubt that anyone will realise that they are private accommodation once they're completed. And besides, if they were purchased and used for social housing - which We'd all prefer - wouldn't they also look nice and liable to push up house prices as well. Or am I missing something?

3) It's difficult to know either way. You've got to ask how high house prices would be if developments like this weren't made available - I suspect prices would be even higher. 

I do agree that there's a huge issue re. housing though Justin, with the Govt very unlikely to have the courage to intervene and put effective downward pressure on house prices. Too much of a vote loser, no matter how ridiculous the long-term view. I still don't think that sloppy, second-rate 80's stereotypes of yuppies (pretty much any 'young professional'  who works and can scrape together a deposit it seems, at least on this thread) are really helping the discussion though...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> What he means is that if you increase the total amount of housing then, as supply has increased, price should fall _even if that additional housing is expensive_. This is perfectly sound _in theory_.



Doesn't (like an awful lot of economic models) work too well in practice though, does it?   

In inner London we very much have a "pressure cooker" effect with housing prices. This is caused by such factors as (for example) the upward pressure created by social housing development in Lambeth not keeping pace with "Right to Buy" sales, where a net deficit in social housing stock *even if matched* by an increase in available private rental stock, will generally cause rental prices to rise. Part of this is of course because private rental housing is (mistakenly in my view) perceived as inherently better than social rental housing.

In sum, I think Bob's "trickledown theory of housing" has more holes than a Macari-era West Ham defence.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> It's difficult to know either way. You've got to ask how high house prices would be if developments like this weren't made available - I suspect prices would be even higher.


I think lower, because it should be possible - indeed it happens even now - to compel developers to build lower-cost housing rather than catering so enthusiastically for the young professional market.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> In sum, I think Bob's "trickledown theory of housing" has more holes than a Macari-era West Ham defence.


Wasn't Martin and Gale then, was it? They were good.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> 1) That's maybe true, but perhaps it would be better to choose a site and development really worthy of condemnation as luxury yuppie boltholes rather than this thing above Iceland .



why, why bother distinguishing when they are part of the same phenomenom?

as I look out of my work window (in Vauxhall) now I can see the biggest fucking development of 'penthouse' flats I've ever seen. It dwarfs the MI5 building easily. Its foul and bland. I can think of shit loads more, and I mean shit loads more where I live in Hackney. All part of the same thing. Why do we need to pussyfoot round what we call it and rage against the negative impacts it has.


----------



## OldSlapper (Feb 1, 2005)

From the Officer’s report to tonight’s meeting:



> Planning History
> 
> 3.8 June 2004  - Planning application withdrawn for  the  erection  of  a five-storey extension,  from  first  floor level fronting Brixton Road, together with the conversion of the existing upper floors and associated alterations to create a total  of  59  studio  flats  at 441-447 Brixton Road and 2-4 Electric Avenue (04/00366/FUL).



So this application is a scaled down version of a proposal from June last year. And it’s *entirely coincidental* that only twelve flats are now proposed – escaping the 15 unit social housing rule – instead of the 59 proposed in June 2004 which would have led to a 25% social housing provision, i.e. 14-15 flats for poor and/or sick people from the housing register.

Modest suggestion for any Lambeth councillor with a vote on planning committee reading this thread and considering voting for this development at tonight’s meeting (officers are saying "approve"): 

1.	Discover how much of Electric Avenue is owned by this developer and related companies.

2.	Satisfy yourself that the developer is not involved in a “14 unit scam” phased development designed to escape the 25% social housing rule.

3.	If this is a phased development extract a section 106 agreement (the social housing legal trigger) from the developer before agreeing to this development.

4.	Adjourn this application at tonight’s meeting until you’re satisfied on points 1-3 above. Refer the proposal back to officers for inquiries to be carried out and a report made to the next planning committee meeting.

The councillors who will vote on this application at tonight's meeting - Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, 7pm - are:



> *MEMBERS: Councillor BAKER (Vice Chair), CLYNE, FOLLIS, GRIGG, LING, PALMER (Chair) and SMITH
> 
> SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillor FEWTRELL, GENTRY, HUSSAIN, David MALLEY and Clive PARRY*



The meeting tonight is a public meeting. Anyone can stroll along.

Incidentally, I was talking to someone last night who lives further along Electric Avenue towards Atlantic Road. He’s not been consulted about this development so local democracy has, at least in part, broken down. 

This is a further reason for councillors to adjourn this item at tonight’s meeting and to instruct officers (a) to answer some basic questions (see above) and (b) to consult fully with the local community.

Why? Because Lambeth councillors cannot represent the interests of the community they serve if that community has partially been excluded from the consultation process.

Councillors’ email addresses are at www.lambeth.gov.uk. Getting them off their bottoms at tonight’s meeting could secure 14-15 flats for people from the housing register so this isn't an idle debate.

A one bedroom housing association flat in Electric Avenue would rent (on a secure tenancy) for about £60 p.w. That's what councillors should be voting for tonight.

I wonder if they will?


----------



## noodles (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> And let me once again, if I may, fail to see relevance.
> I tend to think of it as "not wishing to have my position completely misstated for ill-motivated reasons".



Ok I'll try again, I feel a bit like Jeremy Paxman:

When do YOU cease resenting buyers of flats?

Is it just people buying flats above Iceland that you have a problem with? Or in Brixton generally?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> So this application is a scaled down version of a proposal from June last year. And it’s *entirely coincidental* that only twelve flats are now proposed – escaping the 15 unit social housing rule – instead of the 59 proposed in June 2004 which would have led to a 25% social housing provision, i.e. 14-15 flats for poor and/or sick people from the housing register.


You're surely not suggesting that some of this development was originally intended for social housing, are you? I thought that was out of the question.






			
				noodles said:
			
		

> Ok I'll try again, I feel a bit like Jeremy Paxman:
> 
> When do YOU cease resenting buyers of flats?


At a date somewhat later than the date you cease misrepresenting my views as you have done so consistently above.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 1, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> All part of the same thing. Why do we need to pussyfoot round what we call it and rage against the negative impacts it has.


 Very good question. It makes you wonder what this board is these days, doesn't it? 

Is it being funded by Conservative Central Office or something?


----------



## isvicthere? (Feb 1, 2005)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> what is the it about their posting style that makes you think that they are wealthy young men?



I think it's some sort of dig. I'm neither young nor wealthy.  

I asked Old Slapper what it was supposed to mean, but s/he has yet to respond.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I think lower, because it should be possible - indeed it happens even now - to compel developers to build lower-cost housing rather than catering so enthusiastically for the young professional market.



I somehow doubt, without looking at the plans admittedly, that these will be small flats rather than palatial abodes, with costs kept down and aiming to be affordable. Not really affordable to you or me admittedly, but reasonable in relation to a working couple on above-medium wages and for a Zone 2 location. 

Turning it around, if you were a property developer wouldn't you be aiming the make the finished property appeal to 'young professionals?' After all, they're not going to give the places away (even to work-averse protestors) and Brixton has undoubted primary appeal for the young, especially in that highly central and noisy location, no matter how old us 'locals' are getting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Wasn't Martin and Gale then, was it? They were good.



They were good when they actually played, but Gale had some kind of fixation with getting sent off, and Alvin was forever getting injured.


----------



## noodles (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> At a date somewhat later than the date you cease misrepresenting my views as you have done so consistently above.



Perhaps you'd care to point out where I have done so?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 1, 2005)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> I think it's some sort of dig. I'm neither young nor wealthy.
> 
> I asked Old Slapper what it was supposed to mean, but s/he has yet to respond.


 Try inserting irony chip.

I would have thought that was obvious, though with all the screaming, frothing and toy throwing from the Defenders of Yupdom, it is all a bit chaotic, I admit.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> why, why bother distinguishing when they are part of the same phenomenom?
> 
> as I look out of my work window (in Vauxhall) now I can see the biggest fucking development of 'penthouse' flats I've ever seen. It dwarfs the MI5 building easily. Its foul and bland. I can think of shit loads more, and I mean shit loads more where I live in Hackney. All part of the same thing. Why do we need to pussyfoot round what we call it and rage against the negative impacts it has.



Well, because they're not part of the same phenomenon really are they?

One's a purpose built luxury new development of penthouses, almost certainly aimed at commanding a high price. The other's a conversion of some largely undesirable, vacant space above a shabby supermarket, seemingly aimed at near-affordable rates. Chances are that the people that live in them are just going to be average people that may even - shock horror - contribute to and become involved in the local community. It's hardly likely that they'll be living in  something called 'The Iceland' Penthouse, swanning off to Park Lane in the roller to pick up some black truffles...


----------



## Bob (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> It's hardly likely that they'll be living in  something called 'The Iceland' Penthouse, swanning off to Park Lane in the roller to pick up some black truffles...



I'm pretty sure the Deli on Atlantic road has black truffles. They certainly have everything else.


----------



## hayduke (Feb 1, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> ...anyone daring to get off their bottom, luck out in the jobs market,  work themselves to the bone, scrape together a deposit and actually, sin of sins, _buy a home_.



Guilty as charged your honour. I must be an infecting yup. 

I recently bought a flat in Brixton, spend my money in local businesses, love the areas vitality and am fascinated by its history and diversity.

The only thing I don't like is the constant inference by U75 posters that I am bringing all this down in flames. 

Of course Lambeth and much of London needs more affordable housing, but in the meantime, would Brixton be better left to rot? 

I don't think so.


----------



## isvicthere? (Feb 1, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Try inserting irony chip.
> 
> I would have thought that was obvious, though with all the screaming, frothing and toy throwing from the Defenders of Yupdom, it is all a bit chaotic, I admit.



Irony chip? I've usually got a whole plateful, smothered in irony ketchup. Indeed, in my original query to Old Slapper I DID acknowledge it appeared to be irony, but just asked him/her to explain cos it wasn't obvious to me.  

<scuttles off in search of irony salt and vinegar>


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

hayduke said:
			
		

> Guilty as charged your honour. I must be an infecting yup.
> 
> I recently bought a flat in Brixton, spend my money in local businesses, love the areas vitality and am fascinated by its history and diversity.
> 
> ...


You don't think you might be "guilty as charged" of not taking the blindest bit of notice of what people are actually saying? What _is_ it with this thread?




			
				tarannau said:
			
		

> Turning it around, if you were a property developer wouldn't you be aiming the make the finished property appeal to 'young professionals?' After all, they're not going to give the places away (even to work-averse protestors) and Brixton has undoubted primary appeal for the young, especially in that highly central and noisy location, no matter how old us 'locals' are getting.


Indeed. They will seek to maximise their profits. Hence the requirement for local and national government intervention if the goal of maximising profit fails - as indeed it does fail - to produce a rational and responsive housing market.


----------



## Giles (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> As a general observation, let us suppose, as I do, that we would like a sizeable increase in social housing - something which, by the way, would have a healthy effect on the market for privastre ownership of houses too. In order for this to happen, we need public support for it, and we need public belief that such a thing is possible. We can achieve neither of these things if people adhere to any of the following positions, very different _in themselves_:
> 
> 1. "This is the way things are, we should just accept it."
> 2. "I've worked hard for my home, and I think anything that questions what's happening in the housing market is a threat to that."
> ...



It's certainly a difficult situation at the moment. But: prices CAN'T keep rising much further - simply because fewer and fewer people can afford to get their first place and therefore keep the increases going. There aren't enough "infesting yuppies" to buy all the small flats in London.

I don't think that any government is going to do anything to INDUCE a major price crash. At least, not if they want to win the next election. As you say, it will hurt too many people. And probably cause a recession in turn, losing more people their jobs and homes.

I think that prices will just stop going up, maybe fall a little, quite slowly.

Giles..


----------



## Giles (Feb 1, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> why, why bother distinguishing when they are part of the same phenomenom?
> 
> as I look out of my work window (in Vauxhall) now I can see the biggest fucking development of 'penthouse' flats I've ever seen. It dwarfs the MI5 building easily. Its foul and bland. I can think of shit loads more, and I mean shit loads more where I live in Hackney. All part of the same thing. Why do we need to pussyfoot round what we call it and rage against the negative impacts it has.



I agree that more "social" housing is needed, but surely that does not mean that  new private developments of flats are "negative" - as someone else pointed out, the more houses and flats that are built, the better for everyone in the end? And as for how they look, surely the acid test of this is whether or not people like them enough to spend all that money on them?

Giles..


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh yes, it's so terrible where you live.  I just don't know how you stand it.


What the fuck are you on about? 

I was talking about my_ income _not my accomodation, not that it's any of your business.


----------



## hayduke (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> You don't think you might be "guilty as charged" of not taking the blindest bit of notice of what people are actually saying.



Not really. The sentiment of many posting is that turning premises empty for decades into housing is bad for Brixton (because it "infests a key bit of the avenue with yups"). 

No genuine yuppie is ever going to want to live in Brixton, above Iceland or not.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> From the Officer’s report to tonight’s meeting:


Fourth and last time before you're banned:

Did you previously post under the name Anna Key?
YES/NO?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 1, 2005)

We have two developments going up here in Redbridge, one block of luxury flats which will probably be bought by proessional people, as they are very expensive, another development is a mixture of affordable lower cost part ownership flats and houses. This sort of thing is ok, they are building for people who have different incomes. The "Yuppies," remember,who have the higher incomes, will almost definitely be shopping in the same places as me and my friends, like Ilford and Romford, the local High St. Providing income and employment for people who work in the shops.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

hayduke said:
			
		

> Not really. The sentiment of many posting is that turning premises empty for decades into housing is bad for Brixton (because it "infests a key bit of the avenue with yups").


No it isn't. It's in favour of social housing.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Providing income and employment for people who work in the shops.


This isn't necessarily so. In fact, if mobile, they may be more likely to shop _elsewhere_ than other locally-based people may be.


----------



## hayduke (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> No it isn't. It's in favour of social housing.



Which I am in favour of too. But if it is not going to be social housing is it better left to rot?


----------



## Bob (Feb 1, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> We have two developments going up here in Redbridge, one block of luxury flats which will probably be bought by proessional people, as they are very expensive, another development is a mixture of affordable lower cost part ownership flats and houses. This sort of thing is ok, they are building for people who have different incomes. The "Yuppies," remember,who have the higher incomes, will almost definitely be shopping in the same places as me and my friends, like Ilford and Romford, the local High St. Providing income and employment for people who work in the shops.



Hats off to Stobart for her second attempt on the thread to say something sensible without getting flamed. 

Otherwise the tone (and number of posts) of this thread feels like the good old days of mutual pie throwing abuse.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

hayduke said:
			
		

> Which I am in favour of too. But if it is not going to be social housing is it better left to rot?


What this question means is: "if I discount all the answers which I disagree with, will you give the answer that I agree with?"

If you scroll up the thread you'll find reasons to doubt your preconceptions.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> This isn't necessarily so. In fact, if mobile, they may be more likely to shop _elsewhere_ than other locally-based people may be.



But many of the professionals/Yuppie types who lived in my mum's area (Leyton) always shopped locally, I knew quite a few of them and we used to see them in the local Indian shops and corner shops etc. These developments I speak of are right near tube stations, I bet many of the people who will live in the yuppie flats will use public transport alot of the time, and will be less likely to use their cars like we do,for local shopping etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2005)

as i pointed out several pages back, the people behind this development are building/refurbishing flats in newham and lewisham - and lambeth. it seems to me that it's very unlikely that they are doing this for the benefit of local residents, and much more likely that they are doing this _across london_ for their own foul yuppie importing reasons. if they were doing it for local people, i imagine you'd see them doing flats in a broader spectrum of london boroughs, rather than in three of the most deprived; which is sadly where yuppies tend to be attracted to.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> This isn't necessarily so. In fact, if mobile, they may be more likely to shop _elsewhere_ than other locally-based people may be.


Can you run that by me again?

Why would these "infesting yuppies" be less likely to buy locally than, say, a Brixtonite working in town?

I'd imagine some of the "young professionals" would enjoy flexible working hours, work from home or - God forbid! - work locally and thus have ample time to shop locally.

Or will they be having hampers sent in from Fortnum and Mason or something?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Can you run that by me again?
> 
> Why would these "infesting yuppies" be less likely to buy locally than, say, an Brixtonite working in town??


i have no idea what this phrase means, not having used it myself.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> i have no idea what this phrase means, not having used it myself.


Really? That's rather strange seeing as you've been a keen contributor to a thread where the phrase has been bandied about throughout!

But seeing as you're having trouble with that phrase, I'll reword my question in the hope that you might prodice a rare straight answer:

Why would these new residents of Electric Avenue be less likely to buy locally than, say, a Brixtonite working in town?

I'd imagine some of the "young professionals" would enjoy flexible working hours, work from home or - God forbid! - work locally and thus have ample time to shop locally.

Or will they be having hampers sent in from Fortnum and Mason or something?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> But many of the professionals/Yuppie types who lived in my mum's area (Leyton) always shopped locally, I knew quite a few of them and we used to see them in the local Indian shops and corner shops etc. These developments I speak of are right near tube stations, I bet many of the people who will live in the yuppie flats will use public transport alot of the time, and will be less likely to use their cars like we do,for local shopping etc.


Of course that's true up to a point. And it's not like Sainsbury's Local in Brixton doesn't have a fair number of young professionals shopping there (in fact, if it didn't, I doubt whether it would be there in the first place). But I'm not sure that young professionals - perhaps more likely to be mobile, perhaps more likely to work out of the area, certainly more likely to eat out - will shop locally quite as much as less well-off people. It'd be interesting to see a study, I bet the supermarkets think about this stuff all the time.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Really? That's rather strange seeing as you've been a keen contributor to a thread on that very topic!


As have you. But as I haven't used the phrase, I am not sure why it is used in connection with a question posed to me personally. Unless it's supposed to connect me with it somehow, and I'm sure you wouldn't be so unscrupulous as to do that.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> As have you. But as I haven't used the phrase, I am not sure why it is used in connection with a question posed to me personally. Unless it's supposed to connect me with it somehow, and I'm sure you wouldn't be so unscrupulous as to do that.


I've already reworded the question and removed the phrase that you don't seem to understand.

Now will you answer my question please or is there something else you don't understand in there?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2005)

i wouldn't be surprised should pub prices increase in the albert &c to take advantage of the yuppies' disposable income.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Now will you answer my question please or is there something else you don't understand in there?


Possibly "the need for you to take the tone you do in interrogating other posters". It's really a very poor debating technique if the idea is to produce a rational discussion. It contributes very little and produces even less.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Of course that's true up to a point. And it's not like Sainsbury's Local in Brixton doesn't have a fair number of young professionals shopping there (in fact, if it didn't, I doubt whether it would be there in the first place). But I'm not sure that young professionals - perhaps more likely to be mobile, perhaps more likely to work out of the area, certainly more likely to eat out - will shop locally quite as much as less well-off people. It'd be interesting to see a study, I bet the supermarkets think about this stuff all the time.


So, do you think that the hundreds of people I see in places like Romford and Ilford are mostly all local working class Essex-types? Becasue the young woman I was behind in Monsoon a few weeks ago looked and sounded like a "Yuppie" and she spent £600.
More than I could afford too!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2005)

monsoon? some sort of indian takeaway?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> So, do you think that the hundreds of people I see in places like Romford and Ilford are mostly all local working class Essex-types? Becasue the young woman I was behind in Monsoon a few weeks ago looked and sounded like a "Yuppie" and she spent £600.
> More than I could afford too!


Indeed. In fact I was going to say above (but forgot) that even if they shop less locally, that might be counterbalanced by the likelihood that they will have more to spend. That's why I'd rather like to see evidence from studies, and what the supermarkets reckon. There's a lot of preconceptions going around about what's actually a rather mixed picture. But it shouldn't _necessarily_ be thought that young professionals bring employment to an area. That's clearly possible, there are things you can see (and have seen) with your own eyes that make it possible, but there's other factors in play.

You'd probably see my sister shopping in Ilford if you looked hard enough.


----------



## Bob (Feb 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i wouldn't be surprised should pub prices increase in the albert &c to take advantage of the yuppies' disposable income.



Because of 12 flats?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 1, 2005)

Great thread   

We've had this argument countless times before. This is just another installment in the loss of property to the wealthy: under 15 dwellings in order to get round planning laws, not affordable etc. This process is slowly changing the sort of people that are able to live in Brixton. 



> The proposed units will offer accommodation to single young professionals and couples


I actually find it very strange that the developers are specifying the sort of people that would buy the flats. This isn't usual is it? Why can't a flat be sold to, say, a local retired couple who want to sell their big house just off Brixton Hill and get a smaller place nearer the shops? The developers know exactly what they're doing - they want wealthy youngish people to move into the area, attracted by the tube and the nightlife, but (and I generalise a little here) these people are less likely to want to contribute in a meaningful way to the community. I mean, can you see a young wealthy couple wanting to get involved in the consultation for Brixton Central Square when they'll probbaly fuck off and make a £50k profit in two year's time?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Because of 12 flats?


TREND, Bob! *TREND! * *TREND!!!*


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> but (and I generalise a little here) these people are less likely to want to contribute in a meaningful way to the community. I mean, can you see a young wealthy couple wanting to get involved in the consultation for Brixton Central Square when they'll probbaly fuck off and make a £50k profit in two year's time?


This is a very important point. Who's going to care about the schools if there are fewer people with children (or if the incomers send their kids to the London Oratory)?

Or maybe they'll care _more_, because very often the middle-class are more concerned about education. But these things _need to be thought about_, if people are going to look after the future of a community.


----------



## Giles (Feb 1, 2005)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> Great thread
> 
> We've had this argument countless times before. This is just another installment in the loss of property to the wealthy: under 15 dwellings in order to get round planning laws, not affordable etc. This process is slowly changing the sort of people that are able to live in Brixton.
> 
> ...



I'm sure that the developers won't care at all WHO buys their flats. 

If your example retired couple walked into the agents handling the sale and said "we've just sold our big house on Brixton Hill etc etc, and we want to buy this flat" I can't see them saying no.

Giles..


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> I'm sure that the developers won't care at all WHO buys their flats.
> 
> If your example retired couple walked into the agents handling the sale and said "we've just sold our big house on Brixton Hill etc etc, and we want to buy this flat" I can't see them saying no.
> 
> Giles..


but that ain't going to happen, is it?

this notional retired couple would find free accommodation in one of the remaining secure psychiatrick wards if they tried to pull a stunt like that.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Possibly "the need for you to take the tone you do in interrogating other posters". It's really a very poor debating technique if the idea is to produce a rational discussion. It contributes very little and produces even less.


It only becomes an 'interrogation' when you keep on refusing to answer perfectly reasonable questions with tedious nitpicking and pedantry.

It's not even a debating technique. It's just annoying.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> I'm sure that the developers won't care at all WHO buys their flats.
> 
> If your example retired couple walked into the agents handling the sale and said "we've just sold our big house on Brixton Hill etc etc, and we want to buy this flat" I can't see them saying no.
> 
> Giles..



Come off it Giles, we both know it isn't about who *ACTUALLY* buys the flats, it's about the particular image of the development the developer(s) wish to project, which appears to be of (going by Pickman's Model's info about similar developments by the same company in other "edgy and vibrant" london boroughs) "apartments" for "happening" types who want to experience a bit of "urban culture".
Whether the flats are actually bought by such types or by incontinent camel-molesters is beside the point of that projected image.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Hats off to Stobart for her second attempt on the thread to say something sensible without getting flamed.
> 
> Otherwise the tone (and number of posts) of this thread feels like the good old days of mutual pie throwing abuse.



Where would you like me to send your wooden spoon to, oh stirring one?


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Come off it Giles, we both know it isn't about who *ACTUALLY* buys the flats, it's about the particular image of the development the developer(s) wish to project, which appears to be of (going by Pickman's Model's info about similar developments by the same company in other "edgy and vibrant" london boroughs) "apartments" for "happening" types who want to experience a bit of "urban culture".
> Whether the flats are actually bought by such types or by incontinent camel-molesters is beside the point of that projected image.



Two problems with this simplified view:

1) Developers don't tend to sell the property. There'll be a vending agent, possibly with their own ad agency account, that'll tend to set the pace.

2) Is the term 'young professsional' really equivalent to 'thrillseeking yuppies seeking edgy and vibrant locale?' or similar. I think there's a danger of reading too much into the positioning - I suspect that they're aiming these flats at 'young professionals' because:
a) The expectations of young housebuyers may be less, and these flats are priced in a theroetically affordable way.
b) The poisition is noisy, piss-streaked and right in the middle of things.They're also smallish flats on higher floors. These dubious qualities tend to make it more attractive to the young rather than families.
c) You'd have to be a professional to afford any property in London. This flat is no exception.

Do you really believe that a few Estate Agents' signs and a bit of marketing are going to really change Brixton's longstanding image. Whatever the brochure might say, the flats are still likely to attract those already drawn to Brixton in some way, not some mystical ruthless yuppie population with scorn for the surroundings and £-signs in their eyes...


----------



## Bob (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Where would you like me to send your wooden spoon to, oh stirring one?




A bit confused as to why I'm stirring...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> A bit confused as to why I'm stirring...


so are we.


----------



## Bob (Feb 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so are we.



Laugh, I almost shat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Two problems with this simplified view:
> 
> 1) Developers don't tend to sell the property. There'll be a vending agent, possibly with their own ad agency account, that'll tend to set the pace.


Terribly sorry, I should have said "the developers' agents rather than "the developer". How remiss of me.


> 2) Is the term 'young professsional' really equivalent to 'thrillseeking yuppies seeking edgy and vibrant locale?' or similar. I think there's a danger of reading too much into the positioning - I suspect that they're aiming these flats at 'young professionals' because:
> a) The expectations of young housebuyers may be less, and these flats are priced in a theroetically affordable way.
> b) The poisition is noisy, piss-streaked and right in the middle of things.They're also smallish flats on higher floors. These dubious qualities tend to make it more attractive to the young rather than families.
> c) You'd have to be a professional to afford any property in London. This flat is no exception.
> ...


It isn't about what *I* believe, as I made clear previously, it's about the *perception*, the image that is given to potential buyers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> A bit confused as to why I'm stirring...



Read your post in context to the rest of the thread. If you still can't see why you were stirring after that, may I humbly suggest a remedial course in English comprehension?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Read your post in context to the rest of the thread. If you still can't see why you were stirring after that, may I humbly suggest a remedial course in English comprehension?


if 'bob' doesn't already understand his own motivations, there's little hope for him.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Terribly sorry, I should have said "the developers' agents rather than "the developer". How remiss of me.
> 
> It isn't about what *I* believe, as I made clear previously, it's about the *perception*, the image that is given to potential buyers.



And as I made clear, do you really believe that potential buyers will lap-up what an estate agent's literature tells them, regardless of what they have previously heard/known about Brixton? Seems a little unlikely to say the least.

It's one thing trying to give a perception through advertising and marketing, it's another trying to make it believable...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

It is also true that estate agents will use the term "professional" to descirbe almost anybody in work (in contrast to their habitual exactiude of both concept and phrase). I got described as a professional when I bought my old house in Oxford, despite the fact that I was pushing paper for fuck all as a stock control assistant.

Nevertheless, given ye state of Ye Not-So-Olde Housinge Market I suspect your actual young well-salaried professionals may be the market here.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2005)

And besides, what difference does perception really make in this case?

The developer/agent believes that these flats are perhaps best suited for young professionals. On the balance of things, with the flats' noisy central position and the price, I find it fairly hard to quibble with that belief. They do seem more suited to the young if you ask me.

The whole problem seems to centre around whether you find the term 'young professional' as somehow indicative of something unpleasant or undesirable. I don't, as my previous post suggests.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> The whole problem seems to centre around whether you find the term 'young professional' as somehow indicative of something unpleasant or undesirable. I don't, as my previous post suggests.


what about young _upwardly-mobile_ professional?

didn't you ever wonder why there were 2 'p's in yuppie? or where the 'u' came from?


----------



## newbie (Feb 1, 2005)

So, a few questions:

Who on the 'social housing' waiting lists would find these flats suitable?  Answer, almost no-one with any sort of choice.  Because they'll be stuck there for life, and almost no-one would want to live above Iceland forever.  They seem ideal for singles or Dinkies to me. 

Why do the incomers who are perhaps not so young as they used to be resent those younger than themselves?  SFAICS _everybody_ on this thread seems to want to justify why they, and their sort, is good for Brixton.  Incomers almost all.  Only one person has really raised the question of where the locals born & bred are supposed to live (and hey, guess where he was born).  

Every single person, whether owning, renting, shortlifing or squatting, who wasn't born & raised in Brixton is as responsible for squeezing out the locals.  Equally every single person who has attempted to make their home here has contributed in some way to the regeneration of the area. We must all take responsibility for our own actions, even though we cannot be held directly responsible for the way society has been changing.  If you don't live closeby where you grew up, then you've parked yourself on someone else's turf, with all the responsibilities that implies. And some of the attempts by rather recent incomers to pull up the drawbridge are ludicrous. 

Why should young people I've known all their lives, born & schooled locally, have to move away from the area to bring up their children?  Frankly whether one incoming professional gets the flats or another is irrelevant: the odds are it won't go to someone who went to Stockwell Park.  That is the problem. and all the tribalism of this thread, as one group of incomers tries to prove their peer group to be somehow more deserving, is absurd.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> The whole problem seems to centre around whether you find the term 'young professional' as somehow indicative of something unpleasant or undesirable. I don't, as my previous post suggests.


I _do_ have some problems with them, insofar as I tend to find them very career-orinentated and not very local community-orientated. Naturally that is a very large generalisation indeed and one subject to a number of objections, but I'm sure you know what I mean. I think you have a problem on several levels if, for instance, if people's main relationship to the place they live in is its proximity to the undergroud station, if they are unlikely to interact much with other members of the community (e.g. by having their kids go to a lcoal school) and if they are, themselves, nervous of the local community (hence gated communities etc). I might think this more the case of young professionals than others - you might think otherwise. You might counter than in fact, they may be _more_ likely to interact with other local people by going to local bars and pubs, something I personally do but rarely. But it's an honest belief, agree with it or not. It is clearly true that the nature of an area is affected by its demographics - and not just in terms of affluence. An aging population has different atitudes, needs and behaviour patterns to a largely young population. And so on.

Moreover, I _don't_ think the whole debate (such as it is) revolves around that. I think it revolves around the question of whether or not too much is being done for people who do not need it and not remotely enough for people who _do_, and whether it is not reasonable and/or understandable for some of the have-nots in that situation to have a number of gripes against the haves. I also think that there's a very obvoius debate (or potential debate) on the question of "what is to be done?" and that this is being obscured by some rather silly arguments about people allegedly having it in for homeowners. It ain't so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> SFAICS _everybody_ on this thread seems to want to justify why they, and their sort, is good for Brixton.


er...

where have i said that?


----------



## newbie (Feb 1, 2005)

you haven't but you're a tourist.  My comments applied to those who live here


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 1, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> er...
> 
> where have i said that?


It's newbie's groundhog argument -- he trots out exactly the same, completely fallacious, interpretation of the arguments every time.

In a minute he will say we all want Brixton to remain crack and crime infested. You can set your watch by it.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> you haven't but you're a tourist.  My comments applied to those who live here


Do I count? I'm "here" until Saturday lunchtime.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

As another potentially relevant aside, it's true generally that egalitarian and redistributionist arguments - even mild, moderate, "progressive" positions - will tend to be distorted and presented as being about "jealousy" and "envy" by people who do not wish to hear them or feel they will not benefit from them. It's a very common phenomenon.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I _do_ have some problems with them, insofar as I tend to find them very career-orinentated and not very local community-orientated.


You're a professional. You moved into the area. What makes you think the people following you will "not be very local community-orientated"?

Most of the people I know who have moved to Brixton in recent years came here because they loved the place.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> You're a professional. You moved into the area. What makes you think the people following you will "not be very local community-orientated"?


I think they may in many cases be rather more affluent than I, rather more nervous about the place. Rather more concerned to shape it in their image. This has happened in many other places in Europe and North America over the past few decades, it's not the product of my imagination.

Incidentally, I'm a professional in the sense of having a professional qualification and a job requiring same. Not in the sense of having an agreeable salary and aspirations to match.


----------



## newbie (Feb 1, 2005)

aye Justin, much as I have a lot of sympathy for your position, you do count.  You've made a stand on behalf of those in rented flats unable to buy in Brixton. A well argued and persuasive case, with which I have only very minor disagreements.  But you neither grew up in, nor work in, Brixton.  You're using it as a dormitary, just like almost all the others on this thread (tourists excepted) because of its perceived advanntages.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> You're using it as a dormitary, just like almost all the others on this thread (tourists excepted) because of its perceived advanntages.


Not really. I'm living "here" because I gave notice from my other place. Believe me, it wasn't the subject of some careful consideration with many other options to hand.

Mind you, I stayed because i liked it.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I think they may in many cases be rather more affluent than I, rather more nervous about the place. Rather more concerned to shape it in their image.


Wow. Presumptions'r'Us!

So how come you weren't guilty of the same when you rolled into town?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Wow. Presumptions'r'Us!
> 
> So how come you weren't guilty of the same when you rolled into town?


I've given some fairly careful and considered opinions, with some acknowledgement of their limitations. is it too much to expect, in turn, rather less of your usual "prove it! answer the question! you too!" style?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 1, 2005)

At the end of the day,most people are free to choose where they live, be it Brixton, Redbridge, Bethnal Green or out in the countryside. This is why Britain is a democracy, a free country. No amount of anti-gentrification protesting is going change this.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 1, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> You're using it as a dormitary.


 Malicious and untrue. Justin does not use Brixton as a dormitory. It is his home just as much as it is yours. I  see the argument you're tying to make and it's a very poor one.  It has NEVER been about who has been here the longest. Only a moron would think that. It's about who actually gives a damn about Brixton and what is happening to it. The rash of ''luxury'' flats we see now are a world away from the lefty liberal white arrivals of the 70s and 80s who loved Brixton for what it was and didn't use it as a dormitory in the way career and cash focused yups do. Were you born here, seeing as you're so keen on the subject? Weren't you part of that white liberal influx? 

What I really don't understand is why you would want to see homeless families remain in hostels while everywhere 'luxury' bachelor pads are springing up for sneering rich kids? Haven't you got ANY sense of social justice?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 1, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> At the end of the day,most people are free to choose where they live, be it Brixton, Redbridge, Bethnal Green or out in the countryside. This is why Britain is a democracy, a free country. No amount of anti-gentrification protesting is going change this.


No, Stobart, nothing could be farther from the truth. Most people  are NOT free to choose where they live at all because they cannot afford to live in an increasing number of places -- ie anywhere near London, for a start. THAT is the product of gentrification.


----------



## LDR (Feb 1, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> At the end of the day,most people are free to choose where they live, be it Brixton, Redbridge, Bethnal Green or out in the countryside. This is why Britain is a democracy, a free country. No amount of anti-gentrification protesting is going change this.



Not in the style that I have become acustomed to.  

I couldn't live in the same type of house in Brixton that I do in the Eastend.  In fact, I doubt I could afford to live in my house in the Eastend if I had to buy it now at current market prices.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Why do the incomers who are perhaps not so young as they used to be resent those younger than themselves?  SFAICS _everybody_ on this thread seems to want to justify why they, and their sort, is good for Brixton.  Incomers almost all.  Only one person has really raised the question of where the locals born & bred are supposed to live (and hey, guess where he was born).
> 
> Every single person, whether owning, renting, shortlifing or squatting, who wasn't born & raised in Brixton is as responsible for squeezing out the locals.  Equally every single person who has attempted to make their home here has contributed in some way to the regeneration of the area. We must all take responsibility for our own actions, even though we cannot be held directly responsible for the way society has been changing.  If you don't live closeby where you grew up, then you've parked yourself on someone else's turf, with all the responsibilities that implies. And some of the attempts by rather recent incomers to pull up the drawbridge are ludicrous.
> 
> Why should young people I've known all their lives, born & schooled locally, have to move away from the area to bring up their children?  Frankly whether one incoming professional gets the flats or another is irrelevant: the odds are it won't go to someone who went to Stockwell Park.  That is the problem. and all the tribalism of this thread, as one group of incomers tries to prove their peer group to be somehow more deserving, is absurd.




Well said Newbie. Gawd knows, many of us are passionate about Brixton, but there's far too much drawbridge pulling-up around here for me. Everyone has their idea of the halcyon days of Brixton - rarely would the memories actually meet. 

The remarkable thing for me is that most of the posters arguing vigorously here were probably attracted by the vibrancy/youthful liveliness of the place to begin with. Equally importantly they were probably pleased with the tolerance and acceptance of others once shown in Brixton. Now they seem to be raging against largely the same qualities, while all too happy to make sweeping generalisations about broad swathes of people and make sloppy jibes about them as 'yuppies' or 'young professionals' without entertaining the idea that they may actually be individuals with as much right to live in the area as they do...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

"The law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."


----------



## Preacher (Feb 1, 2005)

As a new poster I'd like to encourage decent Brixton people to either email the planners to encourage them to vote against this tonight or to get along in person to the meeting to object to the developer's tricks.

A property developer has got control of a key bit of central Brixton real estate, right by a Victoria line Zone 2 tube station. 

They're trying to subvert the 25% social housing rule by carving the estate into "12 unit" bite-sized chunks.

They withdrew their 59 unit plan last June because - shock horror - they'd have to provide 15 flats - Ken Livingstone's 25% social housing rule - for people off the council list.

Every normal, thinking person knows that a 25% social housing provision would not only reduce the developer's profits, but the people spending, say, £200,000 on a flat by Brixton tube, would have their resale profits reduced by the mere presence of social housing in their block.

_What! You've got social housing tenants in the block, pushing their prams down to Iceland? <reduces resale calue by £50,000>_

The developers are trying to push through a phased "social housing free" development at Lambeth planning committee tonight to increase their profits, to increase the resale value to the yups who shell out £200,000 per flat, and to keep poor or vulnerable people on Lambeth Council's housing waiting list.

Thank you. The meeting starts in 1 hour 50 minutes.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Well said Newbie. Gawd knows, many of us are passionate about Brixton, but there's far too much drawbridge pulling-up around here for me. Everyone has their idea of the halcyon days of Brixton - rarely would the memories actually meet.


Arggghhh! _Who_ has said this? _What_ have they said? _Where_ did they say it?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I've given some fairly careful and considered opinions, with some acknowledgement of their limitations. is it too much to expect, in turn, rather less of your usual "prove it! answer the question! you too!" style?


It's clearly too much to expect to a straight answer from you.

I wasn't asking you to "prove" anything. I simply wondered why you thought you weren't equally guilty of trying to 'shape Brixton into your image' when you arrived. What made you different?


----------



## newbie (Feb 1, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Malicious and untrue. Justin does not use Brixton as a dormitory. It is his home just as much as it is yours. I  see the argument you're tying to make and it's a very poor one.  It has NEVER been about who has been here the longest. Only a moron would think that. It's about who actually gives a damn about Brixton and what is happening to it. The rash of ''luxury'' flats we see now are a world away from the lefty liberal white arrivals of the 70s and 80s who loved Brixton for what it was and didn't use it as a dormitory in the way career and cash focused yups do. Were you born here, seeing as you're so keen on the subject? Weren't you part of that white liberal influx?



I was born within 5 miles of here if you must know, but didn't grow up here.  Absolutely I'm an incomer, and I bear my own responsibilites for that.  And absolutely I've used it as a dormitory, earning my money in the fleshpots north of the river, same as you do.  

As to "who actually gives a damn about Brixton and what is happening to it", maybe in the handful of years you've lived here you've grown to like the place, care about it.  You just have an odd way of showing it.



> What I really don't understand is why you would want to see homeless families remain in hostels while everywhere 'luxury' bachelor pads are springing up for sneering rich kids? Haven't you got ANY sense of social justice?



Don't be so silly.  I've never suggested that, nor will I.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Arggghhh! _Who_ has said this? _What_ have they said? _Where_ did they say it?








Here's at least a couple of straw men - and a dog -- to be going on with.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Preacher said:
			
		

> As a new poster


Is Anna Key sat right next to you then?


----------



## Preacher (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Is Anna Key sat right next to you then?


Pardon? 

Bless you my son!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Here's at least a couple of straw men - and a dog -- to be going on with.


It's like belief in God, in a way. When people consistently - and sincerely - continue to put forward an argument which they cannot support with evidence, even one which may be entirely absurd, then there has to be reason for this, a reason of the deep-seated sort. I am working toward a fuller understanding of what this reason is and how the process works.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Feb 1, 2005)

Preacher said:
			
		

> They're trying to subvert the 25% social housing rule by carving the estate into "12 unit" bite-sized chunks.
> 
> They withdrew their 59 unit plan last June because - shock horror - they'd have to provide 15 flats - Ken Livingstone's 25% social housing rule - for people off the council list.
> 
> ...



I don't think it is a "social housing rule", but an "affordable rule", where those flats have to be cheaper to buy than the other. of course, they're still expensive.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

You're right, but these days it's damned hard to distinguish the two concepts. You've got to knock so much off the market price for someone like me to be able to afford it, it's essentially social housing anyway.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Preacher said:
			
		

> Pardon?
> 
> Bless you my son!


Oh fuck off, you deceitful, lying tosser.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2005)

I know which I consider to be the more important pressing issue:

families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing - a few young people getting slagged off on an internet board....

hmmm tricky one that, really tricky.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I know which I consider to be the more important pressing issue:
> 
> families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing - a few young people getting slagged off on an internet board....
> 
> hmmm tricky one that, really tricky.


Funny. I haven't seen you start many threads on "families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing" recently.

Why is that?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Funny. I haven't seen you start many threads on "families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing" recently.
> 
> Why is that?


I would guess it was because they didn't really give a monkey's about it.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I would guess it was because they didn't really give a monkey's about it.


Who is "they"?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

It's a third person plural standing in for a third person singular.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Funny. I haven't seen you start many threads on "families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing" recently.
> 
> Why is that?



wtf has that got to do with anything!! 

If I started a thread on everything I believe to be a social ill I dunno how happy you'd be. Stop starting irrelevant arguments! Am I to take it that if one doesn't start a thread on a subject, one is not concerned by it


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 1, 2005)

What I meant was, in the last post, is that people can't go around dictating to others as to where they can and cannot live, based on that person's class/occupation and income.


----------



## newbie (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Well said Newbie. Gawd knows, many of us are passionate about Brixton, but there's far too much drawbridge pulling-up around here for me. Everyone has their idea of the halcyon days of Brixton - rarely would the memories actually meet.


absolutely.  Which would be fine if there wasn't a whiff in the current wave of would-be Canutes that they don't have any interest in the people on the estates.  At all.  Their interest in preventing 'yups' arriving is to preserve their own particular scene for as long as possible.



> The remarkable thing for me is that most of the posters arguing vigorously here were probably attracted by the vibrancy/youthful liveliness of the place to begin with. Equally importantly they were probably pleased with the tolerance and acceptance of others once shown in Brixton. Now they seem to be raging against largely the same qualities, while all too happy to make sweeping generalisations about broad swathes of people and make sloppy jibes about them as 'yuppies' or 'young professionals' without entertaining the idea that they may actually be individuals with as much right to live in the area as they do...



Oh yes.  'My boozer is authentic, yours is a style bar' and 'everyone should be open and accepting, so yups aren't welcome'.  

They've devalued the arguments and made it possible for the 'I can afford it so I must be entitled to it' brigade to sound faintly reasonable.


----------



## dogmatique (Feb 1, 2005)

This thread is going...






nowhere

*sigh*


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> It's a third person plural standing in for a third person singular.


Fascinating.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Feb 1, 2005)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> This thread is going...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



over 350 posts in two days in a quieter forum over a block of flat


----------



## tommers (Feb 1, 2005)

I've been out of brixton for a year, I take a look back at this board and this fucking argument is still going on.


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 1, 2005)

I tried to *shape * Brixton when I arrived here. I asked the local West Indian shop owner to sell bacon and cabbage instead of patties. He told me to fuck off


----------



## dogmatique (Feb 1, 2005)

tommers said:
			
		

> I've been out of brixton for a year, I take a look back at this board and this fucking argument is still going on.



Ex-fucking-zactly!


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 1, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> What I meant was, in the last post, is that people can't go around dictating to others as to where they can and cannot live, based on that person's class/occupation and income.



But people are dictating where people can live by standing by, doing nothing,  while gentrification happens.

Isin't this the crux of Justins argument?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 1, 2005)

Okay. Trying to get away from the "young professionals" thing - what is it that one is supposed to do?

Organise a movement to force the council to block new development unless affordable housing is also built? It would have to be London-wide actually, otherwise developers would just go to another area.

As Justin has pointed out, something like limiting house prices isn't going to happen, because so many people have equity that they don't want to see disappear. The attitude of home as investment is still present even in people who are concerned about the community. My dad and stepmother, who were definitely bolshy in fighting for local issues, still sold up and retired to the coast (where they continue to be bolshy).


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Organise a movement to force the council to block new development unless affordable housing is also built? It would have to be London-wide actually, otherwise developers would just go to another area.


It _is_ London-wide. Such a thing does exist. The problem is that the threshold is too high (fifteen dwellings Inner London  twenty-five Outer London) and there are too many loopholes. It is a question of tightening those regulations - and of course of mobilising public support for such a move, otherwise the _Standard_ will persuade us all that affordable housing threatens our futures.






			
				FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> As Justin has pointed out, something like limiting house prices isn't going to happen, because so many people have equity that they don't want to see disappear. The attitude of home as investment is still present even in people who are concerned about the community. My dad and stepmother, who were definitely bolshy in fighting for local issues, still sold up and retired to the coast (where they continue to be bolshy).


I suspect it _will_ happen, actually, and in the usual stupid way, by a property crash, because the current market can't go on for ever. And, having gone on so long, the usual thing applies whereby the greater the boom, the greater the danger of a bust.

Moreover there is considerable public disquiet at the lack of availability of affordable housing, and eventually business will start making a noise, too, if they have to pay greater wages because of the cost of accommodation, or if they can't get their workers in on time because the business is in Chiswick but the employees can't afford to live closer than Swindon.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> It _is_ London-wide. Such a thing does exist. The problem is that the threshold is too high (fifteen dwellings Inner London  twenty-five Outer London) and there are too many loopholes. It is a question of tightening those regulations - and of course of mobilising public support for such a move, otherwise the _Standard_ will persuade us all that affordable housing threatens our futures.


Well, then, there needs to be greater public awareness of the problems and a campaign to make it a more public issue.

I don't really know anything about the legal issues. But I'll do you a website if you like....



			
				Justin said:
			
		

> I suspect it _wil_ happen, actually, and in the usual stupid way, by a property crash, because the current market can't go on for ever. And, having gone on so long, the usual thing applies whereby the greater the boom, the greater the danger of a bust.


I've been saying that London house prices are unsustainable for as long as I've been aware of them, and been convinced that a crash is just around the corner, but they just seem to be getting higher and higher. I think they may be economically sustainable for longer than they are socially sustainable, if you see what I mean.


----------



## newbie (Feb 1, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> The attitude of home as investment is still present even in people who are concerned about the community. My dad and stepmother, who were definitely bolshy in fighting for local issues, still sold up and retired to the coast (where they continue to be bolshy).



And the attitude of social tenancy as trap is also present in people who believe  in social justice.  My parents have never had the option to sell up and move.  They've been on a list for a bungalow for some years, everything they've been offered is unsuitable.  Is it any surprise that home ownership is seen as positive?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I've been saying that London house prices are unsustainable for as long as I've been aware of them, and been convinced that a crash is just around the corner, but they just seem to be getting higher and higher. I think they may be economically sustainable for longer than they are socially sustainable, if you see what I mean.


Hah, I know, me too. I don't know how much of it is bubble, i.e. "I can buy for this price because I can sell for it" rather than "I can buy for this price because i can sustain the payments". Maybe none. But as I suggested, the bigger the boom the bigger the crash. Once people start losing confidence there's a long way to fall, and the nature of markets is that they bring everybody down toegther, "socially sustainable" or not. If you can't persuade somebody to buy, even though they could, in truth, probably manage it, because they see all the prices falling and get scared, then down comes your price with the rest.


----------



## Giles (Feb 1, 2005)

I think that prices will just stop going up, maybe fall slowly. 

I don't think that there will a big crash as in 1989 - 1991, because there are a couple of key differences:

First, interest rates are low and look like staying that way. Last time around, rates suddenly climbed to 10% making loans unaffordable.

Second, there was much higher (and climbing) unemployment last time, providing another reason why people could no longer afford to keep their houses. At the present time, the economy seems in pretty good shape.

The government have a huge vested interest in NOT bringing about a big crash in house prices (as well as those who will be in negative equity and/or immediate difficulties, it would bring about a general "feel-bad" factor with people spending less etc). 

On the other hand, they would probably breathe a quiet sigh of relief if the market cooled a little, because it would help ease the crisis in affordability, especially for first-time buyers.

Giles..


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2005)

You _are_ a property developer aren't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Funny. I haven't seen you start many threads on "families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing" recently.
> 
> Why is that?



Because it's generally something that is implicit in discussions/threads about the lack of social housing in the area, as you've no doubt noticed.

So, not "funny" at all really, is it?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> So, not "funny" at all really, is it?


No. It was a figure of speech.

There's nothing funny about a lack of social housing, neither do I find much to chortle about when people bang on about 'infestations of yuppies'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> And besides, what difference does perception really make in this case?


Perception makes a lot of difference. An example: Hoxton is (imho and apologies to Hoxtonites) a crumbling dump. *Howver*, various "agents" (the style mags, the "local magazine" tv progs etc) "sold" Hoxton as a hip, happening and trendy place. Result? The perception of Hoxton being fostered by certain interested parties meant that house prices rocketed (even places that smelt of piss apparently), spaces got developed into "aprtments for young professionals" etc, and the locals got pushed out.
That's the difference perception makes.


> The developer/agent believes that these flats are perhaps best suited for young professionals. On the balance of things, with the flats' noisy central position and the price, I find it fairly hard to quibble with that belief. They do seem more suited to the young if you ask me.


I don't disagree on the suitability. My cynical nature does however make me wonder whether a lift could have been easily fitted.


> The whole problem seems to centre around whether you find the term 'young professional' as somehow indicative of something unpleasant or undesirable. I don't, as my previous post suggests.


I don't find the term "young professional" at all unpleasant. It's the connotations of housing developers, estate agents etc attempting to appeal to such a narrow band of house-needing humanity that I find disturbing, for all the reasons I've previously stated.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> There's nothing funny about a lack of social housing, neither do I find much to chortle about when people bang on about *'infestations of yuppies'*.



I would have used this phrase myself. I have nothing against the people who move into flats built over pubs that were destroyed for their home dreams, but you do wonder sometimes about societal change in your neighbourghood.


----------



## Giles (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Perception makes a lot of difference. An example: Hoxton is (imho and apologies to Hoxtonites) a crumbling dump. *Howver*, various "agents" (the style mags, the "local magazine" tv progs etc) "sold" Hoxton as a hip, happening and trendy place. Result? The perception of Hoxton being fostered by certain interested parties meant that house prices rocketed (even places that smelt of piss apparently), spaces got developed into "aprtments for young professionals" etc, and the locals got pushed out.
> That's the difference perception makes.
> 
> I don't disagree on the suitability. My cynical nature does however make me wonder whether a lift could have been easily fitted.
> ...



Does this not have a lift then? I think you have to if its more than four floors high. I would have though these small flats, with no garden or play area, maybe no lift, but several floors up anyhow, and no parking would not be ideal for families or older people, especially given the noisy area that they are located in.

And re Hoxton - I don't understand how the kind of "locals" you mean, who are mostly secure RSL or council tenants, would get pushed out? They are secure tenants. And if they owned places that they then sold for loads more than they paid, that's not getting pushed out, is it?

Giles..


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

So that I may recognise one in the future, could someone complete this tick box list so that I can spot a yuppie about to infest Brixton?

So far I've got:

SINGLE PROFESSIONAL   x
NOT FROM ROUND THESE PARTS   X
CAN AFFORD TO BUY A 'POKEY' FLAT ABOVE A TATTY SUPERMARKET  X
PROBABLY DOESN'T BUY FOOD IN THE AREA  X
USES BRIXTON AS A DORMITORY  X
NOT VERY COMMUNITY MINDED   X
CONCERNED ABOUT SHAPING BRIXTON IN THEIR IMAGE   X
RATHER MORE NERVOUS ABOUT THE PLACE   X

What else do I need to complete the list?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So that I may recognise one in the future, could someone complete this tick box list so that I can spot a yuppie about to infest Brixton?
> 
> So far I've got:
> 
> ...


young?

upwardly mobile?

i don't see why a yuppie need be nervous about brixton - would you move to an area you were nervous about?

perhaps if you'd put "can afford to buy a 'pokey' flat above a tatty supermarket which will be worth a fair sight more in a few years time when they sell up and leave" it might have fitted the profile of the yuppie who infests an area for a few years then buggers off leaving the place in a worse state than s/he found it, as what was once a proper community degenerates into atomised, demoralised, priced-out people in a barren yuppie-created social desert.

as tacitus would have said, they will make a wasteland and call it gentrification.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So that I may recognise one in the future, could someone complete this tick box list so that I can spot a yuppie about to infest Brixton?
> 
> So far I've got:
> 
> ...



I'm reluctant to do this, editor, honestly, but ....

In answer to the question I've bolded ...

A more complete list might perhaps come from a less simplistic and less polarised reading of some of the discussions and debates that have actually been happening in this thread?? In the more thoughtful and considered parts of it anyway!

To me it seems like you're picking up on a selction of the more pejorative phrases used by Old Slapper at the start of this thread, some of them agreed ridiculous, without really recognising that the totality of the debate from other posters has been a lot more subtle and nuanced than that.

Tarranau and Justin for instance, Newbie and Violent Panda, hendo and even Giles (despite his insulting instruction in his first post to Justin to get a better job -- thankfully he's not being as obnoxious in subsequent posts) --- all of these contributors are arguing from very different directions, and they along with other posters have been trying to bring the discussion forward, very well too I think in the main ...

Personally I agree with VP and Justin most, but it really doesn't help to have their views charactured as kneejerk resentment of anyone buying property. The whole issue is much more multidimensional than that.


----------



## cllr (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So that I may recognise one in the future, could someone complete this tick box list so that I can spot a yuppie about to infest Brixton?
> 
> So far I've got:
> 
> ...




I think editor is on to it here. There appear to be some people who would like to ensure that selfish people don't come to live in Brixton - and they would like to use the planning process to acheive this.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

cllr said:
			
		

> There appear to be some people who would like to ensure that selfish people don't come to live in Brixton.


Well, it'd cut down on the Conservative vote.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Feb 1, 2005)

What about people who don't fit into the neat "yuppie parasite" or "righteous community-minded local" pigeonholes? What about (for example) property-owning key workers? Not many I know, but where to they fit into this?


----------



## cllr (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Well, it'd cut down on the Conservative vote.



I thought that most young professionals voted new Labour - older selfish people vote conserviative. But perhaps these prejudices belong elsewhere.....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

brixtonvilla said:
			
		

> What about people who don't fit into the neat "yuppie parasite" or "righteous community-minded local" pigeonholes? What about (for example) property-owning key workers? Not many I know, but where to they fit into this?


I don't suppose the lack of nuance is actually present only in your imagination?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

cllr said:
			
		

> I thought that most young professionals voted new Labour - older selfish people vote conserviative. But perhaps these prejudices belong elsewhere.....


I have to admit your party has lost out on the younger selfish vote in the last two elections. Next one too, I imagine. But keep at it!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> And re Hoxton - I don't understand how the kind of "locals" you mean, who are mostly secure RSL or council tenants, would get pushed out? They are secure tenants. And if they owned places that they then sold for loads more than they paid, that's not getting pushed out, is it?
> 
> Giles..



A shorthold tenant is only "secure" for a six month period at a time, as you well Know, that's the kind of locals who get pushed out, the ones who found that the only way to continue living in "their" borough was to rent a flat or bedist, and then get edged out by rising rental prices and/or the landlord's whim.

Please don't insult me by saying athat this doesn't happen. It does, in spades, in every locality that gets "gentrified". I've seen members of my own immediate and extended family move out into the home counties because it was the nearest to London they could afford to live after being edged out of their own communities by rising prices.

You also seem to not bother to factor in the nature of community into your thinking. A person can also be "edged out" of their community if that community changes drastically in a short span of time. I saw this happen in Battersea, in Balham, and then start to occur in parts of Streatham in the early 1990s, and it's happening in Brixton. Why would a person, homeowner or no, stay in a commumity where they no longer feel wanted or needed?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2005)

brixtonvilla said:
			
		

> What about people who don't fit into the neat "yuppie parasite" or "righteous community-minded local" pigeonholes? What about (for example) property-owning key workers? Not many I know, but where to they fit into this?



To me there's one thing above all that is a mark of whether someone "fits" into an area, and that's whether they give (and have a willingness to give) as well as take. I've nothing against "property-owning key workers" because they make a contribution to local (and wider) society. If the Ed owned his own property *and* was a "yuppie" (or whatever other perjorative phrase coud be used to describe him) I'd say that Urban75 was *ON BALANCE* a big enough contribution to Brixton's cause, both locally and globally, to indicate that he's given more than enough to the community, whether or not I agree with some of his (IMHO) rather laboured rants about this and that.
By "giving" I don't necessarily mean being a righteous community activist of the tub-thumping type, I mean preserving community values that mean we take notice of each other and *care* about our community. I know all to many people (my own brother included) who don't give a fuck for their community except insofar as what they can get out of it, and in how it reflects in the value of their property

What I'm saying is, personally I'll welcome anyone who's prepared to participate in their community on a reciprocal basis, give as well as take, but in my personal experience there will always be a significant minority of "incomers" (horrible word) who refuse to participate, either for reasons of social class/status or because their entry into the community is almost entirely on a (financially) speculative basis (i.e. they're living in their short-term investment opportunity until such as time as they can afford to move on to somewhere more appropriate to the status they've imagined themselves to hold).


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> To me there's one thing above all that is a mark of whether someone "fits" into an area, and that's whether they give (and have a willingness to give) as well as take. I've nothing against "property-owning key workers" because they make a contribution to local (and wider) society.


So you'd agree that it's a bit silly labelling everyone moving into a property above a supermarket as "infesting yuppies"?

You see, I agree with the majority of your post but can't help getting pissed off when people slap up blanket assumptions about the motives and personality of people they've never met just because they're able to afford a none-too glamorous property in Brixton.




			
				ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> If the Ed owned his own property *and* was a "yuppie" (or whatever other perjorative phrase could be used to describe him) I'd say that Urban75 was *ON BALANCE* a big enough contribution to Brixton's cause, both locally and globally, to indicate that he's given more than enough to the community, whether or not I agree with some of his (IMHO) rather laboured rants about this and that.


Wow! Is this some sort of anti-yuppie indemnity even if I suddenly strike it rich?!  

But you're making my point for me: if I just happened to have been moving into those buildings on Electric Avenue, some people here would have already condemned me as a yuppie (or even worse, an "infesting yuppie!"), I'd have to face the full force of Justin's 'resentment'    and put up with all the other prejudices posted up here_ just because I bought a 'pokey' flat!_

It's the blanket condemnation that offends me, but that doesn't mean that I don't sincerely wish that those buildings hadn't been put into use for social housing decades ago.

If the building was turning into a luxury yuppie development _a la Atlantic 66_ I could get worked up about it. But I find it hard to work up much of a lather over a building that's been empty for twenty years being converted into (for London) cheap flats. 

Given the realistic, real world choice of it remaining empty and rotting away (like some other Elec Avenue buildings) and being put to so some less-than-ideal use, I'd prefer the latter.

Although - to repeat - I'd rather it be put to community/social use. But that, sadly, wasn't an option and there's nothing I could do about that.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'd have to face the full force of Justin's 'resentment'


And what a daily burden that would be. It'd be like the Fifth Station of the Cross.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> And what a daily burden that would be. It'd be like the Fifth Station of the Cross.


See this thing ->   

Look! There was one next to that comment in my post above!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

It was noted. Note the presence of 'humour' in my post. And 'irony'.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Note the presence of 'humour' in my post.


Doctor! Urgent side splitting case to attend to!


----------



## layabout (Feb 1, 2005)

I don't see what the fuss is about. If there is not enough affordable housing for low income people, that's a seperate issue. 

Even yuppies need somewhere to fucking live. There is always going to be a housing market. If the market can't provide houses for people on ALL incomes, then it's those at the bottom end of the market who suffer the most. 

If planning permission were to always be turned down because "Only yuppies will  live there" - all that will happen, is yuppies will live in smaller places and those at the bottom end of the market will be priced out of any kind housing.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Yes, I think that grasps most of the salient points.



			
				editor said:
			
		

> Doctor! Urgent side splitting case to attend to!


_De te fabula narratur_.


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> And what a daily burden that would be. It'd be like the Fifth Station of the Cross.



Simon helps with the Cross


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Heh. Being post Vatican II, I had to look it up.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> _De te fabula narratur_.


Golly! How clever you are!


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Heh. Being post Vatican II, I had to look it up.



I had it battered into me.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Did the Christian Brothers manage to learn you any Latin?


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 1, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Did the Christian Brothers manage to learn you any Latin?



Presentation Brothers and even though I done Latin for me leaving and got a good result I don't actually know any of it. See above post regarding how I was 'thought' the stations. 

Latin and Irish. They've served me well in these European times.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2005)

Yeah, but they're fun to know, y'know? Even though I wish I'd done German O-Level instead.


----------



## oryx (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> A person can also be "edged out" of their community if that community changes drastically in a short span of time. I saw this happen in Battersea, in Balham, and then start to occur in parts of Streatham in the early 1990s, and it's happening in Brixton. Why would a person, homeowner or no, stay in a commumity where they no longer feel wanted or needed?



I have lived in Battersea for 20 years & all my old neighbours who moved on were not in any way "edged out" - they made a killing on small 2-bed terraced houses they had bought some time ago, probably cheaply, & moved further out to the "suburbs" & to bigger properties - with proper gardens & more bedrooms - BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO and not because they were forced out by property developers. I would say this is typical of any inner London gentrified area. 

I don't think it is the old communities who are edged out - but it is definitely the case that the many of children of older inhabitants cannot afford to live in places like Battersea, Brixton or Hoxton. Rather than old communities being edged out, it's more a case that their offspring (and other working class people) are priced out. 

The latter does of course amount to a demographic change, often not for the better, but I do think it's largely a myth that long-standing inhabitants are forced out of areas to make way for wealthy incomers.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

oryx said:
			
		

> I don't think it is the old communities who are edged out - but it is definitely the case that the many of children of older inhabitants cannot afford to live in places like Battersea, Brixton or Hoxton. Rather than old communities being edged out, it's more a case that their offspring (and other working class people) are priced out.


Much the same in rural areas of course.


----------



## newbie (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> A shorthold tenant is only "secure" for a six month period at a time, as you well Know, that's the kind of locals who get pushed out, the ones who found that the only way to continue living in "their" borough was to rent a flat or bedist, and then get edged out by rising rental prices and/or the landlord's whim.



or when they have children and cannot afford additional space anywhere near their support networks.


----------



## oryx (Feb 2, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Much the same in rural areas of course.



Very much - possibly worse, due to (I guess) a higher level of unemployment, lower pay & fewer job opportunities in rural areas, coupled with almost London-esque house prices.

The initiative in the Yorkshire Dales where AFAIK certain homes will not be available to second home owners or wealthy incomers (I must look up the exact details) is an interesting one.

The GLA's insistence on a quota of social housing in schemes over a certain number of homes is admirable. I often wonder if the GLA & local authorities have more power to make it possible for people to live in areas they are priced out of, e.g., with the Iceland scheme, could Lambeth possibly insist to the vendors that in order to get planning permission, all purchasers have a local connection? Probably not, but it would be good if they could. Not as good as building more affordable homes, but better than a free for all.


----------



## newbie (Feb 2, 2005)

oryx said:
			
		

> Very much - possibly worse, due to (I guess) a higher level of unemployment, lower pay & fewer job opportunities in rural areas, coupled with almost London-esque house prices.
> 
> The initiative in the Yorkshire Dales where AFAIK certain homes will not be available to second home owners or wealthy incomers (I must look up the exact details) is an interesting one.
> 
> The GLA's insistence on a quota of social housing in schemes over a certain number of homes is admirable. I often wonder if the GLA & local authorities have more power to make it possible for people to live in areas they are priced out of, e.g., with the Iceland scheme, could Lambeth possibly insist to the vendors that in order to get planning permission, all purchasers have a local connection? Probably not, but it would be good if they could. Not as good as building more affordable homes, but better than a free for all.



The answer isn't to social engineer people out of where they want to be, nor to cram ever more people into the same space, it's to create reasons why they want to be somewhere else.  Over the years Brixton (& London as a whole) has reversed from being somewhere people clamoured to get away from, to being too popular for its own good.  The real issue is how to stop those with choices herding into the southeast and various pretty bits and make the north and the grotty bits into better, more desirable, places to live.

I have the impression people in Burnley or Oldham would welcome being able to argue about the effects of their area being too popular.


----------



## oryx (Feb 2, 2005)

newbie - I think you are right in the long term, & in the greater scheme of things, but in the shorter term, some "social engineering" helps to redress the balance - e.g. quotas for key-workers & local people (by which I very much mean people from all ethnic backgrounds, BTW!) in popular inner-city areas, and housing mobility schemes where people who want to get out of London can move easily to areas of low demand.


----------



## Giles (Feb 2, 2005)

Areas of London (and elsewhere) have always been in a state of flux.

You can't just suddenly expect it to stop.

I mean, look at the various different groups and nationalities of people that have made parts of the East End (and indeed Brixton) their home. I bet that when each new group began moving in to an area, there were rumbles of discontent from those who had lived there for years about how these new people were taking the place over, and about how many new businesses (shops, cafes, bars) were catering to their needs, and so on. And in the end, some would have left because they no longer felt it was "their" place any more.

Brixton started off as quite a "posh" area by all accounts. I bet the original residents (those who hadn't already left) clucked and tutted in disgust at the riff-raff moving in to their neighbours former homes and the noisy, rough pubs that (I assume) sprang up to cater to them.

And in more recent times I bet there were those long-term residents who did not like it when the the Caribbeans arrived in the 40s and 50s, with their different culture and traditions.

You can't just expect this to stop happening. It never has and probably never will.

Giles..


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 2, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Brixton started off as quite a "posh" area by all accounts.



Er ... it started off as fields and stuff, with farmers and market gardens.  It should be given back to the farmers (or any prior owners you care to define, such as the Normans, Romans, Saxons, Neanderthals ....).  Life moves on and, as several posters have commented, you'll never stop it.

Social engineering may help - and I entirely support efforts to make housing available to those on way lower incomes than at present - but it will never stop "incomers".  There is a flip side to arguing that no-one should be able to come IN to an area - the residents will never be able to move OUT for any reason.  I for one would never wish to live in that sort of society - movement, diversity, change are what I love.  It's just a question of balance.

I don't think it has been raised yet, but another aspect which may be worthy of debate is the UK obsession with property ownership.  Owning your own house is the big thing in UK culture and people have aspired to it for years but it is not such an issue in other cultures, even in the rest of Europe.  Why are we like that?  What is it about the UK that makes us so obsessed with property ownership?  Is it linked to our ingrained history of inherited wealth (a house being a pretty big lump to pass on to the kids)?

And by the way, those posters using phrases such as "yuppies" (infesting or otherwise!) and "incomers" may like to consider the following definition:

* Stereotype:

• Noun 1:  A preconceived and over-simplified idea of the characteristics which typify a person or thing. 

* 

(www.askoxford.com)

Not everyone in any particular group is the same (see, that Met Police Diversity Training wasn't wasted    ).  Some people who come into an area will bring good things, others will not.

_ Retires to safe distance and takes cover _


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So you'd agree that it's a bit silly labelling everyone moving into a property above a supermarket as "infesting yuppies"?
> 
> You see, I agree with the majority of your post but can't help getting pissed off when people slap up blanket assumptions about the motives and personality of people they've never met just because they're able to afford a none-too glamorous property in Brixton.
> 
> ...



what a load of disingenuous apologist bollocks that is. I couldn't do nothing about it mate so now I don't give a a shit. If you can't see that it is part of a wider phenomenon that has massively negative far-reaching impacts all over the shop you are either blinkered or dumb, I dunno which.

oh god forbid anyone was condemned as a yuppie! how simply awful that would be for them.....how oppressed they would be....imagine they might log on to the internet and see nasty people slagging them off...ooo how traumatic that would be.

Mike: I believe did you not once produce t-shirts that said anger was an energy?


----------



## fanta (Feb 2, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more.
> 
> What a pile of repetitive tripe this thread is. Legitimate concern about the shortage and cost of homes is used to mask foaming hard-left hate of anyone daring to get off their bottom, luck out in the jobs market,  work themselves to the bone, scrape together a deposit and actually, sin of sins, _buy a home_.
> 
> ...



For what it is worth, I don't think Hendo is a yuppie or he and his partner are infesting anything. I have met the man and the idea he is a pernicious yuppie is excrement. They're just a working professional couple who have had the luck and intelligence to be where they are.

You know what I think about the housing situation OldSlapper, we've chatted about it often enough and I agree with plenty of what you and Justin argue. 

You do need to find an alternative to 'yuppie' though (as you suggested yourself recently) real yuppies aren't bothering with Brixton, they're more interested in river-side properties at a million plus.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> what a load of disingenuous apologist bollocks that is. I couldn't do nothing about it mate so now I don't give a a shit. If you can't see that it is part of a wider phenomenon that has massively negative far-reaching impacts all over the shop you are either blinkered or dumb, I dunno which.


So exactly what are you doing about it, hot shot?

Oh, and seeing as you're getting all friendly, what's your first name, please?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Er ... it started off as fields and stuff, with farmers and market gardens.  It should be given back to the farmers (or any prior owners you care to define, such as the Normans, Romans, Saxons, Neanderthals ....).  Life moves on and, as several posters have commented, you'll never stop it.


Mmm. Ever read _News From Nowhere_? You may not be wrong.




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> Social engineering may help


Delighted to see that phrase. "Social engineering" is so often used as a pejorative term in an of itself. (You can see this often in the _Times_ for instance - not least, indeed, in pieces objecting to the provision of social housing on the grounds that it's "social engineering". Naturally one rarely reads objections to, say expensive public school educations, which are very much a form of social engineering. But I digress.)




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> and I entirely support efforts to make housing available to those on way lower incomes than at present - but it will never stop "incomers".


And I should hope not too. Incomers are a good thing, at most times and in most ways.




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> I don't think it has been raised yet, but another aspect which may be worthy of debate is the UK obsession with property ownership.  Owning your own house is the big thing in UK culture and people have aspired to it for years but it is not such an issue in other cultures, even in the rest of Europe.  Why are we like that?  What is it about the UK that makes us so obsessed with property ownership?  Is it linked to our ingrained history of inherited wealth (a house being a pretty big lump to pass on to the kids)?


This debate does go on, but one problem with raising it here is that people tend to come straight out with "what, am I wrong for wanting to buy my own home then? Does that make me a yuppie then? Are you saying _you_ would never buy your own home?" and so on and so on, which then  requires another two hundred posts to the effect that nobody ever said that, which nobody takes any notice of, accusations and counter-accusations, and so on _ad nauseam_.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh, and seeing as you're getting all friendly, what's your first name, please?



I've met you. I've told you my name before. I would like to maintain a degree of anonymity by not plastering it all over the boards if thats allright by you. But if you REALLY want to know pm me and I'll tell you. Again. 

However I suspect you're only asking because once again you're trying to sidetrack....


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So exactly what are you doing about it, hot shot?
> 
> Oh, and seeing as you're getting all friendly, what's your first name, please?


WTF? Since when did people have to reveal their real names on the board?    

For that matter, since when were people no longer allowed to call you Mike?

Are you feeling all right?


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> However I suspect you're only asking because once again you're trying to sidetrack....


It's not impossible for people to work out my real name but on these boards my name is 'editor' and I don't like people adding _personalised_ smart arse asides in lively debates.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 2, 2005)




----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> WTF? Since when did people have to reveal their real names on the board?


As ever you've jumped in and completely missed the point.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It's not impossible for people to work out my real name but on these boards my name is 'editor' and I don't like people adding _personalised_ smart arse asides in lively debates.


You have really, really lost the plot this time.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> For that matter, since when were people no longer allowed to call you Mike?


My board name is 'editor'. I've repeatedly asked people to refer to me by that name here, as well you know.

If you must know, I'm currently getting a shedload of hassle from banned members and I'm not inclined to make it any easier for them to work out my real name, thanks.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It's not impossible for people to work out my real name but on these boards my name is 'editor' and I don't like people adding _personalised_ smart arse asides in lively debates.



I'll consider my wrists slapped then. Apologies.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You have really, really lost the plot this time.


You haven't got a fucking clue what you're on about. I've had aggressive letters from people who haven;t worked out that the editor and me are one and the same and I have no intention of making it any easier for them to make that connection, given the recent mails I've been getting.

But what the fuck it's got to do with you is anyone's guess. If I choose to be called by my board name _like everyone else_, that's my choice and none of your fucking business.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

I should perhaps add more constructively: of course this country needs, in general, a proper debate on home ownership, which needs to take the form of asking how (and whether) more extensive alternatives to home ownership can be provided for people who are unable or reluctant to undertake it. It would need to be a pretty tough debate though, because there is a very strong current of feeling, particularly amongst the affluent, that things like council houses are some osrt of welfare scam for the workshy.

It would also need to be tough because it would hard to touch on the question of second homes and whether their ownership should be discouraged, not least because one of the factors pushing up house prices has been buy-to-let. We're back to resentment here, but it does piss me off a great deal to see newspaper features glorying in the available of homes for people who do not even need to use them and for whom they are merely a source of income. The requirements of second-home owners have a great priority in this society than the rights of people who have none, and this is a consequence of the manoeuvre by which people who have a _little_ property - a small house with a burdensome mortgage - are induced to side with people who have much property rather than their _real_ allies, the people who have none.

Sorry, little bit of politics there.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You have really, really lost the plot this time.



How comes Spud Murphy III, erstwhile London Forum moderator, has been airbrushed from history?

Trotskyite School of Falsification yet again.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I'll consider my wrists slapped then. Apologies.


Cheers for that.

I know you didn't mean it maliciously, but it is causing some problems.

In fact, I might make a announcement in community about this because the amount of off-board hassle I'm getting has started to rise with the growing popularity of the boards.

And I'd rather get abusive emails addressed to 'editor' than to me personally!


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

can we get back on topic please...editor I genuinely apologise for using your name and won't do it again.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> How comes Spud Murphy III, erstwhile London Forum moderator, has been airbrushed from history?
> 
> Trotskyite School of Falsification yet again.


Ah. It's 'Have A Go At The Editor About Anything I Can Think Of Day' today.


----------



## newbie (Feb 2, 2005)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> And by the way, those posters using phrases such as "yuppies" (infesting or otherwise!) and "incomers" may like to consider the following definition:
> 
> * Stereotype:
> 
> ...



Do you think the term 'incomer' is pejorative?  I use it because it is, I thought, a description which is both accurate and free from value judgement.  Is there a preferred term which is inclusive of all those who move into an area from outside?  Genuine question- is there a better word?


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

So am I to take it we are to refrain from slagging of new housing developments/yuppification in general/shite housing situation in this country, because a few yuppies might find it offensive and a few posters get upset at being labelled in this way. Pathetic.

radical anarchist boards indeed. Sad state of affairs.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> radical anarchist boards indeed.


I think the answer to this is going to be along the lines of "where does it say these are radical anarchist boards?".


----------



## Bob (Feb 2, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I think the answer to this is going to be along the lines of "where does it say these are radical anarchist boards?".



In various newspapers apparently:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=28215&highlight=anarchist


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I think the answer to this is going to be along the lines of "where does it say these are radical anarchist boards?".


I've certainly never described the site thus.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 2, 2005)

What would happen if the title of the thread read "asylum seekers" instead of " young professionals" or Yuppies? It wouldn't happen because it would be offensive.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> What would happen if the title of the thread read "asylum seekers" instead of " young professionals" or Yuppies? It wouldn't happen because it would be offensive.



not really in the same situation are they asylum seekers and yuppies though....  I don't think yuppies are a very oppressed minority. Their financial/social security should allow them to choke back the tears I reckon....


----------



## Bob (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> not really in the same situation are they asylum seekers and yuppies though....  I don't think yuppies are a very oppressed minority. Their financial/social security should allow them to choke back the tears I reckon....



I think the point Stobart is trying to make is that demonising people rather than things is generally not a good thing. As Christians would say 'Hate the sin, love the sinner'.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> As Christians would say 'Hate the sin, love the sinner'.


Ooh, I can already hear that tambourine starting up....


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> What would happen if the title of the thread read "asylum seekers" instead of " young professionals" or Yuppies? It wouldn't happen because it would be offensive.


There's no comparison. Various people have tried to draw this parallel and it just  doesn't hold up. You cannot liken highly privileged, very wealthy conservatives who have the freedom to live -- and holiday -- anywhere they like with people who are desperately poor, stateless and oppressed.


----------



## Bob (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Ooh, I can already hear that tambourine starting up....



I was a Catholic alterboy I'll let you know. And my primary school really did have teachers with guitars and tambourines - still makes me feel slightly unwell....  

<starts humming kumbaya>


----------



## newbie (Feb 2, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> I think the point Stobart is trying to make is that demonising people rather than things is generally not a good thing. As Christians would say 'Hate the sin, love the sinner'.



I agree with that, which is why I'm concerned that 'incomer' is seen to keep company with 'yuppie'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So you'd agree that it's a bit silly labelling everyone moving into a property above a supermarket as "infesting yuppies"?


I *try* not to use (but don't always succeed) such emotional labels, but | can understand people using them, especially in the context of what is eventually doomed to be a failed attempt to stop the gentrification of Brixton. If you happen to see gentrification as a bad thing, then it's entirely possible that the word "infestation" will seem apt.  


> You see, I agree with the majority of your post but can't help getting pissed off when people slap up blanket assumptions about the motives and personality of people they've never met just because they're able to afford a none-too glamorous property in Brixton.


You get pissed off, it's human nature. People make blanket assumptions, it's human nature. You can't really tackle the detail of the situation until you've dealt with the generality, which is what the debate on this thread is all about; are "young" and/or "professional" "incomers" to this community a good or a bad thing?
Personally I subscribe to judging people by their deeds, but then unlike Justin and some others on this thread I have the luxury of a secure tenancy in a council property. Something that Justin etc can unfortunately only dream of.   


> Wow! Is this some sort of anti-yuppie indemnity even if I suddenly strike it rich?!


That would depend on your actions if you were to strike it rich, wouldn't it?   


> But you're making my point for me: if I just happened to have been moving into those buildings on Electric Avenue, some people here would have already condemned me as a yuppie (or even worse, an "infesting yuppie!"), I'd have to face the full force of Justin's 'resentment'    and put up with all the other prejudices posted up here_ just because I bought a 'pokey' flat!_
> 
> It's the blanket condemnation that offends me, but that doesn't mean that I don't sincerely wish that those buildings hadn't been put into use for social housing decades ago.


I think you're missing a point. If you were moving from the Lubyanka (whoops, I mean the Barrier Block) to one of those flats, most people who know you in the area would just nod and wish you good luck. Why? Because you'd be freeing up a unit of social housing, so you're actually giving a net benefit to the community.
There is *no* gaurantee that *anyone* moving into Tarannau's proverbially piss-scented Iceland flats would be giving the same benefit to the community.
And I too wish that local authorities hadn't had a brake applied to council-owned housing development 20+ years ago. There'd be no need for debates like this.


> If the building was turning into a luxury yuppie development _a la Atlantic 66_ I could get worked up about it. But I find it hard to work up much of a lather over a building that's been empty for twenty years being converted into (for London) cheap flats.
> 
> Given the realistic, real world choice of it remaining empty and rotting away (like some other Elec Avenue buildings) and being put to so some less-than-ideal use, I'd prefer the latter.
> 
> Although - to repeat - I'd rather it be put to community/social use. But that, sadly, wasn't an option and there's nothing I could do about that.


The problem with the "Iceland development" is that we don't actually know whether the housing is going to be "pokey" or "spacious", accessible or inaccessible, we're just making assumptions based on narrow data. Knowing a few of the tricks developers have been known to pull, we can't even assume that the approved specifications are those that will actually get built.


----------



## dogmatique (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> highly privileged, very wealthy conservatives who have the freedom to live -- and holiday -- anywhere they like



So this describes everyone in the sweepingly inclusive term "young professional" does it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> I agree with that, which is why I'm concerned that 'incomer' is seen to keep company with 'yuppie'.



Why? "Incomer" is a valid and accurate description of a person entering (or "coming in") to a community.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> That would depend on your actions if you were to strike it rich, wouldn't it?


Oh, I've turned down enough big money in the past to know that I'm unlikely to change!


----------



## kea (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh, I've turned down enough big money in the past to know that I'm unlikely to change!




what about if someone who posts on this board were to die and leave you their entire, massive, estate?


----------



## newbie (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> If you were moving from the Lubyanka (whoops, I mean the Barrier Block) to one of those flats, most people who know you in the area would just nod and wish you good luck.



There is some difference between people moving within an area (who already have network they belong to and aren't incomers at all); people moving into an area where they already have contacts &/or reasons to be; those who are allocated into a place by some bureaucratic process; and people who simply pluck an area out of the Standard.  But at some point in our lives haven't most of us been in all those groups?


----------



## newbie (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Why? "Incomer" is a valid and accurate description of a person entering (or "coming in") to a community.



So I thought, but DB bracketed with yuppie as a stereotype.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> There's no comparison. Various people have tried to draw this parallel and it just  doesn't hold up. You cannot liken highly privileged, very wealthy conservatives who have the freedom to live -- and holiday -- anywhere they like with people who are desperately poor, stateless and oppressed.



Just to bring it back to the initial subject of this thread, the idea of 'infesting' yups/yuppies possibly purchasing some flats above Iceland. Is everyone who purchases these flats likely to be a 'very wealthy conservative' with the freedom to live and holiday where they like? It seems unlikely to me.

I can't say I have any sympathy for the 80s stereotype of the arrogant Porsche driving yuppie, but this situation seems far removed from that. Equally, with young professional and yuppie becoming roughly eqivalent during much of this discussion, there seems a real need for a middle ground state between yuppie/young professional' and 'desperately poor' folks. 

I suspect that most of us, in some way, were capable of being classed as a 'young professionals' once.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Why? "Incomer" is a valid and accurate description of a person entering (or "coming in") to a community.



I think you'll find that it is used perjoratively in some communities far more rural than Brixton


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

oryx said:
			
		

> I have lived in Battersea for 20 years & all my old neighbours who moved on were not in any way "edged out" - they made a killing on small 2-bed terraced houses they had bought some time ago, probably cheaply, & moved further out to the "suburbs" & to bigger properties - with proper gardens & more bedrooms - BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO and not because they were forced out by property developers. I would say this is typical of any inner London gentrified area.


I lived at several addresses in Battersea during my childhood (the High Street, Vicarage Crescent and others), I also went to school there starting in 1973, and I know plenty of people who lived in private rental flats and houses who were edged out by their landlords' desire to turn a quick buck. Forgive me for saying so, but by 1984-85 (your putative date of arrival) Battersea was already "under siege" from gentrification. I watched it start happening in the late 70s and I *do* know what I'm talking about from bitter experience.


> I don't think it is the old communities who are edged out - but it is definitely the case that the many of children of older inhabitants cannot afford to live in places like Battersea, Brixton or Hoxton. Rather than old communities being edged out, it's more a case that their offspring (and other working class people) are priced out.
> The latter does of course amount to a demographic change, often not for the better, but I do think it's largely a myth that long-standing inhabitants are forced out of areas to make way for wealthy incomers.


You are of course at liberty to believe what you wish.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> So this describes everyone in the sweepingly inclusive term "young professional" does it?


 If you are insisting, as some have, on making a comparison with asylum seekers, then yes. Compared with asylum seekers they are extremely wealthy and privileged and have undreamt-of freedoms.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> If you are insisting, as some have, on making a comparison with asylum seekers, then yes. Compared with asylum seekers they are extremely wealthy and privileged and have undreamt-of freedoms.



Really? The average 'young professional' is likely to come out of education with a heap of debt (less money than the asylum seeker) and the likelihood that most of them will never earn enough money to both pay rent and save a deposit. At least they can work I guess, but I suspect that's not an 'undreamt-of-freedom' for that many.


----------



## Relahni (Feb 2, 2005)

Young professionals chose to live in Brixton shocker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

When I lived in Brixton in 1997 - it was good.  We ran tings!   

Round about then young professionals moved into our street - they were paying around £150 more than us, a week, to live there!  

A lot has changed since then.  

Bermondsey is where it is at now! Brixton is so 1990s! ha ha ha....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Just to bring it back to the initial subject of this thread, the idea of 'infesting' yups/yuppies possibly purchasing some flats above Iceland. Is everyone who purchases these flats likely to be a 'very wealthy conservative' with the freedom to live and holiday where they like? It seems unlikely to me.
> 
> I can't say I have any sympathy for the 80s stereotype of the arrogant Porsche driving yuppie, but this situation seems far removed from that. Equally, with young professional and yuppie becoming roughly eqivalent during much of this discussion, there seems a real need for a middle ground state between yuppie/young professional' and 'desperately poor' folks.


On your latter point, I agree. However, any attempt to form a suitable description is likely to founder on the rock presented by your first paragraph, to wit that any group description will inevitably be met by somebody saying, _pace_ dogmatique, "does that apply to _everybody_?". I wonder how useful it is to object to generalisations on the basis that they do not apply to everybody.




			
				tarannau said:
			
		

> The average 'young professional' is likely to come out of education with a heap of debt (less money than the asylum seeker) and the likelihood that most of them will never earn enough money to both pay rent and save a deposit. At least they can work I guess, but I suspect that's not an 'undreamt-of-freedom' for that many.


This is undoubtedly so. The amount new graduates seem to owe these days is shocking. (Our recent library assistant owed eleven grand. When I graduated the first time in 1986, I owed four hundred and fifty quid.) However, by your own admission, these are people hardly likely to be signing up for Chateau Iceland.


----------



## hayduke (Feb 2, 2005)

OldSlapper said:
			
		

> The following planning application is before Lambeth planning committee tomorrow...



Did anyone actually go to the committee meeting?


----------



## tarannau (Feb 2, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> On your latter point, I agree. However, any attempt to form a suitable description is likely to founder on the rock presented by your first paragraph, to wit that any group description will inevitably be met by somebody saying, _pace_ dogmatique, "does that apply to _everybody_?". I wonder how useful it is to object to generalisations on the basis that they do not apply to everybody.



I don't disagree that generalisations can't encompass every single individual .

Trouble is, I don't believe that the 'yuppie' term has been used as a particularly effective, helpful or accurate generalisation on this thread. It seems to have been based upon 80s Harry Enfield 'yah' stereotypes rather than the reality of the situation - it's a dated parody rather than an effective generalisation. And now folks are even widening the net, substituting 'Young Professionals' for 'Yuppies' - it's hardly unusual that such a forced and often repeated generalisation isn't holding up so well.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

"Young professionals" isn't such an inaccurate term for people who can afford one-bedroom flats in Brixton and are likely to move into them. I'd have thought it as adequate as any other.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 2, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> "Young professionals" isn't such an inaccurate term for people who can afford one-bedroom flats in Brixton and are likely to move into them. I'd have thought it as adequate as any other.



What if they can only afford a one-bedroom flat in East Molesey? Are they a young not-so-professional? Or Quite-Professional perhaps.

Isn't the term just shorthand for someone fairly young and in employment, arguably in a white-collar profession?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> What if they can only afford a one-bedroom flat in East Molesey? Are they a young not-so-professional? Or Quite-Professional perhaps.


I think we're back to the value of asking generaliastions not to be generalisations.



			
				tarannau said:
			
		

> Isn't the term just shorthand for someone fairly young and in employment, arguably in a white-collar profession?


Yes, but I think without the "arguably" and with the added characteristics of good (and rising) salary and career prospects. The sort of person who can reasonably expect to "do well" (God, haven't heard or used that phrase in ages) and be very comfortable by the time they're, er, about my age.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that it is used perjoratively in some communities far more rural than Brixton



Oh, I know. Although I have to say it's only "incomers" 4 and 5 generations ago that actually made my paternal family line deviate from it's "normal for Norfolk" straight-line family tree of Norwich City supporters.    

I actually thnk that rural communities probably feel they have more "right" to use perjorative terms, given that the type of social flux they experience tends to be a lot slower than urban social flux, so that they're a lot less habituated to it.


----------



## newbie (Feb 2, 2005)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that it is used perjoratively in some communities far more rural than Brixton



Is it?  I guess almost any term can be used perjoratively by someone but is it generally understood in a negative light- as with 'blowin' for example?  What term is inclusive and not seen as perjorative by anyone?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> Mike: I believe did you not once produce t-shirts that said anger was an energy?


perchance a quote from pil's single "rise", released c. 1986.

though i doubt the phrase was coined by john lydon.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> perchance a quote from pil's single "rise", released c. 1986.
> 
> though i doubt the phrase was coined by john lydon.


I wonder what John Lydon thinks of yuppies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I wonder what John Lydon thinks of yuppies.


sad young farts, no doubt.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

It's not clear to me that John Lydon's had a coherent thought since around the time Brighton reached the Cup Final.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

c'mon, justin, you can do better than that.

can't you?


----------



## Bob (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I wonder what John Lydon thinks of yuppies.



Just a random guess but somebody happy to appear on 'I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!' probably doesn't care that much....


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I wonder what John Lydon thinks of yuppies.



I'm sure he'd think they need defending to the hilt coz they are so oppressed and downtrodden....


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Anger is an energy but  you mustn't direct it at yuppies.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

You know, one of the annoying things about this thread is that if you look at the forums index, all it says is _"Young..._ - and all this does is give me an earworm of Roy Orbison singing _Young girl, get out of my mind_. Which it won't.

Still, you've all got it now too.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Anger is an energy but  you mustn't direct it at yuppies.


Far better to randomly direct it towards anyone that fits your stereotype, eh?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

Can you "randomly direct"?


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

kea said:
			
		

> what about if someone who posts on this board were to die and leave you their entire, massive, estate?


I'd make this site the best fucking free site in the universe, put on the best free gigs known to mankind and buy a new camera.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Can you "randomly direct"?


Blimey, the resident pedant's quick off the mark today!


----------



## kea (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'd make this site the best fucking free site in the universe, put on the best free gigs known to mankind and buy a new camera.




can i have a grant to set up a home for stray cats?  i hear there are some empty properties in central brixton which might be avaialble ...


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 2, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> What term is inclusive and not seen as perjorative by anyone?



New residents?  More recent residents?  

In my experience it is shorthand terms / nicknames which become misused by some people and thus their meaning changes over time.


----------



## isvicthere? (Feb 2, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> You know, one of the annoying things about this thread is that if you look at the forums index, all it says is _"Young..._ - and all this does is give me an earworm of Roy Orbison singing _Young girl, get out of my mind_. Which it won't.
> 
> Still, you've all got it now too.



"Young girl" was by Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, NOT Roy Orbison. You're probably thinking of "Pretty woman".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> You know, one of the annoying things about this thread is that if you look at the forums index, all it says is _"Young..._ - and all this does is give me an earworm of Roy Orbison singing _Young girl, get out of my mind_. Which it won't.
> 
> Still, you've all got it now too.



Wasn't that Gary Puckett and the Union Gap rather than Roy Orbison?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> "Young girl" was by Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, NOT Roy Orbison. You're probably thinking of "Pretty woman".


No, I'm thinking of the right song, but quite likely the wrong singer. I used to hear it in a pub, the bloke who used to put it on was a big Orbison fan, you can see where the confusion comes from.

Anyway, are _you_ enjoying it now?


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I wonder what John Lydon thinks of yuppies.


Why don't you write and ask him?

Last I heard he was dividing his time between one house in California and another in Florida, having made a small fortune from property speculation.


----------



## christonabike (Feb 2, 2005)

I thought the general consensus was that it was the fault of the council policy on social housing, and not that of the people buying these places

I find the term "yuppie" about as helpful as "soap-dodger"

But still we persist


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

christonabike said:
			
		

> I find the term "yuppie" about as helpful as "soap-dodger"


Indeed. Two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

christonabike said:
			
		

> I find the term "yuppie" about as helpful as "soap-dodger"


Perhaps, but if you take a stroll through the thread you may find that the debate has moved on a little and become rather more nuanced than your caricature would suggest. It's not necessarily helpful to that process to keep bringing up the same tired old point.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> You know, one of the annoying things about this thread is that if you look at the forums index, all it says is _"Young..._ - and all this does is give me an earworm of Roy Orbison singing _Young girl, get out of my mind_.


Same for me, only I've got  _Young, Gifted and Black_* by Bob and Marcia.  


(*And unable to afford to buy or rent a flat in Brixton.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Indeed. Two sides of the same coin.


eh?

what d'you mean by 'soap-dodger'?


----------



## christonabike (Feb 2, 2005)

Reply to Justin, sorry about that I was trying to keep up, and noticed "yuppie" was still being bandied about in post 486, I added my comment not too many posts on

And another answer to a question, I do not mean anything by the term "soap-dodger" as I don't use it to mean anything - it was too make a point that crap words that mean little, and are used as a stereotype that doesn't fit all cases, can cause a ruck


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what d'you mean by 'soap-dodger'?


Why don't you ask christonabike seeing as he introduced the word in to the debate?

I know exactly what it means but I can't be arsed to tell someone who's too lazy to look it up.

Try using the internet. It's awfully useful, you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

christonabike said:
			
		

> And another answer to a question, I do not mean anything by the term "soap-dodger" as I don't use it to mean anything - it was too make a point that crap words that mean little, and are used as a stereotype that doesn't fit all cases, can cause a ruck


a) i wasn't asking you, but editor, who has set up 'soap-dodger' as something apparently diametrically opposed to 'yuppie'.

b) of course generalisations can only be partially true.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> of course generalisations can only be partially true.


Or they could be entirely true, but only by accident.


----------



## christonabike (Feb 2, 2005)

He did, I answered

Can't believe someone's never heard of it and the useless connotations it implies


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

christonabike said:
			
		

> Can't believe someone's never heard of it and the useless connotations it implies


I think Pickman's more interested in starting up another of his tedious, pedantic, nitpick-fests.

I'm not interested.


----------



## christonabike (Feb 2, 2005)

OK Pickman's Model, get yer, you have heard of it


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Why don't you ask christonabike seeing as he introduced the word in to the debate?
> 
> I know exactly what it means but I can't be arsed to tell someone who's too lazy to look it up.
> 
> Try using the internet. It's awfully useful, you know.


i had already consulted a dictionary, in which the word was absent.

if you are able to define it with some precision, perhaps you could. after all, you seem to see a soap-dodger in a certain relationship to a yuppie. yet you have expressed some confusion above over what a yuppie is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I think Pickman's more interested in starting up another of his tedious, pedantic, nitpick-fests.
> 
> I'm not interested.


i'm interested in finding out what one of yr posts means, which is fair enough, i'd have thought.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> christonabike said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


would i be right in understanding you to  mean that you dislike both yuppies and soap-dodgers?


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I think Pickman's more interested in starting up another of his tedious, pedantic, nitpick-fests.
> 
> I'm not interested.


Repeated for Pickman's benefit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

you can think what you want - but that doesn't mean that yr right, or that you have the slightest inkling what i think or what i desire.

for someone so demanding of answers of other people, yr strangely reticent to provide any yrself, probably for very sound reasons which i can only guess at.

let's leave it that way, then, because i'm fairly certain my conclusions about yr silence are correct.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

anywhere with a Sainsburys local has been 'yuppiefied' - Discuss....


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> let's leave it that way, then, because i'm fairly certain my conclusions about yr silence are correct.


It takes about ten seconds to find an explanation of the phrase "soap dodger".

I do not "dislike both yuppies and soap-dodgers", but I was agreeing with the point christonabike was making about sloppy stereotyping. If you don't understand that, take it up with him.

The End.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> anywhere with a Sainsburys local has been 'yuppiefied' - Discuss....



And anywhere with at least three market stalls selling tatty underwear and nightdresses printed with comic characters isn't - Discuss.

Your point? Or was it just a smartarse throwaway comment - it's hardly as though Sainsbury's & Tescos haven't made huge inroads nearly everywhere with their convenience store formats of late...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It takes about ten seconds to find an explanation of the phrase "soap dodger".
> 
> I do not "dislike both yuppies and soap-dodgers", but I was agreeing with the point christonabike was making about sloppy stereotyping. If you don't understand that, take it up with him.
> 
> The End.


it wasn't the definition of soap-dodger - which you seem strangely obssessed with - that interested me but the relationship of soap-dodgers to yuppies, which you raised, describing them as two sides of the same coin. i understand that you don't want to elaborate on yr post, as neither would i if i'd made such a crass statement.   best to move on and leave it, eh.


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 2, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Can you "randomly direct"?



Not sure. You can direct randomly though.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> it wasn't the definition of soap-dodger -.


It's clear you don't know what 'obsessive' means.

I've only used the word in *one* of my posts.

You're the one who keeps banging on and on about it like a fucking obsessed person with nothing better to do with their time.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> And anywhere with at least three market stalls selling tatty underwear and nightdresses printed with comic characters isn't - Discuss.
> 
> Your point? Or was it just a smartarse throwaway comment - it's hardly as though Sainsbury's & Tescos haven't made huge inroads nearly everywhere with their convenience store formats of late...




errr it was just a bit of a joke. Sorry I'll desist. 

But there is a bit of truth behind it no? I'd say its a pretty good benchmark.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Not sure. You can direct randomly though.


Wouldn't that be undirected direction, though?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Not sure. You can direct randomly though.


Remind me never to ask you for directions. 

Cheggers -- no smartarse throwaway comments -- that's tarannau's job.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> errr it was just a bit of a joke. Sorry I'll desist.
> 
> But there is a bit of truth behind it no? I'd say its a pretty good benchmark.


Indeed. It was a cultural observation, which is always going to be a bit throwaway and inexact. As with generalisations.

But you have to make them in order to describe changes that you see in the world about you. And of course, all of them will be subject to all sorts of objections and can be dismissed for that reason. But eventually you find that a place _has_ changed out of all recognition, that the little changes you claimed to detect - and were rubbished for it - turned out to be part of something very profound, and something which it is by then, too late to do anythng about.

Which leads us to wonder whether the observations are actually of more value than the objections.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> But there is a bit of truth behind it no? I'd say its a pretty good benchmark.


I avoid Sainsbury Local whenever I can, but aren't a lot of them shoved in petrol stations and motorway service stations?


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I avoid Sainsbury Local whenever I can, but aren't a lot of them shoved in petrol stations and motorway service stations?



yeh. but if we discount those ones....

thank fuck we haven't got one in stokie. Yet. We've got uber yuppie stuff like 'fresh and wild' and other assorted hippy shit. Stokie is yuppiefied in a sort of earth mother kind of way. We reject your chain store supermarket locals


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

christonabike said:
			
		

> I thought the general consensus was that it was the fault of the council policy on social housing, and not that of the people buying these places
> 
> I find the term "yuppie" about as helpful as "soap-dodger"
> 
> But still we persist



"Council policy"? Definitely not. Most councils would love to have the power to develop their own social housing restored.
Government policy is to blame, or to be more accurate, *policies*. The "Right to Buy" policy is to blame, as is the subsequent (1983 iirc) policy which prevented councils from using "Right to Buy" receipts to develop new social housing. Then there was the policy in around 1985 which took the power to develop and build social housing entirely away from councils and gave it to "The Housing Corporation", the umbrella organisation for funding Housing Associations. Once this was done the fate of social housing was pretty much sealed, because it was obvious, both to the government and to the man on the street that no *large scale* development of social housing was going to take place again. 
We could also blame "new" Labour policies which are now proposing to allow a version of "Right to Buy" for HA tenants.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> yeh. but if we discount those ones....
> 
> thank fuck we haven't got one in stokie. Yet. We've got uber yuppie stuff like 'fresh and wild' and other assorted hippy shit. Stokie is yuppiefied in a sort of earth mother kind of way. We reject your chain store supermarket locals


Stoke Newington is an interesting case of gentrification. The place has changed out of all recognition in 12 or 13 years. Which is great if you want antiques and scented candles. Don't be too sure the high st, rather  than church st, won't get a tesco metro, waitrose or sainsbury's though.  Do you drink in that pub where the punx go? I call it The Albert of the North.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> yeh. but if we discount those ones....
> 
> thank fuck we haven't got one in stokie. Yet. We've got uber yuppie stuff like 'fresh and wild' and other assorted hippy shit. Stokie is yuppiefied in a sort of earth mother kind of way. We reject your chain store supermarket locals



Well, you could always visit the Sainsbury's locals in Headcorn, Sutton Coldfield or Warrington for starters. Have a pop and call the locals yuppies if you like....

Still, I've cheered up immensely now I know that you've a Fresh N' Wild in Stokie. That's like the Porsche and Salmon Pink shirted brash 80's businessbastard of the organic food world - witness the Camden version, with its permanent assortment of beardie-stroking try-hards (wearing artful Armani berets) lined up in the window .  I'd even prefer a Sainsbury's local to that ... and I fudging hate that place...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 2, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Well, you could always visit the Sainsbury's locals in Headcorn, Sutton Coldfield or Warrington for starters. Have a pop and call the locals yuppies if you like....


This is a rather strange selection. Are they supposed to resemble one another? Sutton Coldfield is a very nice area of Birmingham - in fact, as with Solihull, the locals don't really like to think of themselves as being in Birmingham - whereas Warrington is a not-very-nice area of Cheshire. Indeed, Cheshire likes to think of Warrington as somewhere else entirely...


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Well, you could always visit the Sainsbury's locals in Headcorn, Sutton Coldfield or Warrington for starters. Have a pop and call the locals yuppies if you like....
> 
> Still, I've cheered up immensely now I know that you've a Fresh N' Wild in Stokie. That's like the Porsche and Salmon Pink shirted brash 80's businessbastard of the organic food world - witness the Camden version, with its permanent assortment of beardie-stroking try-hards (wearing artful Armani berets) lined up in the window .  I'd even prefer a Sainsbury's local to that ... and I fudging hate that place...



thought I'd hand you that tasty morsel just in case you were thinking I was being mean only about Brixton....  

err and as for Sutton Coldfield....my mate that grew up there certainly seems to think its the posh bit...  where all the villa footie players live.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> err and as for Sutton Coldfield....my mate that grew up there certainly seems to think its the posh bit...  where all the villa footie players live.



Sutton Coldfield is definately posh, massive park.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> thought I'd hand you that tasty morsel just in case you were thinking I was being mean only about Brixton....
> 
> err and as for Sutton Coldfield....my mate that grew up there certainly seems to think its the posh bit...  where all the villa footie players live.



Shite, I only chose Sutton Coldfield because it had a slightly twee name - rest assured that there were plenty of other branches of Sainsbury's Local in Brum though, probably in less ostentatious areas..

Ah well, your Sainsbury's Local theory may well not hold water too easily, but Fresh and Wild has provided another vital gentrification indicator if you ask me. Check out this list of the other UK branches - Notting Hill, Soho, Clifton (Bristol), Clapham and a couple of others.

Stokie's obviously posher than a particularly posh thing at Tara PT's Pimm's party...


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> , but Fresh and Wild has provided another vital gentrification indicator if you ask me.




if you think that camden is posh then I suggest you take a look around the tube station some time.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 2, 2005)

What's this "Fresh and Wild" thingie? Is it for carrot munchers or something? Pet shop?


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> What's this "Fresh and Wild" thingie? Is it for carrot munchers or something? Pet shop?




it's a bit like holland and barrett.  lots of organic things.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

tommers said:
			
		

> it's a bit like holland and barrett.


 Only 239 times more expensive.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 2, 2005)

tommers said:
			
		

> if you think that camden is posh then I suggest you take a look around the tube station some time.



Worked there for 5 years, right down Bayham St.  It is a mixing ground; part money-earning theme park for alternative middle-class kids and tourists, part rapidly gentrifying town. Two branches of Starbucks, a massive Gap and many old local shops and services closing down (NonTas, George & Nikis) in the past few years.

Camden central is remarkably posh  - witness the recent luvvies campaign to save the Crown & Goose for example- but the number of drop in centres and hostels right in the centre at least make it appear outwardly mixed, much to many residents' disapproval..


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 2, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> What's this "Fresh and Wild" thingie? Is it for carrot munchers or something? Pet shop?



its a heavily stylised rip off organic shop for right-on foolish twats with more money than they know what to do with.


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Only 239 times more expensive.



true.


----------



## hammerntongues (Feb 2, 2005)

As a matter of interest which particular areas do you think it is acceptable for so called Yuppies to ' infest ' ?  Why do some of you have this irrational hatred of a group of people who you can only identify with 20 year old label.
The vast majority of these people are just ordinary folk who scamble just about enough to pay the mortgage and have enough left over for a night out and  a couple  of pints at the weekend . I dont even know the development you are talking about but doubt there will be a Tarquin or Tamara anywhere near the place , more likely Mike`s and Julie`s just like the rest of us.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 2, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> its a heavily stylised rip off organic shop for right-on foolish twats with more money than they know what to do with.


Why don't they just find a Waitrose, good organic food at a reasonable price. I am hooked on the place.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

hammerntongues said:
			
		

> As a matter of interest which particular areas do you think it is acceptable for so called Yuppies to ' infest ' ?  Why do some of you have this irrational hatred of a group of people who you can only identify with 20 year old label.
> The vast majority of these people are just ordinary folk who scamble just about enough to pay the mortgage and have enough left over for a night out and  a couple  of pints at the weekend . I dont even know the development you are talking about but doubt there will be a Tarquin or Tamara anywhere near the place , more likely Mike`s and Julie`s just like the rest of us.


The poor darlings.

You're clearly lucky enough not to encounter the hordes of whinnying and  yapping advertising sales executives --  on their way to becoming advertising sales managers and one day advertising sales directors -- who troop down to Living bar of a weekend. More to the point, you don't have to deal with these vacuous horrors in your daily life.  They might well be called Mike -- are we allowed to say Mike?  -- and Julie but they are still appalling, massively overpaid, dung brained, self serving yups of the first water and London is thoroughly _infested_ with them.  

_And I don't fucking care if anyone has a problem with that. _


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

I don't believe any 'yuppies' live in Brixton. I think their presence is the figment of some highly fertile prejudiced paranoid imaginations.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> They might well be called Mike -- are we allowed to say Mike?


Cheap. Very cheap.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 2, 2005)

Mike's a cockney name!


----------



## hammerntongues (Feb 2, 2005)

you may well be right  but personally  I just find it really difficult to hate people with such passion without knowing the least bit about them as individuals as compared to lumping them altogether in one putrid stinking collective.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> _And I don't fucking care if anyone has a problem with that. _



I don't have a problem with you not fucking caring what anyone else thinks, I just think you have a few problems with reality and overexaggeration.

I've known a fair few Media Sales 'executives' over the years. It is a horrible vacuous field with more than its fair share of wankers, but the majority of the folks earn crappy money for turning up to soul destroying sales jobs, and whilst they are promised the earth in OTE earnings, little generally materialises. Career expectancy and longevity is low too - it's hardly as these people are naturally on the highway for directorships and huge salaries. 

Can't we pick on people on much higher salaries, like Bankers, Lawyers and , erm, Plumbers...


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Mike's a cockney name!


 As in "Gorblimey, me ol' Mum's gunna mike me a cuppa tea".


----------



## Juice Terry (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> and London is thoroughly _infested_ with them.


So not being satisfied with being the self appointed "who's allowed to live in Brixton" tsar you want to extend your role to the whole of London.

I'd say there are a fair few "yuppies" about whose short sighted, biggotted, selfish and self centred attitude is dwarfed by your own.


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

Juice Terry said:
			
		

> So not being satisfied with being the self appointed "who's allowed to live in Brixton" tsar you want to extend your role to the whole of London.
> 
> I'd say there are a fair few "yuppies" about whose short sighted, biggotted, selfish and self centred attitude is dwarfed by your own.



do you know, I've been trying to think of a response to that statement for about five minutes and you said it so much better than I ever could.

thanks.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> hordes of whinnying and  yapping advertising sales executives  [/i]


How do you know they have these jobs?
You're making massive assumptions here.
I know some ordinary people who go there and they wouldn't take too kindly to be described as ad executives. And who cares if they are anyway?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 2, 2005)

I can see what IS is saying, it's the attitide of some of them that gets peoples' backs up.....like the one who told Pig to "Shut up talking so loudly on your mobile phone." from a luxury flat overlooking Shoreditch police station.  WTF? That police station has been there for over a hundred years, who in their right mind would buy a luxury flat right next door to it? They also get complaints about horses clip-clopping, sirens wailing and prisoners shouting. Er.......it's a police station!


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Juice Terry said:
			
		

> So not being satisfied with being the self appointed "who's allowed to live in Briston" tsar you want to extend your role to the whole of London.
> 
> I'd say there are a fair few "yuppies" about whose short sighted, biggotted, selfish and self centred attitude is dwarfed by your own.


Well that shows us exactly where you're coming from, you poor oppressed yup. Perhaps somebody should start a charity to pay for counselling for people like you to cope with the heartbreak of being roundly despised -- not in this increasingly torytastic environment perhaps but out there in the real world.


----------



## zcat (Feb 2, 2005)

*Squat The Lot*

Well you lot seem to have really wound each other up
and i sincerly hope you all can kiss and make up afterwards   

but the sollution to it as i see it is if they been empty for so long why not SQUAT THE LOT  
and then invite the locals who couldnt ever afford to buy them to move in rent free
 it would fuck up the property speculators somewhat 
all u need it a crowbar and a few good locks


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> they wouldn't take too kindly to be described as ad executives. And who cares if they are anyway?


Can you not see the inherent contradiction there?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

zcat said:
			
		

> Well you lot seem to have really wound each other up
> and i sincerly hope you all can kiss and make up afterwards
> 
> but the sollution to it as i see it is if they been empty for so long why not SQUAT THE LOT
> ...



Somebody talking sense at last.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Somebody talking sense at last.


Will you be leading the charge of squatters?


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Can you not see the inherent contradiction there?


What I meant is that they earn considerably less than them. The point I was trying to make is that being an ad executive does not somehow make you have less of a right to visit or live in Brixton than anybody else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> As in "Gorblimey, me ol' Mum's gunna mike me a cuppa tea".



So your mum's an Afrikaaner?


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make is that being an ad executive does not somehow make you have less of a right to visit or live in Brixton than anybody else.



or the amount you earn?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What I meant is that they earn considerably less than them. .


Thank you.  That was my point.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2005)

*groan*

This whole thing isn't really helping, is it? I mean, is there really anyone here who thinks that whether "young professionals" are lovely or horrible is at all significant compared to the fact that new housing is being specifically targeted for that subsection of society, whilst other people are unable to afford it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Will you be leading the charge of squatters?



I'm trying my best to imagine a "charge of squatters" toward Iceland, and I'll I can visualise is hordes of people getting squashed by the godawful traffic in Brixton Rd.

I prefer to imagine "a stealthy infiltration by squatters" myself. It's a much more appropriate image.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 2, 2005)

Who would you rather live next door to, really? Pikeys who have piles of junk outside and kids wrecking your car or a quiet, hardworking Yuppie? I would prefer the Yuppies, any day!


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Thank you.  That was my point.



What, that people who visit so-called 'yuppie' bars come from all walks of life?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What I meant is that they earn considerably less than them. The point I was trying to make is that being an ad executive does not somehow make you have less of a right to visit or live in Brixton than anybody else.


They don't visit Brixton in any meaningful sense. They scuttle into Living bar as fast as their little legs will carry them -- always in groups -- and then they get a cab home so that they don't have to encounter any scary Brixton people.  That hardly consitutes visiting Brixton.  

If they move into the block above Iceland they will be literally next door to the tube station and so won't have to interact with Brixton at all. It will simply be a dormitory for them, conveniently placed for the west end.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

That's what your assumption is. How do you know they won't use the market, shop at the local deli, etc etc etc. I'm thinking they are actually more likely to spend money than poorer people who live here.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2005)

Nobody *has* to interact with where they live at all. It's quite possible to live somewhere where your only connection with the community is that you walk through it to the train station, and maybe buy the odd paper. It's not a question of where you are or where you work, it's a question of how you live the rest of your life. And I don't see that "young professionals" have any more or less tendency to do that than anyone else - all the people around my age that I know who've been able to get together enough for property have chosen areas where they think they'll feel comfortable and be able to make a home.


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> They don't visit Brixton in any meaningful sense. They scuttle into Living bar as fast as their little legs will carry them -- always in groups -- and then they get a cab home so that they don't have to encounter any scary Brixton people.  That hardly consitutes visiting Brixton.
> 
> If they move into the block above Iceland they will be literally next door to the tube station and so won't have to interact with Brixton at all. It will simply be a dormitory for them, conveniently placed for the west end.



what do you consider a "meaningful sense"?

how do you know all this info about them?

do you follow them around?


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I prefer to imagine "a stealthy infiltration by squatters" myself. It's a much more appropriate image.


Talking of squatters, I've been talking to the South London Radical History Group in the hope of filling in the holes of my 121 Centre article, as well as adding more info about other Brixton squats I've missed.

And at the Brixton Cycles party a few weeks ago, I met the two women who cracked the original Cooltan building. Respect was due!

(I won't mention the fate of the Coldharbour Lane Cooltan building as I tend to get rather worked up over that).


----------



## zcat (Feb 2, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I don't believe any 'yuppies' live in Brixton. I think their presence is the figment of some highly fertile prejudiced paranoid imaginations.



Q.  well then why cant local people who've grown up here afford to buy a fuckin gaff here 
A.  cause the fucking yuppies and property speculators  moved in and pushed all the prices up

up untill the early 90s every one round here was much the same income level (a few exceptions) 
now there is a shitload of difference 
oh and i suspect if your black and got a brixton postcode you wont land a "young professionals" job
as well as the lack of council houses which were all sold off some whilst they were still squatted (squatted - b4 u start moaning- because the council had left them to rot so not able to put tennants in em ) cause the council it throughly corupt as well as the people who work for it .
a mate used to work in the housing dept in 80s said workers sold off tennancies to their mates or didnt do any work at all, some even had other jobs and got others to sign them in to work  

what do yuppies ever do for the local community anyway just moan about the graffiti and the poor people


----------



## zcat (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Somebody talking sense at last.


ta 'Stella




			
				ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> II prefer to imagine "a stealthy infiltration by squatters" myself. It's a much more appropriate image.


yup


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

zcat said:
			
		

> up untill the early 90s every one round here was much the same income level (a few exceptions)
> now there is a shitload of difference



Isn't diversity a GOOD thing?

It's difficult for anyone to buy a house anywhere in London, let alone Brixton.


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

zcat said:
			
		

> Q.  well then why cant local people who've grown up here afford to buy a fuckin gaff here



that is a nationwide problem.  The housing market is massively overpriced.

if that is the cause of these mythical "yuppies" then I'm purple.

and I'm not.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> *groan*
> 
> This whole thing isn't really helping, is it? I mean, is there really anyone here who thinks that whether "young professionals" are lovely or horrible is at all significant compared to the fact that new housing is being specifically targeted for that subsection of society, whilst other people are unable to afford it?


 Er yes, you're right. That is the point. But why so many people  chose to ignore this and instead leapt on the throwaway and ultimately irrelevant term 'infest' is for them to explain. As I've said before, if someone sees red at the word yuppie, that speaks volumes about how they see themself, not about how I, for example, see them.

Besides, whenever anyone laments the lack of affordable/social housing they get leapt on for oppressing the poor yups. I'm sorry but the buyer is as culpable in this as the property developer. Both are knowingly creating a climate in which hardly anyone can afford to buy a home and a great many people can't even afford to rent.


----------



## zcat (Feb 2, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Isn't diversity a GOOD thing?


sure it is but not at the expence of other less fortunate people


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> That's what your assumption is. How do you know they won't use the market, shop at the local deli, etc etc etc. I'm thinking they are actually more likely to spend money than poorer people who live here.


Use those smelly shops? never! 

Besides, that is YOUR assumption.


----------



## zcat (Feb 2, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Who would you rather live next door to, really? Pikeys who have piles of junk outside and kids wrecking your car or a quiet, hardworking Yuppie? I would prefer the Yuppies, any day!



Whats a Pikey 
its a racist abusive term thats what


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but the buyer is as culpable in this as the property developer. Both are knowingly creating a climate in which hardly anyone can afford to buy a home and a great many people can't even afford to rent.


WHAT? 
I would like to buy a flat here, but I cannot afford it yet.
Maybe one day I will be able to afford one, but you're saying that I shouldn't buy one.
Where should I live then?


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

zcat said:
			
		

> Whats a Pikey
> its a racist abusive term thats what



wait a minute!

has there been some PREJUDICE shown on this thread?!?

come on.  hands up.  who was it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Use those smelly shops? never!
> 
> Besides, that is YOUR assumption.


You can't turn it around like that!
You were the one who said that 'they' wouldn't use the local amenities, and would use the place as a dormitory. What about drinking at Living too?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

tommers said:
			
		

> what do you consider a "meaningful sense"?
> 
> how do you know all this info about them?
> 
> do you follow them around?


I live very near to where they hang out and I see them all the time, day in, day out. 

By a meaningful sense I mean interacting socially and economically with a diversity of local businesses, not just handing wads of cash to Lawrence Merrett (RIP. Not).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

zcat said:
			
		

> a mate used to work in the housing dept in 80s said workers sold off tennancies to their mates or didnt do any work at all, some even had other jobs and got others to sign them in to work



After local authorities were forced by Thatch and her shitbag cronies to put CCT (compulsory competitive tendering) in place (with the destruction of a lot of "direct labour" council jobs) Lambeth had a particular sub-contractor that I had this misfortune to know quite a lot about (I "expropriated" copies of a lot of their financial papers for a friend who was building a case against them). I sent recorded delivery and registered letters with proof of the company's fondness for double-invoicing, mis-charging etc to various parts of the Lambeth heirarchy. Did they think twice about using this company? Did they buggery. Result? They found out a few years down the line that, oddly enough, they'd been ripped off something rotten through exactly the same tricks as I'd warned them about.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 2, 2005)

zcat said:
			
		

> Whats a Pikey
> its a racist abusive term thats what


Well, that's what THEY called themselves...the ones who rented a house not far fromhere....the ones who set my mate's shed on fire. When she went round there they told her they were "Fucking Pikeys and we will smash yer faces in." Charming! They have fucked off now.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

zcat said:
			
		

> sure it is but not at the expence of other less fortunate people


Exactly. What diversity means in terms of gentrification is, er, the opposite of diversity. All your local shops, places to eat, markets, pubs, good bars and the like get swept away in favour of an identikit row of yuppie bahs and starbucks. Which offer nothing to people who aren't rich.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I live very near to where they hang out and I see them all the time, day in, day out.


I seen 'em. They'll rob you blind. Don't turn your back on them for one second. These [spits on floor] YUPPIES! They look so shifty and their eyes are too close together.

At the risk of repeating myself, who are there YUPPIES you speak of and what do they look like? How will I know if I meet one? Why have I never seen anyone I would describe as a yuppie in Brixton?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> WHAT?
> I would like to buy a flat here, but I cannot afford it yet.
> Maybe one day I will be able to afford one, but you're saying that I shouldn't buy one.
> Where should I live then?


  I honestly doubt you'd really want to live in a yuppie dormitory. Not all property on the market is potential social housing stock that has been bought up and redeveloped by property developers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

tommers said:
			
		

> that is a nationwide problem.  The housing market is massively overpriced.
> 
> if that is the cause of these mythical "yuppies" then I'm purple.
> 
> and I'm not.



You're at least lilac then mate.

Think of it this way; there's around about 160,000 (and rising) 2nd homes in England and Wales (not including chalets and static caravans). How much presure would be taken off the housing market if people hadn't indulged their whim for a second home (although I'll acknowledge that half a dozen of that number do belong to our sainted Prime Minister)?

Lilac Tommers indeed!


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 2, 2005)

I reckon they should build prefabs again. They were good. Used to have loads of them in Bethnal Green, behind our shop.


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> if people hadn't indulged their whim for a second home
> 
> Lilac Tommers indeed!



that is a fair enough point I guess, although I don't know anyone who has a second home.

lilac tommers eh?  I can see a new tagline coming on!


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> I reckon they should build prefabs again. They were good. Used to have loads of them in Bethnal Green, behind our shop.



there was something on the news about them last night.  looked alright but they said they had only commissioned a thousand.  and that's hardly going to change the world...


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

They're IKEA homes....hmmmmm.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> I reckon they should build prefabs again. They were good. Used to have loads of them in Bethnal Green, behind our shop.


As long as they were well designed and planned then I agree. There are still some wartime ones  in West Norwood AFAIK. 

But then land is at such a premium that it wouldn't help a lot in Lambeth.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

tommers said:
			
		

> there was something on the news about them last night.  looked alright but they said they had only commissioned a thousand.  and that's hardly going to change the world...


It's a bloody good start.


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> But why so many people  chose to ignore this and instead leapt on the throwaway and ultimately irrelevant term 'infest' is for them to explain.



I haven't previously commented on it, but to me it didn't seem throwaway at all.   And using 'infest' to describe a group of urban incomers has some very unfortunate precedents ...



> The film [The Eternal Jew] featured particularly disgusting scenes of the rats in the ghettos, and it attempted to liken the Jews to the rats saying that both '*infest the towns of Germany*'.


http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Er yes, you're right. That is the point. But why so many people  chose to ignore this and instead leapt on the throwaway and ultimately irrelevant term 'infest' is for them to explain. As I've said before, if someone sees red at the word yuppie, that speaks volumes about how they see themself, not about how I, for example, see them.


I originally got a bit irritated at all the stuff about "young professionals", being (well, relatively) young and (having been) a professional, and more importantly having friends who are youngish professionals who live in Brixton. But it's not going to get anywhere, arguing about all that. I'm more interested in what people can do about the situation.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> I haven't previously commented on it, but to me it didn't seem throwaway at all.   And using 'infest' to describe a group of urban incomers has some very unfortunate precedents ...
> 
> 
> http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml


Oh come on rabbie. We have already been over this. What a  totally out of order and Godwin's law busting comparison to make. Only a total moron would draw a comparison between rich tory cunts and asylum seekers or, indeed, the victims of the holocaust. You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. I didn't think you were that low. Clearly I massively overestimated you.   

What a fucking tosser. Yuppies=holocaust victims? You  ARSEHOLE.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

You are making assumption about people from their backgrounds though


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I originally got a bit irritated at all the stuff about "young professionals", being (well, relatively) young and (having been) a professional, and more importantly having friends who are youngish professionals who live in Brixton. But it's not going to get anywhere, arguing about all that. I'm more interested in what people can do about the situation.



anyway.  lambeth council released a statement today  to say that they are providing more "affordable housing".


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> You are making assumption about people from their backgrounds though


   I'm not fucking putting them in a cunting death camp, am I?   

Jesus, I never knew you were such a blockhead either. 

How evil I am, making assumptions about rich, greedy conservatives.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> I haven't previously commented on it, but to me it didn't seem throwaway at all.   And using 'infest' to describe a group of urban incomers has some very unfortunate precedents ...
> 
> 
> http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml


You should apologise for this, you fucking twat.


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh come on rabbie. We have already been over this. What a  totally out of order and Godwin's law busting comparison to make. Only a total moron would draw a comparison between rich tory cunts and asylum seekers or, indeed, the victims of the holocaust. You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. I didn't think you were that low. Clearly I massively overestimated you.
> 
> What a fucking tosser. Yuppies=holocaust victims? You  ARSEHOLE.



Once again, IS, you completely miss the point - my objection is to the dehumanising use of "infest" or "vermin" to refer to any group in a discourse charged with hatred.


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> How evil I am, making assumptions about rich, greedy conservatives.



do you not see that that is exactly what you are doing?  you have gone from somebody buying a one bedroom flat above a supermarket in brixton to them being "rich, greedy conservatives".


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Once again, IS, you completely miss the point - my objection is to the dehumanising use of "infest" or "vermin" to refer to any group in a discourse charged with hatred.


Don't try to wriggle out of it. You should apologise. What a DISGUSTING insinuation to make.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

tommers said:
			
		

> do you not see that that is exactly what you are doing?  you have gone from somebody buying a one bedroom flat above a supermarket in brixton to them being "rich, greedy conservatives".


I don't know ANYBODY who could afford to buy one in their wildest dreams. You are so dishonest. You are trying to make out that the yuppie died out with red braces and huge mobile phones  and you are lying. All over London 'luxury' apartments are going up that cost astronomical sums. And no one is building any significant amount of affordable or social housing. Why, because that is the market the fucking yuppies have created.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Once again, IS, you completely miss the point - my objection is to the dehumanising use of "infest" or "vermin"


I didn't use the word vermin, you weasel worded, lying arsehole.


----------



## hendo (Feb 2, 2005)

It's the word 'infesting' which made me lose my rag the other night, along with a couple of other things. It dehumanises the target and so degrades the argument - because you're tempted not to take the point seriously when it's pursued with such terrifying venom. You're distracted by the hate.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> It's the word 'infesting' which made me lose my rag the other night, along with a couple of other things. It dehumanises the target and so degrades the argument - because you're tempted not to take the point seriously when it's pursued with such terrifying venom. You're distracted by the hate.


 You poor flower! So oppressed by that one little word. 

If you identify yourself as a yuppie than that is your personal choice. But don't draw comparisons between asylum seekers  and holocaust victims on the one hand and the hugely privileged, choice-rich and socially irresponsible on the other. It's an absolutely disgusting thing to do.


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I don't know ANYBODY who could afford to buy one in their wildest dreams. You are so dishonest. You are trying to make out that the yuppie died out with red braces and huge mobile phones  and you are lying. All over London 'luxury' apartments are going up that cost astronomical sums. And no one is building any significant amount of affordable or social housing. Why, because that is the market the fucking yuppies have created.




well, I'm confused as to why you think I am dishonest.  all I'm saying is that because somebody can buy a one bedroom flat in brixton that doesn't make them a "yuppie" (your term, not mine.)  and I'm also saying that because somebody can afford to buy one of these flats that doesn't make them a "rich, greedy conservative."  you don't even know how much they will cost.

for the record I can't afford to by a flat either but I don't resent people who can.  I think it has more to do with the sharp fall in the amount of council housing over the past twenty years than with the people who buy a flat.

surely the idea that the amount somebody earns determines their worth as a human being went out with the ark?


----------



## SubZeroCat (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I didn't use the word vermin, you weasel worded, lying arsehole.



 

Cup o' camomile tea and a valium for you madam   

*hides*


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I don't know ANYBODY who could afford to buy one in their wildest dreams. You are so dishonest. You are trying to make out that the yuppie died out with red braces and huge mobile phones  and you are lying. All over London 'luxury' apartments are going up that cost astronomical sums. And no one is building any significant amount of affordable or social housing. Why, because that is the market the fucking yuppies have created.


It's not a market that yuppies have created. They obviously would like to spend as little as possible on a home. It's a market that property speculators have created, and that is economically tenable because of the ridiculous and growing rich-poor divide in this country and the lack of actual space to build houses.

It's less of a problem in the US, oddly enough, despite there being an even greater rich-poor divide, because there's a lot of space to build things. It's still a problem in the cities though.


----------



## hendo (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You poor flower! So oppressed by that one little word.
> .



I'm angry about people trying to meet their own housing needs from the market which, if they had their choice, wouldn't be as it is, being labelled here as insects.

I'm angry because ten or fifteen years ago, that was me thinking about buying a flat above an Iceland.

I wasn't an insect then, and I'm not one now.


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I didn't use the word vermin, you weasel worded, lying arsehole.



Sorry to disillusion you, but I was actually directing my ire at OldSlapper for the first use of "infest" in this thread.  My inclusion of "vermin" related to its appearance in previous now deleted threads on similar topics.


----------



## LDR (Feb 2, 2005)

tommers said:
			
		

> well, I'm confused as to why you think I am dishonest.  all I'm saying is that because somebody can buy a one bedroom flat in brixton that doesn't make them a "yuppie" (your term, not mine.)  and I'm also saying that because somebody can afford to buy one of these flats that doesn't make them a "rich, greedy conservative."  you don't even know how much they will cost.



I could actually afford a one-bedroom flat in Brixton and I wouldn't class myself as a yuppie.  I work in the charity sector and I don't think I'm greedy and I've never voted Tory.  However, I couldn't do it as a single person. 

The only reason that we didn't move to Brixton is because we wanted a house not a flat.


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> I could actually afford a one-bedroom flat in Brixton and I wouldn't class myself as a yuppie.  I work in the charity sector and I don't think I'm greedy and I've never voted Tory.




well, sorry mate but you're wrong.  you have to vote tory at the next election.  you have to talk with a ridiculous accent and you have to oppress the working class.

otherwise this thread has all been for nothing.











wait a minute....


----------



## LDR (Feb 2, 2005)

tommers said:
			
		

> well, sorry mate but you're wrong.  you have to vote tory at the next election.  you have to talk with a ridiculous accent and you have to oppress the working class.



Well, I already talk with a ridiculous accent so you'll have to make do with one out of three.


----------



## hendo (Feb 2, 2005)

The threads been about two things; the shortage and cost of housing, and the thinly veiled hatred that Oldslapper has for anyone who tries to buy anywhere in Brixton.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

tommers said:
			
		

> well, I'm confused as to why you think I am dishonest.  all I'm saying is that because somebody can buy a one bedroom flat in brixton that doesn't make them a "yuppie" (your term, not mine.)


How much do you think a flat in Brixton costs? Go back to the start of the thread, in fact go and look at some estate agent websites. We DO know what property prices are in Brixton and they are far, far, out of the reach of most people. 





> surely the idea that the amount somebody earns determines their worth as a human being went out with the ark?


 How they get their money and what they do with it are certainly valid criteria for assessing their social responsibility.  I never actually said these peple were subhuman or that their lives were worth less than anyone else's. Lang rabbie made that disgusting insinuation. I said I think they are socially irresponsible and greedy. And conservative. And I stand by that. I didn't say I wanted to put them in a gas chamber. I simply wish they wouldn't create a market that pushes all but the rich out, not because they have the basic human need for a roof over their head (which they could obtain almost anywhere) but simply because they want to live somehwere cool and trendy.  Like Hoxton as was (now suffering the consequences), and Brixton.

Them wanting to live somewhere cool and trendy denies poor people a roof over their head. And it's wrong.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> It's not a market that yuppies have created. They obviously would like to spend as little as possible on a home. It's a market that property speculators have created, and that is economically tenable because of the ridiculous and growing rich-poor divide in this country.


Without the yups to sell to, the property speculators would not have created that market.


----------



## hendo (Feb 2, 2005)

How is it greedy and irresponsible to want to own your own home? Is this a definition which extends to council tenants who decide to extend their right to buy? Since the RTB legislation is the big factor in the running down of local authority housing stock.


----------



## hendo (Feb 2, 2005)

Its just from another world this thing about 'yups'. The people who can afford to buy are getting there by clubbing together, borrowing like there's no tomorrow, using money passed to them by their parents who have embarked on perilous equity release plans - this insanity is called the housing market, and the people buying at the moment are almost as much victims of it as the people stuck outside it.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> How is it greedy and irresponsible to want to own your own home? Is this a definition which extends to council tenants who decide to extend their right to buy? Since the RTB legislation is the big factor in the running down of local authority housing stock.


 It's greedy and irresponsible, IMHO,  to knowingly push up property prices (by buying into 'luxury apartment developments') in poor areas  simply because they  are 'cool' and 'edgy'. Besides, the value for money argument doesn't wash. Property in Brixton is not good value for money at all. By buying into that trendiness premium, they make ever more remote the possibility for most people of ever buying a place or even of being able to continue to rent one. let's not forget that that is a significant consequence of property price rises. It's not just about home ownership.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> Its just from another world this thing about 'yups'. The people who can afford to buy are getting there by clubbing together, borrowing like there's no tomorrow, using money passed to them by their parents who have embarked on perilous equity release plans - this insanity is called the housing market, and the people buying at the moment are almost as much victims of it as the people stuck outside it.


 You know them personally? All of them?


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I don't know ANYBODY who could afford to buy one in their wildest dreams.


You know _at least_ one: LD Rudeboy.

If he decided to move to Brixton and buy one of these apartments, would he automatically metamorphose into a ghastly yuppie and start frequenting the Living bah?


----------



## newbie (Feb 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> It's not a market that yuppies have created.








census


That enormous bulge of people in their 20s & 30s is the young professionals of which we speak.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

hendo said:
			
		

> Its just from another world this thing about 'yups'. The people who can afford to buy are getting there by clubbing together, borrowing like there's no tomorrow, using money passed to them by their parents who have embarked on perilous equity release plans - this insanity is called the housing market, and the people buying at the moment are almost as much victims of it as the people stuck outside it.


If they are struggling so hard, why buy a place in cool, vibey Brixton that represents rotten value for money, rather than something that is better value in a less trendy area?  

You know perfectly well that this process goes on. Look at downtown Manhattan -- some of the most expensive real estate in the world. Why? because it became cool and trendy in the 60s/70s. Who can live there now but the astronomically rich?


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 2, 2005)

Looks like you lot will have to move to Fort Neaf soon then.


----------



## hendo (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You know them personally? All of them?



I was one, as I mentioned earlier. And I know quite a few would be first time buyers in London. And this is exactly the sort of thing they're having to do.

If you're implying that I'm generalising, well, that's you and me both.

If we're going to discuss housing seriously here we have to get away from saying that people 'infest' areas, and start looking at the pressures, the reasons for the pressures, and the extreme solutions that a lot of people are having to adopt to find somewhere to live.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Looks like you lot will have to move to Fort Neaf soon then.


I couldn't afford Fort Neaf either.  

Do you think Croydon could become the Greenwich Village of the 2030s?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Without the yups to sell to, the property speculators would not have created that market.


Which is a result of the rich-poor divide and the general lack of housing. It's not like people said "oh please, charge me 200 grand for a pokey flat, I need some way to get rid of my money!" The fact that there *are* people who can afford it who don't have any other choice if they want a house helps perpetuate the property spiral.

I mean, do you really expect people who can afford to buy a house or flat not to do so? The advantages are clear, why else would it matter for everyone? Nobody's going to get very far saying "don't buy property" at the moment. You'd need a lot more to stop that happening.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Which is a result of the rich-poor divide and the general lack of housing. It's not like people said "oh please, charge me 200 grand for a pokey flat, I need some way to get rid of my money!" The fact that there *are* people who can afford it who don't have any other choice if they want a house helps perpetuate the property spiral.
> 
> I mean, do you really expect people who can afford to buy a house or flat not to do so? The advantages are clear, why else would it matter for everyone? Nobody's going to get very far saying "don't buy property" at the moment. You'd need a lot more to stop that happening.


 As I said, it's about people moving into poor but 'vibrant' areas because they are cool, not because they represent value for money (which Brixton clearly doesn't) and  so further pushing up prices -- and rents -- for everyone.


----------



## tommers (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> As I said, it's about people moving into poor but 'vibrant' areas because they are cool, not because they represent value for money (which Brixton clearly doesn't) and  so further pushing up prices -- and rents -- for everyone.



so... why do you choose to live there?  and what makes your reasons different to somebody else's?


----------



## hendo (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> If they are struggling so hard, why buy a place in cool, vibey Brixton that represents rotten value for money, rather than something that is better value in a less trendy area?
> 
> You know perfectly well that this process goes on. Look at downtown Manhattan -- some of the most expensive real estate in the world. Why? because it became cool and trendy in the 60s/70s. Who can live there now but the astronomically rich?



Brixton represents excellent value for money, for all the reasons that people write about here. When you're buying you look for somewhere which is affordable, as well as likely to keep its value.

As for Manhattan, it's like some areas in London - in the eighties, and to a lesser extent in the nineties, a small group of people earnt a lot of money in bonuses in the financial sector. They wanted to live near their work, and they wanted to make personal investments which they could fall back on if it all went tits up (which it did) - kicking up the rents and land values. 

If you want to rail at anyone, rail at the buy to let merchants. These are the people who have forced up prices and kept them high. But if the housing market takes a hit, they'll be crying loudest, and that looks as if it might well happen, so cheer up.


----------



## magneze (Feb 2, 2005)

*stumbles into thread*

So, as someone asked many pages ago, did anyone go to the council meeting last night where this development was discussed? Did anything happen?


----------



## LDR (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> As I said, it's about people moving into poor but 'vibrant' areas because they are cool, not because they represent value for money (which Brixton clearly doesn't) and  so further pushing up prices -- and rents -- for everyone.



We brought our place because we felt it was a more interesting place for us and we could afford it, not to make money.  We have always thought of it as a home rather than an investment.

I do understand that by doing so would push prices up but I do not really see what the alternative was for us other than to stay in a place we wanted to and pay exorbitant rents or buy somewhere cheaper that we did not feel comfortable in.

Even though we may be better off that some, does that mean we should give up our dreams of living where we want and can afford?  If so, fair enough if you think like that, but I am going to disagree.  Would you give up your home to someone just because you had more than they did?


----------



## hendo (Feb 2, 2005)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> We brought our place because we felt it was a more interesting place for us and we could afford it, not to make money.  We have always thought of it as a home rather than an investment.



Well that's just it. Doesn't make us insects does it?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> As I said, it's about people moving into poor but 'vibrant' areas because they are cool, not because they represent value for money (which Brixton clearly doesn't) and  so further pushing up prices -- and rents -- for everyone.


I don't agree. Different areas in London becoming popular is just the cycle that results from the insane prices set by developers. I've seen it so many times - somewhere becomes the area of choice to move to for young people with salaries who can afford property, some people get in before prices go silly and the word gets round, the prices start to go up, it gets trendy, and then the area moves somewhere else. Brixton is on the end of that cycle IMO.

If there wasn't a situation where some people had the income to buy property and others didn't, it wouldn't happen so much, but they don't move there to be "vibrant", they move because the property is affordable and the place is worth living in. Now that Brixton is so expensive you'll get less and less of that sort of thing happening and people will look elsewhere. I wouldn't look in Brixton myself if I was in a position to buy property, much as I like the place.


----------



## newbie (Feb 2, 2005)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> We brought our place because we felt it was a more interesting place for us and we could afford it, not to make money.  We have always thought of it as a home rather than an investment.



Yet it is an investment.  Few people have any faith in the pensions system any more, many focus their long term prosperity their house ownership increasing in value.


----------



## LDR (Feb 2, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Yet it is an investment.  Few people have any faith in the pensions system any more, many focus their long term prosperity their house ownership increasing in value.



I do not think that is wise.  What happens if the market crashes?    Or if their area becomes undesirable?  I am not planning to retire for a good 30 years yet and a lot can happen in that time.

Having said that I suppose that’s the nature of investment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I don't agree. Different areas in London becoming popular is just the cycle that results from the insane prices set by developers. I've seen it so many times - somewhere becomes the area of choice to move to for young people with salaries who can afford property, some people get in before prices go silly and the word gets round, the prices start to go up, it gets trendy, and then the area moves somewhere else. Brixton is on the end of that cycle IMO.


IMO it's a bit more complex than that, in that the cycle of property acquisition by the m-c (or whatever epiphet you wish to apply) tends to follow certain types of m-c employment. The decampment to the suburbs from the early 20th century until the 1970s was closely tied to the movement of manufacturing and the light industrial sector from the inner city to suburban industrial estates, taking a large amount of middle-management positions with it. With the "death" of industry and the "opening up" of "the service industries" those middle-management and supervisory jobs (as well as  media and advertising jobs) have retrenched in the cities to some extent, creating a pull on the available housing stock. My own opinion is that competition for "urban" housing will become more fierce rather than less.


> If there wasn't a situation where some people had the income to buy property and others didn't, it wouldn't happen so much, but they don't move there to be "vibrant", they move because the property is affordable and the place is worth living in. Now that Brixton is so expensive you'll get less and less of that sort of thing happening and people will look elsewhere. I wouldn't look in Brixton myself if I was in a position to buy property, much as I like the place.


Ah, but some people *DO* move to places because they're "trendy" or "vibrant", and there only need be one or two prominent meeja whores to do it and you get the whole Hoxton thing occurring.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Ah, but some people *DO* move to places because they're "trendy" or "vibrant", and there only need be one or two prominent meeja whores to do it and you get the whole Hoxton thing occurring.


I always though that Brixton's peak as a 'vibrant' and 'trendy' area was actually a few years ago when papers were bigging up the place al the time and there were queues outside the Dogstar almost every night.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> IMO it's a bit more complex than that, in that the cycle of property acquisition by the m-c (or whatever epiphet you wish to apply) tends to follow certain types of m-c employment. The decampment to the suburbs from the early 20th century until the 1970s was closely tied to the movement of manufacturing and the light industrial sector from the inner city to suburban industrial estates, taking a large amount of middle-management positions with it. With the "death" of industry and the "opening up" of "the service industries" those middle-management and supervisory jobs (as well as  media and advertising jobs) have retrenched in the cities to some extent, creating a pull on the available housing stock. My own opinion is that competition for "urban" housing will become more fierce rather than less.


I don't think this has changed a lot recently though, at least not in the last fifteen years. Industrial estates and business parks are moving out of London, but most of the ones who will leave have left already, and the social housing dynamic still seems the same.



			
				ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Ah, but some people *DO* move to places because they're "trendy" or "vibrant", and there only need be one or two prominent meeja whores to do it and you get the whole Hoxton thing occurring.


Yeah, but where does this start? It used to be Camden, but why did people start moving there? It was cheap beforehand and it happened that artists with no money were arriving.

There are all sorts of reasons why one particular area becomes popular, and in the final stages, "trendy" is significant, sure, but by that stage prices have already gone up, because the idea of an area being "trendy" takes some time to get out and be noticed by those who aren't connected to the particular type of trendiness. By the time I knew that Hoxton was trendy, prices were already far more than I could afford. That can't be what drives things. As I've already said, I think it's a sign that the peak is being approached and that a place will go down in price soon.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> By the time I knew that Hoxton was trendy, prices were already far more than I could afford. That can't be what drives things. As I've already said, I think it's a sign that the peak is being approached and that a place will go down in price soon.


Hoxton was a slightly different case in so much as it was strongly associated with the whole dotcom gold rush, with the trendy bars popping up to service the massive flux of new noo meedja businesses springing up.

I always thought it was a bit of a shit place for a night out but I guess 15,000 fin-toters can't be wrong.


----------



## Giles (Feb 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Yeah, but where does this start? It used to be Camden, but why did people start moving there? It was cheap beforehand and it happened that artists with no money were arriving.
> 
> There are all sorts of reasons why one particular area becomes popular, and in the final stages, "trendy" is significant, sure, but by that stage prices have already gone up, because the idea of an area being "trendy" takes some time to get out and be noticed by those who aren't connected to the particular type of trendiness. By the time I knew that Hoxton was trendy, prices were already far more than I could afford. That can't be what drives things. As I've already said, I think it's a sign that the peak is being approached and that a place will go down in price soon.



This always happens:

The cycle: 

cheap, rundown but fundamentally beautiful, convenient, city-central area, becomes "noticed" by artists and other bohemian types, attracted by the relatively huge amount of space in nice old buildings that can be cheaply had to live and work (and party) in.

so many of these people move there that they begin to take over the area in terms of bars, cafes, clubs, shops etc that are opened / relaunched to cater to them. Although these people are not rich by the average, they aren't as poor as they like to think that they are either, so their concentration in this area makes it more wealthy than it ever was.

the area becomes a trendy "destination" for people who don't live there, but who aspire to the lifestyle apparently enjoyed by the new people who have moved there. Some of them, in more "conventional" and by nature higher-paid jobs, begin to move there, amazed by how they can buy or rent a big place in this trendy area for SO LITTLE money. Prices for accommodation to live and work in rocket.

the area becomes a "tourist destination" within its city, first for a small number of "stylish" people then by more and more mainstream tourists and other visitors. Two things: 

* the people who were there before it became trendy come to resent the increased prices and changed amenities, also feeling that the area is not "theirs" any more, and start to leave, sometimes cashing in on the mad prices of their old home.

* the early-arriving "bohemians" start to resent the newer arrivals who have too much money, don't understand "what the area is about", and are spoiling the "originals" little secret hang-out.

the area becomes so expensive that no-one with the lifestyle of the "original newcomers" could afford it, and fills up with the far more traditional careerist-focused people, who are doing well-paid traditional professional jobs, but who aspire to something a bit "trendy and alternative".

Repeat until (you run out of places like Camden, Brixton, Hoxton/Shoreditch ..........)

What to do? Have I missed anywhere? Where's next?

Giles..


----------



## Giles (Feb 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You're at least lilac then mate.
> 
> Think of it this way; there's around about 160,000 (and rising) 2nd homes in England and Wales (not including chalets and static caravans). How much presure would be taken off the housing market if people hadn't indulged their whim for a second home (although I'll acknowledge that half a dozen of that number do belong to our sainted Prime Minister)?
> 
> Lilac Tommers indeed!



I think that second homes have a pretty minor impact on the overall situation, especially in London. In some villages in Devon and Lake District, its more of an issue, but a few holiday cottages, already in beautiful country areas far from the cheap end of the housing market, is nowhere near a major cause of the stupidly high general price of houses in England / Wales.

Giles..


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2005)

No, you're quite right. It takes a certain critical mass for an area to get like that, but once it reaches it, the cycle is always the same. There doesn't seem to be any real predicting it, but once the signs start it seems inevitable under the current system.


----------



## gaijingirl (Feb 2, 2005)

Did anyone else see the BBC news tonight which had a feature on the Paris mayor who is looking to instill measures to prevent the "Londonisation" of Paris.... basically covering many of the points covered in this debate...

also an article here


----------



## Giles (Feb 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> It's greedy and irresponsible, IMHO,  to knowingly push up property prices (by buying into 'luxury apartment developments') in poor areas  simply because they  are 'cool' and 'edgy'. Besides, the value for money argument doesn't wash. Property in Brixton is not good value for money at all. By buying into that trendiness premium, they make ever more remote the possibility for most people of ever buying a place or even of being able to continue to rent one. let's not forget that that is a significant consequence of property price rises. It's not just about home ownership.



Brixton is still actually on of the cheaper places in London to buy  in terms of its "centralness" - places are more expensive further to central London that you go.

People buy in areas like Brixton, Brixton Hill, Camberwell because its one of the few places that they can afford thats fairly central, not cos they are paying a trendiness premium.

Giles..


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Giles..
> 
> Giles..


is there an echo in yr post?


----------



## Giles (Feb 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> is there an echo in yr post?



Not any more!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Not any more!


nevermore


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Brixton is still actually on of the cheaper places in London to buy  in terms of its "centralness" - places are more expensive further to central London that you go.
> 
> People buy in areas like Brixton, Brixton Hill, Camberwell because its one of the few places that they can afford thats fairly central, not cos they are paying a trendiness premium.
> 
> Giles..


Stockwell's cheaper than Brixton. But not by that much. I don't know whether that's because of "trendiness" or because Brixton has better facilities or both or one leading from the other....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> I think that second homes have a pretty minor impact on the overall situation, especially in London. In some villages in Devon and Lake District, its more of an issue, but a few holiday cottages, already in beautiful country areas far from the cheap end of the housing market, is nowhere near a major cause of the stupidly high general price of houses in England / Wales.
> 
> Giles..



I think you're missing the point, mate, "a few holiday cottages" is not what I'm talking about.
160,000 homes is what, twice what the govt says needs to be built per year in order to meet demand, and you're saying that those 160,000 homes (or a combination of singletons, childless couples and families totalling 160,000 households) wouldn't make a difference, wherever they're located? Have you given any thought to the fact that people being able to afford to buy in their own area might possibly ease pressure up and down the housing chain because you wouldn't have the need for quite so much mobility in order to find any sort of housing?


----------



## oryx (Feb 2, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> I think that second homes have a pretty minor impact on the overall situation, especially in London. In some villages in Devon and Lake District, its more of an issue, but a few holiday cottages, already in beautiful country areas far from the cheap end of the housing market, is nowhere near a major cause of the stupidly high general price of houses in England / Wales.
> 
> Giles..



It depends if you include buy-to-let properties as second homes. In many inner city areas, ex-council homes are bought up under the RTB, then the owner moves elsewhere & rents the ex-council home to a housing association who use it to temporarily house homeless families! Oh, the irony, especially as the flat used for a homeless family will be more than twice the rent of a similar home, in the same block, lived in by secure council tenants.

I think your analysis of how an area becomes gentrified is pretty accurate, though.


----------



## Giles (Feb 3, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I think you're missing the point, mate, "a few holiday cottages" is not what I'm talking about.
> 160,000 homes is what, twice what the govt says needs to be built per year in order to meet demand, and you're saying that those 160,000 homes (or a combination of singletons, childless couples and families totalling 160,000 households) wouldn't make a difference, wherever they're located? Have you given any thought to the fact that people being able to afford to buy in their own area might possibly ease pressure up and down the housing chain because you wouldn't have the need for quite so much mobility in order to find any sort of housing?



Well then the government should either build more houses, or allow more to be built, shouldn't they? 

The idea that people owning a seaside cottage etc, causes homelessness, is rather like the "lump of labour" fallacy in economics - the idea that if the "work to be done" was shared out more fairly, then unemployment would disappear.

In a free society how could you stop people from owning more than one house or flat? Would married couples only be allowed one between them? What about buying places for sons/daughters, or other relatives?

Would you ban buy-to-let as well? Or just holiday homes?

Giles..


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 3, 2005)

*Engage irony function before reading ...*




			
				oryx said:
			
		

> I think [Giles'] analysis of how an area becomes gentrified is pretty accurate, though.



What?  People buying property because it is near transport links, handy for work, handy for the centre of town, near shops, restaurants, etc., etc., etc. AND is just about affordable compared to the alternative areas with similar benefits?

Haven't you been paying any attention at all to what you have been told on this thread?  

People only buy property in Brixton because it is trendy / edgy.  And that is the * only * reason.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> In a free society how could you stop people from owning more than one house or flat?


In a free society there are many things that the legally constituted authorities can do to restrict all sorts of activities. This process is called "law" which involves, in practice and at root, _stopping people doing things which are considered socially damaging_. This is actually the very basis of a free society.

Economic activities and even property ownership may be regulated, limited and controlled in all sorts of ways if the consequence of not doing so is to damage the fundamental freedoms of other citizens.




			
				hendo said:
			
		

> If you want to rail at anyone, rail at the buy to let merchants. These are the people who have forced up prices and kept them high. But if the housing market takes a hit, they'll be crying loudest, and that looks as if it might well happen, so cheer up.


I'm not at all sure this is right. If you're buying to let, then you will surely be able to keep on letting regardless of any collapse of prices for property _to sell_. Obviously the paper value of your property assets will fall steeply, but does that matter if you are neither seeking to required to make asset sales?




			
				FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> This whole thing isn't really helping, is it? I mean, is there really anyone here who thinks that whether "young professionals" are lovely or horrible is at all significant compared to the fact that new housing is being specifically targeted for that subsection of society, whilst other people are unable to afford it?


Certainly not me. I agree very much with most of FM's analyses on this thread.

[In addition: it strikes me that SS owes an apology for her use of racist terminology, and Rabbie owes one for his completely inappropriate and calulatingly offensive Holocaust comparison.]


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 3, 2005)

zcat said:
			
		

> Well you lot seem to have really wound each other up
> and i sincerly hope you all can kiss and make up afterwards
> 
> but the sollution to it as i see it is if they been empty for so long why not SQUAT THE LOT
> ...



That's the most sensible post on this thread by a mile. There wasn't going to be much hope of any other reasonable discussion after somebody started comparing yuppies to Holocaust victims...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> That's the most sensible post on this thread by a mile.


You didn't mean to employ detective-boy's irony warning?


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 3, 2005)

I think I must have skipped that page...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

#657


----------



## Bob (Feb 3, 2005)

As I understand it from people I know who have studied this sort of thing academically Giles' analysis is fairly accepted now as the standard explanation for why some innner city areas in Europe & America become richer over time, starting with the artists/creative types moving in. The only solutions really I can see for people who don't like this is to a) have so much social housing that there is virtually nowhere for these people to live, or b) drive out the artists/ creative types with pitchforks.   

Strangely if you want to see examples of what happens with a) Lambeth is full of them - most of the large council estates are still overwhelmingly either council tennants or the original people who exercised RTB. And sad to say the communities are not very happy ones in terms of their vibrancy - the markets are struggling, the shops are barely surviving and they are not gentrifying by any means. Examples I know reasonably well (for local connoiseurs) are Vauxhall Gardens (having lived there for most of the last five years) and the Ethelred (also in Vauxhall) but my shallower knowledge of other places in Lambeth would indicate this is pretty common...


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 3, 2005)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> That's the most sensible post on this thread by a mile. There wasn't going to be much hope of any other reasonable discussion after somebody started comparing yuppies to Holocaust victims...


Well said.

So when is Lang Rabbie going to apologise for insulting millions of holocaust victims by likening their experience with that of London flat buying yuppies? 

As for Giles's ''analysis'' being accurate -- he is a property developer, for fuck's sake.


----------



## Bob (Feb 3, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> As for Giles's ''analysis'' being accurate -- he is a property developer, for fuck's sake.



IS - I have no idea what your job is and it doesn't matter either when I'm arguing with you - does it? Yes Giles might be biased in one particular direction but that doesn't mean it's impossible for him to have an intelligent opinion on something any more than it stops him as a man having intelligent opinions on issues that effect women.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> any more than it stops him as a man having intelligent opinions on issues that affect women.


Extremely unlikely then. Ahahahahhahaha.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 3, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Giles might be biased in one particular direction but that doesn't mean it's impossible for him to have an intelligent opinion on something any more than it stops him as a man having intelligent opinions on issues that effect women.


I rest my case, your honour.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 3, 2005)

the fact also that people have blathered on, in such a fashion that one would think they've got nothing else to say on the matter, about the word 'infest' being used in the initial post which was clearly made in anger and emotion (gosh people do remember that word emotion don't they, we can't all be disengaged) is pretty lame. 

The word infest was used - it means, at its base level 'To inhabit or overrun in large quantities' - there now not such a nasty word is it. Get over it precious types.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

If necessary, change the sodding thread title. But let's move on.


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> The word infest was used - it means, at its base level 'To inhabit or overrun in large quantities' - there now not such a nasty word is it. Get over it precious types.


Does anyone _really_ think that Brixton is 'overrun' with yuppies? Where are they then?

Sure, I see quite a few middle class people around (like the thread starter, fo r example) around, but I can't say that I've seen many of the stereotypical yuppies described here trotting around the streets (apart from a handful at the Living Bah of course, but that place isn't exclusively 'yup' either).


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Come on, give it a rest. The "yuppie" subject is exhausted.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Does anyone _really_ think that Brixton is 'overrun' with yuppies? Where are they then?



not currently. But I'll wager in 10 years the demographics will have altered drastically from say they were 10 years previous to now.

As mentioned before the Sainsburys local is a strong indicator of this IMO.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 3, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Come on, give it a rest. The "yuppie" subject is exhausted.



fairy nuff.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Does anyone _really_ think that Brixton is 'overrun' with yuppies? Where are they then?




Well self-evidently Brixton/Lambeth is over populated by young people.  Whether they're 'professionals' is debateable and fundamentally irrelevent.  IMO the effects they've had on Brixton are as much a result of youth as wealth.

The infestation is people in the 20-40 age range. Over the years there's been a shift from the town being a predominantly daytime market centre with a small and cheap night entertainment sector which has gradually turned into youth pleasure central, dependent on young people drinking alcohol with a vengeance.  

Notice with interest the stark difference between the ages and wealth indicators of the daytime crowds and those out at night.  Poor people of very mixed ages shop carefully during the day: at night the streets are populated almost exclusively by young people with money in their pocket, out for an alcohol fuelled good time.  

Does it matter whether you're professional & conservative or cool & buzzing because ultimately you're all the same!  Very few outside the target market can tell any difference between two bars, opposite each other, catering for marginally different sectors of exactly the same demographic (except one is painted more hideously that the other).  

Apart from a couple of passing references those not aged 20-40, and those not in private rented or owner occupied homes, have been almost universally ignored throughout this thread.  It's reminiscent of a school playground where two groups are polarised about whether their jumper should be tucked into the trousers or worn outside, capable of raising great passion but of limited interest to the rest of us, who just see a bunch of noisy kids.  Except that the effects on schooling and services affect all of us.  It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Is anybody reading this, who has arrived to live in Brixton in the last 10 years or so, not in the 20-40 demographic?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

You couldn't do us a couple of commas in the last line? I'm struggling with that.

[Edit: ta. But I think you want to add _and is_ after the second comma.]


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> You couldn't do us a couple of commas in the last line? I'm struggling with that.


not as much as he did.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2005)

I'm not quite sure what your point is there, newbie - most people moving *anywhere* fall into the 20-40 age range (which is an extremely wide band to take).


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

The waistband also tends to be wider at the end of that range than it was at the start....


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Well self-evidently Brixton/Lambeth is over populated by young people.


do you have some census data to support this?





> _ Whether they're 'professionals' is debateable and fundamentally irrelevent._


so why bring it up then?





> _  IMO the effects they've had on Brixton are as much a result of youth as wealth._


what, chucking in the street and buying drugs off strangers down dark alleys? what d'you mean?



> _The infestation is people in the 20-40 age range._


this sentence doesn't seem to go with the rest of the paragraph.





> _ Over the years there's been a shift from the town being a predominantly daytime market centre with a small and cheap night entertainment sector which has gradually turned into youth pleasure central, dependent on young people drinking alcohol with a vengeance.  _


where do the older people drink then?



> _Notice with interest the stark difference between the ages and wealth indicators of the daytime crowds and those out at night.  Poor people of very mixed ages shop carefully during the day: at night the streets are populated almost exclusively by young people with money in their pocket, out for an alcohol fuelled good time.  _


hmm...

hmm...

perhaps you could check again next time you leave yr house cos that isn't the picture i've observed.



> _Does it matter whether you're professional & conservative or cool & buzzing because ultimately you're all the same!_


why d'you think professional people can't be cool or buzzing?





> _  Very few outside the target market can tell any difference between two bars, opposite each other, catering for marginally different sectors of exactly the same demographic (except one is painted more hideously that the other)._


 perhaps if you looked you might see.  



> _Apart from a couple of passing references those not aged 20-40, and those not in private rented or owner occupied homes, have been almost universally ignored throughout this thread.  It's reminiscent of a school playground where two groups are polarised about whether their jumper should be tucked into the trousers or worn outside, capable of raising great passion but of limited interest to the rest of us, who just see a bunch of noisy kids.  Except that the effects on schooling and services affect all of us.  It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic._


whatever yr on isn't helping yr coherency.


----------



## Giles (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Well self-evidently Brixton/Lambeth is over populated by young people.  Whether they're 'professionals' is debateable and fundamentally irrelevent.  IMO the effects they've had on Brixton are as much a result of youth as wealth.
> 
> The infestation is people in the 20-40 age range. Over the years there's been a shift from the town being a predominantly daytime market centre with a small and cheap night entertainment sector which has gradually turned into youth pleasure central, dependent on young people drinking alcohol with a vengeance.
> 
> ...



This is happening in a lot of London. It is all part of the high property prices thingie again. 

Its the "ordinary" families who can't afford a family-sized place in inner London. Those who are poor enough / lucky enough to get council housing can, and those with loads of dosh can (you do need a lot to buy a four bedroomed house, say, in Brixton) but not the bulk of people in the middle.

Giles..


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 3, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> This is happening in a lot of London. It is all part of the high property prices thingie again.
> 
> Its the "ordinary" families who can't afford a family-sized place in inner London. Those who are poor enough / lucky enough to get council housing can, and those with loads of dosh can (you do need a lot to buy a four bedroomed house, say, in Brixton) but not the bulk of people in the middle.
> 
> Giles..


 If you think that poverty is enough to get a homeless family securely housed in Lambeth then you are living in a very strange universe.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Not as strange as my landlady*'s uncle from Devon who came up to stay and said of London:

"all you have to do is go on strike and you get a council house".



[* = until Saturday]


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> do you have some census data to support this?








census

as posted at #626




> where do the older people drink then?



I've said before it's my belief that more people who live in Brixton go to church than go to pubs & clubs.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 3, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Not as strange as my landlady*'s uncle from Devon who came up to stay and said of London:
> 
> "all you have to do is go on strike and you get a council house".
> 
> ...


Ah, if only....


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> census
> 
> as posted at #626
> 
> ...


you forgot to point out that lambeth is also infested with 0-4 yr-olds.

but - my other questions? some answers, please.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

I've added some commas for Justin, but I'll ask the question again.  Has anybody here who is not aged 20-40 moved into Brixton in the last 10 years or so ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> I've added some commas for Justin, but I'll ask the question again.  Has anybody here who is not aged 20-40 moved into Brixton in the last 10 years or so ?


d'you mean not 20-40 NOW, or not 20-40 THEN?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Curiously, a chap just came up to me in the library asking if we had an A-Z. I couldn't find one, and asked (in case a reference to _Multimap_ might suffice) if he was looking for anything in particular.

"Oh, no", said this lad, a student of about 21 or 22. "Me and my friend were just looking for property".


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you forgot to point out that lambeth is also infested with 0-4 yr-olds.



Look at the trend.  People in their 20s arrive & stick around; then they sprog, then they move out in their late 30s & 40s, taking their secondary school age kids with them.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> d'you mean not 20-40 NOW, or not 20-40 THEN?



then.  I tried to be clear.  Obviously I wasn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Curiously, a chap just came up to me in the library asking if we had an A-Z. I couldn't find one, and asked (in case a reference to _Multimap_ might suffice) if he was looking for anything in particular.
> 
> "Oh, no", said this lad, a student of about 21 or 22. "Me and my friend were just looking for property".


and when you'd removed yr shoe from his backside?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

I was actually removing my jaw from the floor.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Look at the trend.  People in their 20s arrive & stick around; then they sprog, then they move out in their late 30s & 40s, taking their secondary school age kids with them.



...Or they stay and then moan bitterly about the influx of young 'professionals'/dolescroungers/outsiders* as if they weren't of largely the same group once...
(*insert own prejudice here..)


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Jesus, give it a rest...


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> I've added some commas for Justin, but I'll ask the question again.  Has anybody here who is not aged 20-40 moved into Brixton in the last 10 years or so ?


I moved here 12 years ago and I'm not in that age bracket.

Do I win a prize?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I moved here 12 years ago and I'm not in that age bracket.
> 
> Do I win a prize?


Yeah, you get a badge:


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 3, 2005)

I am 31 and moved here about 4 years ago. 
Does that make me a gentrifier?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I am 31 and moved here about 4 years ago.
> Does that make me a gentrifier?


it makes you a long-term resident.

you don't do anything posh enough to be a yuppie, do you?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I am 31 and moved here about 4 years ago.
> Does that make me a gentrifier?


*GIVE IT A REST!*


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> ...Or they stay and then moan bitterly about the influx of young 'professionals'/dolescroungers/outsiders* as if they weren't of largely the same group once...
> (*insert own prejudice here..)



am I moaning bitterly?  Not really, just trying to point out that from the root this thread has been a turf war between two marginally different groups of the _same_ people whilst largely ignoring everybody else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> am I moaning bitterly?


yr  posts have not been without their yammering.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> it makes you a long-term resident.
> 
> you don't do anything posh enough to be a yuppie, do you?


I work in media


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> am I moaning bitterly?  Not really, just trying to point out that from the root this thread has been a turf war between two marginally different groups of the _same_ people whilst largely ignoring everybody else.


No it hasn't. It has been a discussion about home ownership, the state of the housing market and its social and demographic effects on a given locality, largely ignored by people who want to have a spat about terminology.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I work in media


Not a wholly helpful clarification, since the same could be said both of an unpaid work experience PA in a publishing house, and Rupert Murdoch.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I am 31 and moved here about 4 years ago.
> Does that make me a gentrifier?



How should I know?  It makes you someone who moved into an area exactly conforming with the stereotype.  Whether you personally are a 'gentrifier' will be seen in the future- when and why you move away.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 3, 2005)

Where is oldslapper? 

Has oldslapper in fact been banned for being so wude to the poor, oppressed yuppies?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I work in media


yr not one of the urban library mafia then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Where is oldslapper?
> 
> Has oldslapper in fact been banned for being so wude to the poor, oppressed yuppies?


i don't think s/he's been banned - have a look at her/his profile.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yr not one of the urban library mafia then?



I am a librarian who works in telly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I am a librarian who works in telly.


yr in the library AND the media mafia? 

.   .   .   .


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Curiously, a chap just came up to me in the library asking if we had an A-Z. I couldn't find one, and asked (in case a reference to _Multimap_ might suffice) if he was looking for anything in particular.
> 
> "Oh, no", said this lad, a student of about 21 or 22. "Me and my friend were just looking for property".


There's more. He's looking for property "on the other side of the river".

"Controversial!" said his mate.

"In trendy Barnes", he went on.


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> "In trendy Barnes", he went on.


Now _that's_ a y*ppie zone if ever I saw one.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> No it hasn't. It has been a discussion about home ownership, the state of the housing market and its social and demographic effects on a given locality, largely ignored by people who want to have a spat about terminology.



from my perspective this has been a sustained attack on 'yuppies' with a polarised defence.  Two different groups with different ideas of how they and their peers do and should behave.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> from my perspective this has been a sustained attack on 'yuppies' with a polarised defence.


Actually, for a couple of dozen pages it's been an attempt to get away from the yuppie question, largely sabotaged by people wishing to harp on about it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Well then the government should either build more houses, or allow more to be built, shouldn't they?
> 
> The idea that people owning a seaside cottage etc, causes homelessness, is rather like the "lump of labour" fallacy in economics - the idea that if the "work to be done" was shared out more fairly, then unemployment would disappear.
> 
> ...



Dear oh dear, you've extrapolated a right old bag of bollocks from what I wrote, haven't you?

You fall back on the "seaside/holiday cottage" argument, which is inaccurate and irrational. "Weekend" homes don't have to be cottages, they don't have to be located anywhere near the sea. Oddly enough, inavariably they're neither, they're what used to be called "family homes" that originally housed (you guessed it!) families *all year round*, not for 2 nights out of 7.

*You* tie the ownership of homes to the "lump of labour" argument, implyng that there's equivalence. Do more than imply please, give me some data that supports your argument. Personally I think your implication of equivalence is entirely fatuous, but I'm prepared to have you prove otherwise.

You then introduce a spurious "exercising one's right to own as much property as one wants" argument. Spurious because you're arguing from a position of claiming property rights without accepting that there are concomitant moral rights and responsibilities, you're asking for freedom to own as much property as you wish without the burdensome knowledge that you acquisitive instincts might cause families to fracture, or whole social groups to be riven.

Would I ban "buy to let"? Not outright, but I'd establish limits to holdings of developed property and put bureaucratic brakes (taxes and duties) on the amount of money people could expect from their property portfolio. Why? Because I'm a callous cunt riven by class-envy, obviously.


----------



## Pie 1 (Feb 3, 2005)

> Originally Posted by Orang Utan
> I am 31 and moved here about 4 years ago.
> Does that make me a gentrifier?



Nah. You haven't bought a 'luxury' rabbit hutch yet.

I'm 33 and have been here 10 years but my partner & I made the grave error of buying a flat 2 years ago. I'm apparently now "A 4x4 driving Tory cunt who's dispised by all"

Hey ho.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> from my perspective this has been a sustained attack on 'yuppies' with a polarised defence.






			
				Justin said:
			
		

> Actually, for a couple of dozen pages it's been an attempt to get away from the yuppie question, largely sabotaged by people wishing to harp on about it.


Like for instance...



			
				Pie 1 said:
			
		

> I'm 33 and have been here 10 years but my partner & I made the grave error of buying a flat 2 years ago. I'm apparently now "A 4x4 driving Tory cunt who's dispised by all"


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

pm said:
			
		

> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you ever come to Brixton?  Really?  Where once were useful shops and daytime businesses are now bars and clubs, nailbars and sportswear outlets.  Where once was a thriving market is now a pale shadow.  Does it matter whether the new business are catering for the higher disposable income of some young people or to the willingness of the less well off to spend what little disposable money they have on partying and preening?  They're catering for young people.  That's the outward, the most visible sign.  But you only have to look at who is using the market during the day to realise who is not visible in the evening.

Brixton has never been a quiet and respectable place at night.  But it's only relatively recently that it's turned into a commercially important entertainment zone with pubs, clubs, restaurants and bars aimed very largely at different parts of the same agegroup.  




			
				
Pickman's model said:
			
		

> why d'you think professional people can't be cool or buzzing?[/i] perhaps if you looked you might see.



Of course they can.  And some squatters can be deeply conservative.   No-one need be a charicature.  But if you look at the graph I've posted twice now you might recognise that those superficial differences mask their essential similarity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2005)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Nah. You haven't bought a 'luxury' rabbit hutch yet.
> 
> I'm 33 and have been here 10 years but my partner & I made the grave error of buying a flat 2 years ago. I'm apparently now "A 4x4 driving Tory cunt who's dispised by all"
> 
> Hey ho.



Oh, I don't know. I reckon you could happily trim the "4x4 driving tory" from that sentence!    

(sometimes people just leave themselves open to this sort of thing!   )


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

can we see if we can get another 280 posts together to get this thread to the magick 1,000 post mark?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

What, today?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

might as well...

have you anything better to do?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> might as well...
> 
> have you anything better to do?


Probably. Move house and stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

watching paint dry and the like?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

In a library? You think we get _paint_? Is it the fourth millenium?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 3, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> millenium?


    JUSTIN!!!!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> JUSTIN!!!!


I asked my colleagues and they concurred.

Never trust a librarian.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> might as well...
> 
> have you anything better to do?



howabout answering my questions then?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> howabout answering my questions then?


Oh crikey, not another one.


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yr  posts have not been without their yammering.



Where as yours are of a superior quality.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> howabout answering my questions then?


why should i? you don't answer mine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Where as yours are of a superior quality.


 

yr fiver's in the post.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

only asking of him what he wanted of me.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

*I yam what I yam*


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> why should i? you don't answer mine.




I think I have, what have I missed?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2605058&postcount=340


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2605058&postcount=341[/QUOTE]


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

_The page cannot be found_


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2605058&postcount=340


yr not supposed to repeat the question, just answer the bloody thing.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yr not supposed to repeat the question, just answer the bloody thing.



fuggit I can't get the link to work.  the answer is the next post #341.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> you haven't but you're a tourist.  My comments applied to those who live here


no they weren't.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

whaddya want me to say?  yes they were, this is primarily a discussion by and for locals and whilst others are welcome they're not uppermost in my mind when I post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

only another 257 to go.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> whaddya want me to say?  yes they were, this is primarily a discussion by and for locals and whilst others are welcome they're not uppermost in my mind when I post.


 Isn't that precisely the attitude that has people screaming ''NIMBY snob elitist!''?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> ''NIMBY snob elitist!''?


ah! those were the words eluding me!


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Isn't that precisely the attitude that has people screaming ''NIMBY snob elitist!''?



What, that in posting I don't use words with a precision that picky can't find a hole in?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> What, that in posting I don't use words with a precision that picky can't find a hole in?


i think yr beginning to unravel.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

rather than banter i'd appreciate a considered answer to #718 

Do you ever come to Brixton? Really? Where once were useful shops and daytime businesses are now bars and clubs, nailbars and sportswear outlets. Where once was a thriving market is now a pale shadow. Does it matter whether the new business are catering for the higher disposable income of some young people or to the willingness of the less well off to spend what little disposable money they have on partying and preening? They're catering for young people. That's the outward, the most visible sign. But you only have to look at who is using the market during the day to realise who is not visible in the evening.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> rather than banter i'd appreciate a considered answer to #718
> 
> Do you ever come to Brixton?


yes.





> _Really?_


YES! didn't you hear me the first time? 





> _Where once were useful shops and daytime businesses are now bars and clubs, nailbars and sportswear outlets. Where once was a thriving market is now a pale shadow._


of what?





> _ Does it matter whether the new business are catering for the higher disposable income of some young people or to the willingness of the less well off to spend what little disposable money they have on partying and preening?_


yes





> _ They're catering for young people. That's the outward, the most visible sign. But you only have to look at who is using the market during the day to realise who is not visible in the evening._


the stall holders, for a start.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2005)

c'mon! just 250 to go!


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:
Does it matter whether the new business are catering for the higher disposable income of some young people or to the willingness of the less well off to spend what little disposable money they have on partying and preening?

yes


how?  please explain.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> What, that in posting I don't use words with a precision that picky can't find a hole in?


 No, in suggesting that the debate is more for locals than 'outsiders'. If I suggested that I'd be drowned instantly in a deluge of bile. But it is a pertinent question. Non residents' opinions cannot be dismissed or excluded out of hand -- but do they sometimes take the arguments off on tangents that they might not go off on if they knew the place, or knew it better? At the end of the day none of us mind the opinions of ''outsiders'' just so long as we happen to agree with them.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> No, in suggesting that the debate is more for locals than 'outsiders'. If I suggested that I'd be drowned instantly in a deluge of bile. But it is a pertinent question. Non residents' opinions cannot be dismissed or excluded out of hand -- but do they sometimes take the arguments off on tangents that they might not go off on if they knew the place, or knew it better? At the end of the day none of us mind the opinions of ''outsiders'' just so long as we happen to agree with them.



tangents and distractions aren't quite the same but whether it's locals or others that make them isn't really an issue. Not for me, anyway.  But sweeping statements tend to be seen differently, perhaps?  So where I said _"SFAICS everybody on this thread seems to want to justify why they, and their sort, is good for Brixton."_ the only person to respond directly was not a resident.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> tangents and distractions aren't quite the same but whether it's locals or others that make them isn't really an issue. Not for me, anyway.  But sweeping statements tend to be seen differently, perhaps?  So where I said _"SFAICS everybody on this thread seems to want to justify why they, and their sort, is good for Brixton."_ the only person to respond directly was not a resident.


Maybe I'm not 'good for brixton'. But the question is, am I a lesser evil?


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

I don't know if you fit into the identifiable stereotype: moved into Brixton in the last 10 years or so, then aged between 20 & 40.  If you do, you're part of the same trend as all the others.  I'm not throwing around words like 'evil', but I am identifying a common identity and a common set of interests across both sides of this debate.


----------



## alcopop (Feb 3, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm not 'good for brixton'. But the question is, am I a lesser evil?





I think you may be the lesser weevil


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 3, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> There's more. He's looking for property "on the other side of the river".
> 
> "Controversial!" said his mate.
> 
> "In trendy Barnes", he went on.



He'll be looking a long time - last time I saw it Barnes was on the same side of the river (i.e. the South side).  The youth of today!    

And as for Barnes being a "y*ppie zone" (Editor, post 712), well bits of it are and bits of it are not.  There are some council flats just behind the High Street and then more towards the Mortlake side, the Red Lion can get a bit yobby but most of the big houses are way, way beyond "y*ppies" - they are full of judges and politicians and Premiership footballers - maybe what "y*ppies" wanna be able to get one day!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> He'll be looking a long time - last time I saw it Barnes was on the same side of the river (i.e. the South side).


Then you would be looking for me a long time, Mr Detective, for I work on the north side of the Thames....

Curiously on the rare occasions I've been across that way, East Sheen has never looked all that posh to me.

Barnes I'm fairly sure was always clipped-hedge country. I had a godmotheror a great-aunt or something who lived there and I went there once. This would be thirty years ago though and I think the hedge is all I remember.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 3, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Then you would be looking for me a long time, Mr Detective, for I work on the north side of the Thames....



Sorry, the I took the context of your posts about your visitors to suggest they were looking for property in Brixton.

As for East Sheen, depends which bit - loads of massive houses between the Upper Richmond Road and the park, a bit less posh between the Upper and Lower Richmond Roads.  It's got a Waitrose though ...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 3, 2005)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> It's got a Waitrose though ...


Mind you there's been a Waitrose in Stevenage for decades. It _is_ in the Old Town though.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

So then, if my proposition is right- and no-one has really argued against it- how then should we proceed?  If unwelcome changes in Brixton can be laid at the door of an influx of 20- and 30-somethings pushing prices beyond the reach of locals, surely something to curb that popularity is needed?  Or more to the point, to make Thornton Heath more desireable to that age group. As I've said before, people in plenty of other places would welcome the opportunity for their home area to thrive in the way Brixton has done.

The night economy, all of it, aimed predominantly at local 20s/30s and their friends and peers from further away, is heavily implicated in the squeezing out of long term inhabitants and, crucially, their grown children. Anna Key has done some fine rants on this.  While all sides of the argument concentrate on which bar and patrons are more or less desirable, the bigger picture is that both are equally culpable.


----------



## Bob (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> So then, if my proposition is right- and no-one has really argued against it- how then should we proceed?  If unwelcome changes in Brixton can be laid at the door of an influx of 20- and 30-somethings pushing prices beyond the reach of locals, surely something to curb that popularity is needed?  Or more to the point, to make Thornton Heath more desireable to that age group. As I've said before, people in plenty of other places would welcome the opportunity for their home area to thrive in the way Brixton has done.



A lot of people (including a lot of ex council tenants who sell up) move to the suburbs when they have kids and want, for instance, gardens in preference to being close to the local shops / bars. So the only way really to get rid of younger people is to make Brixton more suburban. Two obvious steps would be:
a) Close the tube
b) Close all the pubs & clubs.

That would probably drive me out in about ten minutes...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2005)

Hold on - loads of people have argued against your proposition.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> A lot of people (including a lot of ex council tenants who sell up) move to the suburbs when they have kids and want, for instance, gardens in preference to being close to the local shops / bars. So the only way really to get rid of younger people is to make Brixton more suburban. Two obvious steps would be:
> a) Close the tube
> b) Close all the pubs & clubs.
> 
> That would probably drive me out in about ten minutes...




The tube would be far, far less of an issue if it went to Thornton Heath.  

Not all.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Hold on - loads of people have argued against your proposition.



I've just skimmed from #674 and I can't find any, except pickmans, who seems to have retired with an unanswered question hanging.  You asked for clarification, which I hope has been forthcoming and Giles qualified what I said by pointing out that Brixton isn't unique,


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> So the only way really to get rid of younger people is to make Brixton more suburban.



It's not suburban and never will be.  But it has been and will be again, very largely a dormitory, where people live, shop and play and from which they travel to work.  Over the years it's become a magnet for a fairly tightly drawn section of the population to party and live in, mirrored by rising concern about locals being priced out.


----------



## hayduke (Feb 3, 2005)

hayduke said:
			
		

> Did anyone actually go to the committee meeting?



Oh my god!!! Do you people never do any work?

So, at the risk of getting this thread back on topic, did anyone actually go to that committee meeting?


----------



## tarannau (Feb 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> I've just skimmed from #674 and I can't find any, except pickmans, who seems to have retired with an unanswered question hanging.  You asked for clarification, which I hope has been forthcoming and Giles qualified what I said by pointing out that Brixton isn't unique,



To be honest I agree with some of Newbie's basic thoughts - Brixton has recently been, and is likely to remain, a place that predominantly favours the young. The suburban flight of much of the original West Indian influx is a case in point - much of that generation has often understandably moved for bigger gardens, seemingly better schooling and a more restful experience.

I do feel that the tension Newbie attributes to the conflict between the daytime and nightime economy is somewhat overplayed however. The market is a pale shadow of what it was admittedly, but I suspect that's largely because more people are using supermarkets (bah!) and that the dispersed 'Ethnic' population no longer has to travel to get speciality goods as often - corner shops in the suburbs now sell plantains, okra etc. Equally midddle ground shopping areas have been squeezed severely in recent years - sadly many people prefer to buy branded goods from massive chains and one-stop shopping centres than a comparatively small town centre like Brixton. 

The nightime ecomony may be more polarised than it was before - young and old don't tend to drink in the same spots as much as they perhaps used to, but that's more a symptom of increased choice and 'improved' marketing targeting of establishments than unique to Brixton. 

And whilst I'm not the biggest consumer of Nailbars or Sportswear shops, they are reflective of the  service based and local-interest shops which tend to thrive in smaller shopping/residential areas like Brixton. Nailbars are a bit like crack - once you start, you can't stop needing that chemical hit to have your fake nails reattached ... or suffer withdrawal symptoms as they grow out horribly...


----------



## Bob (Feb 3, 2005)

hayduke said:
			
		

> Oh my god!!! Do you people never do any work?
> 
> So, at the risk of getting this thread back on topic, did anyone actually go to that committee meeting?



I think everyone was far too busy abusing each other.  Now feck off.


----------



## newbie (Feb 3, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> To be honest I agree with some of Newbie's basic thoughts - Brixton has recently been, and is likely to remain, a place that predominantly favours the young. The suburban flight of much of the original West Indian influx is a case in point - much of that generation has often understandably moved for bigger gardens, seemingly better schooling and a more restful experience.
> 
> I do feel that the tension Newbie attributes to the conflict between the daytime and nightime economy is somewhat overplayed however. The market is a pale shadow of what it was admittedly, but I suspect that's largely because more people are using supermarkets (bah!) and that the dispersed 'Ethnic' population no longer has to travel to get speciality goods as often - corner shops in the suburbs now sell plantains, okra etc. Equally midddle ground shopping areas have been squeezed severely in recent years - sadly many people prefer to buy branded goods from massive chains and one-stop shopping centres than a comparatively small town centre like Brixton.
> 
> ...




Brixton isn't unique in any of this (except perhaps in the geographic fact which is the tube).  To some extent all of London appears to be experiencing a similar effect, the young are moving in and expecting services appropriate to their needs. That Brixton is suffering the consequences more than some other places may not be entirely due to the rising, well targeted, night economy, but it's not entirely divorced from it either.  It was striking to hear somone on the radio describe exactly the same phenomenon in Hoxton- overemphasis on the night economy leading to locals being squeezed for housing.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 3, 2005)

*From page 24 or so ...*




			
				editor said:
			
		

> Talking of squatters, I've been talking to the South London Radical History Group in the hope of filling in the holes of my 121 Centre article, as well as adding more info about other Brixton squats I've missed.



Is that the people who are based at the Fair Shares co-op at Crampton Street, SE17? They have a great archive and should be able to help you.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 6, 2005)

31 pages in the past week.

  Havent read them all.One thing about these developments is that they get bought as "buy to let" investments.

  Architects have designed units(based on the old partakabin idea)which are capable of being put above "lost" space like supermarkets to provide affordable housing.This would be possible if supermarkets to do this rather than profit led developments like this.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

but aren't portacabins above supermarkets going to mainly appeal to the young & childless?  As there are already disproportionate numbers of young people in the area, why induce more to arrive?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> but aren't portacabins above supermarkets going to mainly appeal to the young & childless?  As there are already disproportionate numbers of young people in the area, why induce more to arrive?


Stop saying things I agree with. You're confusing me.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

??

If you agree with me then the issue is not the arrival of *rich* young professionals forcing prices up (as you've consistently maintained), it's an oversupply of all sorts of young people coming from outside and competing with the local youth for services and homes.

It doesn't matter whether those incomers are particularly rich or not, they create more demand than there is a supply of homes, and it's the local youth that are being squeezed.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> it's the local youth that are being squeezed.


...and the parents who know their kids will still be living at home well into their forties


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)




----------



## IntoStella (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> ??
> 
> If you agree with me then the issue is not the arrival of *rich* young professionals forcing prices up (as you've consistently maintained), it's an oversupply of all sorts of young people coming from outside and competing with the local youth for services and homes.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether those incomers are particularly rich or not, they create more demand than there is a supply of homes, and it's the local youth that are being squeezed.


 1) Does irony always have to be signposted with huge, flashing neon arrows? 

2) I maintain that these places are completely out of the reach of the vast majority of single young people, based on local  prices for similar properties (not 60s council block conversions). But yes, young people are getting squeezed out, along with everyone else on anything other than a far above average income.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Trouble is, it's not the particularly young that are able to afford these types of places either - with the market so expensive, first time buyers are tending to get ever older - even for one bedroom flats above less than fragrant supermarkets.

More social housing and family homes being built may help, but it's far from usunusal to see this stock subsequently used for shared housing/flatshares- itself likely to drag the average age of the area down....


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 7, 2005)

It's true what Mrs M says, about kids not leaving home. My brother has been trying to get rid of his but it's not working, they are 20 and 21. Just can't afford to pay rent, they live in Sevenoaks in Kent. The cheeky buggers don't give up any housekeeping though.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> 2) I maintain that these places are completely out of the reach of the vast majority of single young people, based on local  prices for similar properties (not 60s council block conversions). But yes, young people are getting squeezed out, along with everyone else on anything other than a far above average income.



Isn't that true of nearly every property in London and the surrounding area now though? Unless there are plenty of <£100k properties around that I've failed to notice, most single young people will never get onto the housing ladder themselves without assistance of some sort.

It's marginally easier to get on the ladder with a partner or friends, but the days of a single person on low-average income buying their own place seem well gone...


----------



## Ms T (Feb 7, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> It's true what Mrs M says, about kids not leaving home. My brother has been trying to get rid of his but it's not working, they are 20 and 21. Just can't afford to pay rent, they live in Sevenoaks in Kent. The cheeky buggers don't give up any housekeeping though.



If they're working, they can afford to make some contribution, surely.  Sounds like they're taking the piss somewhat...


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> It's true what Mrs M says, about kids not leaving home. My brother has been trying to get rid of his but it's not working, they are 20 and 21. Just can't afford to pay rent, they live in Sevenoaks in Kent. The cheeky buggers don't give up any housekeeping though.



A friend's little brother is 24 and still lives at home (in Ashford, Kent) - he's got a job but he can't look after himself cos he's been spoilt all of his life.
His mum went away for a fortnight and left him 14 ready meals in the freezer and 14 Pot Noodles cos he can't even make himself sandwiches. By the 3rd day, he'd eaten all the Pot Noodles.   


Sorry, carry on!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

I reckon if a young adult is living at home they should hand over half their wage-packet to their Mum, meself.....


----------



## gaijingirl (Feb 7, 2005)

My brother still lives at home at 29 and he gives money to my Mum..

..on the one occasion in the last 14 years when I had to spend *shudders at memory* 3 months at home, I paid for it too*...




*financially _and_ mentally..


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> most single young people will never get onto the housing ladder themselves without assistance of some sort.
> 
> It's marginally easier to get on the ladder


Auughhhh! That bloody phrase again!


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 7, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I reckon if a young adult is living at home they should hand over half their wage-packet to their Mum, meself.....


Unfortunately that doesn't really encourage them to _have_ a wage packet.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Isn't that true of nearly every property in London and the surrounding area now though? Unless there are plenty of <£100k properties around that I've failed to notice, most single young people will never get onto the housing ladder themselves without assistance of some sort.
> 
> It's marginally easier to get on the ladder with a partner or friends, but the days of a single person on low-average income buying their own place seem well gone...



I wonder how long those days lasted?  I'd guess a few years in the 80s & 90s, between housing booms.  Pre-Thatcher the proportion of the population that owned their own homes was smaller than now, and even smaller amongst single people.  

There is a trend, alongside the youth making their way to London, for each of us to occupy far more space than previously.  The number of single person households continues to rise (38% in Lambeth, 2001) as (I think) does the average number of rooms per person.  

Is the expectation that a single person in their 20s should be able to afford to buy a home reasonable?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Unfortunately that doesn't really encourage them to have a wage packet.


This is something I have discovered......


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Isn't that true of nearly every property in London and the surrounding area now though? Unless there are plenty of <£100k properties around that I've failed to notice, most single young people will never get onto the housing ladder themselves without assistance of some sort.
> 
> It's marginally easier to get on the ladder with a partner or friends, but the days of a single person on low-average income buying their own place seem well gone...



There's another one of those strange "circles" at work here.
I can remember hearing stories from my parents and others of their and my granparent's generations talking about shared housing with communal facilities, and it seems to me that this is what a combination of the unaffordability of "starter housing" and the rise of "Buy to Let" (and it's accompanying conversion of houses into flats/bedsits) has brought back into common experience. This sector appears to have shrunk from the 1960s through to the mid 1980s, now it has reasserted it's place in housing distribution.
Whether a person believes that this is a good thing, a bad thing or something that has to be borne will ultimately depend on which location one views the situation from. Myself, I see it as a possible harbinger of the return of the slum as openly acceptable housing for "the lower orders", with the various social strata "above" the working class judged at least partly by their housing situation. 
In the 21st century we're going back to the 19th century.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Is the expectation that a single person in their 20s should be able to afford to buy a home reasonable?


Well, it's a relative question, isn't it? First, it's relative to the availability of alternatives. _If_ you can rent affordably and securely, it's not so important. Second, it's relative to the increasing overall wealth produced by society. There's no reason for expectations not to rise a little over time.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> I wonder how long those days lasted?  I'd guess a few years in the 80s & 90s, between housing booms.  Pre-Thatcher the proportion of the population that owned their own homes was smaller than now, and even smaller amongst single people.
> 
> There is a trend, alongside the youth making their way to London, for each of us to occupy far more space than previously.  The number of single person households continues to rise (38% in Lambeth, 2001) as (I think) does the average number of rooms per person.
> 
> Is the expectation that a single person in their 20s should be able to afford to buy a home reasonable?


The difference was that they could at least afford to *rent* something - even if not something particularly wonderful. Now even _that_ is impossible for many. What are people supposed to do - live at their parents' home for the rest of their lives?!


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> The difference was that they could at least afford to *rent* something - even if not something particularly wonderful. Now even _that_ is impossible for many. What are people supposed to do - live at their parents' home for the rest of their lives?!




I find that hard to believe.. generally the surplus of buy-to-let properties has made rents fairly static in London generally.  Guess you pay a premium for living somewhere fashionable.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I find that hard to believe.. generally the suplus of buy-to-let properties has made rents fairly static in London generally.  Guess you pay a premium for living somewhere fashionable.


Well I've got news for you - I've experienced the situation of having difficulty trying to find a bedsit for under £400 per month. In any part of London.

This happened almost overnight during 1999 or so. From them on they _have_ remained fairly static - statically high.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Well I've got news for you - I've experienced the situation of having difficulty trying to find a bedsit for under £400 per month. In any part of London.



Maybe you should look for a rented room in a shared house then.  £400 a month was pushing it 3-4 years ago tbh.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 7, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> In the 21st century we're going back to the 19th century.


I used to know an old chap in his 80s in West Norwood who had lived in the same street all his life. He, his mum and dad and his 11 brothers and sisters occupied a one bedroom flat.  Yes, that's 14 people, one bedroom. They had reclining chairs that they could pull out at bedtime. 

If people refuse to be pushed out of their communities then I can imagine them living like this in years to come. And I have no faith in John Prescott to do anything about it. You can't promote 'sustainable communities' on the one hand while pushing people out into high density, poorly planned, poorly designed and no doubt poorly built housing outside London on the other. The 'Sustainable Communities' and 'Homes for All' slogans really boil down to  'Building the Slums of the Future'.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Maybe you should look for a rented room in a shared house then.  £400 a month was pushing it 3-4 years ago tbh.


That's just it - until fairly recently you wouldn't _have_ to do this.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> The difference was that they could at least afford to *rent* something - even if not something particularly wonderful. Now even _that_ is impossible for many. What are people supposed to do - live at their parents' home for the rest of their lives?!



There's only a partial truth there.  Prior to the Thatcher changes there was only a small private rented sector, and most of that was heavily rent controlled. Landlords worked hard at finding ways round the Rent Acts (Brixton had a particularly thriving 'holiday let' market, for instance), but that included getting round the security of tenure aspects as well.

One of the reasons for the explosion of squatting in the 70s (along with a vast supply of unwanted homes) was the difficulties involved in renting somewhere to live.  There is a far, far greater supply now, partially because tenants don't have anything like the same rights.

I have the strong impression that previous generations didn't leave 'home' until they married, and they could only do that when they had somewhere to live.  A very vicious circle I have no desire to return to.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> That's just it - until fairly recently you wouldn't _have_ to do this.



 Even 5-10 years ago I'd have said £400 a month for a bedsit was being abit cheapish.  I think you're just being unrealistic.  When I was an _evil_ young professional 10 years ago I lived in a room in a shared house and so did many of my _evil_ colleagues.

<sorry about that>


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Yeah, but that's the point, isn't it? Even a bedsit is bizarrely expensive.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> The 'Sustainable Communities' and 'Homes for All' slogans really boil down to  'Building the Slums of the Future'.



Maybe they should be aiming to encourage young people to live near where they grew up?  That's not to say 'compell', but throwing all the resources at the popular cities will surely increase the tendency for everywhere else to have a significant shortage of young people.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that's the point, isn't it? Even a bedsit is bizarrely expensive.




No it isn't. You're a cheapskate.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Even 5-10 years ago I'd have said £400 a month for a bedsit was being abit cheapish.  I think you're just being unrealistic.



I'd agree with that. £400 for a self contained bedsit is pretty cheap ime - houseshares have been going for that rate for at least the last 5 years, if not 10...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> No it isn't. You're a cheapskate.


Please tell me you're joking. Because if you're not, you're a long way out of order.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Please tell me you're joking. Because if you're not, you're a long way ouit of order.



No, I'm not joking.  £400 for a bedsit.. _you're _ having a laugh.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that's the point, isn't it? Even a bedsit is bizarrely expensive.



If the problems were being caused purely by an influx of the rich would that necessarily be the case?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Then you _are_ out of order. The point is that you should be able to afford a bedsit. _I_ should be able to afford a bedsit. And the fact that I can't doesn't make me a cheapskate. It doesn't actually say anything about me. But your use of the term tells us something not at all pleasant about _you_.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Even 5-10 years ago I'd have said £400 a month for a bedsit was being abit cheapish.  I think you're just being unrealistic.


Well, try living on the sort of income where that's all you could afford (and even then with difficulty). What then?


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> No it isn't. You're a cheapskate.


You've *got* to be joking?!

_EDIT: Justin beat me to it._


----------



## fanta (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Please tell me you're joking. Because if you're not, you're a long way out of order.



Hollis is not out of order Justin - you're right, it is expensive, but expensive _is_ normal.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

I'm not joking.  *You're * joking.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

He's put of order, and so are you. It shouldn't be beyond my means to afford a fucking bedsit at the age of 39 after more than a decade and a half in the workforce. And calling _me_ as cheapskate for saying so is genuinely foul. Arrogant and foul.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> Hollis is not out of order Justin - you're right, it is expensive, but expensive _is_ normal.


Only normal since 1999. Before that you could find them for £60 - £90 per week.


----------



## fanta (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> He's put of order, and so are you. It shopuldn't be beyond my means to afford a fucking bedsit at the age of 39 after more than a decade and a half in the workforce. And calling _me_ as cheapskate for saying so is genuinely foul.



I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to affor such a thing, I'm just remarking that they're damn expensive.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to afford such a thing


Then don't approve the term "cheapskate".


----------



## fanta (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Then don't approve the term "cheapskate".



I wasn't.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Well, try living on the sort of income where that's all you could afford (and even then with difficulty). What then?




If you came into the area from outside, and you're being priced out because you don't earn enough (as opposed to spending more earnings on other things), then surely you can move somewhere else- maybe back to wherever you moved here from? 

That's not intended to be unsympathetic, but despite what I2S says, it's not only the rich that price locals out of local accomodation- there is as much pressure on the bottom end of the market as on the top.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> I wasn't.


You can't have it both ways. Either it's out of order or it's not.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2005)

I've always seen getting your own flat as a bit of a luxury. If you want somewhere affordable, you share or, if you're fortunate, you live with your partner. It's just the way it is. We should be able to work three day weeks and eat affordable organic food too, but it's absurd to expect that it's gonna happen.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

I have to say I agree with poster342002 and Justin. They're not cheapskates, they are on low incomes, which ain't the same thing at all. I don't know what poster342002 does for a living, but Justin does a very socially useful job which doesn't pay a lot. Fair Play to him.


----------



## Ms T (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Maybe they should be aiming to encourage young people to live near where they grew up?  That's not to say 'compell', but throwing all the resources at the popular cities will surely increase the tendency for everywhere else to have a significant shortage of young people.



The fact is that people move where the jobs are.  And that means London and the south-east, in many cases.  

The problem of young people not being able to afford housing where they grew up is in no way limited to London, either.   It's a huge problem in rural areas, where property prices are being forced up by pensioners retiring to the country.


----------



## fanta (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> You can't have it both ways. Either it's out of order or it's not.



I was referring to Hollis saying they're (average bed-sits) are damn expensive per se.

As I suspect you really know anyway.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

okay.. sorry if I've offended anyone with the term 'cheapskate'.. it was just throwaway terminology.

But you are being hopelessly unrealistic.  And I'd have said that as much 10-15 years ago, as now.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> I was referring to Hollis saying they're (average bed-sits) are damn expensive per se.
> 
> As I suspect you really know anyway.


Unfortunately that won't do, as it was not that to which I objected. As you know anyway.


----------



## LDR (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> No, I'm not joking.  £400 for a bedsit.. _you're _ having a laugh.



You can get studio flats round our way for that still.  I was looking in estate agents windows this morning on the way to work.

Have a look for yourself.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> But you are being hopelessly unrealistic.


What is the meaning of the term "unrealistic"? Isn't it always used to mean "the people at the bottom are expecting too much"? Isn't an equally reasonable use of the term "it's not realistic to expect people to put up with crap"? Or "it's not realistic to expect people to put up with crap - and then tell them to be 'realistic' without their getting the hump"?


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> The problem of young people not being able to afford housing where they grew up is in no way limited to London, either.   It's a huge problem in rural areas, where property prices are being forced up by pensioners retiring to the country.




Dead right.. the worst disparity between local incomes and housing is in West Somerset.. I find the intial dumping of all the problems of the housing market onto immigrant "young professionals" in the earlier part of this thread as abit crass.


----------



## fanta (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Unfortunately that won't do, as it was not that to which I objected. As you know anyway.



I'm afraid it will have to do dear Justin.

How are going to undo it, pray tell?

You're not - as we all know anyway!


----------



## fanta (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> What is the meaning of the term "unrealistic"? Isn't it always used to mean "the people at the bottom are expecting too much"? Isn't an equally reasonable use of the term "it's not realistic to expect people to put up with crap"? Or "it's not realistic to expect people to put up with crap - and then tell them to be 'realistic' without their getting the hump"?



Why do you play this absurd sophist game?

We all know that Hollis was pointing out, albeit in a clumsy way for which he has said sorry, that bedsits are damn expensive per se.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> I was looking in estate agents windows this morning on the way to work.



_Yuppie!!_


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> Why do you play this absurd sophist game?


Why sophist? It's a point about how language is used to make some things seem reasonable and other things not so. Quite an important point, too, I dare say.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> What is the meaning of the term "unrealistic"? Isn't it always used to mean "the people at the bottom are expecting too much"? Isn't an equally reasonable use of the term "it's not realistic to expect people to put up with crap"? Or "it's not realistic to expect people to put up with crap - and then tell them to be 'realistic' without their getting the hump"?



It's not realistic to expect rents to come down, once they're up.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> The fact is that people move where the jobs are.  And that means London and the south-east, in many cases.
> 
> The problem of young people not being able to afford housing where they grew up is in no way limited to London, either.   It's a huge problem in rural areas, where property prices are being forced up by pensioners retiring to the country.




I know 

But the solution to neither of these problems is to increase the London magnet effect (build more homes, create more jobs) and turn the countryside into a conservation area for the wellheeled.


----------



## fanta (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Why sophist? It's a point about how language is used to make some things seem reasonable and other things not so. Quite an important point, too, I dare say.



Your reasoning is subtle and deliberately specious.

We know Hollis has said sorry for the 'cheapskate' remark.

We know Hollis is correct in pointing out that bed-sits are too expensive.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> Your reasoning is subtle and deliberately specious.


You are calling me a liar, which is not acceptable. It is also something for which you have no basis whatsoever. I have been making this point about the use of the term "realistic" for many years.

You will withdraw, please.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> It's not realistic to expect rents to come down, once they're up.


Why not? Prices of other commodities come down, why not living space?


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Why sophist? It's a point about how language is used to make some things seem reasonable and other things not so. Quite an important point, too, I dare say.




Well I suppose I am using the term "unrealistic" in the practical day-to-day "as the situation presents itself" form.

You are using it in terms of your idea of social justice.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Well I suppose I am using the term "unrealistic" in the practical day-to-day "as the situation presents itself" form.
> 
> You are using it in terms of your idea of social justice.


Quite. The point is that the first usage is too commonly employed without thought of the second. In effect, the first usage means "put up with this and don't complain".


----------



## fanta (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> You are calling me a liar, which is not acceptable. It is also something for which you have no basis whatsoever. I have been making this point about the use of the term "realistic" for many years.
> 
> You will withdraw, please.



I think you're one skilled in elaborate and sometimes devious argumentation.

The above is a clear example of that. Don't be offended when that is recognised.

The 'cheapskate' insult has been withdrawn and an apology offered. 

The original point stands, namely: bed-sits are expensive.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> I think you're one skilled in elaborate and sometimes devious argumentation.
> 
> The above is a clear example of that. Don't be offended when that is recognised..


Hollis managed to grasp that there was a real point involed. He also had the grace to apologise. You apparently have neither the grasp nor the grace.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I find the intial dumping of all the problems of the housing market onto immigrant "young professionals" in the earlier part of this thread as abit crass.




I don't think that's what I was doing... is an attempt to discuss who   constitutes the problem more crass than denying there is a problem and/or relying on markets for the solution?

The fact of youth, education, ambition and a well paid job does not negate responsibility for displacing others from the area they grew up in.


----------



## isvicthere? (Feb 7, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> ...and the parents who know their kids will still be living at home well into their forties



At what age do kids stop saying, "I live with my parents" and instead say, "My parents live with me"?


----------



## fanta (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Hollis managed to grasp that there was a real point involed. He also had the grace to apologise. You apparently have neither the grasp nor the grace.



I have nothing to apologise for. I didn't call anyone a cheapskate, I merely agreed that bed-sits are expensive.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> I have nothing to apologise for.


Sigh... you have a PM.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> I don't think that's what I was doing... is an attempt to discuss who   constitutes the problem more crass than denying there is a problem and/or relying on markets for the solution?
> 
> The fact of youth, education, ambition and a well paid job does not negate responsibility for displacing others from the area they grew up in.



True. But I doubt many of the people protesting so hard about 'yuppies' earlier on this thread grew up in the area either. There's a wider point to be made, but attributing so much blame to the 'young and educated' now seems like arbitrarily (and unreasonably) pulling up the drawbridge to suit ourselves


----------



## fanta (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Sigh... you have a PM.



Make it the last one please!

To reiterate:

*I have nothing to apologise for. I didn't call anyone a cheapskate, I merely agreed that bed-sits are expensive.*

I hope that is fucking clear!


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> True. But I doubt many of the people protesting so hard about 'yuppies' earlier on this thread grew up in the area either. There's a wider point to be made, but attributing so much blame to the 'young and educated' now seems like arbitrarily (and unreasonably) pulling up the drawbridge to suit ourselves




Too true - they're a convenient scapegoat.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Also, manufactured out of not a little straw.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> True. But I doubt many of the people protesting so hard about 'yuppies' earlier on this thread grew up in the area either. There's a wider point to be made, but attributing so much blame to the 'young and educated' now seems like arbitrarily (and unreasonably) pulling up the drawbridge to suit ourselves




Chicken or egg? in W Somerset 19% of the population are aged between 20 & 40: in Lambeth it's 44%.  As the young people of W Somerset flock into London looking for fame & fortune they displace those who grew up locally.  So I don't think considering the question is arbitrary, and whether it's reasonable is what I'm trying to find out.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

It's also reasonable to question whether people who moved in befoire and have problems with what's happening now and simply trying to pull up the drawbridge. I mean I'm not (fucking ineffective drawbridge if I were). One reason is that the basis on which I was living in Brixton wasn't the same as is involved in the trend which I'm criticising. I was a lodger.


----------



## LDR (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> _Yuppie!!_



If only.   

I've taken a drop in pay each time in my last three jobs.     In fact, I'm now earning the least I ever have since working in Pizza Hut ten years ago.

The funny thing is when I was earning good money I could afford to get on the property ladder, and now I am not paying rent I can afford to take a drop in salary.  It's madness.  The people who can least afford it get charged more than the people who can.

It's the same bollocks with the frequent flyer system.  I've got enough points for a free flight halfway across the world.  To many poor I suspect that would be a holiday of a lifetime. Yet only the people who are rich enough to travel lots, get offered the free flights.    

The system benefits the rich and ostracises the poor.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

I think it was Sting whom I read observing, some years ago, that once you acquire a certain amount of wealth, you never have to pay for anything again.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Chicken or egg? in W Somerset 19% of the population are aged between 20 & 40: in Lambeth it's 44%.  As the young people of W Somerset flock into London looking for fame & fortune they displace those who grew up locally.  So I don't think considering the question is arbitrary, and whether it's reasonable is what I'm trying to find out.



But is the 'local youth' being displaced as you suggest earlier in this thread, or mainly the older generation of locals choosing to move away? 

It's no compensation, but in my experience it's the latter. I'm not sure how this would compare to historical patterns, but I would suspect that recent years have just seen the acceleration of a process that was already well established. 

No answers I'm afraid, but when there's such demand for property within travelling distance of Central London and jobs - via house purchase, rental or lodging - it's always likely to put increasing pressure on local housing stock.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

Isn't there something abit idealistic about all this 'local communtiy' stuff anyway.. London's probably the no.1 cosmopolitan city in the world. Inward migration change has always/is inevitable. Brixton due to its 'coolness'... just happens to be at the cutting edge of this process at the moment.. Anyway I bet half the houses in Brixton used to be inhabited by bourgeois Victorian toffs.  

The Yuppies are reclaiming their Inheritence.. _!!!_


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> No answers I'm afraid, but when there's such demand for property within travelling distance of Central London and jobs - via house purchase, rental or lodging - it's always likely to put increasing pressure on local housing stock.


Why _increasing_? Unless employment in central London increases (which it may have done, but I've not heard that this is so) why would the demand for conveniently-situated housing increase? (In fact, as we know, the trend used to be in the opposite direction, with people who had cars moving _out_ of London, as for instance my parents did in the mid-Seventies).


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> It's also reasonable to question whether people who moved in befoire and have problems with what's happening now and simply trying to pull up the drawbridge.



Of course it's reasonable to ask, although the 'pull up the drawbridge' expression rather presumes an equality of interest tipped only by prior involvement.  That's not really the case- as I said earlier I'm watching people who grew up here having to move away when they have kids, at just the point when support networks are most needed.  It's idle to deny that they have a greater stake than an incomer who fancies the vibrant nature of the area and can afford to pay the asking price.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> That's not really the case- as I said earlier I'm watching people who grew up here having to move away when they have kids, at just the point when support networks are most needed.  It's idle to deny that they have a greater stake than an incomer who fancies the vibrant nature of the area and can afford to pay the asking price.


Of course I couldn't agree more.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Of course it's reasonable to ask, although the 'pull up the drawbridge' expression rather presumes an equality of interest tipped only by prior involvement.  That's not really the case- as I said earlier I'm watching people who grew up here having to move away when they have kids, at just the point when support networks are most needed.  It's idle to deny that they have a greater stake than an incomer who fancies the vibrant nature of the area and can afford to pay the asking price.



I agree that it's a shame - I've watched the same movement myself again and agian. Most of the friends and family are now based in Norbury and beyond as a result...


I have got a concern with the last sentence of your post though. I severely doubt that a significant proportion of those moving to Lambeth do so because it’s ‘vibrant’ – it may be a minor factor, but  - like most others – the vast bulk of those moving here will do so because the area meets a combination of factors, probably far more to do with cost/location suitability than any notion of trendiness. And how do you protect locals in reality – do we just try and keep out the most recent incomers and youth … or do we prohibit any 'non-homegrown' Lambethonian from renting or purchasing anything in future to protect the stake of locals like me and you? It's just difficult to draw the line...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Anyway I bet half the houses in Brixton used to be inhabited by bourgeois Victorian toffs. [/I]


Well, if you look at Booths Poverty Map of London there was a much more mixed demographic. The poor lived cheek by jowl with the rich because the rich depended on the poor in a much more immediate way than now... crossing sweepers, gardeners, cooks etc.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Also presumably because both factory owner and factory employee had to walk to work?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Well, if you look at Booths Poverty Map of London there was a much more mixed demographic. The poor lived cheek by jowl with the rich because the rich depended on the poor in a much more immediate way than now... crossing sweepers, gardeners, cooks etc.


booth's map


----------



## toadinthehole (Feb 7, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I maintain that these places are completely out of the reach of the vast majority of single young people, based on local  prices for similar properties


I've checked with planning committee. The application was voted through.

Has anyone mentioned yet that most, if not all, of these flats will go to white yuppies, given the small size of the black London middle class?

Let's check in 18 months time. You just need to stand outside at 6pm and watch the poor darlings come and go. 

And we mustn't criticise them. They don't mean any harm. To criticise a yupp is to compare him or her to a holocaust victim (copyright see above).

And the presence of Brixton yups are why Nelson Mandella came to Brixton. To argue for white yuppies to infest "luxury appartments" by Brixton tube. Why else would he bother? Surely he's not interested in social justice?

I heard him say similar things in Trafalgar Square last week, to a doting crowd of 20,000 yups.


----------



## Giles (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Why not? Prices of other commodities come down, why not living space?



Rents in London *have* come down in the last few years, largely because there are more places to rent due to more people doing buy-to-let. 
The company I work for are definitely getting less for flats we rent out now than we were 4 or 5 years back.

I think the cheapest way to live in a decent place is to rent a room in a houseshare. Try:

Gumtree 

or

Moveflat

Giles..


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 7, 2005)

*And another thing ...*

I've just remembered seeing some statistic somewhere about vast increases in single-person households over the last few years.  This no doubt helps explain the ridiculous costs of bedsits and small flats, demand outstripping supply and all that.  Not sure the authors explained * why * there had been the increase though.

Thinking back over my 44 years I have seen a significant change in home ownership habits - when I was a teenager I remember thinking that owning (or even renting) your own flat or house went with marriage (which I anticipated may cause me some local difficulty...    ).


----------



## editor (Feb 7, 2005)

toadinthehole said:
			
		

> yuppies...yupp....yups...Brixton yups....yuppies....yups.


You're turning into a pathetic, sad travesty of your former self.

Yet another yuppie-fixated alter-ego of the _truly obsessed_ Anna Key duly banned again.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

toadinthehole said:
			
		

> I've checked with planning committee. The application was voted through.
> 
> Has anyone mentioned yet that most, if not all, of these flats will go to white yuppies, given the small size of the black London middle class?
> 
> ...



Out of interest, would you argue for race-specific social housing then? Or would you insist on the free-market offering differentiated costs for ethnic minorities or proven locals? I'm trying to get at understanding why you thought it would be constructive to bring in race for this specific example.

Welcome back AnnaKey btw...


----------



## Giles (Feb 7, 2005)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I've just remembered seeing some statistic somewhere about vast increases in single-person households over the last few years.  This no doubt helps explain the ridiculous costs of bedsits and small flats, demand outstripping supply and all that.  Not sure the authors explained * why * there had been the increase though.
> 
> Thinking back over my 44 years I have seen a significant change in home ownership habits - when I was a teenager I remember thinking that owning (or even renting) your own flat or house went with marriage (which I anticipated may cause me some local difficulty...    ).



There is a trend towards more single-person "households". I think that this is one of the reasons for the shortage, and hence higher price, of housing.

People are tending to "settle down" and/or marry later in life, which means that there is a longer period of people wanting to live on their own. Add to that the increasingly temporary nature of people's relationships and you have a big increase in the number of "households" even if not in the actual number of people.

I think that the cheapest way to live in London (squatting aside, obviously) is for a group of friends to rent a biggish house - the "cost per bedroom" ends up a lot less than for renting a one bed flat, and bigger places often have more living rooms and better facilities anyway. The same works for buying places as well - one beds are the most expensive in terms of "cost per room".

Giles..


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Well obviously. Undesirable situations are less expensive than desirable situations.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

I certainly wouldn't want to flatshare. It's OK(ish) if you're young, but once you're over 35 you've had enough of pubes in the sugar bowl and terse notes over the washing-up.
In fact flatshares are dreadful. All my worst experiences have been in shared flats.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Quite. And if you're not a party type it's intolerable.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

God protect me from Party Types


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2005)

Agreed - best to share with just one other person who has the same cleaning/maintenance standards as you do and lives a similar lifestyle.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2005)

What's a Party Type? Do you mean sociable people?


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Why _increasing_? Unless employment in central London increases (which it may have done, but I've not heard that this is so) why would the demand for conveniently-situated housing increase? (In fact, as we know, the trend used to be in the opposite direction, with people who had cars moving _out_ of London, as for instance my parents did in the mid-Seventies).




The population of London is apparently going to increase by something like 500,000 + in the next 15 years.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

No. I'm sociable. Party Types are full-on and loud.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> The population of London is apparently going to increase by something like 500,000 + in the next 15 years.


I hope that's not all 20 somethings still living with their parents.....


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> If you came into the area from outside, and you're being priced out because you don't earn enough (as opposed to spending more earnings on other things), then surely you can move somewhere else- maybe back to wherever you moved here from?


It's like this all over London now. There are no "cheap areas" anymore - only expensive ones and *really* expensive ones.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> What is the meaning of the term "unrealistic"? Isn't it always used to mean "the people at the bottom are expecting too much"? Isn't an equally reasonable use of the term "it's not realistic to expect people to put up with crap"? Or "it's not realistic to expect people to put up with crap - and then tell them to be 'realistic' without their getting the hump"?


It's like when the rich lecture the poor by saying the poor "need to start living in the real world".


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> If you came into the area from outside, and you're being priced out because you don't earn enough (as opposed to spending more earnings on other things), then surely you can move somewhere else- maybe back to wherever you moved here from?


What if you're doing a low-paid but very useful job?...we can't all be Key Workers in the present narrow definition of that term.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

Actually on my present wages, if I wasn't married to someone on better money I probably couldn't even afford a hostel, and I know my job is very useful.


----------



## Bob (Feb 7, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I certainly wouldn't want to flatshare. It's OK(ish) if you're young, but once you're over 35 you've had enough of pubes in the sugar bowl and terse notes over the washing-up.
> In fact flatshares are dreadful. All my worst experiences have been in shared flats.



Depends who you flatshare with and particularly how many. Two is usually very easy (my current flatmate is pretty ideal as have been many previous people in two people flats). Three usually works well but gets a little tricky occasionally, as do four. Anything above four though is bonkers...

Two person flatshares are rarely much more expensive per person than a 3 person share - so it's really quite affordable. I know a reasonable number of people in the £350-410 range of rent in Brixton - which is affordable (if not cheap) on average ish London earnings (eg. 18-22k)... so while Brixton is not cheap it's not horrifically unaffordable for average ish London people. Obviously completely unaffordable if you're on the minimum wage though...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> It's like when the rich lecture the poor by saying the poor "need to start living in the real world".


Indeed. A phrase I've heard used both by the current incumbent at Number Ten and by the predecessor that he most admires.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

I'm above minimum wage, but I don't get paid during School Holidays. No one doing my job does these days...and no, I'm not a Dinner Lady!


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Indeed. A phrase I've heard used both by the current incumbent at Number Ten and by the predecessor that he most admires.



Maybe you should get hitched.  Its quite obvious to me that the housing market - rented/private ownership sector is totally priced for couples.  

It ain't easy being single..


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> £350-410 range of rent in Brixton - which is affordable (if not cheap) on average ish London earnings (eg. 18-22k)...


Oooh, I _do not_ think so, possibly not even if we're using "median". Average full-time salary in _the whole country_ is about £26000 p.a. I believe. It's not going to be lower here.




			
				Hollis said:
			
		

> Maybe you should get hitched.


Yeah good idea I'll do it tomorrow.


----------



## gaijingirl (Feb 7, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I'm above minimum wage, but I don't get paid during School Holidays. No one doing my job does these days...and no, I'm not a Dinner Lady!


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I severely doubt that a significant proportion of those moving to Lambeth do so because it’s ‘vibrant’ – it may be a minor factor, but  - like most others – the vast bulk of those moving here will do so because the area meets a combination of factors, probably far more to do with cost/location suitability than any notion of trendiness. And how do you protect locals in reality – do we just try and keep out the most recent incomers and youth … or do we prohibit any 'non-homegrown' Lambethonian from renting or purchasing anything in future to protect the stake of locals like me and you? It's just difficult to draw the line...




Well not by 'prohibiting' anything, that's for sure.  I've argued above for a reduction in the Brixton night economy (which is aimed directly at the youth and has arguably reduced the quality of life of those who aren't) but also for _improving_ the desirability of elsewhere, like Thornton Heath, so that there are good reasons why young people with choices should go there. I'd also go for improving the job prospects in places like West Somerset so that young people don't feel they have to leave to get on in life, coupled with the use of planning law to prevent ever more office space (=jobs) being built in London. I don't agree with building ever more housing on to the huge area Prescott wants, nor with inflicting the Olympics on London, nor with grand visions of Central Squares and theatre spaces and boulevards and so on: they're all destined to increase the pressure on London.


That said I do think that 'vibrancy' is a large part of the attraction of Brixton.  Not, perhaps, the colourful street characters and marginals that Hatboy used to champion (that mostly belongs to the past, sadly) but the entertainment (from Albert to A66 via Lounge & Living) is clearly popular, indeed the whole Brixton reputation has swung right round. It's only a few years ago that admitting to living in Brixton would bring about an immediate and universal negative chorus about mugging and crime... these days it's as hard to cope with the effusive 'wow it's a very cool place' type comments.   Exactly how that trendiness translates into increased housing pressure isn't entirely obvious, but it's pretty clear that non-trendy places are far less troubled by gentrification.


----------



## Giles (Feb 7, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I certainly wouldn't want to flatshare. It's OK(ish) if you're young, but once you're over 35 you've had enough of pubes in the sugar bowl and terse notes over the washing-up.
> In fact flatshares are dreadful. All my worst experiences have been in shared flats.



Pubes in the sugar-bowl? Christ, you must have had some strange house-mates! I've shared with people for ages and never had that one......

I find that if everyone is friends and sociable people, it works out just fine.

I prefer to be in a house with a load of mates rather than on my own.

Giles..


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> I'd also go for improving the job prospects in places like West Somerset so that young people don't feel they have to leave to get on in life.



Have you ever been to Minehead??    

You basically want to stop inward migration to London? - I think you've got a job on your hands.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> What if you're doing a low-paid but very useful job?...we can't all be Key Workers in the present narrow definition of that term.


I think the definition of Key Worker varies from region to region - not sure about Lambeth, but a friend in Ealing qualifies, even though he works for Sky Television!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

>




LOL!
acksherlee I'm a 'Special Needs Learning Support Classroom Assistant' The very long important title makes up for the lack of moolah.


----------



## gaijingirl (Feb 7, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Pubes in the sugar-bowl? Christ, you must have had some strange house-mates! I've shared with people for ages and never had that one......
> 
> .



Sugar in your pubes perhaps???


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

I dunno.. what's a 'useful' job anyway.. I'm always abit dubious of that term.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 7, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Pubes in the sugar-bowl? Christ, you must have had some strange house-mates!


Things were different in the 1970s.......


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I think the definition of Key Worker varies from region to region - not sure about Lambeth, but a friend in Ealing qualifies, even though he works for Sky Television!



Surprised by that one. Most places seem to be abiding by the ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's) definition of Key Workers, which is pretty damn limited. Postmen and firemen, for example, did not used to qualify as key workers....


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I have got a concern with the last sentence of your post though. I severely doubt that a significant proportion of those moving to Lambeth do so because it’s ‘vibrant’ – it may be a minor factor, but  - like most others – the vast bulk of those moving here will do so because the area meets a combination of factors, probably far more to do with cost/location suitability than any notion of trendiness...




I'd say it has everything to do with 'vibrancy'... there's loads of other cheaper, accessible areas to live in.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2005)

According to this these are key workers:
'
• Nurses and other NHS staff
• Teachers in schools and in further education and sixth form colleges
• Police officers and some civilian staff in certain police forces
• Prison service and probation service staff
• Social workers, educational psychologists, planners (London) and occupational therapists employed by local authorities
• Whole-time junior fire officers and retained fire fighters (all grades) in some fire and rescue services (currently only in Hertfordshire)'

Though the criteria will vary from region to region.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Things were different in the 1970s.......



I thought it was car keys in the sugar bowl then.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 7, 2005)

Ooh, look what's missing! Bookworkers!




			
				Orang Utan said:
			
		

> but a friend in Ealing qualifies, even though he works for Sky Television!


What does he do? I must confess this has "scam" written all over it, but then again, it depends on who's doing the judging. My colleague opposite counts as a key worker with the housing association who he's just part-buying with, but not by any council.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I'd say it has everything to do with 'vibrancy'... there's loads of other cheaper, accessible areas to live in.



But very few places in South London have comparable transport links at equivalent prices. Where else would you suggest - underpriced Clapham perhaps?


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> But very few places in South London have comparable transport links at equivalent prices. Where else would you suggest - underpriced Clapham perhaps?




Well there's loads of places in North and East London. I'm no expert on South London.. but the transport links to places like Peckham are also pretty good.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> What if you're doing a low-paid but very useful job?...we can't all be Key Workers in the present narrow definition of that term.




My point is that the pressure on local housing is as much from those incomers at the bottom end of the price range as those higher up.  I'm not actually suggesting evicting anyone or creating some sort of quota system.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Well there's loads of places in North and East London. I'm no expert on South London.. but the transport links to places like Peckham are also pretty good.



Like bollocks they are. Nightmare transport in Peckham - outside of the mainline train line there's a huge bunch of commuters who have to travel to Brixton every day on overcrowded buses to catch the tube.

Outside of Brixton and Oval you've got the nightmare of the Northern Line down South here, the slowest of the lot. Whatever else Brixton has going for it, it has wonderful transport links...


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Like bollocks they are. Nightmare transport in Peckham - outside of the mainline train line there's a huge bunch of commuters who have to travel to Brixton every day on overcrowded buses to catch the tube.
> 
> Outside of Brixton and Oval you've got the nightmare of the Northern Line down South here, the slowest of the lot. Whatever else Brixton has going for it, it has wonderful transport links...




I'll repeat.. there are loads of cheap and accessible places in London to live.  I'm sure some of the many people who live outside Brixton but in South London will be able to tell you how they survive.  One of my mates seemed to suvive the Northern Line "nightmare" to Tooting Bec for afew years.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I'll repeat.. there are loads of cheap and accessible places in London to live.  I'm sure some of the many people who live outside Brixton but in South London will be able to tell you how they survive.



How much more expensive do you think that Brixton is than other Zone 2 locations then? I think you'll find it's highly comparable - if not far more mixed in the price range than most areas. Let me repeat instead: show me the places that have comparable transport links and much cheaper prices than Brixton. Just name one or two.

I suspect that you're just trying to push this 'vibrancy' angle regardless of the actual evidence...


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Like bollocks they are. Nightmare transport in Peckham - outside of the mainline train line there's a huge bunch of commuters who have to travel to Brixton every day on overcrowded buses to catch the tube.
> 
> Outside of Brixton and Oval you've got the nightmare of the Northern Line down South here, the slowest of the lot. Whatever else Brixton has going for it, it has wonderful transport links...



Indeed, though why a tram is deemed necessary is a bit beyond me.  But Brixton had the same tube in the 70s & 80s when it was depopulating. The tube, though an important factor, doesn't explain the whole phenomena.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> How much more expensive do you think that Brixton is than other Zone 2 locations then? I think you'll find it's highly comparable - if not far more mixed in the price range than most areas. Let me repeat instead: show me the places that have comparable transport links and much cheaper prices than Brixton. Just name one or two.
> 
> I suspect that you're just trying to push this 'vibrancy' angle regardless of the actual evidence...



Where to start.. Leyton, Leytonstone, Tottenham, Hackney, Wood Green,  Bethnal Green.. the "nightmare" Northern line (north & south)


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Indeed, though why a tram is deemed necessary is a bit beyond me.  But Brixton had the same tube in the 70s & 80s when it was depopulating. The tube, though an important factor, doesn't explain the whole phenomena.



The 70 and 80s were a different time as regards transport though. I'm not denying that the social attractiveness of an area feeds into housing values, but Brixton remains fairly priced compared to other comparable locations, as ridiculous as that might sound. Wandsworth, for example, commands greater premiums despite the less convenient transport.

I still think that the vibrancy aspect is being played up. It's more that people want to move to areas they feel they can 'belong' to. In Wandsworth's case, it's recently been perceived as a famaily friendly, creative area -Brixton has traditionally been associated with left leaning and mixed culture, although this may have lessened. Each could provide a draw to the area in some way.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Maybe you should get hitched.


Far easier said than done. And why should people _have_ to before they can afford to live somewhere?


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> It's more that people want to move to areas they feel they can 'belong' to.



Yes, and Brixton has an enormous number of 'just graduated moved to London' types - its got all the clubs, the bars etc, their mates live there.  Its trendy.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Where to start.. Leyton, Leytonstone, Tottenham, Hackney, Wood Green,  Bethnal Green.. the "nightmare" Northern line (north & south)



Oh come on - with the possible exception of Bethnal Green, none of those are anywhere as well stocked with travel options as Brixton. Some of them are in Zone 3, others double the number of stops (and journey time) that it would take you to reach central London from Brixton. 

And where's the South London comparison as well. It's hardly an genuine and fair look at the comparable options is it? You may as well look at Colliers Wood and Morden...

Bethnal Green is as expensive as Brixton, if not more so for luxury apartments, in my experience.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> What does he do? I must confess this has "scam" written all over it, but then again, it depends on who's doing the judging. My colleague opposite counts as a key worker with the housing association who he's just part-buying with, but not by any council.



He's not a scammer, he hasn't even applied yet. He's a subtitler - I think they judge it more by income than percieved 'usefulness' but that's a guess.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

So what if they're 'zone 3'.      Travel options from Wood Green/Leyton are just as easy as Brixton.


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I dunno.. what's a 'useful' job anyway.. I'm always abit dubious of that term.


Another thing to remember is that people take the job they can get - useful or not - and the job they can get is often not highly-paid. Nobody chooses to be on a low-income - they just have the job because it's the one they were able to get.


----------



## kea (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Nightmare transport in Peckham - outside of the mainline train line there's a huge bunch of commuters who have to travel to Brixton every day on overcrowded buses to catch the tube.




i don't know which bit of peckham you're referring to but i'm perfectly happy with the transport links from peckham and that's coming from a confirmed north londoner who was spoilt by living within 5 minutes of the northern line for the 3 years pre-peckham  and my (many) fellow commuters seem just as happy.
tho re: affordability, i dunno how affordable it really is. £170k seems to be the baseline for a 1-bed place with garden here. cheaper than brixton tho i'm sure!


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Oh come on - with the possible exception of Bethnal Green, none of those are anywhere as well stocked with travel options as Brixton.



So you're really telling me all those 'just graduated' types move to Brixton because they've heard of the 'fantastic transport links'?


----------



## LDR (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> So what if they're 'zone 3'.      Travel options from Wood Green/Leyton are just as easy as Brixton.



Exactly, it takes 15 minutes from Leyton to Liverpool Street.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> So what if they're 'zone 3'.      Travel options from Wood Green/Leyton are just as easy as Brixton.



Ah come on, stop stretching. So you wouldn't have expected a place in Zone 2 (with lower travelcard/transport prices as a result) to command a premium in housing over a Zone 3/Zone 4 location?

Journey times are way longer for many common locations from Wood Green/Leyton - double the time to Oxford Circus, even Euston, than from Brixton for example. It's bullshit not to expect that to lead to a premium in costs.

I repeat: name one comparable location, particularly in South London, that shows Brixton to be particularly overpriced.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Exactly, it takes 15 minutes from Leyton to Liverpool Street.



That's a bad one for Brixton admittedly, but just having a quick play around on tubeplanner.co.uk gives some examples of Brixton's speeds to many of the mainline stations and most popular locations. Despite Camden's North London location, for example, it'd be quicker to reach from Brixton than either Wood Green or Leyton.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> So you're really telling me all those 'just graduated' types move to Brixton because they've heard of the 'fantastic transport links'?



Has Brixton got a much higher proportion of 'just graduated' types than elsewhere in London then? Care to show me any stats for that claim?


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Ah come on, stop stretching. So you wouldn't have expected a place in Zone 2 (with lower travelcard/transport prices as a result) to command a premium in housing over a Zone 3/Zone 4 location?
> 
> Journey times are way longer for many common locations from Wood Green/Leyton - double the time to Oxford Circus, even Euston, than from Brixton for example. It's bullshit not to expect that to lead to a premium in costs.
> 
> I repeat: name one comparable location, particularly in South London, that shows Brixton to be particularly overpriced.



My claim was for cheaper, accessible places to live.. which I've just listed examples of...I've also said I'm not an expert on South London. 

It also seems your very concerned about transport times!  God knows how the rest of us survive!


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I repeat: name one comparable location, particularly in South London, that shows Brixton to be particularly overpriced.


Brixton isn't paticularly overpriced - the whole of London is. That's the point of the whole problem - nowhere is affordable anymore.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Has Brixton got a much higher proportion of 'just graduated' types than elsewhere in London then? Care to show me any stats for that claim?



Probably a higher proportion of 'trendy' 'just graduated' types.  Which is why they want to live there... because its vibrant. Not because of the 'fantastic transport links'.

(  )

<supportive _scientific_ evidence to follow..  >


----------



## editor (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Well there's loads of places in North and East London. I'm no expert on South London.. but the transport links to places like Peckham are also pretty good.


Nah. The tube makes all the difference and Peckham hasn't exactly got the greatest of facilities and nicest of High Streets, has it?


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Brixton isn't paticularly overpriced - the whole of London is. That's the point of the whole problem - nowhere is affordable anymore.



Bingo that man. I suspect Brixton's actually slightly undervalued for its location - the 'edgy' location still scares a certain proportion of buyers off.

Whilst notions of vibrancy may attract some people here, there's hardly the evidence to suggest that it's driving up house prices and distrting the market in the way that some posters are suggesting here. Brixton's not cheap, but it was never likely to be in the longer term with such a location.


----------



## newbie (Feb 7, 2005)

Lambeth has 41% with a degree; Leyton has 24%


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Nah. The tube makes all the difference and Peckham hasn't exactly got the greatest of facilities and nicest of High Streets, has it?




So next _you're _ going to tell us you moved to Brixton because of the 'fantastic transport links'?


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Whilst notions of vibrancy may attract some people here, there's hardly the evidence to suggest that it's driving up house prices and distrting the market in the way that some posters are suggesting here. Brixton's not cheap, but it was never likely to be in the longer term with such a location.



Oh really!  I again find that hard to believe!!  I can tell.. you I'd love you lot to move up to Wood Green.. followed by the inevitable wave of gentrifiers afew years later.. Send my house price through the roof it would.


----------



## editor (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> So next _you're _ going to tell us you moved to Brixton because of the 'fantastic transport links'?


It certainly played a part

I used to live in Hackney and after that vowed never to live anywhere without a tube station nearby.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 7, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It certainly played a part
> 
> I used to live in Hackney and after that vowed never to live anywhere without a tube station nearby.



After the best part of a decade living in areas of South London without the tube I've made the same vow.  You can't enjoy London half as much if your not on the tube IME.

Now I live a minutes walk from Balham Tube


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Now I live a minutes walk from Balham Tube



How do you cope??     That's on the "nightmare" Northern Line.

I also, after 8 months in Bromley, vowed to live on a tube line.  So I ended up in Wood Green.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2005)

I walk to work but when hungover/late I get the bus to work and it takes only five minutes longer than the tube, so it's not just the tube in Brixton that's convenient.


----------



## Bob (Feb 7, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It certainly played a part
> 
> I used to live in Hackney and after that vowed never to live anywhere without a tube station nearby.



Part of it but I would favour Brixton anyday over Vauxhall - which has vastly superior transport links. Everywhere in the Vauxhall area is within 10 minutes walk of at least two tube stations and at least 3 night bus routes let alone loads of bus routes. But nowhere in north Lambeth is anywhere as interesting a place to live as Brixton - just to take one instance the market is at least fifteen times the size of the next biggest if you go north of it.  

And Peckham may have a reasonably sized market but public transport after about 9pm from the centre of London becomes a pain - with up to half an hour between trains and quite a long bus journey.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Oh really!  I again find that hard to believe!!  I can tell.. you I'd love you lot to move up to Wood Green.. followed by the inevitable wave of gentrifiers afew years later.. Send my house price through the roof it would.



You keep saying that, but you've provided no plausible, low-cost genuine alternative to Brixton with comparable transport and location. South London ain't stacked with places - Vauxhall certainly ain't cheap.

I've maintained throughout that people tend to move to areas they feel they 'belong' in, which is why I'm wary of people condemning any future waves of young folk wanting to move to Brixton as 'yups'  That said, I don't believe that they constitute the dominant reason why Brixton's land values have gone up so much. And besides, you'd have to be a mug to move into a 'unpopular' part of town just to prove a point, just as much a fool as if you moved somewhere solely because it was 'trendy'


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

Yeah.. I forgot.. Finsbury Park.. fucking _brilliant_ transport links, and in zone 2, and cheap.. But would _you_ want to live there?


----------



## editor (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Yeah.. I forgot.. Finsbury Park.. fucking _brilliant_ transport links, and in zone 2, and cheap.. But would _you_ want to live there?


What point are you trying to prove?

I didn't say I moved to Brixton _exclusively_ for its transport links: I said that the proximity to a tube played a part in my decision.

The main reasons I came to Brixton were
(a) I was offered a flat there and
(b) I had more friends living there than anyone
(c) I liked the Albert and Cooltan

If all I'd been offered at the time was a place in Finsbury Park, I probably would have moved there instead because at the time I was rather partial to the George Robey (RIP).

Good job I didn't though. I fucking hate the area.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Yeah.. I forgot.. Finsbury Park.. fucking _brilliant_ transport links, and in zone 2, and cheap.. But would _you_ want to live there?



Eh, the prices don't seem that dissmilar to Brixton to me - plenty of one bed victorian terrace flat conversions at C£180k, with arguably less low-end stuff to choose from.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> You keep saying that, but you've provided no plausible, low-cost genuine alternative to Brixton with comparable transport and location. South London ain't stacked with places - Vauxhall certainly ain't cheap.
> 
> I've maintained throughout that people tend to move to areas they feel they 'belong' in, which is why I'm wary of people condemning any future waves of young folk wanting to move to Brixton as 'yups'  That said, I don't believe that they constitute the dominant reason why Brixton's land values have gone up so much. And besides, you'd have to be a mug to move into a 'unpopular' part of town just to prove a point, just as much a fool as if you moved somewhere solely because it was 'trendy'



Sorry, but I think you're talking rubbish.  All those people in the Albert just moved to Brixton because there were no low-cost alternatives?


----------



## Bob (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Yeah.. I forgot.. Finsbury Park.. fucking _brilliant_ transport links, and in zone 2, and cheap.. But would _you_ want to live there?



Blackstock road is great. In fact that is one thing that Brixton is missing (afaik) decent Turkish supermarkets & restaurants.  In fact Finsbury park is the only other bit of London I'd be reasonably happy to live in (though no market)...


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I think you're talking rubbish.  All those people in the Albert just moved to Brixton because there were no low-cost alternatives?



No, keep up dear. 

They moved there because the could find something within their price range and near to their friends and work.

I guess that they could have moved to Wembley and then paid extra for a taxi at the end of the night, but that may have defeated the object of living somewhere cheaper.

What point are you trying to make? That trendiness is a huge factor in housing prices. If that's it, you're doing particularly badly in backing that viewpoint up with real world examples rather than snide comments.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> What point are you trying to prove?



Point?    .. ah yes.  Merely I find it laughable, tbh, the idea vibrancy etc doesn't play a major part in why alot of young 'just graduated' types want to live in Brixton.  As opposed to the apparent counterargument that the reason they're all there is that its the only viable low-cost-excellent transport option in London.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> No, keep up dear.
> 
> They moved there because the could find something within their price range and near to their friends and work.
> 
> ...



Now now, calm down...


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> That said I do think that 'vibrancy' is a large part of the attraction of Brixton.  Not, perhaps, the colourful street characters and marginals that Hatboy used to champion (that mostly belongs to the past, sadly) but the entertainment (from Albert to A66 via Lounge & Living) is clearly popular, indeed the whole Brixton reputation has swung right round. It's only a few years ago that admitting to living in Brixton would bring about an immediate and universal negative chorus about mugging and crime... these days it's as hard to cope with the effusive 'wow it's a very cool place' type comments.   Exactly how that trendiness translates into increased housing pressure isn't entirely obvious, but it's pretty clear that non-trendy places are far less troubled by gentrification.



Worth quoting again.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Point?    .. ah yes.  Merely I find it laughable, tbh, the idea vibrancy etc doesn't play a major part in why alot of young 'just graduated' types want to live in Brixton.  As opposed to the apparent counterargument that the reason they're all there is that its the only viable low-cost-excellent transport option in London.




Look at the posts above and stop laughably misrepresenting what's been said on this thread. All throughout it's been argued that's it's a combination of factors which explain Brixton's housing prices. All you've done is keep pointing to supposed 'trendiness,' as if that ludicrously explains the full attraction of Brixton. 

Cor. You're so cool and anti-fashion by taking that viewpoint...


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

I know I'm fucking cool, thanks.

 

What's laughable is your denial of Brixton's 'vibrancy' playing a major role in its 'current' difficulties/house prices.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I know I'm fucking cool, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your denial of Brixton's 'vibrancy' playing a major role in its 'current' difficulties/house prices.



Gah. So you keep saying. So where's the evidence that this 'trendiness' is causing the difficulty and house rises. 

Is Brixton cooler than Clapham Junction? Cooler than Clapham South? Cooler than Battersea? Is it more expensive than any of them? It's not looking good is it, no major role or pattern seems to be observable?

No one's denying that it's an aspect, but the idea that it's the major factor seems way off. For every person who loves Brixton, there'll be a couple who still let its past reputation colour their perception of the place.


----------



## miss minnie (Feb 7, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Blackstock road is great. In fact that is one thing that Brixton is missing (afaik) decent Turkish supermarkets & restaurants.


ooh yeah, wouldn't mind one of those.  we had a nice little supermarket for a while, the 'moorish(?) souk', compact and bijou but brilliant and really friendly.   now it's an internet cafe.  you can still see the lovely turkish(?) tiles on the walls.

i remember having a chat with the owner once when i was browsing the magazines.  he had designed the cover of a palestinian magazine (box of ariel detergent 'now with added sharon'  ).  i didn't actually ask his origins.  the place sort of 'seemed' turkish but i didn't really think about it at the time, so it might not have been turkish-run actually.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I know I'm fucking cool, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your denial of Brixton's 'vibrancy' playing a major role in its 'current' difficulties/house prices.


I think that you are seriously overestimating the role Brixton's "vibrancy" plays. The bars and clubs and so on probably do play a part in the minds of young people moving there. But if you think they'd go without good transport links you're mistaken, and they *would* go there without clubs and bars (since you can always go somewhere else if you've got transport). This indicates to me that the one factor is more important than the other.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

Yeah, its looking very good thanks.    Certain areas attract certain type of people who want a certain time of 'vibrancy'.  Brixton fits into one of those categories.  Wood Green doesn't.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 7, 2005)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> ooh yeah, wouldn't mind one of those.  we had a nice little supermarket for a while, the 'moorish(?) souk', compact and bijou but brilliant and really friendly.   now it's an internet cafe.  you can still see the lovely turkish(?) tiles on the walls.
> 
> i remember having a chat with the owner once when i was browsing the magazines.  he had designed the cover of a palestinian magazine (box of ariel detergent 'now with added sharon'  ).  i didn't actually ask his origins.  the place sort of 'seemed' turkish but i didn't really think about it at the time, so it might not have been turkish-run actually.


If you take the bus down to Streatham there are a few there on the high street. The ones down south seem to me to be a bit more mediterranean/eastern european, but there's a similar range of produce, it's not quite Greek.

I miss the Turkish groceries from when I was in Seven Sisters. Best thing about the place. Not that that's difficult.


----------



## Bob (Feb 7, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Is Brixton cooler than Clapham Junction? Cooler than Clapham South? Cooler than Battersea? Is it more expensive than any of them? It's not looking good is it, no major role or pattern seems to be observable?



This is beginning to have shades of Chris Morris:

Is *this * cool?
Is he cool?


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I think that you are seriously overestimating the role Brixton's "vibrancy" plays. The bars and clubs and so on probably do play a part in the minds of young people moving there. But if you think they'd go without good transport links you're mistaken, and they *would* go there without clubs and bars (since you can always go somewhere else if you've got transport). This indicates to me that the one factor is more important than the other.




But there's a whole tube network they can live on!  You don't explain _why_  Brixton attracts so many of the new recently graduated types... Simple anwer... its cool.


----------



## Bob (Feb 7, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> If you take the bus down to Streatham there are a few there on the high street. The ones down south seem to me to be a bit more mediterranean/eastern european, but there's a similar range of produce, it's not quite Greek.
> 
> I miss the Turkish groceries from when I was in Seven Sisters. Best thing about the place. Not that that's difficult.



Ta for that  - may well amble down at some point and investigate. For the time being I sate my needs with mild peppers from the deli  on Atlantic road.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 7, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> This is beginning to have shades of Chris Morris:
> 
> Is *this * cool?
> Is he cool?



   Its true though.. why is it that people hate admitting that they've moved to an area because its cool, once they've moved there because its cool.

I mean you've got to start thinking your cool, to start going on about the weekend 'tourists'.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 7, 2005)

Dagenham will be the new Brixton. Just you wait and see!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 7, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Ta for that  - may well amble down at some point and investigate. For the time being I sate my needs with mild peppers from the deli  on Atlantic road.


There's a place called the Mediterranean Deli that I like, near the top of the high street on the bus garage end. It's got a butchers and bakery connected to it just next door, too. But there are some good ones a bit further down as well.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 7, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> You're turning into a pathetic, sad travesty of your former self.
> 
> Yet another yuppie-fixated alter-ego of the _truly obsessed_ Anna Key duly banned again.


 You allowed anna key to post as oldslapper for a full five months, knowing full well, all along, that he was anna key. 

Don't try to deny it. Absolutely loads of people, especially in the Brixton forum, have known since last October that you knew it was him all along so don't try to deny it. I have witnessed countless pub conversations where this has come up, some with mods present. 

You allowed him to post just so long as he didn't say anything you disagreed with. Then you banned him on the sly when nobody was looking.

I think that is pretty fucking disgraceful behaviour, personally. 

Don't start throwing your toys out of your pram about 'disgusting lies'. You'll only make yourself look even more shitty. Everybody always knew. They spotted it straight away and ther is no way your toadies wouldn't have been falling over themselves to point it out to you. Though they'll be falling over themselves to deny it now, of course.

Oh what's the point?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> But there's a whole tube network they can live on!  You don't explain _why_  Brixton attracts so many of the new recently graduated types... Simple anwer... its cool.


I think you're mixing up "cool" with "desirable". There are plenty of desirable things about Brixton, apart from the transport, which is unusually good for South London - shops, cafes, bars, the market etc. "Cool" means it has a particular reputation. I don't think that many people move somewhere because of its reputation, regardless of what it's actually like. The reputation may help you hear of it in the first place but that's not the same thing.

The idea that young people who can afford flats are all flocking to Brixton and ignoring the rest of London isn't really accurate either. They go all over the place. Thinking of the people I know who've got houses and are approximately in that demographic, some are in Brixton, sure, some in Oval, some in Sutton, some go West or North, some aren't even in London any more... and my sample is biased as well, since I grew up near Brixton and many of my friends did too.


----------



## editor (Feb 7, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Point?    .. ah yes.  Merely I find it laughable, tbh, the idea vibrancy etc doesn't play a major part in why alot of young 'just graduated' types want to live in Brixton.


So who here is the saying that the sole reason that people moved to Brixton was the transport links?!!!

I'd imagine it was the mix of location, transport and friends in the area that would have made people like me arrive over a decade ago.

I certainly didn't move here because it was "cool" unless you think that down-to-earth squats like Cooltan and the 121 Centre were the epitome of haute couture and the Albert some sort of catwalk for Face-reading hipsters.


----------



## editor (Feb 7, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You allowed anna key to post as oldslapper for a full five months, knowing full well, all along, that he was anna key.


Actually, I wasn't entirely sure until two weeks ago, and said so in the mods forum. Feel free to check this fact with any of the mods and then apologise.



			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> I think that is pretty fucking disgraceful behaviour, personally.


I'd say Anna Key knows more than a thing or two about 'fucking disgraceful behaviour'. 

And why does he think the rules of the forum don't apply to him? Is he so fucking special that he can just abuse the rules around here? A banned poster is not allowed to come back and simply carry on where he left off.

The mods collectively decided to turn a blind eye to his last alter ego so long as he showed some respect for the boards and other posters. They gave him a break.

And what did he do? He quickly went back to his usual sneering, poster-goading, yuppie-obsessed, disruptive self.

So he was banned. Again. The decision was unanimous. *Not one mod wants him back.*

And you can tell him from me - and the mods - that he's taken the piss for the very last time. He was given a chance. He blew it.



			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> hey spotted it straight away and ther is no way your toadies wouldn't have been falling over themselves to point it out to you.


Toadies?! My oh my! At times it's hard to tell you two apart! Who are "my toadies" please? Could you name them for me?


----------



## corporate whore (Feb 8, 2005)

According to this weekend's Observer, going on data from the Halifax, Lambeth experienced the lowest rise in house prices of any London borough in 2004, being a mere 3%.

Dunno what that says about anything that's being discussed here, since I can't be arsed to trawl through _another _ navel-gazing thread, but just thought it was worth mentioning.

Ta.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

corporate whore said:
			
		

> According to this weekend's Observer, going on data from the Halifax, Lambeth experienced the lowest rise in house prices of any London borough in 2004, being a mere 3%.


Interesting stat, that.

Cheers.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 8, 2005)

corporate whore said:
			
		

> According to this weekend's Observer, going on data from the Halifax, Lambeth experienced the lowest rise in house prices of any London borough in 2004, being a mere 3%.
> 
> Dunno what that says about anything that's being discussed here, *since I can't be arsed to trawl through another navel-gazing thread,* but just thought it was worth mentioning.
> 
> Ta.



It's worth a skim at least though cw -- there's a *lot* more to it than _just_ infighting.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 8, 2005)

Fwiw.. taking a years snapshot of house prices is pretty meaningless really - you have to look at longer term trends.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 8, 2005)

As a generalisation though, wouldn't it be correct to say that if you weigh up the reletive important of "vibrancy" (God, how that terms annoys me) and "transport links" then "vibrancy would be more important to the new graduates, the younger people, who were looking at renting for (perhaps) their first or second place in London, but "transport links" were more likely to loom larger for slightly older people (and) people who were looking to buy somewhere? If this is reasonable, then it would logically imply that transport links are likely to have a rather greater influence on property values than on rents.

Of course it's impossible to say for sure.


----------



## corporate whore (Feb 8, 2005)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> It's worth a skim at least though cw -- there's a *lot* more to it than _just_ infighting.




Agreed, but it does seem to generate a certain sense of deja vu..


----------



## corporate whore (Feb 8, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Fwiw.. taking a years snapshot of house prices is pretty meaningless really - you have to look at longer term trends.




Again, I agree. Must be the first year of single digit growth in what, 10?


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> As a generalisation though, wouldn't it be correct to say that if you weigh up the reletive important of "vibrancy" (God, how that terms annoys me) and "transport links" then "vibrancy would be more important to the new graduates, the younger people, who were looking at renting for (perhaps) their first or second place in London, but "transport links" were more likely to loom larger for slightly older people


Can't say I agree with that. When I moved to London I lived in fucking awful, far-flung, 'vibrancy'-untroubled areas of the East End, but their proximity to tube stations meant that I could feel 'part' of London.

Being near a tube station was really important. Living in a 'vibrant' area didn't figure much on my radar, mainly because there was no way I could ever afford to live in one (at the time, Camden was the 'place to be' for low slung hipsters). Just being connected to the tube network meant that I could get about and enjoy the great city, even if it meant a lot of travelling.

But, of course, that was just my experience.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 8, 2005)

I lived in Woolwich/Plumstead/Charlton for the first three years - it took ages to get home from clubs/work etc, but I still felt part of London - I just thought that was what London was like - a vast sprawl in which you spend a huge amount of your time sitting on a stationary train. I might not feel the same way now though.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 8, 2005)

I suspect a lot depends also on whether (a) you know London before you get here;  (b) you know other people who can tell you about London;  and (c) whether you're finding a place on your own or with other people. As well as, of course, a host of other factors involving where you're working, how much money you have etc.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

Exactly. So it's impossible to generalise about the reasons why young/old people move to certain areas because there's too many personal factors involved.


----------



## newbie (Feb 8, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> As a generalisation though, wouldn't it be correct to say that if you weigh up the reletive important of "vibrancy" (God, how that terms annoys me) and "transport links" then "vibrancy would be more important to the new graduates, the younger people, who were looking at renting for (perhaps) their first or second place in London, but "transport links" were more likely to loom larger for slightly older people (and) people who were looking to buy somewhere? If this is reasonable, then it would logically imply that transport links are likely to have a rather greater influence on property values than on rents.
> 
> Of course it's impossible to say for sure.



Both of those will be influential in the minds of people choosing an area with nothing else to go on.  Newcomers to London, for instance.  But after that allsorts of factors come into play, high amongst them being who you know and where they live.  Once an area aquires a good reputation within a group, and individuals start to know people who live and play there, it becomes an obvious choice when looking for somewhere to live.  So 'vibrancy', in the sense of bars or restaurants or the Rirtzy or Jayday or a cool website based community.... is only part of the picture.  They exist to service the wants of their punters and they act as part of the appeal of the area, an attraction for their target audience and quite possibly a detraction for those who aren't part of the target.  And that's the point- Brixton has aquired a reputation as a young & cool place, so y&c people gravitate there, while those who aren't see rather less as attractive.  The tube is a factor for everybody.   

Once a group- youngish, childless graduates for instance- achieves critical mass in an area it's hardly surprising if services for them predominate and those for others wither a bit.  From the point of view of the full range of inhabitants of the area that that's not necessarily a good thing.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Exactly. So it's impossible to generalise about the reasons why young/old people move to certain areas because there's too many personal factors involved.



Errr?

I think an estate agent would beg to differ.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Errr?
> 
> I think an estate agent would beg to differ.


Wow! So they're privy to all the personal reasons why people of all ages might move to an area?

Incredible!


----------



## Hollis (Feb 8, 2005)

No, of course I'm not, but just because they will be particuar factors involved in each case, doesn't mean you can't generalise - how d'you think marketing companies work.

Why d'you think Eastbourne is crammed full of old people.. for example.. It just randomly worked out that way?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Exactly. So it's impossible to generalise about the reasons why young/old people move to certain areas because there's too many personal factors involved.


No, it's not at all impossible to generalise. It's just difficult to do so with any accuracy. But people do have to do precisely that - people making housing and transport plans for London, for instance, need to be aware of these factors and try and estimate the particular weight of each. Not only is it not "impossible", it's necessary.

Edit - and, indeed, estate agents, and other people involved in markets of all sorts. That's _precisely_ what people involved both in palnning and in markets try to do - make judgements about a host of complex and conflicting factors. As ever, they "do you know everything about everybody involved?" response is unhelpful and offers no illumination.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> No, of course I'm not, but just because they will be particuar factors involved in each case, doesn't mean you can't generalise - how d'you think marketing companies work.


I've never let a 'marketing company' influence my decision to move to a certain area. Have you?


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> No, it's not at all impossible to generalise. It's just difficult to do so with any accuracy.


It's clearly impossible to disagree when you slap on such a king size caveat at the end.


----------



## newbie (Feb 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I've never let a 'marketing company' influence my decision to move to a certain area. Have you?




Bear in mind that you're the _only_ person to say you weren't aged 20-40 when you moved to Brixton.  Your motivations and understandings may not be the same as the majority of incomers.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Edit - and, indeed, estate agents, and other people involved in markets of all sorts. That's _precisely_ what people involved both in palnning and in markets try to do - make judgements about a host of complex and conflicting factors. As ever, they "do you know everything about everybody involved?" response is unhelpful and offers no illumination.


So did estate agents play any part in your recent decision to move?

They've certainly never, ever played any part in any of my moving decisions.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 8, 2005)

Well, I shouldn't have to observe, almost every time estimates and generalisations are involved, that estimates and generalisations are precisely that, and that while being indispensible they have very obvious limitations _which are recognised by people who make them_.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Bear in mind that you're the _only_ person to say you weren't aged 20-40 when you moved to Brixton.  Your motivations and understandings may not be the same as the majority of incomers.


So was your decision to move to an area influenced by an estate agent and if so, _why?!_


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Well, I shouldn't have to observe, almost every time estimates and generalisations are involved, that estimates and generalisations are precisely that, and that while being indispensible they have very obvious limitations _which are recognised by people who make them_.


If you're going to argue your point using vague generalisations, maybe you should.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So did estate agents play any part in your recent decision to move?


I don't know (nor do I understand why I'm being asked). Directly, certainly not - they couldn't have. _Indirectly_ though they willl affect many people's decisions because, for instance, if they succeed in attracting other people to an area _x_, then the price of accommodation in area _x_ will rise, thereby influencing the decisions of other people in making that area prohibitively expensive to live in.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I've never let a 'marketing company' influence my decision to move to a certain area. Have you?




That is hardly my point.  It was an example of how people can generalise with accuracy - and make a living out of it.

In the same way you could generalise about who hits a website... I mean there ain't too many 60 year old Grannies hanging around here.. (for example).


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> _Indirectly_ though they willl affect many people's decisions because, for instance, if they succeed in attracting other people to an area _x_, then the price of accommodation in area _x_ will rise, thereby influencing the decisions of other people in making that area prohibitively expensive to live in.


Do you think that individual estate agents are that powerful?


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> In the same way you could generalise about who hits a website... I mean there ain't too many 60 year old Grannies hanging around here.. (for example).


That comparison is seriously flawed. I built this site from scratch to reflect my own interests.

I don't know many estate agents who build entire areas.

And, to be honest, I'd be quite hard pushed to generalise a meaningful demographic for this website that covered earnings, aspirations, background etc.


----------



## newbie (Feb 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So was your decision to move to an area influenced by an estate agent and if so, _why?!_




I once moved out of the area following influence from an estate agent.  Walter G Elms <spit> sent a bunch of pissartists armed with pickaxes round to attend to some 'plumbing' in a squat I lived in. They were carted away to the nick, but we took the hint and moved shortly afterwards anyway.


To answer the question more directly- last time I moved Brixton didn't exist for estate agents- it was all north Streatham, Dulwich reaches, Clapham borders....  So it was an obvious place to look for somewhere cheap. 

If I was looking now I wouldn't buy somewhere advertised as for 'young professionals' or as an  'executive home' or what have you. But they wouldn't use that advertising if it didn't work.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 8, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> I don't know (nor do I understand why I'm being asked). Directly, certainly not - they couldn't have. _Indirectly_ though they willl affect many people's decisions because, for instance, if they succeed in attracting other people to an area _x_, then the price of accommodation in area _x_ will rise, thereby influencing the decisions of other people in making that area prohibitively expensive to live in.



There's some truth in that, but throughout this thread I've argued that Brixton is reasonably fairly priced compared to its location, its neighbours, range of local services and transport. I see very little actual evidence that Brixton house prices are boosted significantly by notions of 'trendiness' or 'vibrancy,' despite some of the opinions shown here.  

I'm not denying that if an area is perceived to be 'cool' then property prices may be affected. But that does not seem to be the case particularly here - if it is, then it's been offset by other potential factors - Brixton's perceived risk and edgy perception may be compensating by taking values down perhaps. 

Here's a great example of Brixton's vibrancy actually seen as a disadvantage by estate agents and developers. Check out this website of this development in Stockwell SW9 (or North Clapham as they market it) - they've actually removed any mention or sign of Brixton from the map, so as not to scare the poor young urban professionals from moving in. Does that tally with a view that Brixton's vibrancy is pushing up house prices?


----------



## Hollis (Feb 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> That comparison is seriously flawed. I built this site from scratch to reflect my own interests.
> 
> I don't know many estate agents who build entire areas.
> 
> And, to be honest, I'd be quite hard pushed to generalise a meaningful demographic for this website that covered earnings, aspirations, background etc.




Your still missing my point.. Its about the fact that people _can and do_ generalise with some degree of accuracy. - Enough to justfiy massive expenditure in some cases.


----------



## Ms T (Feb 8, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> There's some truth in that, but throughout this thread I've argued that Brixton is reasonably fairly priced compared to its location, its neighbours, range of local services and transport. I see very little actual evidence that Brixton house prices are boosted significantly by notions of 'trendiness' or 'vibrancy,' despite some of the opinions shown here.



I agree with you about this.  I was recently in Clapham South/Wandsworth, and I could see from a cursory glance in an estate agent's window that it's considerably more expensive than Brixton, despite being less well connected in terms of transport.  You're looking at 250 grand for a one-bedroom flat there.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 8, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I'm not denying that if an area is perceived to be 'cool' then property prices may be affected. But that does not seem to be the case particularly here - if it is, then it's been offset by other potential factors - Brixton's perceived risk and edgy perception may be compensating by taking values down perhaps.


I'm inclined to agree with this.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 8, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Your still missing my point.. Its about the fact that people _can and do_ generalise with some degree of accuracy. - Enough to justfiy massive expenditure in some cases.



But in this case you're not generalising accurately. Why, if Brixton's seen as so cool and vibrant, doesn't it command a price premium over comparable areas?  And where's the real world examples of the significant proportion of peole attracted by its trendiness.

I know you're trying to prove a smartarse point, but you're doing pretty badly at backing up your viewpoint.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 8, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I know you're trying to prove a smartarse point, but you're doing pretty badly at backing up your viewpoint.



Oh I do love it when people rather than trying to add to their argument, just resort to personal abuse or shout "your not doing it very well".


----------



## tarannau (Feb 8, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Oh I do love it when people rather than trying to add to their argument, just resort to personal abuse or shout "your not doing it very well".



I love it when folks, free from any real evidence, feel obliged to snidely imply that many folks who've moved to Brixton have done it mainly because its 'trendy'

Can't you see why folks may find that a little insulting...


----------



## Hollis (Feb 8, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I love it when folks, free from any real evidence, feel obliged to make snidely imply that many folks who've moved to Brixton have done it mainly because its 'trendy'
> 
> Can't you see why folks may find that a little insulting...



Oooooohh knickers  _!!!_


----------



## newbie (Feb 8, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I love it when folks, free from any real evidence, feel obliged to snidely imply that many folks who've moved to Brixton have done it mainly because its 'trendy'
> 
> Can't you see why folks may find that a little insulting...




But if you replace the word 'trendy' with 'popular' it's rather less insulting but means pretty much exactly the same thing.


----------



## hayduke (Feb 8, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Here's a great example of Brixton's vibrancy actually seen as a disadvantage by estate agents and developers. Check out this website of this development in Stockwell SW9.



"Stockwell, one of London's most important opening areas." What the hell does that mean?

"By day the shopping experience is wide and eclectic, with everything from prestigious high street retail and leisure, to antiques and ultra modern vogue." Ultra Modern Vogue? I'm totally lost.

"By night an exciting mix of bars, eateries, and clubs offer something for all tastes and create a unique energy for the whole area." Yeah baby, buzzwords. These guys should promote the Iceland flats.

The area's big sell? "Incredibly good transport connections mean less time travelling to and from work, leaving more time to enjoy it during the week too." 

Exciting mix of eateries AND incredibly good transport connections. Is Stockwell the new Brixton?

"Feel the energy" indeed.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 8, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Oooooohh knickers  _!!!_



Not really. I've simply asked you to back up your assertion with some form of real world evidence, but you've failed miserably. I did find, for example, the comparison of Brixton house prices with a load of Zone 3 and beyond, distant North London locations as indicative of a man who was stretching a point too far....and knew it.

If you want to poke fun at folk at Brixton for being 'trendy' then I'd prefer it just came out with it. It's not worth trying to hijack your smartarse point onto any old thread, regardless of what the financial facts and real world figures are telling you. 

Feel free to put your fingers in your ears again now. We're all very trendy and cosmopolitan don't you know....


----------



## newbie (Feb 8, 2005)

1000 posts.  where's pickmans?


----------



## tarannau (Feb 8, 2005)

hayduke said:
			
		

> "Stockwell, one of London's most important opening areas." What the hell does that mean?




Funny isn't it...

Surprised they even mention Stockwell, for everything I can see they're pushing the 'it's in Clapham' angle.

I'm still slightly amazed they went to the trouble of removing Brixton entirely from the map...


----------



## Hollis (Feb 8, 2005)

Yeah you keep going on about lack of real world evidence.. but you actually denigh anything I post up.. But then you have a very narrow preformed frame of reference don't ya.. the northern line is a "nightmare", zone 3 is beyond consideration,  Brixton has fantastic transport links, nobody moves to Brixton because its trendy, vibrant, cool whatever... and please don't even suggest it, because people may not like it.


Yes, indeed.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 8, 2005)

hayduke said:
			
		

> "Feel the energy" indeed.


I guess the prices will be going up in the Priory Arms again...


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 8, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> But if you replace the word 'trendy' with 'popular' it's rather less insulting but means pretty much exactly the same thing.


is it? an area like (e.g.) Croydon may be 'popular' with certain types/groups of people, but that don't make it 'trendy. It never will be!


----------



## Belushi (Feb 8, 2005)

Its amazing the cheek of estate agents and that people fall for their lies.

I know a (not very bright) rich girl who bought a flat in Shooters Hill (the Woolwich end) under the impression that she was moving to 'Greenwich Heights'  and that she'd be within walking distance of the Market etc


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 8, 2005)

Right, she didn't test the proposition by walking from the flat she proposed to purchase to the aforesaid market? 

Or look at a map?

Not very bright indeed.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 8, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Right, she didn't test the proposition by walking from the flat she proposed to purchase to the aforesaid market?
> 
> Or look at a map?
> 
> Not very bright indeed.



Believe me theres no end to her fuckwittedness.

What does she care though?  If she doesnt like it Mummy and Daddy will just buy her another.  They actually paid off one of her boyfriends who they considered unsuitable


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Feb 8, 2005)

Heh - large parts of Plumstead are now knows as 'Shooters Hill Slopes' - and so it goes on . . .


----------



## isvicthere? (Feb 9, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> This is beginning to have shades of Chris Morris:
> 
> Is *this * cool?
> Is he cool?



Well, I live about 200 yards from Chris Morris, and even closer to Jerry Dammers, so I MUST be cool!


----------



## Bob (Feb 9, 2005)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> Well, I live about 200 yards from Chris Morris, and even closer to Jerry Dammers, so I MUST be cool!



You are Chris Morris, and I claim my five pounds.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 9, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Oh really!  I again find that hard to believe!!  I can tell.. you I'd love you lot to move up to Wood Green..


The Primary School from Hell is in Wood Green....I worked there for a short time...it nearly killed me....I never want to go within a five-mile radius of Wood Green again...the mere mention of Wood Green brings me out in a sweat


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2005)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Yeah you keep going on about lack of real world evidence.. but you actually denigh anything I post up.. But then you have a very narrow preformed frame of reference don't ya.. the northern line is a "nightmare", zone 3 is beyond consideration,  Brixton has fantastic transport links, nobody moves to Brixton because its trendy, vibrant, cool whatever... and please don't even suggest it, because people may not like it.


What could possibly be more 'arty', 'trendy' and 'vibrant' (and a sure fire sign of yuppies at work) than a town boasting its very own (guffaw!) _*'cultural quarter',*_ eh Hollis?!


----------



## Hollis (Feb 9, 2005)

Its true you know!     I believe they're referring to 'The Chocolate Factory'.. converted into aload of artists studios.  We even get _art students _ in the local pub.

The 'cultural quarter' once got a mention in Richard Littlejohn's column in the Sun.  Naturally he was taking the piss aswell.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 10, 2005)

I just received an accomodation brochure for Southend-on-Sea (I'm probably playing chess there late in March). One of the sections is entitled _Cultural Capital_.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2005)

Cardiff is getting so many new 'Quarters' that they'll have to start remaning them 'Fifths' soon.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 10, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> What could possibly be more 'arty', 'trendy' and 'vibrant' (and a sure fire sign of yuppies at work) than a town boasting its very own (guffaw!) _*'cultural quarter',*_ eh Hollis?!


jesus feckin' christ, I've seen it all now....


----------



## rascal (Feb 10, 2005)

I have a natural instinct to dislike the peeps moving into these dwellings, but that is only because I am very jelous.

I don't think it's how much money you that you do or do not have that determines character.  That would be classism, a rigid inverse snobbery, discriminatory, does not try to see the whole person, racism.

The flats above Iceland are not social housing.  Wish that they were.  I reckon squatting them would be very hard.  So it is better that they are purchased and used then left empty.

If a couple earn 44k between them and are able to buy these places, my big, clever, maturity can put 95% of my hating jelousy aside, and wish them the best of luck and welcome them to the neighbourhood.

Also would like to take issue with the word "infest".  I would object to the word being used in relation to squatters, refugees, and do now in relation to professionals.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 10, 2005)

<Sound of whip against flank of dead horse>


----------



## rascal (Feb 10, 2005)

just my opinion justin.  And I never thought you would have seeped so low to sarcasm.  Irony is far more becoming.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 10, 2005)

Did you mean "stooped"?


----------



## rascal (Feb 10, 2005)

no


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 10, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Did you mean "stooped"?



I hope rascal's not implying that you ooze, mate!


----------



## Robo (Feb 12, 2005)

Good thread this. Funny to read people defending yuppies, who have wrecked Clapham, Hoxton, Notting Hill, Islington, etc etc and are now making accelerated inroads into Brixton.

The Councillors who voted this through should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2005)

Robo said:
			
		

> Good thread this. Funny to read people defending yuppies, who have wrecked Clapham, Hoxton, Notting Hill, Islington, etc etc and are now making accelerated inroads into Brixton.


My oh my, you sound dreadfully familiar! And look at that IP address! What a coincidence!

Are you the returning obsessive poster formerly known as Anna Key?
YES/NO?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 12, 2005)

Robo said:
			
		

> Good thread this. Funny to read people defending yuppies, who have wrecked Clapham, Hoxton, Notting Hill, Islington, etc etc and are now making accelerated inroads into Brixton.
> 
> The Councillors who voted this through should be ashamed of themselves.



It isn't "yuppies" that have "wrecked Clapham, Hoxton, Notting Hill, Islington, etc etc and are now making accelerated inroads into Brixton.", it's the process of gentrification. If it wasn't for the economic and social conditions, allied to the preferences of central and local govenment, then (yuppies or not) we wouldn't have so much to worry about.
Brandishing the term "yuppie" does bollock all to assist arguments against gentrification, in fact in some ways it hinders them. It's as crass as middle-class suburbanites moaning about visiting hordes of "townies" and "chavs" in places like Richmond and Wimbledon.

As for the councillors, you appear to be labouring under the misconception that most of them have a conscience or a sense of shame.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 12, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> It isn't "yuppies" that have "wrecked Clapham, Hoxton, Notting Hill, Islington, etc etc and are now making accelerated inroads into Brixton.", it's the process of gentrification. If it wasn't for the economic and social conditions, allied to the preferences of central and local govenment, then (yuppies or not) we wouldn't have so much to worry about.
> Brandishing the term "yuppie" does bollock all to assist arguments against gentrification, in fact in some ways it hinders them. It's as crass as middle-class suburbanites moaning about visiting hordes of "townies" and "chavs" in places like Richmond and Wimbledon.
> 
> As for the councillors, you appear to be labouring under the misconception that most of them have a conscience or a sense of shame.



Very well put. There's far more to the process of gentrification than can be attributed to any one particular group of scapegoats or stereotypes.


----------



## Robo (Feb 15, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> It isn't "yuppies" that have "wrecked Clapham, Hoxton, Notting Hill, Islington, etc etc and are now making accelerated inroads into Brixton.", it's the process of gentrification. If it wasn't for the economic and social conditions, allied to the preferences of central and local govenment, then (yuppies or not) we wouldn't have so much to worry about.
> Brandishing the term "yuppie" does bollock all to assist arguments against gentrification, in fact in some ways it hinders them. It's as crass as middle-class suburbanites moaning about visiting hordes of "townies" and "chavs" in places like Richmond and Wimbledon.
> 
> As for the councillors, you appear to be labouring under the misconception that most of them have a conscience or a sense of shame.


OK, you don't like the term "yuppy." So what? Use whatever term you want to describe the little gits.

If you walk into a working class pub in central Brixton - there's only two left now, the Beehive and the Goose - and say: "Christ, Lambeth Council has just agreed to stuff a load of yuppies in the flats above Iceland" people know *exactly* what you're talking about. And few will respond:

"I say! How dare you speak disparagingly of  yuppies! It's like criticising an Auschwitz survivor! And it's so counter-productive! You should be talking about underlying economic and social factors!"

Give it a try. 




			
				editor said:
			
		

> My oh my, you sound dreadfully familiar! And look at that IP address! What a coincidence!
> 
> Are you the returning obsessive poster formerly known as Anna Key?
> YES/NO?


Anyone can post from a Lambeth library and I've already said how I discovered these boards. You're not very welcoming are you?




			
				Robo said:
			
		

> I heard about this site from someone in the Beehive, who said nice things about it. But others said you face a banning for:
> 
> - arguing with a moderator
> - proposing that moderators are elected by members
> ...



Perhaps you should ban everyone who drinks in the Beehive, in case they dislike yuppies, and anyone posting from a Lambeth public library, in case they're someone you're obsessing about.

Relax Editor. Deep breath. _Feel_ that paranoia disappear.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

Robo said:
			
		

> Anyone can post from a Lambeth library and I've already said how I discovered these boards. You're not very welcoming are you?


Why don't you just answer the question?

*Are you the poster formerly known as ANNA KEY?
YES/NO?*

Or do I have to pop around to your terminal and find out for myself?


(edit: two minutes later....oh look! He's just gone offline!


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 15, 2005)

you couldn't make it up! i've got visions of Editor chasing Anna Key round the library shouting it was you it was you!!


----------



## Mr BC (Feb 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Why don't you just answer the question?
> 
> *Are you the poster formerly known as ANNA KEY?
> YES/NO?*
> ...



Why not just let him back and be done with it?


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 15, 2005)

Bring back Anna Key!
And oddjob!
And Old Stoic!

(and 3stripes as well)


----------



## LDR (Feb 15, 2005)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> Why not just let him back and be done with it?



I'm inclined to agree.  Water under the bridge and all that.

Editor - I think his contributions to the site far outweigh any disruption and I think it'll save you a lot of stress in the long run.

Anna Key - I would encourage you to apologise to the Editor for the abuse in the pub too as you obviously want to continue to post on Urban and I think that's all he's after.


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Why don't you just answer the question?
> 
> *Are you the poster formerly known as ANNA KEY?
> YES/NO?*
> ...



    What would you have done? I would have given a lot to see that scene.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> Why not just let him back and be done with it?


Sure!!!!

Why bother having rules! Why not let people post up malicious and vindictive lies about you, try to undermine the credibility of the moderators,  maliciously attack moderators whenever they feel like it, break all the rules they like and generally take the piss on a near-daily basis!!!!  

Great idea!!


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Feb 15, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Bring back Anna Key!
> And oddjob!
> And Old Stoic!
> 
> (and 3stripes as well)



I must admit I miss 3stripes


----------



## Mr BC (Feb 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Sure!!!!
> 
> Why bother having rules! Why not let people post up malicious and vindictive lies about you, try to undermine the credibility of the moderators,  maliciously attack moderators whenever they feel like it, break all the rules they like and generally take the piss on a near-daily basis!!!!
> 
> Great idea!!



Oh dear.  That'll be a 'no' then.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> Oh dear.  That'll be a 'no' then.


Underlined _thrice._


----------



## Robo (Feb 15, 2005)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> Oh dear.  That'll be a 'no' then.


Bad hair day.










			
				editor said:
			
		

> Sure!!!!
> 
> Why bother having rules! Why not let people post up malicious and vindictive lies about you, try to undermine the credibility of the moderators,  maliciously attack moderators whenever they feel like it, break all the rules they like and generally take the piss on a near-daily basis!!!!
> 
> Great idea!!



_Feel_ that paranoia.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 15, 2005)

Bring back Anna Key!


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2005)

In all seriousness, Editor; I know both of you, and am willing to spend (lots of) time and effort on intermediating.
Is this something you'd be willing to have happen - and is there mileage in it?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Why bother having rules!


Perhaps it would be productive to lead by example?


----------



## past caring (Feb 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> *Are you the poster formerly known as ANNA KEY?
> YES/NO?*
> 
> Or do I have to pop around to your terminal and find out for myself?









I'll ave you Butler!!!


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

Robo said:
			
		

> _Feel_ that paranoia.


Not paranoia. Just boredom with a cowardly, deceitful, hypocritical liar.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Perhaps it would be productive to lead by example?


You could do well to reacquaint yourself with the rules around here. 

I'm fucked off with reading your unprovoked personal attacks and lies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2005)

Robo said:
			
		

> OK, you don't like the term "yuppy." So what? Use whatever term you want to describe the little gits.


Tut tut, a load of bollocks in the very first sentence. Not a good omen.

I didn't say I don't like the term "yuppie" (if you bother to read what I *actually* wrote, rather than what you *think* I did, I said (to paraphrase) that it's *gentrification* that's the proble, not just one manifestation (the "yuppies") of the problems that gentrification causes.

Got that, or would you like it put even more simply?


> If you walk into a working class pub in central Brixton - there's only two left now, the Beehive and the Goose - and say: "Christ, Lambeth Council has just agreed to stuff a load of yuppies in the flats above Iceland" people know *exactly* what you're talking about. And few will respond:
> 
> "I say! How dare you speak disparagingly of  yuppies! It's like criticising an Auschwitz survivor! And it's so counter-productive! You should be talking about underlying economic and social factors!"
> 
> Give it a try.


Don't be a tit.
Yes, people will recognise the term "yuppies", but as a convenient shorthand for "incomers who've got more money than me" rather than it's original meaning.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> In all seriousness, Editor; I know both of you, and am willing to spend (lots of) time and effort on intermediating.
> Is this something you'd be willing to have happen - and is there mileage in it?


None. Seeing as he's never seen fit to apologise for his disgraceful attacks on miss minnie, his outrageous drunken verbal attack on me in the Albert and the vindictive, malicious lies he keeps on posting up here, there is not the slightest chance of me letting him back on again.

In fact, I don't believe *a single mod* wants him back either, so that's the end of it.

Why the fuck should we put up with any more of his obnoxious, obsessive behaviour?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2005)

fair enough, and I can't say as I blame you. 
I felt I had to ask, tho'....


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> You could do well to reacquaint yourself with the rules around here.
> 
> I'm fucked off with reading your unprovoked personal attacks and lies.


 Excuse me? How does that follow? What personal attacks? What lies? Any and every observation you don't like is always a personal attack and a 'disgraceful lie', isn't it? 

I'm not a liar, as any real friend of mine -- and anybody who has ever been a real friend of mine --  knows full well.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> None. Seeing as he's never seen fit to apologise for his disgraceful attacks on miss minnie,


Where? When? Have I slipped into an alternative universe?


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Where? When? Have I slipped into an alternative universe?


It was when I was in Glastonbury, not that it's got fuck all to do with you - or are you now his spokesperson or something?

But you don't have take my word for it - why not PM miss minnie and ask her what she thinks of him? 

Or you can ask any one of the mods what they think about AK's antics here...


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Excuse me? How does that follow? What personal attacks? What lies?


I think anyone interested will have no problem finding plentiful recent examples of your unprovoked attacks, but I certainly can't be bothered to repeat them here.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It was when I was in Glastonbury, not that it's got fuck all to do with you - or are you now his spokesperson or something?
> 
> But you don't have take my word for it - why not PM miss minnie and ask her what she thinks of him? Or an one of the mods?


 Are you THEIR spokesperson? Are you sure about that? Don't tell me what one of my friends  thinks of another of my friends. In fact don't try to drag that particular person into it, full stop.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Are you THEIR spokesperson?


I'm accurately representing the opinions held - and discussed - in the mods forum.

And I'm 100% sure, thanks.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 15, 2005)

for whos benefit is this being played out in the public domain? Isn't it about now people get told to PM? 

it sure is ugly....


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Not paranoia. Just boredom with a cowardly, deceitful, hypocritical liar.


Adjective, adjective, adjective, adjective.  Ever thought of going on a creative writing course?


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm accurately representing the opinions held - and discussed - in the mods forum.
> 
> And I'm 100% sure, thanks.


So you have backtracked from representing what the mods think of anna key -- bearing in mind that they are all south London based and know him personally -- to reporting what they have said in the mods forum about his online activity. Good. I am glad that is cleared up. 

If you are so close to your mods, how come you didn't know until two weeks ago that oldslapper was anna key, yet they knew all along? And who took the decision to move the goalposts so that he was not permitted to mention yuppies without getting banned?


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> for whos benefit is this being played out in the public domain? Isn't it about now people get told to PM?


Too ugly, in fact.

I'm not interested in discussing it publicly any further.

If only some repeatedly banned people would *just fucking stay away.*


----------



## Mr Retro (Feb 15, 2005)

Did you burst, Zorro like, into the library to catch the elusive AK red handed?


----------



## dogmatique (Feb 15, 2005)

Is it time for the Spartacus comparison?

(In Brixton Library, jumping up from various desks)

"I'm Anna Key"...

"No I'm Anna Key"...

ad infinatum...


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 15, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Did you burst, Zorro like, into the library to catch the elusive AK red handed?


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

>




Nice one!


----------



## dogmatique (Feb 15, 2005)

What's Michael Jackson doing in Brixton library...?


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 15, 2005)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> Is it time for the Spartacus comparison?



Don't encourage AK's persecution complex... 



> Marcus Licinius Crassus: In every city and province, lists of the disloyal have been compiled. Tomorrow they will learn the cost of their terrible folly... their treason.
> 
> Gracchus: And where does my name appear on the list of disloyal enemies of the state?
> 
> Marcus Licinius Crassus: First.


----------



## IntoStella (Feb 15, 2005)

For some reason that reminded me of:-

"Looks like we're surrounded, Tonto."

"Who's 'we', Paleface?"


----------



## isvicthere? (Feb 21, 2005)

hayduke said:
			
		

> "Stockwell, one of London's most important opening areas." What the hell does that mean?
> 
> "By day the shopping experience is wide and eclectic, with everything from prestigious high street retail and leisure, to antiques and ultra modern vogue." Ultra Modern Vogue? I'm totally lost.
> 
> ...



1) Is an "opening area" a new way of saying it's "up and coming"?

2) A "wide and eclectic" shopping "experience"?! Well, Nine Elms Tesco then loads of corner shops.

3) "Bars, eateries and clubs" - actually, just a long street of estate boozers.

It seems to me they're straining - to the point of violating any number of trades description standards - to hype the area as some sort of "new" Clapham which, while being tantalisingly close, is VASTLY different.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2005)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> 1) Is an "opening area" a new way of saying it's "up and coming"?


"Up and coming" sounds so vulgar, so *shudder* common, darling.  


> 2) A "wide and eclectic" shopping "experience"?! Well, Nine Elms Tesco then loads of corner shops.


And in summer, if you get close enough, the lovely smell of rotting produce from the market when you're in the Nine Elms Sainsbury car park, especially in the summer.


> 3) "Bars, eateries and clubs" - actually, just a long street of estate boozers.


And the occasional kebab shop (with compulsory pool of vomit about 4 doors down).


> It seems to me they're straining - to the point of violating any number of trades description standards - to hype the area as some sort of "new" Clapham which, while being tantalisingly close, is VASTLY different.


Fer crissakes, man. They're *ESTATE AGENTS*. It's their JOB to tell lies/gild the lily. If you're gullible enough to believe an estate agent you're a sucker and deserve to be fleeced like a merino sheep.

<wooden spoon>Especially if you're a "yuppie, loike.   </wooden spoon>


----------



## magneze (Feb 21, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Fer crissakes, man. They're *ESTATE AGENTS*. It's their JOB to tell lies/gild the lily. If you're gullible enough to believe an estate agent you're a sucker and deserve to be fleeced like a merino sheep.


Yep and it's the greed of estate agents which is largely to blame for the current state of the housing market IMHO. How else do they grow their business? If sales are flat then the only way to increase revenue is to up their percentage (bad for business) or raise their valuations ... Hmmm, which one did they go for I wonder ...


----------



## isvicthere? (Feb 22, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> "
> And the occasional kebab shop (with compulsory pool of vomit about 4 doors down).
> 
> >



Not to mention the stylishly bijou and petite McDonalds along Wandsworth Road.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2005)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> Not to mention the *stylishly bijou and petite* McDonalds along Wandsworth Road.


----------

