# Say hello to Barratt Homes'  'Brixton Square' on Coldharbour Lane (old Cooltan site)



## editor (May 14, 2012)

Gotta dig the edgy font. 







http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixton...harbour-lane-acquires-suitably-edgy-typeface/


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 14, 2012)




----------



## editor (May 14, 2012)

Look! The name looks like it was written in graffiti!

Well streeeeet!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 14, 2012)

An apostrophe and S after Brixton will be more appropriate soon


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 14, 2012)

the flags are very evil empire


----------



## CH1 (May 14, 2012)

Anyone seen any prices to buy "off plan"?
I asked the two building site workers closing up this afternoon when the sales office was opening and the younger Polish one keenly asked if I was interested to buy. When I said I didn't need to 'cos my house was allegedly worth £XXX,XXX and they'd better hurry up in case the London house market crashed the English guy raised his eyes to heaven "Another Brixton nutter here!"


----------



## CH1 (May 14, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Anyone seen any prices to buy "off plan"?


Nothing up on the website yet - but they've cleared the space as you can see here:
http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/Find-a-Home/New-Developments/H5913-Brixton-Square/Overview/


----------



## crawl (May 14, 2012)

Could they try any harder? As if the new glossy black walls and flags they put up weren't enough of give away. 

I wonder if they're going to construct a private walkway to the arcade so the tenants don't have to leave their comfort zone but can still feel hip


----------



## quimcunx (May 14, 2012)

It's more like paint with tyre marks in it.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Nothing up on the website yet - but they've cleared the space as you can see here:
> http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/Find-a-Home/New-Developments/H5913-Brixton-Square/Overview/


 
So the not for profit "Places for People" , who had the site before, must have sold it onto Barratt homes.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2012)

Barratt buys in Brixton
Barratt Homes has bought the land at 368-372 Coldharbour Lane in Brixton, SW9, for [pounds sterling]8.5m. The site has planning permission from Lambeth council for 155 homes across seven floors. The vendor, Places for People, was advised by Cluttons; Barratt Homes was unrepresented.

from 
http://business.highbeam.com/410547/article-1G1-280071954/deals


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2012)

This was the original Places for People application for the site. It must have been renewed as was agreed in 2007 with 3 years to implement.

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=J9JS1QBO71000


----------



## trabuquera (May 15, 2012)

editor said:


> Look! The name looks like it was written in graffiti!
> 
> Well streeeeet!


 
I think it's meant to be _edge. _but edge with a 21st-century gloss. or something.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> This was the original Places for People application for the site. It must have been renewed as was agreed in 2007 with 3 years to implement.
> 
> http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=J9JS1QBO71000


I heard Barratt Homes just bought that planning proposal, so it looks this hefty development is what we'll be getting:


> 06/04037/FUL | Redevelopment of the site involving demolition of the existing buildings and erection of part-five and part-seven storey building with a lower ground floor to provide 155 residential units comprising 54 x 1 bed, 90 x 2 bed, 6 x 3 bed and 5 x 4 bed and 923 sqm of commercial floorspace (Class A1, A2, and B1), together with provision of internal courtyard, with 2 disabled car parking spaces, cycle stores, refuse store, a roof garden at first floor level, landscaping and boundary treatment. (Town Planning and Conservation Area Consent applications received) | 368 To 372 Coldharbour Lane London


No mention of a public square then, so it looks like Brixton Square will in fact be Brixton GerrOffMyLand Square.


----------



## chazegee (May 15, 2012)

Last memory of cooltan was smoking a spliff in a car on it's roof. 
Will be hard to beat...


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2012)

editor said:


> I heard Barratt Homes just bought that planning proposal, so it looks this hefty development is what we'll be getting:
> No mention of a public square then, so it looks like Brixton Square will in fact be Brixton GerrOffMyLand Square.


 
If Places for People had made sure the planning permission was current it would have be part of the deal when the land was sold. Should mean they got better price for land. 

It will be private square. Calling something a square seems to be latest thing. It sounds good to call it a square.


----------



## CH1 (May 15, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Barratt buys in Brixton
> Barratt Homes has bought the land at 368-372 Coldharbour Lane in Brixton, SW9, for [pounds sterling]8.5m. The site has planning permission from Lambeth council for 155 homes across seven floors. The vendor, Places for People, was advised by Cluttons; Barratt Homes was unrepresented.
> 
> from
> http://business.highbeam.com/410547/article-1G1-280071954/deals


If there are any further large developments like this we should make sure the planning permission is personal to the applicants or RISE UP!


----------



## CH1 (May 15, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> If Places for People had made sure the planning permission was current it would have be part of the deal when the land was sold. Should mean they got better price for land.
> 
> It will be private square. Calling something a square seems to be latest thing. It sounds good to call it a square.


Will it be gated?


----------



## eroom (May 15, 2012)

Is there a more miserable, soul-destroying phrase than 'gated community'?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 15, 2012)

It keeps them safe though and that's important (apart from flying bombs)


----------



## CH1 (May 15, 2012)

eroom said:


> Is there a more miserable, soul-destroying phrase than 'gated community'?


Quite - and there's one round the corner at Loughborough Junction (above the former Warrior ph).  I'm beginning to think that Lambeth Planning respond best to applications inspired by Fascist Italy (but without the design values).


----------



## Crispy (May 15, 2012)

"Gated community" means something like this:





A whole area of streets and homes, with restricted access and probably private security.

When an apartment block has a gate to restrict access to its carpark/back yard, then it's not a gated community, it's just an apartment block.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

Talking of back yards, it's incredible to see that the adjacent new build is still unfinished along its Valentia Place flank, with breeze block walls still exposed.


----------



## Kanda (May 15, 2012)

Blimey, all going up in the world around your end this week!!


----------



## eroom (May 15, 2012)

Actually maybe that's a better way to think about gated communities: that it's _us_ - the rest of society -  locking away _them_ - undesirables - behind the gates.

(And Crispy - yes I take your point about the distinction: I don't object to gates wholesale...)


----------



## CH1 (May 15, 2012)

Crispy said:


> "Gated community" means something like this:
> When an apartment block has a gate to restrict access to its carpark/back yard, then it's not a gated community, it's just an apartment block.


Maybe the Barratt thingy will qualify then. But you could hardly call the Warrior a concierge, could you. Just crap design IMHO.


----------



## CH1 (May 15, 2012)

editor said:


> Talking of back yards, it's incredible to see that the adjacent new build is still unfinished along its Valentia Place flank, with breeze block walls still exposed.


Remember they're still paying off their section 106 contribution at £13,000 a month. I expect they are watching their cash-flow.


----------



## snowy_again (May 15, 2012)

They actually call Brixton market 'notorious' on that horrific website.


----------



## CH1 (May 15, 2012)

snowy_again said:


> They actually call Brixton market 'notorious' on that horrific website.


They're just trying to attract Brass Eye fans (or producers).


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

We've been hubbed.



> Brixton Village, a new culinary and cultural hub full of buzzing cafes, restaurants and bars is located adjacent to Brixton Square
> http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/Find-a-Home/New-Developments/H5913-Brixton-Square/LifeStyle/


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2012)

Unfortunately my hub is more like this.


----------



## CH1 (May 15, 2012)

I just put an article about this (not your hub though) on the Brixton Society website. Wonder if the BS Chair will consider it too subversive? Meanwhile I'm off to Town Planning sub committee - there are moves afoot to do something nasty to the ex-St Mungos homeless hostel in Kenwyn Street and I am supporting an angry resident (or would that be "inmate")


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

crawl said:


> Could they try any harder? As if the new glossy black walls and flags they put up weren't enough of give away.
> 
> I wonder if they're going to construct a private walkway to the arcade so the tenants don't have to leave their comfort zone but can still feel hip


 
Too plebian.

Chauffeur service too and from the Square, innit?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

editor said:


> We've been hubbed.


 
So, it's across the road or next to it, then. 

Why do these bastards insist on mauling the language?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

eroom said:


> Is there a more miserable, soul-destroying phrase than 'gated community'?


 
Tory government?

Danni Minogue?

Dale Winton's latest autobiography?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

CH1 said:


> I just put an article about this (not your hub though) on the Brixton Society website. Wonder if the BS Chair will consider it too subversive? Meanwhile I'm off to Town Planning sub committee - there are moves afoot to do something nasty to the ex-St Mungos homeless hostel in Kenwyn Street and I am supporting an angry resident (or would that be "inmate")


 
Perhaps we need to form a "Provisional Brixton Society"?


----------



## bluestreak (May 15, 2012)

didn't i suggest that the other day?

The Provision Wing Of The Brixton Preservation Society.


----------



## CH1 (May 16, 2012)

CH1 said:


> I just put an article about this (not your hub though) on the Brixton Society website. Wonder if the BS Chair will consider it too subversive? Meanwhile I'm off to Town Planning sub committee - there are moves afoot to do something nasty to the ex-St Mungos homeless hostel in Kenwyn Street and I am supporting an angry resident (or would that be "inmate")


_For completeness_ I thought I would report back on the planning meeting last night. The two items I heard were 1. Student accommodation complex in Vauxhall Walk - no objectors from the public. Councillor Palmer disliked the scheme intensely from an aesthetic point of view (looks like Dungerness B!).  The councillors made the provision for accessible units be increased from 8% to 10% Cllr Steve Bradley made some interesting points on this. Cllr Jennifer Braithwaite was concerned about the number of habitable rooms with less than adequate light (2). The legal officer said that would be no excuse for turning the proposal down. Passed with 1 against (Palmer) and 1 abstention (Bradley).
2.  Fairholme - privately owned homeless hostel in Kenywn Street SE5 (side street near "Norris Bedding"). Application for increase number of rooms by 27 by adding an extra floor on top of existing building.  Two neighbouring residents were objecting - nuisance from existing "inmates" more than enough - especially with Kids Company in the same street as well.
My friend (JH) - a homeless resident of the hostel was refused permission to speak as he had not notified the committee clerk before 12 noon the previous day (this was true he notified them at 4pm).  JH would have raised the issue of what was happening to the residents whilst the works were done - but in fact one of the councillors (Bradley I think) did ask that question - and the applicant's architect did not know.
The other point brought out by the objectors, and greatly argued about by the councillors was whether a former old peoples home - class 2 - albeit for elderly alcoholics - could be considered to be the same use class as the current hostel (SUI GENERIS). The legal officer repeated at least four times in different ways that the councillors would have to pass it because there was no material change of use.     
My friend JH a least had the satisfaction of giving the architect a good ear-bending after the meeting, so he at least was reasonably happy.


----------



## kalibuzz (May 16, 2012)

editor said:


> We've been hubbed.


So from 1-4 bed rooms they have nicely gone to 1 and 2's only, (who wants larger families around Brixton) so they are selling furnished (bespoke)? on the cool tan site.. I think I need to stop reading these posts, it's getting more and more depressing,,


----------



## T & P (May 16, 2012)




----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 16, 2012)

Personally I will always associate that stretch of CHL as the spot where I was walking home one night from the Albert with eme and I nearly trod on a dead rat.


----------



## kalibuzz (May 16, 2012)

For me it would be squat partying at the Cool Tan (and having loads of fun) and then having massive arguments when they started using bouncers and tried to charge (I think £3), which seemed like a £25 today at the time. and then all the arty farties moved in..


----------



## editor (May 16, 2012)

Have to say that I was asked to pay to get into Cooltan, although considering the amount of people that were going there at the end, you can understand why bouncers became necessary on the big nights.

The entrance fee almost always went to campaign groups anyway.


----------



## kalibuzz (May 16, 2012)

yea, at the end it was madness.. might have gone to campaign groups, but then it just seemed as if they were cashing in on the place getting popular, (normal market economics, I know), not blaming them for trying, but we were not putting up with that after a long time of free meet up, listen to music and bring a drink


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> didn't i suggest that the other day?
> 
> The *Provision* Wing Of The Brixton Preservation Society.


 
Are they the ones who bake the cakes and make the sandwiches, then? 

If you suggested it the other day, then good suggestion!! Perhaps we could even force the Brixton Society "as is" to split into a Continuity Brixton Society and a Real Brixton Society?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are they the ones who bake the cakes and make the sandwiches, then?
> 
> If you suggested it the other day, then good suggestion!! Perhaps we could even force the Brixton Society "as is" to split into a Continuity Brixton Society and a Real Brixton Society?


 
No 'provisional'?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> No 'provisional'?


 
We already mentioned that, Minnie!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> We already mentioned that, Minnie!


 
No hangover, but obviously my brain *isn't *quite working today


----------



## Dan U (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are they the ones who bake the cakes and make the sandwiches, then?
> 
> If you suggested it the other day, then good suggestion!! Perhaps we could even force the Brixton Society "as is" to split into a Continuity Brixton Society and a Real Brixton Society?


 
you could spray FREE BRIXTON all over the shop like the FREE KERNOW folk down in the SW

although STOP CALLING IT BRICKERS might be more apt


----------



## Winot (May 16, 2012)

kalibuzz said:


> yea, at the end it was madness.. might have gone to campaign groups, but then it just seemed as if they were cashing in on the place getting popular, (normal market economics, I know), not blaming them for trying, but we were not putting up with that after a long time of free meet up, listen to music and bring a drink



Interesting to hear that even the original Cooltan wasn't immune from the forces of gentrification.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

Or






Gentrifiers go home

What have the gentrifiers ever done for us?


----------



## editor (May 16, 2012)

They've made Coldharbour Lane sound like a Mediterranean village:


> Brixton Village, a new culinary and cultural hub full of buzzing cafes, restaurants and bars is located adjacent to Brixton Square. Enjoy an evening drink and dinner or just relax on a Sunday morning with fresh coffee and the papers.





> ...both Brockwell Park and Clapham Common are nearby offering acres of green space to either relax and unwind or enjoy a run. Dulwich Village and Park are also within easy reach offering plenty of shops, restaurants, cafes and green open spaces to enjoy.


----------



## editor (May 16, 2012)

Winot said:


> Interesting to hear that even the original Cooltan wasn't immune from the forces of gentrification.


I don't think it even came _close_ to 'gentrifying' at any point, ever (unless he's referring to the bunch that briefly resquatted the place).


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

Dan U said:


> you could spray FREE BRIXTON all over the shop like the FREE KERNOW folk down in the SW


 
"Free Brixton from nu-Babylon!"



> although STOP CALLING IT BRICKERS might be more apt


 
Fucking-A!!!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fucking-A!!!


 
But Brickers is probably cool and edgy


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

Winot said:


> Interesting to hear that even the original Cooltan wasn't immune from the forces of gentrification.


 
In a way, places like Cooltan *drew* gentrification, insofar as lifestylers tend to follow in the wake of the artist community. Same shit happened in east London, same shit even happened in St. Ives 80-odd years ago!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> But Brickers is probably cool and edgy


 
No, even *bricking* nu-Brixtonites is more "edgy" than calling it "Brickers", ffs!


----------



## editor (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> In a way, places like Cooltan *drew* gentrification, insofar as lifestylers tend to follow in the wake of the artist community. Same shit happened in east London, same shit even happened in St. Ives 80-odd years ago!


They sure took their time over it. The original Cooltan closed in 1998.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, even *bricking* nu-Brixtonites is more "edgy" than calling it "Brickers", ffs!


 
I was joking VP!

I've just found a Facebook page (Handpicked Brixton), where they're discussing whether they should be called Brixtonites, Brixtonians and other stuff.

One poster looks suspiciously like a poster from on here and states:  *Trendy Newcomer Twats  *

Another says "I alternate between saying 'Brixtoner' or 'Brixtonite'. I used to say Bricks or Brixsters"


----------



## editor (May 16, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've just found a Facebook page (Handpicked Brixton)


They like to pick a lot of stuff off my blog.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

editor said:


> They sure took their time over it. The original Cooltan closed in 1998.


 
You know the point I'm making, it's that artistic communities almost inevitably draw a load of Boho tossers (as well as other artists) in their wake, and those Boho tossers attract more Boho tossers, and each wave sanitises the original environment a bit more, until it's safe for the sort of tossrag squares who'll be buying in Brixton Square, who're at least the third or fourth wave of Boho twats to wash up here.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

editor said:


> They like to pick a lot of stuff off my blog.


 
It's obviously very popular if so many people are pilfering it


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I was joking VP!
> 
> I've just found a Facebook page (Handpicked Brixton), where they're discussing whether they should be called Brixtonites, Brixtonians and other stuff.
> 
> ...


 
"Brixtonian" and "Brixtonite" for me, or "SW2er" if I'm feeling elitist. 

Actually, "Brixsters" is a good alternative name for the cupcake-munching nu-Brixton crowd, a cross between "Brixton" and "hipsters".


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Brixtonian" and "Brixtonite" for me, or "SW2er" if I'm feeling elitist.
> 
> Actually, "Brixsters" is a good alternative name for the cupcake-munching nu-Brixton crowd, a cross between "Brixton" and "hipsters".


 
One of them on that page suggested Brixtopolitan


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

editor said:


> They like to pick a lot of stuff off my blog.


 
Doesn't it make you want to take a good sharp axe and behead a few of them?


----------



## editor (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You know the point I'm making, it's that artistic communities almost inevitably draw a load of Boho tossers (as well as other artists) in their wake, and those Boho tossers attract more Boho tossers, and each wave sanitises the original environment a bit more, until it's safe for the sort of tossrag squares who'll be buying in Brixton Square, who're at least the third or fourth wave of Boho twats to wash up here.


There's been other waves of gentrification in the past, but this is the first one that looks like it's going to wash away a lot of what is good about Brixton.

A tsunami of twats, if you will.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> One of them on that page suggested Brixtopolitan


 
Fuck me sideways with my best brown boots!   
Not only is it sticky on the tongue, it shows total ignorance of the language. A "polis", on modern usage is a community bound together by common values and community concerns. These nu-Brixton types have as much to do with *my* community as the Pope has to do with good childminding practice!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

editor said:


> There's been other waves of gentrification in the past, but this is the first one that looks like it's going to wash away a lot of what is good about Brixton.
> 
> A tsunami of twats, if you will.


 
This also seems to be presaged by much more prospective medium-scale development than previous waves, too. A lot of what we've seen thrown up before have either been small (i.e. under the 14-unit total after which social housing comes into play) or small to medium-scale of 30-40 dwellings. I strongly agree that it's looking as if this could be the one that swamps Brixton-as-is. Probably won't stop any of us doing what we can to preserve what we love, though.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fuck me sideways with my best brown boots!
> Not only is it sticky on the tongue, it shows total ignorance of the language. A "polis", on modern usage is a community bound together by common values and community concerns. These nu-Brixton types have as much to do with *my* community as the Pope has to do with good childminding practice!


 
I'm not sure if it was tongue in cheek or not

Ben Chan Brixtopolitan - Brixton + Cosmopolitan
14 September 2011 at 12:52 · Like · 


 1


Seonaid Woodburn Or perhaps Brixtonistas?
14 September 2011 at 12:40 · Like · 


 5


----------



## bluestreak (May 16, 2012)

BRIXTON FOR THE BRIXTISH


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> BRIXTON FOR THE BRIXTISH


 
You rascist!   Post reported!!!


----------



## kalibuzz (May 16, 2012)

Winot said:


> Interesting to hear that even the original Cooltan wasn't immune from the forces of gentrification.


yes, that's what I thought, but then again, it was just greed, supply and demand kind of thing, that's why we questioned it ( whole ethos of the squatting scene was to not make profit) but, yes, kind of led to its own end, commercialised itself to death (after money, drug dealers caught on to the cash flow and bla bla, before you know it it was mayhem.)


----------



## kalibuzz (May 16, 2012)

editor said:


> They've made Coldharbour Lane sound like a Mediterranean village:


 true, Costabour Lane , 'enjoy a run' in the parks, you are bound to have to run at some point, so get fit


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

kalibuzz said:


> true, Costabour Lane , 'enjoy a run' in the parks, you are bound to have to run at some point, so get fit


 
To be fair, the horrible yellowy colour of those new flats on CHL up near the side road that leads to KCH only lend to the shonky _faux_ Brixton-sur-la-Med ambience. Nearly vommed when I first saw that!


----------



## kalibuzz (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair, the horrible yellowy colour of those new flats on CHL up near the side road that leads to KCH only lend to the shonky _faux_ Brixton-sur-la-Med ambience. Nearly vommed when I first saw that!


but they have balconies, I think they are called Embassy apartments, how posh lol, I live at 13 Embassy Apt., Coldharbour Lane, sounds like Chelsea. It's Camber Sands, sorry well anyway


----------



## Crispy (May 16, 2012)

I've been in one of those yellow balcony'd apartments (friend's just moved in). They're quite nice inside. Lots of storage. Incredible views.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

Crispy said:


> I've been in one of those yellow balcony'd apartments (friend's just moved in). They're quite nice inside. Lots of storage. Incredible views.


 
Pity the colour is so out of context with the rest of the lane.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

kalibuzz said:


> but they have balconies, I think they are called Embassy apartments, how posh lol, I live at 13 Embassy Apt., Coldharbour Lane, sounds like Chelsea. It's Camber Sands, sorry well anyway


 
I wouldn't like to live there. Imagine geting asked for your address - "I live at 20 Embassy..." (wonders why people are laughing).


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

kalibuzz said:


> but they have balconies, I think they are called Embassy apartments, how posh lol, I live at 13 Embassy Apt., Coldharbour Lane, sounds like Chelsea. It's Camber Sands, sorry well anyway


 
One block's called Embassy, the other is Printworks (or something to with printing, but I can't rememer what exactly)


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 16, 2012)

Does anyone know the percentage of affordable housing for the latest planning application ?

The previous 'affordable assessment' seemed to conclude that they'd make a loss if it was a certain percentage. I was just looking at the original planning application's supporting documents.

The Barratt website is fairly wide of reality.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 16, 2012)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Does anyone know the percentage of affordable housing for the latest planning application ?
> 
> The previous 'affordable assessment' seemed to conclude that they'd make a loss if it was a certain percentage. I was just looking at the original planning application's supporting documents.
> 
> The Barratt website is fairly wide of reality.


 
I don't know why it's even called affordable housing as most of it's not unless you're on a decent wage


----------



## CH1 (May 28, 2012)

DJWrongspeed said:


> The Barratt website is fairly wide of reality.


Their reality is continually evolving. Look at this pic on their page headed *"Boutique Brixton living*"
They are presenting Brixton Square as the "wild side" of central London. Forget "Inner City" we are now part of "The City". I immediately thought of Jefferson Airplane (White Rabbit) - "One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small, and the ones than mother gives you don't do anything at all etc". But hey - isn't that a "Barratt Homes" ad on the YouTube playback? “Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice!


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2012)

*A vibrant, cosmopolitan part of London*​​*There is something for everyone in Brixton*​​Brixton Village, the cultural hub of Brixton, is full of buzzing cafes, restaurants and bars and is located adjacent to Brixton Square. Enjoy an evening drink and dinner or breakfast and the Sunday papers. You can buy almost anything you need from fresh fish and exotic vegetables to vintage clothing from the notorious Brixton Market which is open daily and has a great atmosphere. Nightlife is aplenty with The Brixton Academy, The Electric and the Ritzy Picture House on your doorstep, to name but a few.
​http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/Find-a-Home/New-Developments/H5913-Brixton-Square/LifeStyle/​​The "Notorious Brixton Market"?​​​​​


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2012)

Perhaps the Rushcroft Road squatters should move in here.






*Bespoke one and two bedroom apartments launching soon*

*Register your interest now*

Beautifully designed apartments with contemporary interiors, most with a terrace or balcony. Duplex apartments on the fourth floor, featuring galleried bedrooms within the barrel vaulted ceiling, will offer light and airy living spaces. Amenities will include a landscaped roof garden incorporated within the communal courtyard to the rear of the development. To register your interest please call 0845 539 0038.​


----------



## quimcunx (May 28, 2012)

I emailed them about that. No response.

the notorious bit, not to register my interest.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 28, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> ​The "Notorious Brixton Market"?​​​​​


 

er, notorious for what?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 28, 2012)

Why has notorious suddenly become a new buzzword amongst Estate Agents? it's bizarre. Notorious Dr Crippen. Notorious slum landlord, Peter Rachman. It's not a word they really know the meaning of, is it?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 28, 2012)

This is the second time I've seen it misapplied by property people.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 28, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Why has notorious suddenly become a new buzzword amongst Estate Agents? it's bizarre. Notorious Dr Crippen. Notorious slum landlord, Peter Rachman. It's not a word they really know the meaning of, is it?


 
Maybe notorious for selling giant snails and... I'm struggling here


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 28, 2012)

I think they possibly mean notable. Or something.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> er, notorious for what?


 
If one finds it to "notorious" then one can go to Dulwich Village instead

"Dulwich Village is also within easy reach with plenty of shops, restaurants, cafes and green open spaces"

http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/Find-a-Home/New-Developments/H5913-Brixton-Square/Local-Area/


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 28, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> If one finds it to "notorious" then one can go to Dulwich Village instead
> 
> "Dulwich Village is also within easy reach with plenty of shops, restaurants, cafes and green open spaces"
> 
> http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/Find-a-Home/New-Developments/H5913-Brixton-Square/Local-Area/


 
No mention of Clapham?


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2012)

*no·to·ri·ous*​​   [noh-*tawr*-ee-_uh_s, -*tohr*-, n_uh_-] Show IPA​_*adjective*_​*1.*​widely and unfavorably known: _a notorious gambler. __*Synonyms:*_infamous, egregious, outrageous, arrant, flagrant, disreputable.
​​http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/notorious​


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> No mention of Clapham?


 
Afraid there is. Full quote:

If you want to stay closer to home, both Brockwell Park and Clapham Common offer acres of green space in which to relax and unwind or enjoy a run. Dulwich Village is also within easy reach with plenty of shops, restaurants, cafes and green open spaces.

http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/Find-a-Home/New-Developments/H5913-Brixton-Square/Local-Area/

It is interesting that Barrats are using Brixton Village as selling point. Also they are emphasising the Brixton is really almost in Clapham or Dulwich (according to them) so you are not trapped in "notorious " Brixton.


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2012)

One thing Barrats website does not mention is living near the "notorious" Barrier Block.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 29, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Afraid there is. Full quote:
> 
> If you want to stay closer to home, both Brockwell Park and Clapham Common offer acres of green space in which to relax and unwind or enjoy a run. Dulwich Village is also within easy reach with plenty of shops, restaurants, cafes and green open spaces.
> 
> ...


 
I sat on Clapham Common for an hour yesterday.  So much more accessible and not nearly as notorious as Brockwell Park.     Almost wanted to move back 

Give it time and I reckon the Barrier Block will be described as vibrant and edgy


----------



## Ms T (May 29, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I think they possibly mean notable. Or something.


 
Famous?  They clearly don't know what notorious means.


----------



## snowy_again (May 29, 2012)

I hate them for putting Duran Duran into my head.


----------



## colacubes (May 29, 2012)

snowy_again said:


> I hate them for putting Duran Duran into my head.


 
Innit.  FFS I could do without that to start the day


----------



## snowy_again (May 29, 2012)

It's not too bad - i've been singing the theme music to Game of Thrones since about 8 am. 

Your strapline reminded me that I was given a bottle of Lambeth Walk porter last night:

http://www.bythehorns.co.uk/LW.html their website seems appropriate for Brixton Sq. but they're from Earlsfield, so I guess it's understandable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 29, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Maybe notorious for selling giant snails and... I'm struggling here


 
Notorious for occasionally smelling a bit off on a hot day?


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2012)

And here's the delightful piece of architecture that's coming our way.

Is it an office block? Council offices? No, it's Brixton Square, the kind of square where the public aren't allowed in!







http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixton...ith-flats-starting-at-a-quarter-of-a-million/


----------



## Rushy (Jul 18, 2012)

editor said:


> And here's the delightful piece of architecture that's coming our way.
> 
> Is it an office block? Council offices? No, it's Brixton Square, the kind of square where the public aren't allowed in!
> 
> ...


They have probably worked very hard to tie it in with the ugliness of other properties in its vicinity.
On that basis, they have done a great job.


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2012)

Rushy said:


> They have probably worked very hard to tie it in with the ugliness of other properties in its vicinity.
> On that basis, they have done a great job.


The Barrier Block may not be to everyone's taste, but at least it's original and distinctive, and very well built. It's instantly recognisable and a local landmark.

That factory/office block looking-thing is about as bland and as anonymous as it gets.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 18, 2012)

It looks identical to that Clapham Park development on Kings Avenue, minging.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 18, 2012)

Looks like standard, identi-kit craned on in panels shite. 

They just hit 'random' on some CAD computer I swear and send the dimensions off to a factory to get it built. 

Looks shit basically, and that's on the graphics, normally they look worse after


----------



## Crispy (Jul 18, 2012)

Barratts are notorious for not giving a shit about design. They're a pure numbers company. Square meters, cost, profit.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 18, 2012)

editor said:


> The Barrier Block may not be to everyone's taste, but at least it's original and distinctive.


It is that.


----------



## clandestino (Jul 18, 2012)

Notorious is the new edgy.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 18, 2012)

editor said:


> And here's the delightful piece of architecture that's coming our way.
> 
> Is it an office block? Council offices? No, it's Brixton Square, the kind of square where the public aren't allowed in!
> 
> ...


Nice large south-facing windows - but I share the concerns raised by someone who Tweeted this afternoon:
*David @BrixtonianDave*
*Will Brixton Square have a "safe" drug dealing zone in their gated community for testosterone fuelled bond-traders?*

If not - I fear the current Mecca for drug tourism that is Coldharbour Lane will become even more edgy - and violent!


----------



## CH1 (Jul 18, 2012)

editor said:


> The Barrier Block may not be to everyone's taste, but at least it's original and distinctive, and very well built. It's instantly recognisable and a local landmark.


I share that sentiment - and I will be happy to sign up to a proposed listing. One of the Ted Hollamby era projects which somehow managed to fall  on its feet.
Check his obituary - he had quite a different background from what you would expect, given what he "threw up" in his Lambeth days.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2000/jan/24/guardianobituaries


----------



## story (Jul 18, 2012)

editor said:


> And here's the delightful piece of architecture that's coming our way.
> 
> Is it an office block? Council offices? No, it's Brixton Square, the kind of square where the public aren't allowed in!
> 
> ...


 


Jeesus. How depressing.

Way to homogenise the area, Barratts...

That could be Anywheresville.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 18, 2012)

Notice the typical Brixton pedestrians.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 18, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Notice the typical Brixton pedestrians.


Maybe they will indeed be typical by the time this Social Cleansing Council has finished its work!


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2012)

I don't think there's a black face to be seen on any of their promotion for this factory housing development.


----------



## clandestino (Jul 18, 2012)

It looks a bit like the council offices opposite the Canterbury Arms. Maybe that's the look they were going for?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 18, 2012)

editor said:


> I don't think there's a black face to be seen on any of their promotion for this factory housing development.


 
A few people have noticed that.  Maybe it's time someone mentioned it to them.


----------



## madolesance (Jul 18, 2012)

story said:


> Jeesus. How depressing.
> 
> Way to homogenise the area, Barratts...
> 
> That could be Anywheresville.



Not to different from Effra Parade primary school replacement.
So dull but it allows them to pack em in.


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2012)

madolesance said:


> Not to different from Effra Parade primary school replacement.


They look more or less identical.


----------



## mizfick (Jul 19, 2012)

Someone needs to shoot the copywriter. Immediately. I wonder who will live there though, I have a feeling some Brixsters wouldn't  - then again they've cunningly blocked the view of the Barrier Block so that flats overlook each other. This isn't really gentrification it's charmless redevelopment - and it's very optimistic if you think about it, in fact it's clutching at straws. Not on the scale of Wapping or East End gentrification where I seem to remember amongst the plastic flats there were some old buildings with history involved.


----------



## maldwyn (Jul 19, 2012)

What better way to connect with your local community than to sit behind locked gates enjoying a slice of Bad Boy lemon-drizzle cake with a select set of neighbours.


----------



## story (Jul 19, 2012)

"Brixsters"...?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 19, 2012)

story said:


> "Brixsters"...?


 


I'm glad someone else pointed it out


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2012)

From their website:


> Our properties make great homes, but they're also fantastic buy-to-let investments


FUCK. YOU.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 23, 2012)

editor said:
			
		

> From their website:
> 
> FUCK. YOU.



Standard on almost every new build in every part of the UK.


----------



## PippaPrintworks (Aug 17, 2012)

kalibuzz said:


> but they have balconies, I think they are called Embassy apartments, how posh lol, I live at 13 Embassy Apt., Coldharbour Lane, sounds like Chelsea. It's Camber Sands, sorry well anyway



The embassy block is social housing, Printworks is shared ownership so none if it is exactly posh.


----------



## crawl (Aug 17, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> What better way to connect with your local community than to sit behind locked gates enjoying a slice of Bad Boy lemon-drizzle cake with a select set of neighbours.


 
Haha -- exactly. I don't understand some people's blind defending of this "new face of Brixton". The Brixton Blog had a bit on the Holiday Inn and it was full of people commenting on how all the new attention to the area is great. Employment opportunities and the like are nice but not all "attention" is good attention


----------



## Winot (Aug 17, 2012)

crawl said:


> I don't understand some people's blind defending of this "new face of Brixton".



Who is doing that?


----------



## kalibuzz (Aug 17, 2012)

PippaPrintworks said:


> The embassy block is social housing, Printworks is shared ownership so none if it is exactly posh.


 I know, it was irony u know, the name, embassy apt doh for some ugly ass flats


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Standard on almost every new build in every part of the UK.


 
Particularly in London. A lot of new build is bought by the buy to let brigade.

"But Matt Griffith of first-time buyer campaign site PricedOut, disagrees. He says: "In a market where equity is king, investors are able to outbid first-time buyers for available lower-level properties. In the housing market, equity is nearly always a result of longevity – which gives older homeowners a head-and-shoulders advantage. Housing wealth and ownership is more generationally lopsided than it has been since the 1940s, and we appear to be seeing older groups pressing home their advantage through investment buying."
Both tenants and first-time buyers, then, face a bleak future: squeezed out of the market by house prices that remain high across swathes of the country, and soaring rents charged by landlords."


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2012)

CH1 said:


> I share that sentiment - and I will be happy to sign up to a proposed listing. One of the Ted Hollamby era projects which somehow managed to fall on its feet.
> Check his obituary - he had quite a different background from what you would expect, given what he "threw up" in his Lambeth days.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2000/jan/24/guardianobituaries


 
Interesting. Post war it was normal for architects to work in the public sector. Rebuilding this country after the war and making new affordable housing for the people. As the article says this was a different world to the one we live in now. If not every design was good or well built at least the ethos was building for the benefit of all people not for profit.

"These were exciting and challenging places to work in the 1950s and 1960s, attracting the very best young architects and with the focus very much on housing. Of course there were mistakes, yet the energy and concern that were channelled into the civic realm seem flabbergasting at the beginning of the 21st century, at the close of an era which has witnessed both the triumph of the private sector and the effective collapse of the great public sector architects' offices of the postwar era."

Goes to show there is another way to build our cities. Private profit is not the only way.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 17, 2012)

eroom said:


> Actually maybe that's a better way to think about gated communities: that it's _us_ - the rest of society - locking away _them_ - undesirables - behind the gates.
> 
> (And Crispy - yes I take your point about the distinction: I don't object to gates wholesale...)


 
Here's another way to think about gated communities ....


----------



## CH1 (Aug 18, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Particularly in London. A lot of new build is bought by the buy to let brigade.
> 
> "But Matt Griffith of first-time buyer campaign sitePricedOut, disagrees. He says: "In a market where equity is king, investors are able to outbid first-time buyers for available lower-level properties. In thehousing market, equity is nearly always a result of longevity – which gives older homeowners a head-and-shoulders advantage. Housing wealth and ownership is more generationally lopsided than it has been since the 1940s, and we appear to be seeing older groups pressing home their advantage through investment buying."
> Both tenants and first-time buyers, then, face a bleak future: squeezed out of the market by house prices that remain high across swathes of the country, and soaring rents charged by landlords."


Actually this new-build for buy-to-let happened in the Victorian period too. My own house, built on land left over from the railway viaduct running along Coldharbour Lane in about 1869 (at the latest) was not owner-occupied until 1928.
Of course there could ultimately be a reversal of prices which would then result in older owner occupiers having a more normal level of equity, but would massively hit those who have struggled to purchase in the last 5 - 10 years.
No doubt avoiding this is the main reason for QE I QE II etc - whatever the government says about lending to small businesses.


----------



## Ol Nick (Aug 18, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Interesting. Post war it was normal for architects to work in the public sector. Rebuilding this country after the war and making new affordable housing for the people. As the article says this was a different world to the one we live in now. If not every design was good or well built at least the ethos was building for the benefit of all people not for profit.
> 
> "These were exciting and challenging places to work in the 1950s and 1960s, attracting the very best young architects and with the focus very much on housing. Of course there were mistakes, yet the energy and concern that were channelled into the civic realm seem flabbergasting at the beginning of the 21st century, at the close of an era which has witnessed both the triumph of the private sector and the effective collapse of the great public sector architects' offices of the postwar era."
> 
> Goes to show there is another way to build our cities. Private profit is not the only way.


 
Because the 1950s and 1960s are looked back on as a golden age of British architecture? Really?


----------



## CH1 (Aug 18, 2012)

Ol Nick said:


> Because the 1950s and 1960s are looked back on as a golden age of British architecture? Really?


I suggest you join the Prince Charles tendency. Personally I have made my views known - Princess Anne is the only royal worthy to inherit the throne!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2012)

Ol Nick said:


> Because the 1950s and 1960s are looked back on as a golden age of British architecture? Really?


 
Not the point I was making if u read my post.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Actually this new-build for buy-to-let happened in the Victorian period too. My own house, built on land left over from the railway viaduct running along Coldharbour Lane in about 1869 (at the latest) was not owner-occupied until 1928.
> Of course there could ultimately be a reversal of prices which would then result in older owner occupiers having a more normal level of equity, but would massively hit those who have struggled to purchase in the last 5 - 10 years.
> No doubt avoiding this is the main reason for QE I QE II etc - whatever the government says about lending to small businesses.


 
QE is about bailing out the banks. The QE has gone straight into banks to rebuild there balance sheets.

Renting was the norm for a long while. But people used to have more tenancy rights in and in many areas rents were controlled. Gradually this was all swept away. 

When I say "Buy to let" I mean the more recent phenomenon of the get rich quick merchants. The type who have told several people I know in North East London that they will be upping there rent by 40% as the recent improvements in the area and Olypmpic "regeneration" means they can charge more.

Similar to Barrets going on about how Brixton had improved.


----------



## lefteri (Aug 22, 2012)

Ol Nick said:


> Because the 1950s and 1960s are looked back on as a golden age of British architecture? Really?


 
yes


----------



## CH1 (Sep 1, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> QE is about bailing out the banks. The QE has gone straight into banks to rebuild there balance sheets.
> 
> Renting was the norm for a long while. But people used to have more tenancy rights in and in many areas rents were controlled. Gradually this was all swept away.
> 
> ...


Do you think Coldharbour Lane rents will be going up like that when Barratts comes onstream? I understood the going rate for flats at Loughbough Mansions/Kenyon Mansions etc. is currently £200 per week and the for sale price about £200,000.
I don't think I would want to invest money in properties at those prices. 
Not withstanding what you say about QE I can't see how this  situation can last forever.
Admittedly we are in a localised bubble - house prices in most of the UK are going down, but Brixton is currently undergoing a major yuppification exercise - connived at by Lambeth Council.
If the top were to fall out of the market for some reason the bubble could start to deflate.
IMHO the only thing keeping property up in London is the low interest rates.
Buy-to-let currently _*appears*_ to be a much safer investment than bank deposits - yields are 5-7% from lettings and the underlying capital value continues to rise. 
If the capital values start to go down it could be a different story. Not least because those who finance their buy to lets on bank mortgages would be unable to roll over their loans.
But then again maybe I read the City AM too much!

BTW the Barratts website is currently quoting £250,000 for a one bed at Brixton Square - requiring a £60,000 salary and a £12,000 deposit for a 1st time buyer.
2 beds are currently on £302,000 requiring a £70,000 + salary with a £15,000 deposit.

Considering the original planning permission was issued to Places for People which I guess "people" assumed to be some sort of social or "affordable" housing outfit one wonders why the council recently refused to vary the section 106 agreement?

Should they not rather have torn it up and issued a new one with a much better deal for local residents? 

I wonder how their "consultation" on the redevelopment of Southwyck House is coming on? Any info gratefully received.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2012)

CH1 said:


> If the top were to fall out of the market for some reason the bubble could start to deflate.
> IMHO the only thing keeping property up in London is the low interest rates.
> Buy-to-let currently _*appears*_ to be a much safer investment than bank deposits - yields are 5-7% from lettings and the underlying capital value continues to rise.
> If the capital values start to go down it could be a different story. Not least because those who finance their buy to lets on bank mortgages would be unable to roll over their loans.
> ...


 
City AM is always worth a read as it tells it from the point of view of the City.

Good point about Barrats development possibly contributing to putting up rental prices in Brixton. I did not think of that. Yes I think it will.

Buy to let. Interesting phenomenon as a lot of flats are bought by B to L brigade in new developments to rent out. Could happen in Brixton Square.

If B to L went down the pan as u say whichever party is in power is going to suffer. Its surprising the number of people who have B to L mortgages. These people regard it as there right that the underlying capital value increases and they get 5+ % yields. One said to me that "they had done the right thing" (unlike a loser like me) and expected to be rewarded for it. Which , like Bankers, they expect the Government to underwrite them. ( Though also like Bankers they do not say this explicity as they think they are "standing on there own feet" unlike others )So perhaps you are right about QE.


----------



## fortyplus (Sep 1, 2012)

Many boomer-generation middle-class people used the easy credit pre-2008 to ''leverage" their savings into buy-to-let property. Smart move for them, because the system for getting savings into enterprise, where it might contribute something positive to the economy, is fucked. Those who put their pension savings into managed funds mostly had them stolen.  The message is still that the property ladder is a much better way to prosperity than the enterprise ladder.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 2, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Many boomer-generation middle-class people used the easy credit pre-2008 to ''leverage" their savings into buy-to-let property. Smart move for them, because the system for getting savings into enterprise, where it might contribute something positive to the economy, is fucked. Those who put their pension savings into managed funds mostly had them stolen. The message is still that the property ladder is a much better way to prosperity than the enterprise ladder.


You are right about investing in enterprise. Unfortunately the same thing applies to government and local government funding - due to the rise of the PFI. Formerly the government, LCC etc issued Gilts or hypothecated loan stock such as War Loan, or Gas bonds (when the gas companies were nationalised in the 1940s), and such issues would be bought by pension funds and used as totally predictable investments to pay pensions etc.  Now it is all a casino game. Banks and private equity form consortia competing to fund hospitals and schools where they have the right to charge £500 to change a light bulb! The situation would be laughable if it wasn't tragic.   

Being a landlord is essentially an exploitative relationship with someone disadvantaged in the housing market - more so in current housing conditions.
But-to-let landlords have forced up the prices for prospective owner occupiers and have created an artificial property shortage - fuelled by cheap bank loans. This is one motor driving residential property prices ever upwards. The other driving force is inward investment of hot money at the top end of the market.

It would be surprising if there was NOT a period of negative equity in due course.
I have a 1989 Panorama on tape where everyone is either complaining they can no longer afford to buy, or congratulating themselves on how well they have done from property.
I also have a 1994 Panorama where they are all complaining about negative equity, repossessions etc.
London is unique in not having had a property decline in the current economic cycle - yet.
If prices do start to go down in London there is little the government can now do to stop it as they have already dropped official interest rates to near zero.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 2, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Many boomer-generation middle-class people used the easy credit pre-2008 to ''leverage" their savings into buy-to-let property. Smart move for them, because the system for getting savings into enterprise, where it might contribute something positive to the economy, is fucked. Those who put their pension savings into managed funds mostly had them stolen.  The message is still that the property ladder is a much better way to prosperity than the enterprise ladder.



This is the truest thing I have read here.

I did the pensions savings thing, and feel a mug.

Not least, for example, coz' so many of my kids' friends' parents did the the buy-to-let thing and are whooping it up.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Sep 2, 2012)

editor said:


> And here's the delightful piece of architecture that's coming our way.
> 
> Is it an office block? Council offices? No, it's Brixton Square, the kind of square where the public aren't allowed in!
> 
> ...


 
Bringing the look of a business park in Bracknell to Brixton.....nice......


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 2, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Many boomer-generation middle-class people used the easy credit pre-2008 to ''leverage" their savings into buy-to-let property. Smart move for them, because the system for getting savings into enterprise, where it might contribute something positive to the economy, is fucked. Those who put their pension savings into managed funds mostly had them stolen. The message is still that the property ladder is a much better way to prosperity than the enterprise ladder.


 
Not just middle class. I was talking to a receptionist I know a while back who said she and husband were looking at new flat. She said it was to be part of there buy to let portfolio. A lot of people were doing this. I talked to friend who said it was easy to get a mortgage that was specifically for B to L property. Im not clear how it works but seemed that once u had one property u could get another. Would work as long as you had rental stream coming in to cover costs and the value of property always went up. 

Its why on new developments in London often a lot of flats were bought as "investment" property for rental.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 2, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Not just middle class. I was talking to a receptionist I know a while back who said she and husband were looking at new flat. She said it was to be part of there buy to let portfolio. A lot of people were doing this. I talked to friend who said it was easy to get a mortgage that was specifically for B to L property. Im not clear how it works but seemed that once u had one property u could get another. Would work as long as you had rental stream coming in to cover costs and the value of property always went up.
> 
> Its why on new developments in London often a lot of flats were bought as "investment" property for rental.


 
And it's riduculously easy to avoid income tax and capital gains tax.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 2, 2012)

CH1 said:


> It would be surprising if there was NOT a period of negative equity in due course.


 
That would be most interesting. In Latvia ,which is held up as poster boy by IMF for the rightness of "austerity", people have been losing there homes. They were encouraged to take out mortgages ( new in Eastern Europe where most housing was state owned) and now have had there wages cut. This has meant they cannot keep up on mortgage payments. Also the flats/ houses are not worth what they bought them for. Bizarrely whilst being encouraged to join jolly old Capitalism there is no way to go bankrupt. So in theory whilst being homeless if you ever earn money again you will still have to pay off the Bankers. Of course none of this effects the post Communists elites who run theses countries.

As my Lithuanian friend says these East European post Communist elites make sure the system works for them . There is a semblance of democracy. There is free speech but the elites run the show.

In Hungary its even more crazy. People were encouraged to take out mortgages in other currencies. Now the economy has gone tits up they are all screwed. Big problem , for the Bankers that is, is that they may never get there money back so its a toxic debt. They are trying to make the Government responsible for it I believe.

The joys of the free market.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 3, 2012)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Bringing the look of a business park in Bracknell to Brixton.....nice......


 
The "Planning and Regeneration Team" are working to their brief, surely?

They had an old Labour Exchange building - mock regency in the 1930s manner, plus an older industrial building with neo-art deco rounded corners.

It is a conservation area (I believe), and bang next door is a former petrol station, then incendiary used car tyre sales depot now disguised as a Bracknellesque "mixed use" development (they're fitting out the shops/offices at the back of "The Viaduct" by the way).

I don't like what is being thrown up, so to speak. But it fits in with the conservation area brief.
It is fake, like the Labour Exchange - but unlike the Labour Exchange it won't have wooden toilet seats (that would be extra!). It will also blend in excellently with the Lexadon Viaduct.

I would start screaming if Lexadon or Barratts decided they wanted to move east and demolish the 1850s shopping parade.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 3, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> That would be most interesting. In Latvia ,which is held up as poster boy by IMF for the rightness of "austerity", people have been losing there homes. They were encouraged to take out mortgages ( new in Eastern Europe where most housing was state owned) and now have had there wages cut. This has meant they cannot keep up on mortgage payments. Also the flats/ houses are not worth what they bought them for. Bizarrely whilst being encouraged to join jolly old Capitalism there is no way to go bankrupt. So in theory whilst being homeless if you ever earn money again you will still have to pay off the Bankers. Of course none of this effects the post Communists elites who run theses countries.
> 
> As my Lithuanian friend says these East European post Communist elites make sure the system works for them . There is a semblance of democracy. There is free speech but the elites run the show.
> 
> ...


The same thing in Spain by the way - just giving back the flat keys to the bank does NOT extinguish the mortgage.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 3, 2012)

CH1 said:


> The same thing in Spain by the way - just giving back the flat keys to the bank does NOT extinguish the mortgage.


 
Same in UK.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Here's another way to think about gated communities ....


 Mortars for the win!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2012)

On the planning website it says the following. OMR means "Of Market Rent". From a quick look at the documents on the planning website this is a change from social rented by a RSL to the new definition of "affordable rented" by a registered provider. Affordable rented is related to the market rents in the area. So 60% for a 2 bed is 60% of whatever the market rent is for the area.

Reference 12/03393/S106

Application Received Thu 06 Sep 2012

Address 368 - 372 Coldharbour Lane London

Proposal Variation of S106 to allow the following: 1. To substitute the previously included definitions for Social Rented Housing Units with Affordable Housing Units and to fix the rent figures at 60& OMR for a 2 bed, 55% OMR for a 3 bed and 49% OMR for a 4 bed unit; and 2. In the case of the approved intermediate units, to widen the RSL definition to include Affordable Housing Providers.

Status Pending Consideration
Appeal Status Not Available




​​​​​


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2012)

Any chance of a slightly bigger version of that?


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 25, 2012)

What does that mean in english?


----------



## Manter (Sep 25, 2012)

editor said:


> And here's the delightful piece of architecture that's coming our way.
> 
> Is it an office block? Council offices? No, it's Brixton Square, the kind of square where the public aren't allowed in!
> 
> ...


I know I'm late to the party- but f*** that's horrible.  

If we aren't allowed in, maybe we can barricade it so the Brixsters can't get out?


----------



## Manter (Sep 25, 2012)

OMR is open market rates. Social rents would be fixed- e.g. you will pay £350pcm. Affordable rent means that now you pay 55% what a private tenant would pay (let's say that's currently £350)- as gentrification gathers pace, your rent will go up too- still way below market rates, but if you are on benefits or doing a low paid job (or three) you'll be priced out. If market rates go up by £100, your rent goes up by £55. And I bet your income doesn't...


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 25, 2012)

Where do I send my objection?

e2a: said for effect. I can read the details on the new bigger better pic.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2012)

editor said:


> Any chance of a slightly bigger version of that?


 
just been doing that. First pic did not work.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2012)

Manter said:


> OMR is open market rates. Social rents would be fixed- e.g. you will pay £350pcm. Affordable rent means that now you pay 55% what a private tenant would pay (let's say that's currently £350)- as gentrification gathers pace, your rent will go up too- still way below market rates, but if you are on benefits or doing a low paid job (or three) you'll be priced out. If market rates go up by £100, your rent goes up by £55. And I bet your income doesn't...


 
Thanks Manter. I started to look at the documents on the planning website associated with this. Not exactly written in laymans language.

So this is pretty crap really. I was wondering if it meant this. The "affordable rent" will go up with the market rent. This is completely different from Council rents or old style RSL rents.

This is of no real use to a lot of people. As if the market rent goes up a lot you will have to leave. Especially as there are new Government restrictions on Housing Benefit.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

So basically they got planning permission on the basis of providing x no. of units to be rented at a set price (set to what?) and having got permission they've built them and now they're wanting to renege on the deal?


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2012)

Could someone who understands the intricacies of these things please detail exactly what's been proposed here and if it's as I think it is, I want to get publicising this pronto. Brixton needs proper social housing, not this bollocks.


----------



## fortyplus (Sep 26, 2012)

Not an expert on the different types of lower-cost housing. But this is a s106 variation - same thing that Tesco used to pull the ice-rink trick. S106 is about "planning gain" - developer agrees to provide some public benefit, e.g. a new sports centre or some social housing, as part of the planning deal. Then you apply for a variation, which usually goes through with less scrutiny than a full application. S.106 variations need greater scrutiny, because they are always about big corporations reneging on deals they have done.


----------



## Manter (Sep 26, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks Manter. I started to look at the documents on the planning website associated with this. Not exactly written in laymans language.
> 
> So this is pretty crap really. I was wondering if it meant this. The "affordable rent" will go up with the market rent. This is completely different from Council rents or old style RSL rents.
> 
> This is of no real use to a lot of people. As if the market rent goes up a lot you will have to leave. Especially as there are new Government restrictions on Housing Benefit.



That's about the size of it


----------



## Manter (Sep 26, 2012)

editor said:


> Could someone who understands the intricacies of these things please detail exactly what's been proposed here and if it's as I think it is, I want to get publicising this pronto. Brixton needs proper social housing, not this bollocks.


Likewise no expert but I read badly written bullsh1t for a living and having trawled through the planning website, which is exactly that, I think that fortyplus is spot on. What Barratts build eventually will be less social provision and at higher cost than would ever have been approved in the initial planning application.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 26, 2012)

If anybody is thinking of writing an objection, the following are useful references:

*The London Plan 2011 - Chapter 3, Policy 3.11A *(This is the London-wide planning policy document)

The Mayor will, and boroughs and other relevant agencies and partners should, seek to maximise affordable housing provision and ensure an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year in
London over the term of this Plan. In order to give impetus to a strong and diverse
intermediate housing sector, *60% of the affordable housing provision should be *
*for social rent* and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. Priority should be accorded to
provision of affordable family housing

* LDF Core Strategy 2011 - Chapter 4, Policy S2c *(This is Lambeth's planning policy document, prepared in response to The London Plan)
[The Council will meet the borough’s housing needs to 2025 by: ]
Seeking the provision of affordable housing on sites of at least 0.1 hectares or on sites capable of accommodating 10 or more homes. At least 50 per cent of housing should be affordable where public subsidy is available, or 40 per cent without public subsidy, subject to housing priorities and, where relevant, to independently validated evidence of viability, or where there is a clearly demonstrable benefit in a different mix in the case of housing estate regeneration. *The mix of affordable housing should be 70 per cent social rented and 30 per cent intermediate.*

This S106 variation is clearly violating these policies. (is violating the right word?)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> What does that mean in english?


They are rowing back on the original agreement to provide social housing - more beneficial for the private owners.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

So are we organising to get lots of objections sent and maybe a petition? 

_someone_ should do this.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> So basically they got planning permission on the basis of providing x no. of units to be rented at a set price (set to what?) and having got permission they've built them and now they're wanting to renege on the deal?


Yep. And this has happened a lot ime - once the building starts, developers start trying to squeeze the margins wherever they can. Standard practice really. Developers will do their best to avoid or delay any section 106 agreements. For example, one of the section 106 agreements at Dick Sheppard School (now Brockwell Gate) was for the developer to build a new entrance to the park from Tulse Hill. This didn't actually happen until years after the last flats were built and sold, with the developer forced kicking and screaming to a cheap, late job.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm not really up to speed with the technicalities here, but it would be grand if someone could word this in really easy to understand jargon and perhaps offer a template complaint so I can get publicisin'.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

We need a twitter storm!  And facebook etc.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> So are we organising to get lots of objections sent and maybe a petition?
> 
> _someone_ should do this.


It's a planning application, so we can object. Looks like comments are open until 4 October. You can send a letter to the planning department, or even better, log in to the Lambeth website and make your objection in the comments section here: http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MAA4WOBO0GL00

Case reference is 12/03393/S106


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

Like Ed I want to know I'm objecting in correct and effective terms first.  I am going to object though.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm all fired up and ready to go, but I want to make sure I know what the feck I'm on about.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 26, 2012)

Interesting. An identical application for a S106 variation was made in 2011, ref 11/04431/S106 : http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...CaseNumber=IATT91BOXK000&keyVal=LWAHW0BO0GL00 but was withdrawn


----------



## Crispy (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm having trouble tracking down the previous S106 agreement. The decision letter for the original application makes no mention of S106.  Getting closer now...
(In process of writing a letter/email)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

I will try to find some more details on the exact definitions posted on the planning notice....


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

The wording on the actual planning application on the Lambeth planning database doesn't match the wording on the poster above which Gramsci posted:



> 12/03393/S106  |  Variation of S106 to allow the following: 1. To substitute the previously included definitions for Social Rented Housing Units with Affordable Housing Units and to fix the rent figures at 60& OMR for a 2 bed, 55% OMR for a 3 bed and 49% OMR for a 4 bed unit; and 2. In the case of the approved intermediate units, to widen the RSL definition to include Affordable Housing Providers.  |  368 - 372 Coldharbour Lane London


----------



## Crispy (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm sending the following email:



> Ref: 12/03393/S106
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> In reference to the above planning application, I am writing to object to the proposal, on the following grounds. The removal of Social Rented Housing is in direct opposition to both London Plan 2011 policy 3.11A, which states,
> "The Mayor will, and boroughs and other relevant agencies and partners should, seek to maximise affordable housing provision and ensure an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year in London over the term of this Plan. In order to give impetus to a strong and diverse intermediate housing sector, *60% of the affordable housing provision should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. Priority should be accorded to provision of affordable family housing.*"
> ...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

And funnily enough - purely a coincidence I imagine - on October 4, the deadline for comments on this application, Barratt Homes will be having a little drinks party to celebrate their development. Maybe some of us should pop along to day hello...



> *Launching soon*
> 
> Join us on Thursday 4th October for canapés and refreshments between 4pm to 8pm on site at Coldharbour Lane.


http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/H591301-Brixton-Square/


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

Crispy said:


> I'm sending the following email:


Good letter.

I'm not sure I understand the numbers here yet though - and I think this might be crucial. There are going to be 107 flats at Brixton Square, which means 43 flats (40%) must be "affordable". Of those, 70% must be "social rented" (30 units) and 30% "intermediate" (13 units). I'm not sure how the definitions on the poster relate to the definitions in the LDF etc. Still trying to get my head around it...

E2A: Apparently it's 155 units overall. I'll have to check and come back to revise figures.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 26, 2012)

Oh bugger. The covering letter for this latest application says:​​The proposal has evolved from detailed discussions with the Council's Housing Services. To this end, *the proposed changes in definitions and Affordable Housing Provider are now firmly supported by both Housing and Planning Officers*. The developer's reasoning is that Housing Associations are strapped for cash and so they won't be able to sell the affordable units to a suitable provider.​​And BH, you're right, the actual application doesn't propose reducing the percentage of affordable housing, it just makes it less affordable. However, it's still in opposition to the 70:30 social rent:intermediate policy.​ 
But, given the apparently chummy nature of the arrangement, I doubt that the objection will be strong enough. Worth a punt anyway. I've removed the "substantially reduces the total amount of affordable housing" bit from my email and sent it.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Oh bugger. The covering letter for this latest application says:​​The proposal has evolved from detailed discussions with the Council's Housing Services. To this end, *the proposed changes in definitions and Affordable Housing Provider are now firmly supported by both Housing and Planning Officers*. The developer's reasoning is that Housing Associations are strapped for cash and so they won't be able to sell the affordable units to a suitable provider.​


​​All the more reason to get our objections in.​​Did you find the original s106 agreement?​​I think there might also be a point around the % of the OMR proposed to be charged. Is it standard what they propose? Or is it less affordable than originally stated in the s106.​


----------



## Crispy (Sep 26, 2012)

I couldn't find it and gave up  There's so many references and separate applications and guff. Lots of references to "as agreed in previous" and "as described in section 6.3.4 above" without any *actual* figures, AFAICT.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

It might also be worth writing to the ward councillors for the area, which are:

*Ward Councillors*

Cllr Donatus Anyanwu
Address C/o Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1RW
Phone 020 8769 7541
EMAIL DAnyanwu@lambeth.gov.uk
Councillor RACHEL HEYWOOD
Address C/o Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1RW
Phone 07961 100 198
EMAIL rheywood@lambeth.gov.uk
Councillor Matthew Parr
Address C/o Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1RW
EMAIL mparr1@lambeth.gov.uk
Phone 020 7926 1166


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

Crispy said:


> I couldn't find it and gave up  There's so many references and separate applications and guff. Lots of references to "as agreed in previous" and "as described in section 6.3.4 above" without any *actual* figures, AFAICT.


Ok thanks. I might contact the case officer at the council to find out more.


----------



## BJM2012 (Sep 26, 2012)

My guess is that they're doing this now because it is easier to vary S106 agreements than it will be to change the replacement Community Infrastricture Levy (CIL) that comes in next year. The CILs should, in theory, bolster social housing provision. Until developers find a way around that as well. S106 should be enshrined and not subject to the whims of greedy planning pricks.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Oh bugger. The covering letter for this latest application says:​​The proposal has evolved from detailed discussions with the Council's Housing Services. To this end, *the proposed changes in definitions and Affordable Housing Provider are now firmly supported by both Housing and Planning Officers*. The developer's reasoning is that Housing Associations are strapped for cash and so they won't be able to sell the affordable units to a suitable provider.​


​Here's the letter for reference: http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00350008.pdf

And here's the new s106 for reference: http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00350011.pdf (which includes the definitions of 'affordable housing' etc)

Unfortunately this is all making my head hurt - but I'm getting somewhere. I'll come back to this later when I have more time.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Oh bugger. The covering letter for this latest application says:
> 
> The proposal has evolved from detailed discussions with the Council's Housing Services. To this end, the proposed changes in definitions and Affordable Housing Provider are now firmly supported by both Housing and Planning Officers. *The developer's reasoning is that Housing Associations are strapped for cash and so they won't be able to sell the affordable units to a suitable provider.*
> 
> ...


 

Then this sort of thing is hiding that stuff isn't working. 



Are councils allowed to build new council housing?  Or are they allowed but have so many constraints they can't?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Then this sort of thing is hiding that stuff isn't working.


Yeah, why should low paid people suffer just because Barratt say they won't be able to sell the units? Maybe they should have built them cheaper, or offered them for less ££? It's a crap argument.





quimcunx said:


> Are councils allowed to build new council housing? Or are they allowed but have so many constraints they can't?


I don't think there's anything to stop them, but it's easier to get developers to do it for them and means they dont have to stump up any cash in advance.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

I mean council houses not 'affordable housing' or 'association housing'. 

either way developers aren't doing it for them, are they.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

Yeah I know what you mean. I don't think we'll ever see any new "council houses" built - just 'affordable housing' or 'association housing'. IIRC the law requires local authorities to build a certain amount of "social housing" but, as I understand it, the definition is loose enough to include a wide range of housing like part ownership etc. So not traditional council housing as we might imagine it.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> And funnily enough - purely a coincidence I imagine - on October 4, the deadline for comments on this application, Barratt Homes will be having a little drinks party to celebrate their development. Maybe some of us should pop along to day hello...
> 
> 
> http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/H591301-Brixton-Square/


 
If u look at my photo it says comments in by the 26th October. The date would be different on a sign outside premises if its only just been put up. I think that notice only went up in last few days. Or I would have noticed it before.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2012)

This is so important that we're looking to do a joint urban75/Brixton Blog/Brixton Buzz onslaught on this. The Blog are going to have a go at drafting up a piece which will then be posted here for checking over and editing (if needed).

There seems to be several levels of dodginess going on, so I think we need to join forces and get busy!


----------



## beeboo (Sep 26, 2012)

Just wanted to clarify something about the "affordable housing".  "Affordable" rents are pretty much replacing "social" rents everywhere now, due to changes introduced by the current government (including slashing the grant funding available for building affordable housing massively).

So instead of social rents, which are calculated according to a complicated formula, we now have 'affordable rents' which are set at any level upto 80% of what that property would be worth to rent on the open market.  I think the average in London so far has been 65% of open market rents, so the rents on this scheme are below average (but higher than the old social rents).

Contrary to what was said earlier, rents don't go up if local market rents go up - at least during the course of tenancy.  Increases are capped in the same way as they are in social rented housing (which is RPI + 0.5%).  However, when a new tenancy is started, rents are recalculated for the relevant % of market rents at the time.  

Something to watch out for is that another change from "social" to "affordable" housing is that tenancies no longer need to be offered on a lifetime basis - they could be as little as 5 years.  A tenant offered a 5 year tenancy may well be able to renew their tenancy at the end of the term, but at this point the landlord has the opportunity to recalculate the rent.  Therefore I would try to get an answer to whether the these properties will be offered on lifetime or fixed-term tenancies, as this could affect not only people's security of tenure but what they ultimately pay to live there.


----------



## beeboo (Sep 26, 2012)

Incidentally Islington are the only borough in London that's trying to reject "affordable rent" outright - but they've got to fight BoJo to achieve it, and the only way they can make it work is to flog their own land to do it:

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/council-rejects-affordable-homes-programme/6522655.article


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

editor said:


> This is so important that we're looking to so a joint urban75/Brixton Blog/Brixton Buzz onslaught on this. The Blog are going to have a go at drafting up a piece which will then be posted here for checking over and editing (if needed).
> 
> There seems to be several levels of dodginess going on, so I think we need to join forces and get busy!


mate is trying to get hold of the origianl s106 agreement...which may take a few days. I feel a little unsighted on this until I can see that original document...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Then this sort of thing is hiding that stuff isn't working.
> 
> 
> 
> Are councils allowed to build new council housing? Or are they allowed but have so many constraints they can't?


 
No money, and no suitable financing mechanism. Most older council stock was built through local authorities borrowing on the money markets at the government rate, and having the repayment "guaranteed" by the Treasury. As that would effectively put new borrowing "on the books" in terms of Treasury liabilities, Osborne is as likely to allow it as he is to admit he's a whey-faced sneering cunt with a superiority complex.
That means that what they can build, at most, is dribs and drabs, unless they get in bed with developers, as they've done with Myatts Fields (they're planning to do on my estate if we don't stop them).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah I know what you mean. I don't think we'll ever see any new "council houses" built - just 'affordable housing' or 'association housing'. IIRC the law requires local authorities to build a certain amount of "social housing" but, as I understand it, the definition is loose enough to include a wide range of housing like part ownership etc. So not traditional council housing as we might imagine it.


 
The problem there being that no developer or group of developers have either the will or the desire to build even enough new housing to keep abreast of demand. A strain on supply equates to larger profits, and if the lack of supply happens to inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people, then so be it!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2012)

beeboo said:


> Just wanted to clarify something about the "affordable housing". "Affordable" rents are pretty much replacing "social" rents everywhere now, due to changes introduced by the current government (including slashing the grant funding available for building affordable housing massively).
> 
> So instead of social rents, which are calculated according to a complicated formula, we now have 'affordable rents' which are set at any level upto 80% of what that property would be worth to rent on the open market. I think the average in London so far has been 65% of open market rents, so the rents on this scheme are below average (but higher than the old social rents).
> 
> ...


 
This is very useful.

I did notice that the OMR % that Barratts have negoitiated with Officers is lower than the possible 80%.

I think Officers will argue that they have got the best deal they can. If this is refused Barratts would win on appeal.

Good point to ask about the tenancies on the "affordable" rented properties. Could argue that there should be clause in the Section 106 variation to cover this.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2012)

This has had more interest than I thought when I put up the photos.

Now seems Brixton Blog are interested as well.

Having read some of the docs I would say they will get the variation.

The weak point of Barratts argument lies in that fact that they have half built the Square before asking for a variation to the Section 106. If its so important to make the scheme viable then they should have sorted this out before starting works.

Also I think the issue of the gradual death of social housing is what makes people so annoyed at this. So its worth opposing this to make it known to Council that local people want affordable social rented housing. Also they want the Council to stand up to developers. So its a symbolic protest.

Its best that people put in there own comments. These count more to the planning committee. Its noted if the objections are all identical.

I will put up my own comments when Ive thought them out more.

Also you do not have to be expert on planning to do this. Just say what you feel about the loss of affordable social rented housing with secure tenancies. In an area that needs it.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No money, and no suitable financing mechanism. Most older council stock was built through local authorities borrowing on the money markets at the government rate, and having the repayment "guaranteed" by the Treasury. As that would effectively put new borrowing "on the books" in terms of Treasury liabilities, Osborne is as likely to allow it as he is to admit he's a whey-faced sneering cunt with a superiority complex.
> That means that what they can build, at most, is dribs and drabs, unless they get in bed with developers, as they've done with Myatts Fields (they're planning to do on my estate if we don't stop them).


 
'so many constraints' then. 

I do feel slightly sorry for councils stuck at the coal face of govt budget cuts and policies.


----------



## beeboo (Sep 26, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Also I think the issue of the gradual death of social housing is what makes people so annoyed at this. So its worth opposing this to make it known to Council that local people want affordable social rented housing. Also they want the Council to stand up to developers. So its a symbolic protest.


 
Also what is happening is generally poorly understood - it doesn't help that different language is used interchangeably - 'affordable housing' is a bit of a catch-all term which encompasses social housing as you knew it, but Affordable Rent is a specific thing which isn't Social Rent.  And the confusion is deliberately exploited by people on all sides to make their case which just deepens the confusion even further.

So symbolic or not if it helps raise people's awareness then that's a result in itself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> 'so many constraints' then.
> 
> I do feel slightly sorry for councils stuck at the coal face of govt budget cuts and policies.


 
Basically, since the early 1980s, Thatcher's government eroded away just about all the possibilities that local authorities had of raising money, generally by transferring the power away from local authorities, and toward central government, until most spending was mediated through central government, leaving local authorities as little more than tax collectors and asset managers.


----------



## Manter (Sep 26, 2012)

beeboo said:


> Contrary to what was said earlier, rents don't go up if local market rents go up - at least during the course of tenancy. Increases are capped in the same way as they are in social rented housing (which is RPI + 0.5%). However, when a new tenancy is started, rents are recalculated for the relevant % of market rents at the time.


While Grant Shapps backtracked from saying social tenancies should be 2 years as standard, the revised guidance is that 5 years is the 'norm' but 2 years is 'acceptable'. These are described as 'flexible secure tenancies' (as I said, badly written b-s-) but basically mean the landlord has the absolute right to change rents to the same tenants in the same property after the (short) protected period ends. (The word in the advice is 'mandatory possession at the end of the assured fixed term').  

So rents go up as market rates go up- while not quite as fast as in private renting where most contracts are 1 year, it still leaves your average low wage owner of benefits claimant in pretty serious trouble.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2012)

Manter said:


> While Grant Shapps backtracked from saying social tenancies should be 2 years as standard, the revised guidance is that 5 years is the 'norm' but 2 years is 'acceptable'. These are described as 'flexible secure tenancies' (as I said, badly written b-s-) but basically mean the landlord has the absolute right to change rents to the same tenants in the same property after the (short) protected period ends. (The word in the advice is 'mandatory possession at the end of the assured fixed term').
> 
> So rents go up as market rates go up- while not quite as fast as in private renting where most contracts are 1 year, it still leaves your average low wage owner of benefits claimant in pretty serious trouble.


 
So basically these Government reforms are not clear and its what happens on the ground that will define how they will work. All the more reason to complain then. 

I take it how these "reforms" will operate will also depend to some extent on how a Council responds?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2012)

editor said:


> This is so important that we're looking to do a joint urban75/Brixton Blog/Brixton Buzz onslaught on this. The Blog are going to have a go at drafting up a piece which will then be posted here for checking over and editing (if needed).
> 
> There seems to be several levels of dodginess going on, so I think we need to join forces and get busy!


 
One of which is found in Barrets agents letter to the Council on page 2 where reasons why the development is required:

"Provision of decanting flexibility during Somerleytons regeneration."

Which sounds like the Barrier Block possible demolition to me. As came up on the Brixton Green thread.


----------



## Manter (Sep 26, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> So basically these Government reforms are not clear and its what happens on the ground that will define how they will work. All the more reason to complain then.
> 
> I take it how these "reforms" will operate will also depend to some extent on how a Council responds?


Government reforms, unclear?  wash your mouth out...

Yeah- is complete chaos, and will largely be settled by precedent.  I believe one of the professors at Sheffield Hallam is doing some research into what it means in practice, and what <<actually>> happens across the country.

I have little confidence in Lambeth doing the right thing.  Not through ill intent necessarily, but I am increasingly of the opinion their policy and housing people aren't that bright.  With all due respect to any who post on here who I am sure are total geniuses, but my dealings with them have been pretty... depressing.


----------



## Manter (Sep 26, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Oh bugger. The covering letter for this latest application says:​​The proposal has evolved from detailed discussions with the Council's Housing Services. To this end, *the proposed changes in definitions and Affordable Housing Provider are now firmly supported by both Housing and Planning Officers*.​​​


​​I wouldn't put too much store in that.  If someone gave you coffee and didn't physically eject you from the building that counts as strong support.  Trust me, I know whereof I speak ​​


Crispy said:


> But, given the apparently chummy nature of the arrangement, I doubt that the objection will be strong enough. Worth a punt anyway. I've removed the "substantially reduces the total amount of affordable housing" bit from my email and sent it.


I've taken your text, amended so it looks like I wrote it and sent off... I am now in airports and hotels 'till after the deadline so thought best to get it off, tho will follow developments until I get back on here...


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2012)

The letter from Barratts agents says:

"The difficulties in delivering the approved scheme have been demonstrably complex and the financial environment has changed in ways that the developer and the Council could not have predicted in 2005 when discussions first took place." 

But Barratts took on the site and started work before demanding a variation to the Section 106. This letter is dated 6th September 2012.

If Barratts thought the the original scheme agreed back around 2005 was to difficult they should not have started work until they sorted this out. IMO the Council is within its rights to say to Barratts that they started this building work and so what will you do if we refuse to vary the Section 106? Stop work? Its Barratts problem.

Also officers should not have entered discussion post the start of building work. It is almost like this application to vary the Section 106 is just a formality.


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 26, 2012)

beeboo said:


> Contrary to what was said earlier, rents don't go up if local market rents go up - at least during the course of tenancy.  Increases are capped in the same way as they are in social rented housing (which is RPI + 0.5%).  However, when a new tenancy is started, rents are recalculated for the relevant % of market rents at the time.
> .



Is this definitely correct. I ask because I live in an intermediate market rent tenancy and there is none of the capping you describe. The rent has gone up nearly a third in two years.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2012)

Manter said:


> Government reforms, unclear? wash your mouth out...
> 
> Yeah- is complete chaos, and will largely be settled by precedent. I believe one of the professors at Sheffield Hallam is doing some research into what it means in practice, and what <<actually>> happens across the country.
> 
> I have little confidence in Lambeth doing the right thing. Not through ill intent necessarily, but I am increasingly of the opinion their policy and housing people aren't that bright. With all due respect to any who post on here who I am sure are total geniuses, but my dealings with them have been pretty... depressing.


 
I notice in the Barratts agent letter he mentions one precedent in Lambeth already. 

Big companies like Barratts imo opinion run rings around Lambeth. Some of us saw it when Tescos demanded an alteration to there agreement in Streatham.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 26, 2012)

CH1 said:


> The same thing in Spain by the way - just giving back the flat keys to the bank does NOT extinguish the mortgage.





Rushy said:


> Same in UK.


Yes, but in the UK and in Spain you can go bankrupt, which is eventually discharged so you can earn again.


----------



## Manter (Sep 26, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> Is this definitely correct. I ask because I live in an intermediate market rent tenancy and there is none of the capping you describe. The rent has gone up nearly a third in two years.


What a nightmare... but not surprised.  My info comes from someone living in a similar house in North London- near Finsbury Park.  She has not had capping either...though she will apparently now get capping for 2 years and then HUGE increases.


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 26, 2012)

Manter said:


> What a nightmare... but not surprised. My info comes from someone living in a similar house in North London- near Finsbury Park. She has not had capping either...though she will apparently now get capping for 2 years and then HUGE increases.


 
It's shit, and your poor friend. 'Don't worry, we're letting the really terrible pain hang over your head for two years'. My HA reckons it's been caring as they only put the rent up by £70 quid a month this year when they could have put it up by more!  We're at least both in decent employment but still looking at leaving the area - which has gradually turned into leaving London - but I know some of my neighbours are deeply struggling.

I'd definitely say that forum members should resist this form of 'social' housing. It's definitely a step above the private market, and I'm really pleased to have got to live in this place for nearly a decade, but it's no substitution for genuine housing provision and no solution for the most in need.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> This is so important that we're looking to do a joint urban75/Brixton Blog/Brixton Buzz onslaught on this. The Blog are going to have a go at drafting up a piece which will then be posted here for checking over and editing (if needed).
> 
> There seems to be several levels of dodginess going on, so I think we need to join forces and get busy!


 
you'd be as well going to the local press, the specialist housing press and/or private eye if you think there is any kind of actual dodginess here.

i went to private eye with something recently, presented them with a gift wrapped story and they ran it the next week.

nothing wrong with what you are doing but if it is just this tactic and the letters you run the risk of being easily dismissed as the usual suspects moaning on the internet to each other and not bringing wider pressure

just my tuppence worth 

good luck anyway because this kind of stuff is shit.


----------



## Manter (Sep 27, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> We're at least both in decent employment but still looking at leaving the area - which has gradually turned into leaving London - but I know some of my neighbours are deeply struggling.


 
kind of off topic, but I do find it staggering that people on more than the national average wage struggle to live in London.  I know the national average wage is spectacularly low, but lots of people earn it... we see to be pricing a professional generation out of the capital, let alone the low paid.

No idea what he answer is, and not much more than a despairing wail, but still....


----------



## Crispy (Sep 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> No idea what he answer is


Build more housing. Lots more. Council housing, private housing, mixed ownership, all of it. Medium density (like this development, actually) on every brownfield site we can find.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 27, 2012)

Dan U said:


> i went to private eye with something recently, presented them with a gift wrapped story and they ran it the next week.


 
Good work!


----------



## beeboo (Sep 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> While Grant Shapps backtracked from saying social tenancies should be 2 years as standard, the revised guidance is that 5 years is the 'norm' but 2 years is 'acceptable'. These are described as 'flexible secure tenancies' (as I said, badly written b-s-) but basically mean the landlord has the absolute right to change rents to the same tenants in the same property after the (short) protected period ends. (The word in the advice is 'mandatory possession at the end of the assured fixed term').
> 
> So rents go up as market rates go up- while not quite as fast as in private renting where most contracts are 1 year, it still leaves your average low wage owner of benefits claimant in pretty serious trouble.


 
The guidance says 2 years should only be "exceptional" circumstances (although what constitutes exceptional isn't really defined) - in my experience so far people seem to be offering at least 5 years (but it's early days).

Agree that it's important though which is why I flagged it - it's not just the rents that are important, the tenure is as well.


----------



## beeboo (Sep 27, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> Is this definitely correct. I ask because I live in an intermediate market rent tenancy and there is none of the capping you describe. The rent has gone up nearly a third in two years.


 
I don't know that much about the intermediate market - as I understand it a lot of intermediate rent was cooked up as a solution to deal with shared ownership properties that wouldn't sell and I don't think the tenancies you get have the same security you'd get under social rent (or even under affordable rent). There might be other forms of intermediate rent I'm not familiar with. But either way different rules apply here so it doesn't mean to say there aren't caps on affordable rent increases.

Just illustrates the ridiculous terminology again. "Intermediate" is different to "affordable" which is different to "social", but then "affordable" is sometimes used to describe any of the above. Oh and affordable rents could be more than intermediate but also could be less than social. Clear as mud.


----------



## beeboo (Sep 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> Yeah- is complete chaos, and will largely be settled by precedent. I believe one of the professors at Sheffield Hallam is doing some research into what it means in practice, and what <<actually>> happens across the country.


 
Not aware of this...would be v interested if this is the case. I know the Sheffield Hallam guys are doing work on related subjects but not on this issue (the new approach to rents/tenancies) specifically.

(I work in this field, if you hadn't deduced that already  )


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2012)

Went by Brixton Square this morning and the notice about the application has been taken down. Good thing I took a photo.

Will email planning. It says on notice that it should only be taken down after the 26th October.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Here's a proposed joint statement, put together by the BB:



> Urban 75, Brixton Buzz and Brixton Blog are partnering to protest against Barratt Homes’ application to allow the conversion to ‘affordable rent’ tenure of 13 social rent flats at its new development, ‘Brixton Square’, on Coldharbour Lane. While a social rent would be fixed, affordable rent means the tenant would pay roughly 55% of what a private tenant would pay. As gentrification continues apace in Brixton and property prices rise, this will make it increasingly difficult for low income tenants to live in the town centre and it is therefore extra important to conserve social rented properties at the heart of Brixton. Alongside new housing benefit caps and changes to benefit rules, Brixton is in danger of becoming a playground for those who can afford it alone. Barratt Homes got permission to build the so-called ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing – we have seen this before with Tesco in Streatham and we will not stand for Barratt dropping that deal now they have built the development.
> 
> The reference for this planning application is 12/03393/S106. Comments on the planning application can be made until October 4 - they should be your individual comments as that will have more power in the planners' eyes - and a link to our petition is here (LINK)


 
Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!


----------



## colacubes (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Here's a proposed joint statement, put together by the BB:
> 
> 
> 
> Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!


 
I think it's good.  I'd lose 'the so-called' in the last sentence of the first para, because you don't really need it and it sounds a bit sarcy.  Which I know it is, but for a statement like this it's not going to help.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Here's a proposed joint statement, put together by the BB:
> 
> 
> 
> Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!


 
The date for comments is 26th October- see my photo of the notice in #152


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Went by Brixton Square this morning and the notice about the application has been taken down. Good thing I took a photo.


I went looking for it yesterday and it had already gone. Surely there's some legal obligation for it the notice to be visible for a certain length of time?


----------



## Dan U (Sep 27, 2012)

my only issue with it would be this bit



> Brixton is in danger of becoming a playground for those who can afford it alone


 
given that this is being co-authored by a website that advertises the playground (brixton buzz) and a website which carries advertising for some of the new eateries playing a part in changing the face of brixton (brixton blog)

you could be accused of wanting to have your cake and eat it/and just having the usual bitch about hipsters, albeit in coded language.

i would probably say something more like this 'Lambeth is in danger of restricting access to housing and changing the demographics of central brixton through subtle amendments to previously made planning agreements'

just imo

eta - although that is considerably less snappy

eta2 - to correct brixton blog for brixton buzz, sorry ed. honest mistake


----------



## Winot (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!


 
I would amend the last bit to say:



> Barratt Homes got permission to build the so-called ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing *and should not be allowed to break that promise.  *Wwe have seen this before with Tesco in Streatham and we will not stand for Barratt dropping that *their *deal now they have built the development.


 
Was it the same thing in Streatham with Tesco's, i.e. social rent > affordable rent?  If it wasn't exactly the same but was another s.106 variation then I'd say



> Wwe have seen this agreements of this type broken before with *by* Tesco in Streatham and we will not stand for Barratt dropping that *their *deal now they have built the development.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Dan U said:


> given that this is being co-authored by a website that advertises the playground (brixton buzz) and a website which carries advertising for some of the new eateries playing a part in changing the face of brixton (brixton buzz)


Brixton Buzz is a listings site, with most of the events being for long-serving local venues. In fact, we focus on the smaller, less well known venues, like the 414, Hand In Hand etc., and rarely - if ever - cover hipster jollies. To say we're only here to advertise the "playground" is something of a unpleasant misrepresentation. There's always been club nights and gigs in Brixton.

We don't carry any advertising.

*edit to add: if you want to argue the toss on this, please start a new thread because it would be unfair to disrupt this one.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Brixton Buzz is a listings site, with most of the events being for long-serving local venues. In fact, we focus on the smaller, less well known venues, like the 414, Hand In Hand etc., and rarely - if ever - cover hipster jollies. To say we're only here to advertise the "playground" is something of a unpleasant misrepresentation. There's always been club nights and gigs in Brixton.
> 
> We don't carry any advertising.


 
i didn't say you carried advertising and i didn't say you only advertise the 'playground'.

so no misrepresentation at all then.

anyway, it was just a view. other views are available.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Dan U said:


> i didn't say you carried advertising and i didn't say you only advertise the 'playground'.
> 
> so no misrepresentation at all then.


Um, you said....





Dan U said:


> given that this is being co-authored *by a website that advertises the playground (brixton buzz)* and a website which *carries advertising* for some of the new eateries playing a part in changing the face of brixton *(brixton buzz)*


----------



## Dan U (Sep 27, 2012)

i have been hoist by own petard, the last bit re advertising was meant to be Brixton Blog.

I will go back and re-edit

and i wasn't implying you only advertise hipster stuff, because you don't but for a website called 'brixton buzz' which carries a lot of listings to be complaining about the conversion of brixton to a 'playground' could seem a bit odd.

it's just my opinion on one part of your message, thats all. i'm not criticising what you are trying to achieve.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Dan U said:


> and i wasn't implying you only advertise hipster stuff, because you don't but for a website called 'brixton buzz' which carries a lot of listings to be complaining about the conversion of brixton to a 'playground' could seem a bit odd.


I think you need to take a look at what listings Brixton Buzz actually carries.

Anyway, please start another thread if you wish to pursue this supposed 'oddness'.


----------



## Brixton Blog (Sep 27, 2012)

Hi all, thanks for these changes -- I'll make them tonight (and any more that come in) and send them onto Ed again. @Gramsci > thanks for correction on dates for comments. Zx


----------



## Manter (Sep 27, 2012)

beeboo said:


> Not aware of this...would be v interested if this is the case. I know the Sheffield Hallam guys are doing work on related subjects but not on this issue (the new approach to rents/tenancies) specifically.
> 
> (I work in this field, if you hadn't deduced that already  )


I will try and find his name- it was mentioned to me by a very leftie arts professor last week. But I wasn't really listening as he had managed to mention dialectical materialism twice and I was trying not to either yawn or laugh


----------



## Manter (Sep 27, 2012)

beeboo said:


> The guidance says 2 years should only be "exceptional" circumstances (although what constitutes exceptional isn't really defined) - in my experience so far people seem to be offering at least 5 years (but it's early days).
> 
> Agree that it's important though which is why I flagged it - it's not just the rents that are important, the tenure is as well.


 London is by definition exceptional


----------



## Dan U (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> I think you need to take a look at what listings Brixton Buzz actually carries.
> 
> Anyway, please start another thread if you wish to pursue this supposed 'oddness'.


 
why would i start another thread? it is solely relevant to this topic 

anyway. point is made. will sign your petition when you get it up


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> I went looking for it yesterday and it had already gone. Surely there's some legal obligation for it the notice to be visible for a certain length of time?


 
I am going to email planning about it this evening. It should stay up until the date for comments has passed.

Its a bit strange it dissappeared. Normally they just get left up.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2012)

Dan U said:


> i would probably say something more like this 'Lambeth is in danger of restricting access to housing and changing the demographics of central brixton through subtle amendments to previously made planning agreements'


 
Leaving Dan U other comments aside I think this sounds better than saying "playground for those who can afford it alone". I do not think anyone can argue with the above. It is the nub of the issue. And if they do they are going to have to argue the case. Saying playground for those who can afford would allow the argument to be derailed as it almost was on this thread.

Id say this:

"Lambeth , if it allows this variation , will set a precedent for other large schemes in central Brixton in the future. Lambeth Council is in danger of allowing the demographics of central Brixton to be changed by allowing a definition of affordability in Section 106 agreements that is not in fact affordable when compared to social rented property."

The reason I put in the wording about other large schemes is because in the Brixton Masterplan there will be large schemes coming up in the future.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Here's a proposed joint statement, put together by the BB:
> 
> 
> 
> Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!


 
Id also say a social rent with a secure lifetime tenancy. Unlike as has been pointed out fixed term tenancies that appear to go with these new reforms. Also put in comment about the fact that the new "affordable" regime also is likely to mean fixed term tenancies of 2 to 5 years. After which the rent can be put up dramatically again.


----------



## beeboo (Sep 27, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Id also say a social rent with a secure lifetime tenancy. Unlike as has been pointed out fixed term tenancies that appear to go with these new reforms. Also put in comment about the fact that the new "affordable" regime also is likely to mean fixed term tenancies of 2 to 5 years. After which the rent can be put up dramatically again.


 
Good point but I might avoid mentioning 2 yrs a) because it's v unlikely and b) because in a negotiation sense it sets the bar low


----------



## beeboo (Sep 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> I will try and find his name- it was mentioned to me by a very leftie arts professor last week. But I wasn't really listening as he had managed to mention dialectical materialism twice and I was trying not to either yawn or laugh


 
Imagine he was probably talking about the work Paul Hickman's doing for DWP on Universal Credit /housing benefit payments, but I might be wrong.  Anyway, sorry a bit of a diversion.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2012)

Does someone fancy a go at putting all the edits together and posting up the final(ish) version?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Here's a proposed joint statement, put together by the BB:
> 
> 
> 
> Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!


 
Also change the sentence starting "Whilst a social rent would be fixed" to;

"Whilst a social rent would be fixed, an "affordable" rent means the tenant would pay roughly 55% of the Open Market Rent for the local area. Which is liable to go up over time. "

The following sentence about increasing cost of living in central Brixton ( gentrification) makes more sense then. The issue about so called "affordable" rent is that its linked to rent of area. How I do not know. There are some posting up here who know more. Anyone know how its calculated?


----------



## Dan U (Sep 27, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Leaving Dan U other comments aside I think this sounds better than saying "playground for those who can afford it alone". I do not think anyone can argue with the above. It is the nub of the issue. And if they do they are going to have to argue the case. Saying playground for those who can afford would allow the argument to be derailed as it almost was on this thread.
> 
> Id say this:
> 
> ...


 
you put it much better than i managed, thanks


----------



## wtfftw (Sep 27, 2012)

beeboo said:


> Incidentally Islington are the only borough in London that's trying to reject "affordable rent" outright - but they've got to fight BoJo to achieve it, and the only way they can make it work is to flog their own land to do it:
> 
> http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/council-rejects-affordable-homes-programme/6522655.article


Interesting. Their response to the changes in LHA has been to refer people to a homelessness charity.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> I went looking for it yesterday and it had already gone. Surely there's some legal obligation for it the notice to be visible for a certain length of time?


 
Ive emailed planning about this with copy of my photo.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Does someone fancy a go at putting all the edits together and posting up the final(ish) version?


 
If Brixton Blog could do this please.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2012)

The last thing I thought of that could go into the U75/ BB/ B buzz statement is that the provider of the rented units should be an RSL as it states in the original Section 106 and the Section 106 should not to be changed to widen the RSL definition to include Affordable Housing Providers. Which is in effect private for profit landlords.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 28, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> The last thing I thought of that could go into the U75/ BB/ B buzz statement is that the provider of the rented units should be an RSL as it states in the original Section 106 and the Section 106 should not to be changed to widen the RSL definition to include Affordable Housing Providers. Which is in effect private for profit landlords.


This is crucial - it's not just about the 13 units as described in Ed's original statement, as I understand it. It's about watering down *all* the elements of social/affordable housing in the development. Mentioning "13 units" makes it sound like a minor problem - I think that reference to "13" should be removed.

It might also be worth making the following points:
- The original s106 agreement doesn't appear to be available anywhere on the web - how can we compare the variation with the original if the application is incomplete? It's almost as if they're trying to sneak this through without anyone noticing.

- It's a bloody cheek the developer is claiming the development might not be viable without these changes. They're either really bad at maths (unlikely) or they're trying to extract max profit by watering down their statutory commitments. Wealthy developers are sitting on huge swathes of unused land around the country - the reason they aren't building much at the moment is because they're waiting for prices to rise. It's all about profit for them - hence trying to water down social housing provision, which is less profitable for them.



Crispy said:


> Build more housing. Lots more. Council housing, private housing, mixed ownership, all of it. Medium density (like this development, actually) on every brownfield site we can find.


And massive taxes on empty land which is being sat upon by developers (and supermarkets.)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 28, 2012)

And to reiterate, if you want to object, click here and log in to make a comment:

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MAA4WOBO0GL00

case reference: 12/03393/S106

As Gramsci described earlier, you don't need to go into massive detail - just click on the button saying that you object and describe your reasons (e.g. watering down the social housing provision, making it more expensive, making tenancies shorter and less secure, question why should a retrospective change be allowed etc.)


----------



## Brixton Blog (Sep 28, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> If Brixton Blog could do this please.


Re-edited version coming in just a moment!
Z


----------



## Brixton Blog (Sep 28, 2012)

Hi all, 

Comments combined into a version below. If OK, I will publish on the site by 3pm this afternoon (is that an OK deadline?) and also will start up an e-petition (NB. This will count as one objection to a planning application). I will also link to Section 106 explanation, since lots of people won't know what that is  Thanks to Brixton Hatter, Gramsci, Dan U, niplsa, beeboo, editor (and anyone else I've missed out) for making it a lot better. 

_Urban 75, Brixton Buzz and Brixton Blog are partnering to protest against Barratt Homes’ application to allow the conversion to ‘affordable rent’ tenure of 13 social rent flats at its new development, ‘Brixton Square’, on Coldharbour Lane. _

_While a social rent would be fixed with a secure lifetime tenancy, an ‘affordable’ rent means the tenant would pay roughly 55% of the open market rent for the local area, which is liable to go up over time.  As gentrification continues apace in Brixton and property prices rise, this will make it increasingly difficult for low income tenants to live in the town centre. Affordable tenancies are also likely to mean fixed term contracts, after which the rent can be put up again. It is therefore extra important to conserve social rented properties at the heart of Brixton. _

_Lambeth, if it allows this variation, will set a precedent for other large schemes in central Brixton in the future. Lambeth Council is in danger of allowing the demographics of central Brixton to be changed by allowing a definition of affordability in Section 106 agreements that is not in fact  affordable when compared to social rented property. _

_Barratt Homes got permission to build the ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing and should not be allowed to break that promise. We have seen agreements of this type broken before by Tesco in Streatham and we will not stand for Barratt dropping their deal now that they have built the development.
_
_We also urge the council to ensure that the provider of the rented units is a registered social landlord, as is stated in the original Section 106. The Section 106 agreement should not be changed to widen this to include affordable housing providers, which are in effect private, for-profit landlords. _

_The original Section 106 agreement does not appear to be available anywhere on the web – we call for transparency on this point as it is necessary to see exactly what variation on the original agreement Barratt Homes wishes to make. _

_Developers like Barratt Homes claim that developments are less financially viable with social rented units included. Unlike developers, however, we are concerned more for our community than big profits, and we hope this is the case with Lambeth’s planners too. _
_
The reference for this planning application is 12/03393/S106. Comments on the planning application can be made until October 26 - they should be your individual comments as that will have more power in the planners' eyes - and a link to our petition is here (LINK)_


----------



## colacubes (Sep 28, 2012)

That looks good to me


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 28, 2012)

Many thanks, good stuff. I've suggested some amends in bold here. Feel free to use/change them as you wish 



Brixton Blog said:


> _Urban 75, Brixton Buzz and Brixton Blog are partnering to protest against Barratt Homes’ application to *water down the provision of social and affordable housing, including *the conversion to ‘affordable rent’ tenure of 13 social rent flats*,* at its new development ‘Brixton Square’, on Coldharbour Lane. _
> 
> _While a social rent would be fixed with a secure lifetime tenancy, an ‘affordable’ rent means the tenant would pay roughly 55% of the open market rent for the local area, which is liable to go up over time. As gentrification continues apace in Brixton and property prices rise, this will make it increasingly difficult for low income tenants to live in the town centre. Affordable tenancies are also likely to mean fixed term contracts *(rather than longer-term security)*, after which the rent can be put up again. It is therefore extra important to conserve social rented properties at the heart of Brixton. _
> 
> ...


----------



## Brixton Blog (Sep 28, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Many thanks, good stuff. I've suggested some amends in bold here. Feel free to use/change them as you wish


Great, thanks - will change those x


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2012)

Just a question on details but _did_ Barratt homes get the original permission? I may be wrong but thought planning was sought by Places for People and then sold on to Barratt last year? Applications as recent as Sep 2011 (and maybe later) are in the name Places for People. Regardless of whether it is right to have the s106 removed, Barratt are seeking changes to a planning application that they played no part in getting so the comparisons to Tesco in Streatham Hub don't seem quite right. It would be a shame if the protest could be dismissed as uninformed or alarmist on that technicality.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2012)

Good point.


----------



## Brixton Blog (Sep 28, 2012)

thanks Rushy - very good point - if so, it would be worth changing the angle/wording re: Tesco and focus more on protesting against the variation from s106.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2012)

I think that would be good. There is nothing wrong with challenging s106 agreements post or mid-construction per se - they are sometimes badly worded, impractical or have become obsolete. It is the nature of this particular s106 which is the issue.

Barratt's argument can be read here. Click on documents and then covering letter.

They seem to simply be arguing that the s106 makes the project unviable. Not a strong argument given they only purchased the site last year (any conditions should have been reflected in the transaction price) and they are steaming ahead with building.

There is reference to "decanting of Somerleyton".


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 28, 2012)

Why not discuss it over canapés ?

Email from Barratt's:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come to the exclusive launch of Brixton Square on Thursday 4th October

Join us for canapés and refreshments between 4pm and 8pm at the exclusive launch of Brixton Square. This exciting new collection of bespoke apartments is situated adjacent to the fashionable Brixton Village and just a short walk from the wide range of shops and fantastic bars, clubs and restaurants in the heart of Brixton.

•1 and 2 bedroom apartments, most with balcony or terrace
•Duplex apartments with barrel vaulted ceilings
•Landscaped courtyard and roof gardens
•Just a five minute* walk to Brixton tube station (zone 2)
•Be in Oxford Circus in 13 minutes†
•Ready to move into summer 2013

Prices from £262,000
Coldharbour Lane, Brixton SW9 8PL 

Visit our website or call 0845 539 0038 for further details.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 28, 2012)

£262000 for a one bedroom flat eh? Bargain.


----------



## Brixton Blog (Sep 28, 2012)

I have taken out bit about Tesco and included info on Places for People:
_Urban 75, Brixton Buzz and Brixton Blog are partnering to protest against Barratt Homes’ application to water down the provision of social and affordable housing, including the conversion to ‘affordable rent’ tenure of 13 social rent flats, at its new development ‘Brixton Square’, on Coldharbour Lane. _

_While a social rent would be fixed with a secure lifetime tenancy, an ‘affordable’ rent means the tenant would pay roughly 55% of the open market rent for the local area, which is liable to go up over time. As gentrification continues apace in Brixton and property prices rise, this will make it increasingly difficult for low income tenants to live in the town centre. Affordable tenancies are also likely to mean fixed term contracts (rather than longer-term security), after which the rent can be put up again. It is therefore extra important to conserve social rented properties at the heart of Brixton. _

_Lambeth, if it allows this variation, will set a precedent for other large schemes in central Brixton in the future. Lambeth Council is in danger of allowing the demographics of central Brixton to be changed by allowing a definition of affordability in Section 106 agreements that is not in fact affordable when compared to social rented property. _

_Permission was originally given to Places for People to build the ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing. Barratt Homes then bought the site in the knowledge of this and should not be allowed to break that promise. _

_We also urge the council to ensure that the provider of the rented units is a registered social landlord, as is stated in the original Section 106. The Section 106 agreement should not be changed to widen this to include affordable housing providers, which are in effect private, for-profit landlords. _

_Developers like Barratt Homes claim that developments are less financially viable with social rented units included. Unlike developers, however, we are concerned more for our community than big profits, and we hope this is the case with Lambeth’s planners too. _

_The reference for this planning application is 12/03393/S106. Comments on the planning application can be made until October 26 - they should be your individual comments as that will have more power in the planners' eyes - and a link to our petition is here (LINK)_


----------



## LambethWeeknder (Sep 28, 2012)

Just spoke to Barratt - they said there's 48 affordable flats and 107 private. It's just gone up from 38 to 48.


----------



## LambethWeeknder (Sep 28, 2012)

Barratt's are in charge of the private flats and a housing assoc the social housing - just finding out which one


----------



## beeboo (Sep 28, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> The last thing I thought of that could go into the U75/ BB/ B buzz statement is that the provider of the rented units should be an RSL as it states in the original Section 106 and the Section 106 should not to be changed to widen the RSL definition to include Affordable Housing Providers. Which is in effect private for profit landlords.


 
I don't think it's that simple.  They're trying to widen the scope from the original which defined RSL as being registered with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). However, these days you can be registered with the HCA and still be a private for-profit landlord (there was a rumour that a supermarket was registering with the HCA).   And you can be unregistered and not-for-profit. So it's not a clear distinction between profit/non-profit.

I think the variation might be something to do with the fact the HCA's powers in London have recently been passed to the GLA, so theoretically providers in London might not need to be HCA registered.  I think this might just be a technicality but admittedly this isn't exactly my area of expertise.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2012)

I've only really skim read their application and it seems to be arguing that the economic climate has affected project viability. I would say something like this:

_Permission was originally given to Places for People to build the ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing. Barratt Homes then bought the site in the knowledge of this and should not be allowed to break that promise._

Barratt's application to remove the s106 points out that the original discussions for the site (by original developers People for Places) date back to 2005 since when the financial environment has changed. They also cite deflated private housing markets as an obstacle to development viability. Whilst parts of the economy are undoubtedly struggling in a way that was not forseeable in 2005 it is worth highlighting the fact that, according to the Land Registry House Price Index, average flat / maisonette prices In Lambeth for 08/2012 are currently indexing 143 against 08/2005. Notwithstanding, Barratt only purchased the site from the original developer last year and would have been well aware of the moribund financial climate when calculating the site value. Despite the prevailing economic gloom, the same Land Registry figures show that flat / maisonette prices are currently 8% higher than they were at this time last year when the deal was negotiated as well as 8% higher than they were at the peak of the market in August 2007. Furthermore the latest Findaproperty.com rental price index is showing inflation of 9.3% year on year Q1 2012. ​


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2012)

Economic gloom? In Brixton!


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> £262000 for a one bedroom flat eh? Bargain.


I'll take two please.


----------



## Brixton Blog (Sep 28, 2012)

Hi all, will wait until a bit more info on this cleared up and go for Monday, as best to be accurate.Though we will try to write a small news story on it over the w/e.

The following press release was sent to me today:
SITUATED in Brixton, a thriving area of South West London within Zone 2, Barratt’s Brixton Square is within quick and easy reach of central London. This development of 107 one and two-bedroom apartments with balconies is a five minute walk from both Brixton underground and overground stations.  With prices starting at £265,000, homes at Brixton Square are expected to be very popular.

Thanks to the government-backed NewBuy scheme, those qualifying can purchase a one-bedroom flat with a deposit as low as £13,250.

Off plan sales at the development will launch at the end of September, with first completions scheduled from June 2013.

Brixton Square, a brand new development on the site of a former warehouse, borders Brixton Village, a vibrant indoor market that offers fresh market produce as well as high quality restaurants, bars and shops. Some of the popular names in food that have flagship restaurants within the market are Honest Burger and Mama Lan, the latter of which appeared in Channel 4’s Gok cooks Chinese. There is also a wide selection of independent shops and delis such as Cannon & Cannon, the British cheese and charcuterie and Market Row Wines. Entertainment in the area includes the popular Ritzy cinema and Brixton o2 Academy. 

Connections to Victoria via the Victoria line are within seven minutes and The City can be reached in under twenty minutes.  


Gary Patrick, regional sales director, comments: 

“Brixton Square is very convenient for young professionals working in the City, with a commute of under twenty minutes by underground. And Brixton Village, an excellent place for meeting friends and shopping, is on the doorstep.  

“And living at Brixton Square is affordable thanks to NewBuy, offering a real opportunity for those renting in the area to step onto the property ladder.”


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2012)

They can't even get the basic facts right.

Brixton Square is NOT on the site of a former warehouse. It is on the site of the old unemployment office/Cooltan squat and Voice offices.

I'm sure their original literature said flats were going to be from £250,000.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 28, 2012)

i love this line



> Thanks to the government-backed NewBuy scheme, those qualifying can purchase a one-bedroom flat with a deposit as low as £13,250.


 
that is still 5% of the full ticket price for a basic flat. I know a lot of the talk is (rightly) about the setting of social rents and length of tenancys but if low income people did want to buy, getting that kind of money together for a blinking one bed flat is bonkers and is certainly not worth of a 'from low as' and pretending like anyone is being done a favour.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2012)

Rushy said:


> Just a question on details but _did_ Barratt homes get the original permission? I may be wrong but thought planning was sought by Places for People and then sold on to Barratt last year? Applications as recent as Sep 2011 (and maybe later) are in the name Places for People. Regardless of whether it is right to have the s106 removed, Barratt are seeking changes to a planning application that they played no part in getting so the comparisons to Tesco in Streatham Hub don't seem quite right. It would be a shame if the protest could be dismissed as uninformed or alarmist on that technicality.


 
But my understanding is that Barratts bought the site with the planning application that Places for People obtained. It got passed onto them. This made the site more valuable. It also meant that Barratts could start building. The Section 106 went with the site.

It is not unusual for someone to sell on a site with the current planning permission.

They played no part in getting the planning permission but they benefit from it being in place when they acquired the site. It would have been reflected in the value of the site.

The ploughed ahead with building works then started moaning about the onerous Section 106. There problem as far as Im concerned.

It irrelevant whether they got the original permission.

And the other thing is that this is about what local people feel about the demise of Social rented housing with secure tenancies. The whole point of using Section 106 agreements was to make sure that social rented really affordable housing was available on large private developments. Its a political issue. There should be a social mix in local neighbourhoods. Cleaners should live next to City professionals.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2012)

Brixton Blog said:


> Connections to Victoria via the Victoria line are within seven minutes and The City can be reached in under twenty minutes.
> 
> 
> Gary Patrick, regional sales director, comments:
> ...


 
FFS it used to be that those selling in Brixton went for the media/ creatives/ advertising crowd. This is going for the City boys. They have more money that creatives. Especially as the industry has been bailed out by Government.


----------



## boohoo (Sep 28, 2012)

Brixton Blog said:


> Brixton Square, a brand new development on the site of a former warehouse, borders Brixton Village, a vibrant indoor market that offers fresh market produce as well as high quality restaurants, bars and shops. Some of the popular names in food that have flagship restaurants within the market are Honest Burger and Mama Lan, the latter of which appeared in Channel 4’s Gok cooks Chinese. There is also a wide selection of independent shops and delis such as Cannon & Cannon, the British cheese and charcuterie and Market Row Wines. Entertainment in the area includes the popular Ritzy cinema and Brixton o2 Academy.


 
They only mention the recent delis and independent shops  Some of the older places like Rosies have been successful for a long time.

(Next bit is a little off topic)

Here is my favourite, so far, RSL advertisement for places on Effra Road.

http://www.lqgroup.org.uk/_assets/files/Effra-Rd-Brochure-FNL.pdf

The front page pics on the Brochure are of McDonalds and the Underground because these _are_ the most important things in Brixton! The next images are of a street in Shoreditch (because none of our possibly look any good) some fruit and veg, a random pond and the Brixton Academy (and when it was a Carling Academy which is awhile ago).

You can only apply if you live in Lambeth yet the brochure explains what Brixton is like...


----------



## beeboo (Sep 29, 2012)

Dan U said:


> i love this line
> 
> that is still 5% of the full ticket price for a basic flat. I know a lot of the talk is (rightly) about the setting of social rents and length of tenancys but if low income people did want to buy, getting that kind of money together for a blinking one bed flat is bonkers and is certainly not worth of a 'from low as' and pretending like anyone is being done a favour.


 
The problem there isn't that they're asking for a 5% deposit, it's that it's 5% of a stupidly large sum of money, which reflects how insane house prices are in London.  

Typical deposits for first time buyers are about 20%, which has been averaging out at something like £60,000 in London, which is just an unthinkable amount of money for pretty much anyone who is relying on saving from their income to build a deposit.

So yeah, it really is "from as low as...", nuts as it sounds.  This NewBuy scheme is one of the only ways you can buy with a 5% deposit at moment, because ordinary 95% LTV mortgages are all but non-existant.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I've only really skim read their application and it seems to be arguing that the economic climate has affected project viability. I would say something like this:
> 
> _Permission was originally given to Places for People to build the ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing. Barratt Homes then bought the site in the knowledge of this and should not be allowed to break that promise._
> 
> Barratt's application to remove the s106 points out that the original discussions for the site (by original developers People for Places) date back to 2005 since when the financial environment has changed. They also cite deflated private housing markets as an obstacle to development viability. Whilst parts of the economy are undoubtedly struggling in a way that was not forseeable in 2005 it is worth highlighting the fact that, according to the Land Registry House Price Index, average flat / maisonette prices In Lambeth for 08/2012 are currently indexing 143 against 08/2005. Notwithstanding, Barratt only purchased the site from the original developer last year and would have been well aware of the moribund financial climate when calculating the site value. Despite the prevailing economic gloom, the same Land Registry figures show that flat / maisonette prices are currently 8% higher than they were at this time last year when the deal was negotiated as well as 8% higher than they were at the peak of the market in August 2007. Furthermore the latest Findaproperty.com rental price index is showing inflation of 9.3% year on year Q1 2012. ​


 
Actually this is useful background info to Barratts whinging about the viability of scheme.

Though I do not think Barratts are saying its not the private sales that are affected. My reading is that they do not think its possible to get a traditional RSL interested in acquiring 13 flats for social rent in the present economic climate.

What I am not clear on is whether Barratts would be obliged to sell the 13 flats to an RSL at a lower price than market price? I do not know how the system works on these Section 106 agreements.

As Brixton Hatter said the original Section 106 would be useful to see.

A lot of there argument is that the environment and funding for "affordable" housing providers has changed radically in since the original Section 106. So from Barratts point of view they are reasonably working with officers to find a solution that works. Otherwise the flats would be left empty.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2012)

beeboo said:


> I don't think it's that simple. They're trying to widen the scope from the original which defined RSL as being registered with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). However, these days you can be registered with the HCA and still be a private for-profit landlord (there was a rumour that a supermarket was registering with the HCA). And you can be unregistered and not-for-profit. So it's not a clear distinction between profit/non-profit.
> 
> .


 
Yes it something Barratts imply in there covering letter. They go in detail into the changing face of "affordable" housing providers.

I suppose what I really want is traditional RSL Housing Associations who build houses/ flats for a secure tenancy with a social rent not one linked to private rents for the area. . But they are increasingly behaving more like developers due to the financial system they work under now.

The increasing lack of a clear distinction is exactly what this ( and up to a point the last ) government have been moving towards.


----------



## Manter (Sep 30, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> FFS it used to be that those selling in Brixton went for the media/ creatives/ advertising crowd. This is going for the City boys. They have more money that creatives. Especially as the industry has been bailed out by Government.


City big cheeses will still live in Hampstead, and junior city types don't earn anything like what they are rumoured to. This is aimed squarely at the buy to let brigade- persuading them Brixton is a safe place for suits


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2012)

Manter said:


> City big cheeses will still live in Hampstead, and junior city types don't earn anything like what they are rumoured to. This is aimed squarely at the buy to let brigade- persuading them Brixton is a safe place for suits


 
You could be right. I noticed that Barratts say on the link that the flats would be good for buy to let use.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 1, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> You could be right. I noticed that Barratts say on the link that the flats would be good for buy to let use.


 
Of course, if you have the necessary deposit, it's cheaper to own than rent, apparently


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Of course, if you have the necessary deposit, it's cheaper to own than rent, apparently


by "you" you mean "your parents" of course


----------



## leanderman (Oct 1, 2012)

Crispy said:


> by "you" you mean "your parents" of course


 
Yep! In some cases those parents have done very well: free universities, free pensions, basically free houses etc etc


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2012)

I've posted the article on the blog:
*Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition.*
http://www.urban75.org/blog/barratt...-housing-in-brixton-please-sign-the-petition/

Here's the link to the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-social-housing-in-barratt-homes-brixton/


----------



## peacepete (Oct 2, 2012)

I update a slightly scruffy housing campaigning blog housolidarity.wordpress.com. I'll copy details of the campaign across and try to keep it updated. I know that people at the heygate estate are fighting to keep the affordable housing element as high as possible on the new development there. They might be worth hooking up with via southwarknotes.wordpress.com


----------



## Badgers (Oct 2, 2012)

Signed


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2012)

Signed


----------



## Belushi (Oct 2, 2012)

signed.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 2, 2012)

signed


----------



## potential (Oct 2, 2012)

lambeth has the highest number of council tennants in inner london.   These post's go on about diversity, and as  soon as people  not like you   want  to  move  into brixton ,  you complain...         Whats  so   wrong  with  as  you   call  them  suits  move in  and   bring  some  much  needed     cash  into  the  local  economy ?    that  cool  tan  site  has  been   a   dump  for  over  a decade,    and  think   much  needed  housing  is   good  for  the  area.


----------



## Ol Nick (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> Lambeth has the highest number of council tenants in inner london. These posts go on about diversity, and as soon as people not like you want to move into Brixton , you complain... Whats so wrong with as you call them suits move in and bring some much needed cash into the local economy ? That Cooltan site has been a dump for over a decade, and think much needed housing is good for the area.


So what precisely prevented the owner from building housing on that site 10 years ago?  If it was a dump it was because it suited someone that it was a dump.

Are we either in favour of robbing banks or speculating on property on these boards these days? Hmm. More thinking needed.


----------



## potential (Oct 2, 2012)

Ol Nick said:


> So what precisely prevented the owner from building housing on that site 10 years ago? If it was a dump it was because it suited someone that it was a dump.
> 
> Are we either in favour of robbing banks or speculating on property on these boards these days? Hmm. More thinking needed.


i  think  you  should ask barratt homes or  who owned the land  before  why  its  been  empty ?    probably  been  left  like  that  because of  planning  permission,   then  the  recession.   why  do  you  know  why  its  been  left  empty ?


----------



## nagapie (Oct 2, 2012)

Yes, the recession. I'm sure the directors of Barratt Homes are struggling to make ends meet.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> lambeth has the highest number of council tennants in inner london. These post's go on about diversity, and as soon as people not like you want to move into brixton , you complain... Whats so wrong with as you call them suits move in and bring some much needed cash into the local economy ? that cool tan site has been a dump for over a decade, and think much needed housing is good for the area.


The housing which Barrat Homes want to put on that site won't fit local need, which is for *genuinely affordable social housing.   *


----------



## Ol Nick (Oct 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> The housing which Barrat Homes want to put on that site won't fit local need, which is for *genuinely affordable social housing.  *


My point is that whether you believe we need social housing, penthouses or family accommodation, no-one can force Barratt's or anyone else to build. If it was left empty it was because it was more profitable left empty. 

Thinking people have coming with the idea of a land tax or wealth tax to discourage this kind of non-use of valuable natural resources. I'm sure you could google it.


----------



## colacubes (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> lambeth has the highest number of council tennants in inner london. These post's go on about diversity, and as soon as people not like you want to move into brixton , you complain... Whats so wrong with as you call them suits move in and bring some much needed cash into the local economy ? that cool tan site has been a dump for over a decade, and think much needed housing is good for the area.


 
lol


----------



## Greebo (Oct 2, 2012)

Ol Nick said:


> <snip>If it was left empty it was because it was more profitable left empty.
> 
> Thinking people have coming with the idea of a land tax or wealth tax to discourage this kind of non-use of valuable natural resources. I'm sure you could google it.


You don't realise how many courses etc were run for several years on the Cooltan site then?  Nor how much benefit they were to locals?  I'm sure you could google that, sweetie.


----------



## potential (Oct 2, 2012)

nagapie said:


> Yes, the recession. I'm sure the directors of Barratt Homes are struggling to make ends meet.


yes the recession ,  the directors of barratt homes are not a charity,   they  build homes to  make a profit obviously,  but the  flats  they build are  still  needed


----------



## Ol Nick (Oct 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> You don't realise how many courses etc were run for several years on the Cooltan site then? Nor how much benefit they were to locals? I'm sure you could google that, sweetie.


No no no
I think you misunderstand my point. In that case it *wasn't* empty. When I say "empty" I mean "unproductive", and it is often in the interests of a developer to leave a site "empty" for a while in order to make better profits later.

If Barratt's gave it back to a squatter or community group while they were waiting for property prices to rise then I admit I have underrated them.


----------



## potential (Oct 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> The housing which Barrat Homes want to put on that site won't fit local need, which is for *genuinely affordable social housing.  *


more  homes  more  competition ,  which  should  be  better  than   less  housing,  less availability  equals  higher  rents....       why  cant  a house  builder  build  homes  on  an  empty  site ?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> more homes more competition , which should be better than less housing, less availability equals higher rents.... why cant a house builder build homes on an empty site ?


Because premium housing isn't needed.  As said before, genuinely affordable housing is; what part of this do you fail to understand?  Local private landlords already charge whatever they damn well please; those places won't lower rents, they'll just give private landlords ideas.


----------



## colacubes (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> more homes more competition , which should be better than less housing, less availability equals higher rents.... why cant a house builder build homes on an empty site ?


 
Because the houses they are building are mostly for buyers and start at £262k. There's nothing wrong with them making money; they're a business after all. But what is desperately needed is in central Brixton is affordable housing. And by affordable that means actually affordable to those on low incomes, or benefits. And the whole point about the opposition to this is that they are trying to remove the s106 provision for social housing from the development. Which is a truly tiny proportion of the whole development.

I don't know if you live in the centre of Brixton (I do, and I own my place ftr), but what makes it a great place to live is the mix of people. Owners, renters (both upwardly mobile and those on low incomes) and squatters. And that mix rubs along brilliantly. Slowly but surely, a social-cleansing is happening. And it becomes a social homegenisation of people, whereby the only people who can afford here are wealthy enough. The reason it works here is because all those different groups live cheek by jowl and they get on. The points at which social problems happen is where you have people that feel they are being discriminated against and being pushed out of areas they've lived all their life.

And it's made me feel that I'm now part of the problem. I was 'lucky' enough to be able to afford to buy here nearly 10 years ago due to a death in the family. I wouldn't be able to afford to either buy or rent here now. And I feel more and more guilty about that decision as I see the community that I love being slowly eradicated around me


----------



## potential (Oct 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Because premium housing isn't needed. As said before, genuinely affordable housing is; what part of this do you fail to understand? Local private landlords already charge whatever they damn well please; those places won't lower rents, they'll just give private landlords ideas.


premium  housing  isnt  needed ?    thats  not  true  is  it,  walk  into  any  estate  agent  i  think  you  would  change  your  thinking .    everybody  want  affordable  housing  because  its  cheaper  than  the  open  market,
who is  going  to  buy  this  land   give it  to  the  council  then   give  them    millions  to  build  flats  on  it,  wake  up  please  this  is  a  recession,   the  council  hasnt  got  any  money,   its  either  left  empty,  or  barratt  builds  homes,  which creates  jobs  by  building  the  homes,  that  people  need  and  those  people  spend  money  in  the  area


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> lambeth has the highest number of council tennants in inner london. These post's go on about diversity, and as soon as people not like you want to move into brixton , you complain... Whats so wrong with as you call them suits move in and bring some much needed cash into the local economy ? that cool tan site has been a dump for over a decade, and think much needed housing is good for the area.


 
Don't mean to snarl, but....

Council tenants are not a bad thing and having more of them is not a mark of shame, it just means Lambeth is (was?) the only place left in central London
that was even remotely affordable and concerned about those not earning a fortune.  And one of the major objections many (certainly I) have is that the planning permission was granted on one basis and through a series of manipulations is becoming something else.  If they didn't want/ think it was economic/ think it was important to build social provision, then they shouldn't have bought a site where one of the fundamental bases on which it was granted was social provision.  To buy it, pretend they wanted it, and then use a combination of arcane planning law and phased implementation to get it overturned is just dishonest


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> more homes more competition , which should be better than less housing, less availability equals higher rents.... why cant a house builder build homes on an empty site ?


 
Increased housing supply does not mean housing demand is met- cf coal, roads, consumer goods....  Its called the Jevons paradox- (OR 101)


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2012)

nipsla said:


> Because the houses they are building are mostly for buyers and start at £262k. There's nothing wrong with them making money; they're a business after all. But what is desperately needed is in central Brixton is affordable housing. And by affordable that means actually affordable to those on low incomes, or benefits. And the whole point about the opposition to this is that they are trying to remove the s106 provision for social housing from the development. Which is a truly tiny proportion of the whole development.
> 
> I don't know if you live in the centre of Brixton (I do, and I own my place ftr), but what makes it a great place to live is the mix of people. Owners, renters (both upwardly mobile and those on low incomes) and squatters. And that mix rubs along brilliantly. Slowly but surely, a social-cleansing is happening. And it becomes a social homegenisation of people, whereby the only people who can afford here are wealthy enough. The reason it works here is because all those different groups live cheek by jowl and they get on. The points at which social problems happen is where you have people that feel they are being discriminated against and being pushed out of areas they've lived all their life.
> 
> And it's made me feel that I'm now part of the problem. I was 'lucky' enough to be able to afford to buy here nearly 10 years ago due to a death in the family. I wouldn't be able to afford to either buy or rent here now. And I feel more and more guilty about that decision as I see the community that I love being slowly eradicated around me


 
Hear hear- agree with everything you say.  Including feeling part of the problem.  If I hadn't moved here 6 years ago, would it still be free of, well, people like me??!!


----------



## Greebo (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> premium housing isnt needed ? thats not true is it, walk into any estate agent i think you would change your thinking . everybody want affordable housing because its cheaper than the open market,
> who is going to buy this land give it to the council then give them millions to build flats on it, wake up please this is a recession, the council hasnt got any money, its either left empty, or barratt builds homes, which creates jobs by building the homes, that people need and those people spend money in the area


Still trying to rest one injured wrist so 6 words: Fuck right off you profiteering apologist!


----------



## potential (Oct 2, 2012)

nipsla said:


> Because the houses they are building are mostly for buyers and start at £262k. There's nothing wrong with them making money; they're a business after all. But what is desperately needed is in central Brixton is affordable housing. And by affordable that means actually affordable to those on low incomes, or benefits. And the whole point about the opposition to this is that they are trying to remove the s106 provision for social housing from the development. Which is a truly tiny proportion of the whole development.
> 
> I don't know if you live in the centre of Brixton (I do, and I own my place ftr), but what makes it a great place to live is the mix of people. Owners, renters (both upwardly mobile and those on low incomes) and squatters. And that mix rubs along brilliantly. Slowly but surely, a social-cleansing is happening. And it becomes a social homegenisation of people, whereby the only people who can afford here are wealthy enough. The reason it works here is because all those different groups live cheek by jowl and they get on. The points at which social problems happen is where you have people that feel they are being discriminated against and being pushed out of areas they've lived all their life.
> 
> And it's made me feel that I'm now part of the problem. I was 'lucky' enough to be able to afford to buy here nearly 10 years ago due to a death in the family. I wouldn't be able to afford to either buy or rent here now. And I feel more and more guilty about that decision as I see the community that I love being slowly eradicated around me


 you  should  read  my 1st  post...    lambeth has the  highest  amount of council houseing,  whats  wrong  with  owner occupiers  moving in ?    area's go through  changes  ,  why  do you  fear change ?    the olympic  site  has  been  changed  do  you  object  to  that  or  the   buling  programe  in  doncaster...

i  own my  own houe  ,  i have  lived in the  area  most of my life ,  was  born in brixton hill,  and i wouldnt be able to afford  to buy  my house now,   but  i  do  not  object  to  people  who  can and  do  bring  money into  brixton


----------



## colacubes (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> you should read my 1st post... lambeth has the highest amount of council houseing, whats wrong with owner occupiers moving in ? area's go through changes , why do you fear change ? the olympic site has been changed do you object to that or the buling programe in doncaster...
> 
> i own my own houe , i have lived in the area most of my life , was born in brixton hill, and i wouldnt be able to afford to buy my house now, but i do not object to people who can and do bring money into brixton


 
I did read it. And you should read mine properly. Lambeth is the most densely populated borough in London. And yes, there is a lot of council housing in Lambeth. Is it all in the centre of Brixton? No. Do we need more in the centre of Brixton? Yes.

I don't fear change. What I fear is the destruction of what is largely a happy community by the rising of rents in the area. And the building of more and more wholly privately owned developments will do that as the rental stock becomes smaller. And a lot of people I know are being forced out of the area because of it. Teachers, care workers, charity workers, nurses, retail assistants and a lot of people who've lived here their whole lives.

'Affordable housing' doesn't mean actually affordable in the context that Barratts are trying to move it to.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> who is going to buy this land give it to the council then give them millions to build flats on it, wake up please this is a recession, the council hasnt got any money, its either left empty, or barratt builds homes, which creates jobs by building the homes, that people need and those people spend money in the area




You're missing the point a bit here tbh. What people are arguing for isn't a block of council houses (a lot of people would like that, but it's not what this is about right now), it's just for the developers to maintain the small number of social rent flats they originally promised as part of the larger development.


----------



## boohoo (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> you should read my 1st post... lambeth has the highest amount of council houseing, whats wrong with owner occupiers moving in ? area's go through changes , why do you fear change ? the olympic site has been changed do you object to that or the buling programe in doncaster...
> 
> i own my own houe , i have lived in the area most of my life , was born in brixton hill, and i wouldnt be able to afford to buy my house now, but i do not object to people who can and do bring money into brixton


 
There are lots of owner occupiers in Lambeth - wealthy people in the nice houses. I too grew up around here. I'm quite happy for new developments as a long as they offer places at a range of different prices whether council housing, RSL housing, Shared ownership and private properties. But when it shift to only being available to those who are earning a high wage and have some spare cash then it will make the area unrecognisable and the poorer people who are stuck here resentful.

The incomers are not bring money into the Brixton than we know. They don't want ten halal butchers, a collection of nail bars, some jerk chicken shops and a couple of poundshops. You can sit back and watch all the odds and sods of Brixton disappear and the place turned into an identikit high street.


----------



## potential (Oct 2, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> You're missing the point a bit here tbh. What people are arguing for isn't a block of council houses (a lot of people would like that, but it's not what this is about right now), it's just for the developers to maintain the small number of social rent flats they originally promised as part of the larger development.


    if  they  go  planning  permission  because they  promised to provide a small  number of  social  rent  flats,  they  shouldnt  be  allowed  to  this...
but  i was  posting about  the  fact  that  people  here  think  as  they  put it  suits  should  stick  to  their  own areas,    bias


----------



## colacubes (Oct 2, 2012)

potential said:


> if they go planning permission because they promised to provide a small number of social rent flats, they shouldnt be allowed to this...
> but i was posting about the fact that people here think as they put it suits should stick to their own areas, bias


 
You know where you said I should read your post.  Maybe you should take your own advice and read the whole thread.  Ta.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2012)

potential said:


> lambeth has the highest number of council tennants in inner london. These post's go on about diversity, and as soon as people not like you want to move into brixton , you complain... Whats so wrong with as you call them suits move in and bring some much needed cash into the local economy ? that cool tan site has been a dump for over a decade, and think much needed housing is good for the area.


 
Would "suits" really bring in "much needed cash"?

I find it insulting that the less wealth off get dismissed as unimportant when it comes to the local economy.

In actual fact Keynesian economists like Stiglitz argue that raising benefits levels and no wage cuts for less well off have a greater effect on demand in the economy during a recession than favouring the rich. There is a greater "multiplier effect". (That is when the government puts money into the economy the GDP increases by X amount.)

The less well off are more likely to spend in a local economy. Its not true to say that the well off are needed in Brixton to put cash into the economy.

The present Government economic policies ( opposed by Keynesians) has cut the spending power of the less well off. That is the problem not a lack of "suits"


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2012)

potential said:


> i think you should ask barratt homes or who owned the land before why its been empty ? probably been left like that because of planning permission, then the recession. why do you know why its been left empty ?


 
Read the thread and u will see.

#11 #16

and saw this informative article  when I googled the BS on its planning history

http://www.brixtonsociety.org.uk/2012/05/15/brixton-square-barratt-homes/

Barrats only bought the site earlier in the year and got on site quickly. The planning permission went with the land.

Places for People , I heard, bought the land at to high a price and could never get the finance together to make it a feasible scheme. PforP were a not for profit organisation and were supposed to be building a scheme with a large affordable element. Part of the reason why they got the permission in the first place.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 3, 2012)

Barratt Homes should be kept to its word.

It would be hard to think of an area of London that does not need affordable housing.

Even Brixton, which has a high proportion of socially-owned homes.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2012)

Manter said:


> Increased housing supply does not mean housing demand is met- cf coal, roads, consumer goods.... Its called the Jevons paradox- (OR 101)


 
But does the paradox apply to housing? I can see how it can apply to coal use or energy efficiency. But building houses is not a technological change that makes a resource easier to use.

Houses are infrastructure. Whilst "potential" is winding people up there is a point that the lack of supply of housing is what makes developers happy.

There is an argument for a mass building of Council Housing. This would add greatly to affordable rental stock and push down prices of private rented stock.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 3, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> There is an argument for a mass building of Council Housing. This would add greatly to affordable rental stock and push down prices of private rented stock.


 
Yes, ideally.

But part of the problem is that everyone wants to live in London. Or needs to. And both in my case.

In other parts of the country, they are almost giving homes away.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Yes, ideally.
> 
> But part of the problem is that everyone wants to live in London. Or needs to. And both in my case.
> 
> In other parts of the country, they are almost giving homes away.


 
Take your point. Also needs as well in that case the "rebalancing of the economy" politicians keep telling people about.

Though Im not that keen on living up North.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2012)

leanderman said:


> But part of the problem is that everyone wants to live in London.


 
I dare you to say that outside of the Brixton/London section of U75


----------



## g force (Oct 3, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Take your point. Also needs as well in that case the "rebalancing of the economy" politicians keep telling people about.
> 
> Though Im not that keen on living up North.


 
Well that's part of the argument for the HS2 line - If I could commute in 45 minutes from Birmingham i'd be sorely tempted to (if only to be nearer family etc).


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 3, 2012)

potential said:


> Whats so wrong with as you call them suits move in and bring some much needed cash into the local economy ?


When the "suits" move in I reckon they're more likely to give their money to property developers/speculators, estate agents, buy-to-let landlords, Sainburys and Tesco than the local economy.

Petition signed, btw


----------



## Dan U (Oct 3, 2012)

signed, nice to see you have already exceeded your first target


----------



## leanderman (Oct 3, 2012)

Spoke to a playgroup mum this morning with three girls aged 5, 4 and 3.

With her husband, they share a two-bed council flat on Hayter Rd.

She has given up applying - 'bidding' - for a larger council flat because 400 or so Lambeth families are deemed in greater need.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

potential said:


> i think you should ask barratt homes or who owned the land before why its been empty ? probably been left like that because of planning permission, then the recession. why do you know why its been left empty ?


 
If you'd bothered reading the thread, you'd know that planning permission was given almost a decade ago, so your "probably" is pretty threadbare.

Try again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

potential said:


> yes the recession , the directors of barratt homes are not a charity, they build homes to make a profit obviously, but the flats they build are still needed


 
Planning permission pre-existed the 2008 crisis by about half a decade.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Spoke to a playgroup mum this morning with three girls aged 5, 4 and 3.
> 
> With her husband, they share a two-bed council flat on Hayter Rd.
> 
> She has given up applying - 'bidding' - for a larger council flat because 400 or so Lambeth families are deemed in greater need.


 
She's also screwed by the fact that all her children are the same gender, unfortunately.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

potential said:


> more homes more competition , which should be better than less housing, less availability equals higher rents.... why cant a house builder build homes on an empty site ?


 
If you're going to advocate a market-based system, at least make sure you understand it properly.
More homes does not necessarily equate to more competition when the supply side of the supply/demand equation is so thin. 100,000 new homes a year doesn't scratch the surface of demand, nor does 200,000 or 300,000. They barely keep pace with *additional* demand, so until supply starts eroding *existing* demand, it introduces NO competition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

potential said:


> premium housing isnt needed ? thats not true is it, walk into any estate agent i think you would change your thinking . everybody want affordable housing because its cheaper than the open market,


 
You really are utterly ignorant of the baisc economics and terminology of housing issues, aren't you? 

Your claim that "everyone" wants affordable housing flies in the face of your claim that premium housing is needed, surely? Your claim that affordable housing is "cheaper than the open market" contradicts the fact that affordable RSL housing is sometimes *more expensive* than the local market, and an estate agency isn't exactly a location whre you'll form a balanced picture of need.



> who is going to buy this land give it to the council then give them millions to build flats on it, wake up please this is a recession, the council hasnt got any money, its either left empty, or barratt builds homes, which creates jobs by building the homes, that people need and those people spend money in the area


 
Except that your claim that development equates to jobs and local spending has been disproven over and over again in just about every "gentrified" area. What it more generally equates to is the death of local businesses and local industry, and a shift to the servicing of the needs of the "gentrifiers".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

potential said:


> you should read my 1st post... lambeth has the highest amount of council houseing...


 
And I bet you don't even know why, you just assume council tenants = homogeneous mass.
A pity, becaue if you understood why Lambeth has such a high density of social housing, you might have a clue about why rapid demographic change in Lambeth is (and will continue to be) problematic.



> whats wrong with owner occupiers moving in ? area's go through changes , why do you fear change ? the olympic site has been changed do you object to that or the buling programe in doncaster...


 
Who objects to owner/occupiers? What people are objecting to is the *concentration* on owner/occupiers to the exclusion of others, in seeming contravention of planning statute.



> i own my own houe , i have lived in the area most of my life , was born in brixton hill, and i wouldnt be able to afford to buy my house now, but i do not object to people who can and do bring money into brixton


 
Bully for you owning your own house!
Lets take a broader look at what, say, the last 20 years has brought to Brixton by way of money - an ever-changing parade of restaurants and clubs that benefit a minority of Brixtonians, and..?
Not a lot else.

Brixton is more than a nightlife location for a lot of us.


----------



## Manter (Oct 4, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> But does the paradox apply to housing? I can see how it can apply to coal use or energy efficiency. But building houses is not a technological change that makes a resource easier to use.
> 
> Houses are infrastructure. Whilst "potential" is winding people up there is a point that the lack of supply of housing is what makes developers happy.
> 
> There is an argument for a mass building of Council Housing. This would add greatly to affordable rental stock and push down prices of private rented stock.


 
I have no idea if there have been any studies on this....  I will look it up on my next conference call! 
What I am objecting to is the 'build more' argument being used without any thought- there is loads of housing stock empty.  You can't generalise about it, but a more thoughtful policy would address spiralling housing costs, why so many people need/want to be in the south east (I'd sell a kidney rather than move out to the grey culture-free wasteland of the Thames valley, but it is almost as chocka as London, while amazing cities like Sheffield have plenty of space), why houses are empty- both second homes and council houses due to be demolished and rebuilt that never get past shuttered and falling to pieces....  My badly expressed point was that an assumption that if people want more of something you give it to them (well, sell it to them) without reflection has been proven wrong so many times, it warrants careful thought.


----------



## Manter (Oct 4, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> When the "suits" move in I reckon they're more likely to give their money to property developers/speculators, estate agents, buy-to-let landlords, Sainburys and Tesco than the local economy.
> 
> Petition signed, btw


I am going to have to defend suits a little bit- not all are bad.  Some (like me and my other half, I hope) moved here some time ago because we liked the people, the atmosphere etc.  We have spent lots of time trying to use local businesses and have committed to, and put down roots in, the area.  (We do use Tesco though as it is often the only place nearby to get milk at 10pm....)  I agree with the concerns as I do worry about the Clapham effect, but lashing out at all 'suits' isn't fair, and risks creating the us and them atmosphere we all surely want to avoid.  I think anyone is welcome in Brixton- as long as they treat the place, its history and complexities with respect.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 4, 2012)

I wear a suit 

But I dry clean it with Febreeze  

PFWC


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2012)

Badgers said:


> I wear a suit
> 
> But I dry clean it with Febreeze
> 
> PFWC


 
PFWC know how to sponge their suit to keep it clean, ya middle-class _poseur_ with yer B.O.-neutralising spray!


----------



## boohoo (Oct 4, 2012)

Marketing day there at the moment - go and inquire about buying and get a free glass of wine!


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2012)

I went past but couldn't bring myself to go in. Too many clipboards and swivel action suits.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 4, 2012)

What's a "swivel action suit"?


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2012)

Someone a bit like this:


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 4, 2012)

boohoo said:


> Marketing day there at the moment - go and inquire about buying and get a free glass of wine!


I went in, posed as a buyer and drank their free bubbly. I felt a bit dirty tbh.

There was a _wide range _of people there: posh white people, posh black people, posh asian people.

Two Jamaican guys were stood on the pavement outside looking in and muttering something about "bloodclart rich workers."

They are giving free ipads to people who make a reservation.

There are 5 blocks of flats in the development, which will be called "Windrush", "Academy", "Ritzy", "Brady" and "Village".

Flicking through their glossy brochures (full of pics of Brixton Village, pics of people raving it up in the Academy, and pics of parks which aren't even in Brixton) I was soon cornered by an agent who started giving me the spiel. I was probably the scruffiest person in there but she still asked me if I was a buy-to-let investor (!) and handed me a sheet showing potential rental income and annual gross yields etc.

I was interested in their reaction about the "affordable homes" thing and was about to ask when she handed me a plan of the building showing the make up of affordable, private, commercial etc (I'll scan it and post it up if anyone's interested?) The 'affordable' bits of the building seem to be stuck in the back corner of the development (next to the railway lines) on each floor. There are some flats on the ground floor (which face Coldharbour Lane) which were marked "planning to be agreed" which I assume are the flats in question re: the change in planning we've been discussing.

I made my excuses and left. I felt pretty miserable about the whole thing, which was compounded when I got back outside and saw one of the agents had parked their car right across the pavement. A guy in a wheelchair was coming along the pavement and had to go out into the road in rush hour traffic to get past the car.


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> There are 5 blocks of flats in the development, which will be called "Windrush", "Academy", "Ritzy", "Brady" and "Village".


Please no. They're not really plundering Brixton's history in this manner are they?
*sobs


----------



## colacubes (Oct 4, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I went in, posed as a buyer and drank their free bubbly. I felt a bit dirty tbh.
> 
> There was a _wide range _of people there: posh white people, posh black people, posh asian people.
> 
> ...


 
What the actual fuck


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 4, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> l asked me if I was a buy-to-let investor (!) and handed me a sheet showing potential rental income and annual gross yields etc.
> 
> .


 
What are they projecting these places will rent for?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 4, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> What are they projecting these places will rent for?


£310 per week for a one bed, £360 per week for a two bed (which they say is based on independent valuations made in April 2012.) Quick calculation makes that £1343 per month for a one bed, £1560 per month for a two bed.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2012)

editor said:


> Talking of back yards, it's incredible to see that the adjacent new build is still unfinished along its Valentia Place flank, with breeze block walls still exposed.



I think that's a "style." Several of the new blocks of low-rise flats near me look like incomplete prisons.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 4, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> £310 per week for a one bed, £360 per week for a two bed (which they say is based on independent valuations made in April 2012.) Quick calculation makes that £1343 per month for a one bed, £1560 per month for a two bed.


Fuck. Me.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 4, 2012)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Fuck. Me.



Over £16k a year rent on a 1 bed


----------



## Greebo (Oct 4, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Over £16k a year rent on a 1 bed


Nothing like affordable.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 4, 2012)

there are more expensive 1 beds in Brixton according to rightmove, some over £400 pw

pretty staggered tbh. it wasn't that long ago i was living in a massive 3 bed flat off Croxted Road for well under £300pw. Not Brixton i know but even bloody so.

(shared flat that is, not £300pw each)


----------



## gaijingirl (Oct 4, 2012)

holy crap!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 4, 2012)

I hoped the recession had seen off all that btl rubbish.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 4, 2012)

the 2-beds cost £339k and, with stamp duty, £350k+

a 100pc interest-only mortgage at 5pc to cover that would be about £1,458pm

it's £1,560pm to rent

so it seems a crap deal for the renter and the buy-to-letter!

(of course, most landlords will put up large cash deposits and so pay much less than £1,458)


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Flicking through their glossy brochures (full of pics of Brixton Village, pics of people raving it up in the Academy, and pics of parks which aren't even in Brixton) I was soon cornered by an agent who started giving me the spiel. I was probably the scruffiest person in there but she still asked me if I was a buy-to-let investor (!) and handed me a sheet showing potential rental income and annual gross yields etc.


 
But to Let is still feasible in London if not in other parts of the country. So they are pushing that angle for sales. Buy to Let is no way to create a stable community in an area. A lot of flats in new developments go to Buy to Let investors.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I went in, posed as a buyer and drank their free bubbly. I felt a bit dirty tbh.
> 
> I was interested in their reaction about the "affordable homes" thing and was about to ask when she handed me a plan of the building showing the make up of affordable, private, commercial etc (I'll scan it and post it up if anyone's interested?)
> 
> I made my excuses and left.


 
Sounds like News of the World article.

A new place to go for a dirty night out. Must visit there showroom soon.

Was the estate agent fit?

Thanks for going BH and the informative post. Do scan up the plan.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I hoped the recession had seen off all that btl rubbish.


 
I thought it had made it worse tbh. Less people can afford to buy so demand is transferred to rent and pushes rent up, while interest rates are very low. Makes BTL still very attractive to those with the money even if they aren't making the easy capital gains they were.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 4, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I thought it had made it worse tbh. Less people can afford to buy so demand is transferred to rent and pushes rent up, while interest rates are very low. Makes BTL still very attractive to those with the money even if they aren't making the easy capital gains they were.


I would have hoped that because mortgages are harder to get hold of now, banks wouldn't lend to people who are leveraged to fuck...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would have hoped that because mortgages are harder to get hold of now, banks wouldn't lend to people who are leveraged to fuck...


 
Maybe for some - the people who aren't in already but fancy getting an extra house and getting someone else to pay for it are probably finding it harder. The even richer ones are still at it though AFAIK.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 4, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> The even richer ones are still at it though AFAIK.


Probably, yeah, because there's not much money to be made elsewhere.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 4, 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-mortgages-worth-160bn-drives-rent-bills.html

From the Fail this year. Wankers.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 4, 2012)

scifisam said:


> I think that's a "style." Several of the new blocks of low-rise flats near me look like incomplete prisons.


 
It's not in this case. It's clearly unfinished. It's something that ought to be enforced by Lambeth planning dept really, although I imagine the building's owners will say it's a "temporary" arrangement.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 4, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> she handed me a plan of the building showing the make up of affordable, private, commercial etc (I'll scan it and post it up if anyone's interested?)


 
yes please


----------



## Manter (Oct 4, 2012)

leanderman said:


> the 2-beds cost £339k and, with stamp duty, £350k+
> 
> a 100pc interest-only mortgage at 5pc to cover that would be about £1,458pm
> 
> ...



And 100% and interest only mortgages have gone the way of the dodo (not a bad thing as they drove the btl profiteering)


----------



## Kanda (Oct 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I hoped the recession had seen off all that btl rubbish.


 
Not at all! With interest rates so low, property is probably the best place to put your money right now. 

We've been trying to buy for quite a while, it's fucking bonkers out there at the moment!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2012)

Manter said:


> And 100% and interest only mortgages have gone the way of the dodo (not a bad thing as they drove the btl profiteering)


 
There are Buy to Let mortgages available. My friend got one. Instead of selling her old flat she re mortgaged it with a Buy to Let mortgage and is renting it out. She sees it as a safer investment than selling it and putting the money into a pension scheme. Pension schemes have become discredited now. I think this is common. People do not trust financial institutions. For good reason.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 5, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> There are Buy to Let mortgages available. My friend got one. Instead of selling her old flat she re mortgaged it with a Buy to Let mortgage and is renting it out. She sees it as a safer investment than selling it and putting the money into a pension scheme. Pension schemes have become discredited now. I think this is common. People do not trust financial institutions. For good reason.


 
Ain't this the truth!

Those who have saved, invested or paid into pensions have, at best, broken even.

The buy-to-letters have trebled up.

And with historically low interest rates they are pocketing much higher incomes too.


----------



## beeboo (Oct 5, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Though I do not think Barratts are saying its not the private sales that are affected. My reading is that they do not think its possible to get a traditional RSL interested in acquiring 13 flats for social rent in the present economic climate.
> 
> What I am not clear on is whether Barratts would be obliged to sell the 13 flats to an RSL at a lower price than market price? I do not know how the system works on these Section 106 agreements.
> 
> ...


 
My understanding of how the S106 works (and I'll admit that whilst I know a bit about this I'm no expert so this might not be spot-on) is that the housing developer sells the affordable housing to an RSL at a price they negotiate between them.  This price will reflect the rents that the RSL can charge on the properties.  In some cases there may be bidding between different RSLs who are interested in the homes, in other cases the developer will enter into a partnership with one RSL early on.

Whilst it's true that times have got harder for RSLs so that raising the money to buy the property may be more difficult and costly, ultimately the rents they can charge will affect the price they are willing to pay.

So it is in the developers interest to agree higher rents (these have to be agreed with the council in advance as part of the S106) as ultimately that means they can ask a higher price from the RSL to buy the homes.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 5, 2012)




----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 5, 2012)




----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 5, 2012)




----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 5, 2012)

Christ. London is fucked.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 5, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Christ. London is fucked.


Yeah £400k for a two bed flat


----------



## Kanda (Oct 5, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah £400k for a two bed flat


 
We looked at one for £485k just a few weeks ago! Fucking bonkers for a 2 bed!


----------



## Dan U (Oct 5, 2012)

I love the estate agent con that is the 'Juliette Balcony'

it isn't a balcony, you can not walk or stand on it, it is a large window with a glorified baby gate on the front of it.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 5, 2012)

Kanda said:


> We looked at one for £485k just a few weeks ago! Fucking bonkers for a 2 bed!


That's crazy. You can get a 3 bed house for half that, less than a mile away.


----------



## Kanda (Oct 5, 2012)

Crispy said:


> That's crazy. You can get a 3 bed house for half that, less than a mile away.


 
Yup. We've just bought a 2 bed for £385k, ludicrous prices but she was insistent on area due to commute and need to get to her parents quickly (Battersea)


----------



## Manter (Oct 5, 2012)

Crispy said:


> That's crazy. You can get a 3 bed house for half that, less than a mile away.


Don't have friends in Yorkshire. They are all moving into huge Georgian farmhouses for less than the cost of a suburban London 3 bed....


----------



## Winot (Oct 5, 2012)

Crispy said:


> That's crazy. You can get a 3 bed house for half that, less than a mile away.


 
Where's that then?  Victorian 3 bed terrace round the corner from us (bottom of Brixton Hill) just sold for almost £600K.  We sold ours for £350K in 2006 and thought that was mad.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 5, 2012)

Winot said:


> Where's that then? Victorian 3 bed terrace round the corner from us (bottom of Brixton Hill) just sold for almost £600K. We sold ours for £350K in 2006 and thought that was mad.


http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-24090876.html
3 beds, £240k, SW2


----------



## Kanda (Oct 5, 2012)

Crispy said:


> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-24090876.html
> 3 beds, £240k, SW2


 
Yeah, it's fucking horrible though


----------



## Crispy (Oct 5, 2012)

I made no claims on quality. 
Another 30-40k and you get something much nicer. More than half the crazy price upthread, but still shedloads cheaper, plus you get a garden.


----------



## gaijingirl (Oct 5, 2012)

Crispy said:


> I made no claims on quality.
> Another 30-40k and you get something much nicer. More than half the crazy price upthread, but still shedloads cheaper, plus you get a garden.


 
I don't know that it necessarily affects quality... I know I bang on about it, but IME those kinds of flats/houses are much more solidly built than these new Barratt Homes type places.  They may not look as pretty but many of those don't look so pretty after a while either.  You pay a HUGE premium to get a period property but that comes with its own set of problems.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 5, 2012)

gaijingirl said:


> I don't know that it necessarily affects quality... I know I bang on about it, but IME those kinds of flats/houses are much more solidly built than these new Barratt Homes type places. They may not look as pretty but many of those don't look so pretty after a while either. You pay a HUGE premium to get a period property but that comes with its own set of problems.


I'm generally of the same opinion; old houses are a complete money pit.
But that particular block really is ugly. And the floor plan looks pretty cramped too.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 5, 2012)

Crispy said:


> I'm generally of the same opinion; old houses are a complete money pit.


So true.


----------



## gaijingirl (Oct 5, 2012)

Crispy said:


> I'm generally of the same opinion; old houses are a complete money pit.
> But that particular block really is ugly. And the floor plan looks pretty cramped too.


 
and you're an architect aren't you?  So I'll shurrup now!


----------



## Badgers (Oct 5, 2012)

Government’s NewBuy scheme has a target of 100,000 new homes.



> Under the scheme, announced in the Government’s housing strategy last November and launched in March, lenders offer 95 per cent LTV mortgages for new-build properties against a mortgage indemnity guarantee funded jointly by house builders and the Government.


 
Figures last week showed that the NewBuy scheme has led to 1,500 reservations and just 250 completions since March.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 5, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Government’s NewBuy scheme has a target of 100,000 new homes.
> 
> 
> 
> Figures last week showed that the NewBuy scheme has led to 1,500 reservations and just 250 completions since March.


They were pushing this scheme last night. It all sounds good in practice, but a 5% deposit on one of these flats is still the best part of £15,000. And this scheme will only let you buy overpriced new-build houses from developers like Barratt.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 5, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> They were pushing this scheme last night. It all sounds good in practice, but a 5% deposit on one of these flats is still the best part of £15,000. *And this scheme will only let you buy overpriced new-build houses from developers like Barratt.*


 
Hmm. Of course.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2012)

Here is Brixton Blog feature


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2012)

Brixton Buzz feature


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2012)

Oh, and urban75 feature. More pics!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Government’s NewBuy scheme has a target of 100,000 new homes.
> 
> Figures last week showed that the NewBuy scheme has led to 1,500 reservations and just 250 completions since March.


 
​ 
"The scheme is designed to protect lenders against losses in the unfortunate event of repossession"

Does this qualify as affordable housing in a large scheme like this?

Seems to me that this is about protecting developers and banks (again). Not about making housing more affordable.


----------



## potential (Oct 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And I bet you don't even know why, you just assume council tenants = homogeneous mass.
> A pity, becaue if you understood why Lambeth has such a high density of social housing, you might have a clue about why rapid demographic change in Lambeth is (and will continue to be) problematic.
> lambeth has a higher amount of council properties because of ww11,  hugh areas of land bombed and the germans,  compulsory bought by the council.   Then large council estates built.    then the number of council tennants  rose.    areas  change,  get  over it,  brixton  was  prosperous,  then not so.  because of brixton proximity to the centre of london it is always going to be a desirable place to live.
> 
> ...


----------



## Greebo (Oct 6, 2012)

potential said:


> massive quote of ViolentPanda's post


Wow, you were so impressed by that post that you quoted it in full and forgot to make your point.  Which was???


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2012)

What are you trying to say here?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What are you trying to say here?


 
Potential has got his comment mixed up with the quote. Easily done. I have done it. I went back to look at your original post this bit is different. 



> Not a lot else. what have the romans ever done for us ??? yes those bloody shops selling bread and milk, ooohhhhh so terrible and those horrible restaurants, creating jobs, you have issues i would go and seek proffessional advice. 20 years ago brixton was the most crime ridden area of london, a no go area for alot of people sorry if your feeling nostalgic but brixton is better now than 20 years ago


 
Potential is trying to say that you need professional help.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Potential has got his comment mixed up with the quote. Easily done. I have done it. I went back to look at your original post this bit is different.
> 
> 
> 
> Potential is trying to say that you need professional help.


 
Cheers for pointing that out. Hadn't noticed it. I suppose I'd better reply to him.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 7, 2012)

Not the Brixton I moved into 20 years ago. 

It's me and Brixton's 20th anniversary this year!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2012)

potential said:


> Not a lot else.


 
Well, at least you're astute enough to have noticed that much. 



> what have the romans ever done for us ???


 
Yes, because what we're talking about is on the same level as arguing about what one civilisation has contributed to another, isn't it?
Get a clue!



> yes those bloody shops selling bread and milk...


 
Grocery shops have existed here as long as there have been people. They're irrelevant to your (if it can be graced with the name) "argument".



> ...ooohhhhh so terrible and those horrible restaurants, creating jobs...


Are you sure about that? Restaurants don't tend to create more jobs than any other non-"one man band" retail outlet.



> ...you have issues i would go and seek proffessional advice.


 
Ah, you're a psychotherapist, are you? What are your qualifications, and which psychological society do you belong to? Maybe we're members of the same society!

What's that, you don't actually have any professional qualifications in psychology and are actually just some mug beating his gums? I'd never have guessed!



> 20 years ago brixton was the most crime ridden area of london...


 
No it wasn't. It's never been. That honour has always been held on the other side of the Thames.

Any more uninformed shit you want to spout?



> a no go area for alot of people...


 
Only if you were an _Evening Standard_ or _Daily Mail_ reader and you believed their stories about not being able to walk along any Brixton road without getting buried under a scrum of black muggers.
Frankly, anyone ignorant enough to buy such stories deserves a slapping.



> sorry if your feeling nostalgic but brixton is better now than 20 years ago


 
It's not "better", it's different.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Not the Brixton I moved into 20 years ago.
> 
> It's me and Brixton's 20th anniversary this year!


 
Congratulations!


----------



## Manter (Oct 12, 2012)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/08/gentrificationphobia_.html
I saw this today- it is from the US (DC) but thought it was interesting all the same.  Not saying Barratt homes are an improvement (!) but some of the discussion about desirability applies to Brixton


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2012)

Manter said:


> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/08/gentrificationphobia_.html
> I saw this today- it is from the US (DC) but thought it was interesting all the same. Not saying Barratt homes are an improvement (!) but some of the discussion about desirability applies to Brixton


It seems to be partly based on a false premise that a load of chain restaurants etc make for a better quality of life. Setting aside the whole question of raising rents etc.


----------



## Manter (Oct 12, 2012)

teuchter said:


> It seems to be partly based on a false premise that a load of chain restaurants etc make for a better quality of life. Setting aside the whole question of raising rents etc.


As an American exile, I'd do pretty much anything for a Chipotle.... But that aside..... I think he is using the restaurant example because that is what we all see and recognise as early stage gentrification- he does mention reduction in crime, improving schools etc too.  And he is concerned by raising rents- that is his issue- that any changes in an area that make it more desirable (to whomever) pushes people out


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2012)

Manter said:


> As an American exile, I'd do pretty much anything for a Chipotle.... But that aside..... I think he is using the restaurant example because that is what we all see and recognise as early stage gentrification- he does mention reduction in crime, improving schools etc too. And he is concerned by raising rents- that is his issue- that any changes in an area that make it more desirable (to whomever) pushes people out


 
Exiled from or to?


----------



## Manter (Oct 13, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Exiled from or to?


Brit who lived there and was sent home!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 13, 2012)

Manter said:


> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/08/gentrificationphobia_.html
> I saw this today- it is from the US (DC) but thought it was interesting all the same. Not saying Barratt homes are an improvement (!) but some of the discussion about desirability applies to Brixton


 


> If your city's politics is dominated by gentrificationphobia it becomes very difficult to make progress on any other concrete problem.


 
Back in 70s building a useful facility the the Rec was not considered to be gentrification because it also went with building affordable housing. Improvements to an area were about post war sense that a land should be built "fit for heroes". 

Having good facilities should not be about "desirability". These facilities should be affordable for use of people of all backgrounds and incomes. An idea that is alien to USA. Wish that ideas from US did not have such prevalence here. Just because we share same language.

Over the last 30 years this country is becoming more like US where Capital comes first.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Oct 16, 2012)

I've seen a number of alarmist news reports recently about the lack of affordable housing. Quite relevant to this story we seem to be in some housing 'perfect storm' right now.
Another story here


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2012)

Manter said:


> As an American exile, I'd do pretty much anything for a Chipotle


 
The chain restaurant? There's one in Soho.

http://www.chipotle.com/en-US/find/find.aspx?loc=w1F+0AX


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2012)

Kanda said:


> The chain restaurant? There's one in Soho.
> 
> http://www.chipotle.com/en-US/find/find.aspx?loc=w1F+0AX


Really not the same over here- not sure why. Only one worth going to in London is Lupita (and wahaca in extremis, I suppose)


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 16, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Having good facilities should not be about "desirability". These facilities should be affordable for use of people of all backgrounds and incomes. An idea that is alien to USA. Wish that ideas from US did not have such prevalence here. Just because we share same language.
> 
> Over the last 30 years this country is becoming more like US where Capital comes first.


 
As an aside (but watch out for it over here - as you say certain people seem to love these American ideas) I read an article the other day about how in New York developers can get property tax rebates for residents to encourage the building of affordable houses (I suppose it makes them more saleable as a discount for residents seems an odd way to encourage developers). Except these are tradable. Entirely predictable result - they're now held by the residents of the most expensive buildings in Manhattan who pay massively reduced tax.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2012)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I've seen a number of alarmist news reports recently about the lack of affordable housing. Quite relevant to this story we seem to be in some housing 'perfect storm' right now.
> Another story here


 
Some utter wankers in the "comments" section.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Some utter wankers in the "comments" section.


 
True.

I don't like the state enriching landlords in St John's Wood though.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Some utter wankers in the "comments" section.


 
Yes but balanced by others who are ok. Some of the Guardian commentators really reveal themselves in comments.

I was in the reception of an office last week. The receptionist was chatting to the other one next to her. She was complaining that the house opposite to where she lived was a Council house with a large (according to her) family in it. She thought it was unfair that they could live there on what she said was a cheap rent. When her and her boyfriend paid full market rent. She thought they should be made to live somewhere else.

She said it was a nice area where she lived and people like "that" should not be allowed to live there on a "cheap" rent.

Depressing. Receptionist are basically working class jobs. Not that well paid. But she saw herself as better than people who lived in Council housing.


----------



## editor (Oct 17, 2012)

Fuck, that is depressing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2012)

leanderman said:


> True.
> 
> I don't like the state enriching landlords in St John's Wood though.


 
Exploitation happens everywhere. That people are reacting along the lines of "WTF are *poor* people doing, living in St. John's Wood?" (and we both know that St. John's Wood is interchangeable with any remotely-respectable _locale_) says a lot about how far government tropes about benefit claimants have penetrated the public consciousness.
As many say, cap rent, not housing benefit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Yes but balanced by others who are ok. Some of the Guardian commentators really reveal themselves in comments.
> 
> I was in the reception of an office last week. The receptionist was chatting to the other one next to her. She was complaining that the house opposite to where she lived was a Council house with a large (according to her) family in it. She thought it was unfair that they could live there on what she said was a cheap rent. When her and her boyfriend paid full market rent. She thought they should be made to live somewhere else.
> 
> ...


 
What a difference a generation makes, eh?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 17, 2012)

Yeah it is very depressing - the Tory rhetoric on housing, supported by the Daily Mail and other parts of the right wing press, is being taken on by a lot of people. It's divide and rules tactics with neighbours pitted against neighbours, instead of people asking the bigger questions about the housing crisis.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2012)

The idea of capping rent - how would that work in practice? Flat rate everywhere in London/UK?


----------



## editor (Oct 17, 2012)

teuchter said:


> The idea of capping rent - how would that work in practice? Flat rate everywhere in London/UK?


Not sure about the exact mechanics, but something has to be done.

When I was on the dole it was utterly insane that a landlord could just make up any old inflated price for a shit flat safe in the knowledge that the government would pay it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2012)

Is the idea to cap rents just for places paid for with benefits, or to cap rents for everyone?

I don't see how it wouldn't just end up with everyone on housing benefit ending up in the cheapest parts of town. ie. not in St Johns Wood.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 17, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Is the idea to cap rents just for places paid for with benefits, or to cap rents for everyone?
> 
> I don't see how it wouldn't just end up with everyone on housing benefit ending up in the cheapest parts of town. ie. not in St Johns Wood.


 
that is kind of what is happening anyway, with capping HB.

the idea of capping rents is to stop this idea of poor people live HERE and rich people live HERE.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 17, 2012)

teuchter said:


> The idea of capping rent - how would that work in practice? Flat rate everywhere in London/UK?


 
Years ago people who rented privately could have secure tenancies which were rent controlled. Its not like this is a new idea. Still happens in other parts of Europe.

Also post WW2 in part of USA.  It was people like Milton Friedman who were against it and it controlled the market.

One way to have rent control is to only allow rent to be increased yearly by the CPI. Instead of now where the market rules.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2012)

What's being suggested here, though, as an alternative to capping HB?
a) rents are capped for places let to HB claimants,
b) rents are capped for everyone, everywhere?

I don't see how (a) would stop the rich people here/poor people there thing, and (b) would be a truly massive undertaking that I can't see happening, even if I would agree with it in principle.


----------



## Winot (Oct 17, 2012)

Yes, but "something must be done".


----------



## leanderman (Oct 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Exploitation happens everywhere. That people are reacting along the lines of "WTF are *poor* people doing, living in St. John's Wood?" (and we both know that St. John's Wood is interchangeable with any remotely-respectable _locale_) says a lot about how far government tropes about benefit claimants have penetrated the public consciousness.
> As many say, cap rent, not housing benefit.



st john's wood is not interchangable, as any Stones fan would attest


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2012)

leanderman said:


> st john's wood is not interchangable, as any Stones fan would attest


 
Stones fans = wankers.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 18, 2012)

teuchter said:


> What's being suggested here, though, as an alternative to capping HB?
> a) rents are capped for places let to HB claimants,
> b) rents are capped for everyone, everywhere?
> 
> I don't see how (a) would stop the rich people here/poor people there thing, and (b) would be a truly massive undertaking that I can't see happening, even if I would agree with it in principle.


 
Why would (b) be a massive undertaking?

 Bring in rent controls across the country. Hb or not. This would also help those in work not claiming benefits. Only people who would complain are landlords.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Exploitation happens everywhere. That people are reacting along the lines of "WTF are *poor* people doing, living in St. John's Wood?" (and we both know that St. John's Wood is interchangeable with any remotely-respectable _locale_) says a lot about how far government tropes about benefit claimants have penetrated the public consciousness.
> As many say, cap rent, not housing benefit.


 
And in the case I brought up in my post #411 the woman was not complaining about people on benefits. It was the fact that these people were living there at all that she was objecting to. Saying that HB is costing the Government to much has slid into questioning affordable housing in itself. I think this is the underlying long term aim of Tories.

As u correctly say the government going on about this does penetrate public consciousness. As Brixton Hatter posted its sets neighbours against each other.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 18, 2012)

To get peoples blood boiling again about Barratts and Foxtons here is Evening Standard article from todays Homes & Property section.

Now living near a market is  fashionable. As long has it has been sanitized of the working class.



> John Ennis, director of estate agent Foxtons, says: “Markets are really boosting property values. Years ago, there were only a few — Portobello, Covent Garden and Camden Lock — plus some rougher working-class street markets but London is now more like Paris, where neighbourhoods have a distinct character and identity.”


 
Having a Farmers Market is another boost to property prices.



> London Farmers’ Markets runs more than 20 certified markets across the capital spanning areas as varied as Balham and Brixton, Parliament Hill and Parsons Green.


 


> Brixton Village is a lively arcade-style market on Electric Avenue winning plaudits for its diverse range of high-quality food outlets. Bordering this is *Brixton Square*, a 107-home scheme being built by Barratt. Prices from £265,000. Call 020 7231 5258.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Why would (b) be a massive undertaking?
> 
> Bring in rent controls across the country. Hb or not. This would also help those in work not claiming benefits. Only people who would complain are landlords.


 
Bringing in a cap would surely mean that it woud no longer make sense for lots of landlords to rent their place out. They would get a better return selling it off. In cases where the rental income would be lower than mortgage payments they'd have to do that. So there'd no longer be any rental properties in expensive areas. I don't really know exactly what the effects of that would be - maybe house prices would go down in the long run, and maybe that would be a good thing. Would wealthy folk who are currently happy renting decide they'd have to buy somewhere and what effect would that have? I'm sure there would be lots of effects good and bad but I can't see how it would be anything other than a major upheaval, and very unpopular with a lot of voters who for better or worse have money invested in property. So that's why I wonder how much of practical solution it is to offer as an alternative to capping housing benefit.

I would like to see housing costs go down, and I would like to see tenants having more security of tenure than they do at present. I'm not necessarily against the idea of caps on rental prices but I think you have to propose a realistic way of bringing it in. That's why i asked further up how it would work in practice. Would the cap be the same regardless of where the property is, for example? Would it be related to the size and quality of the property? How would you make sure that lots of rental places didn't just disappear because it no longer made sense for the landlord to let it out? Would people's income be taken into account when working out what they should pay? These are pretty crucial details to work out if it's not just going to be some pie-in-the-sky idea.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 19, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Bringing in a cap would surely mean that it woud no longer make sense for lots of landlords to rent their place out.


Yeah, some good points there, but the goal here is not to enrich wealthy landlords, but to provide people with decent homes to live in. This is essential.

I couldn't give a fuck if rent capping suddenly makes it less profitable for landlords - there's no god-given right for property to be a source of fat wedge for the already wealthy. Anyway, most landlord/owners are creaming it in at the moment cos rental prices are going through the roof and they are paying virtually no interest on (probably) interest-only loans.

However, all this is moot, because I can't see anyone, ever, bringing in rent capping. Even if the Labour Party was taken over in a left wing/socialist coup I couldn't see them bringing this in. Most Labour MPs own second homes and/or properties to rent out anyway (and even then, some are fiddling their expenses on second homes.)

 and


----------



## Badgers (Oct 19, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I couldn't give a fuck if rent capping suddenly makes it less profitable for landlords - there's no god-given right for property to be a source of fat wedge for the already wealthy. Anyway, most landlord/owners are creaming it in at the moment cos rental prices are going through the roof and they are paying virtually no interest on (probably) interest-only loans.


 
Yup ^ 

Landlord with 10 properties and mortgaged to the hilt would be fucked. A lot of them would be fucked because they (look at this cunt) almost all use finance to buy. If they could no longer cover the mortgage payments they would sell or have then repossessed. Either way they would have to be filled and that would cause a shift in the market. 



teuchter said:


> How would you make sure that lots of rental places didn't just disappear because it no longer made sense for the landlord to let it out?


 
These places won't get knocked down ^


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2012)

Badgers said:


> These places won't get knocked down ^


 
Of course not, and I don't know exactly what would happen but I can see a scenario where a load of these properties go up for sale, maybe house prices go down a bit as a result, the upper end of the rental market will buy instead of rent, and the lower end will continue to live in the crappiest housing in the crappiest parts of town just like now.

Alternative scenarios accepted for consideration.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2012)

I think we should start by giving renters better security of tenure - longer term contracts (5 years +) where the price is agreed at the beginning and can go up only by a certain amount per year. As in other European countries. This seems more feasible to me.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 20, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Bringing in a cap would surely mean that it woud no longer make sense for lots of landlords to rent their place out. They would get a better return selling it off. In cases where the rental income would be lower than mortgage payments they'd have to do that. So there'd no longer be any rental properties in expensive areas. I don't really know exactly what the effects of that would be - maybe house prices would go down in the long run, and maybe that would be a good thing. Would wealthy folk who are currently happy renting decide they'd have to buy somewhere and what effect would that have? I'm sure there would be lots of effects good and bad but I can't see how it would be anything other than a major upheaval, and very unpopular with a lot of voters who for better or worse have money invested in property. So that's why I wonder how much of practical solution it is to offer as an alternative to capping housing benefit.
> 
> I would like to see housing costs go down, and I would like to see tenants having more security of tenure than they do at present. I'm not necessarily against the idea of caps on rental prices but I think you have to propose a realistic way of bringing it in. That's why i asked further up how it would work in practice. Would the cap be the same regardless of where the property is, for example? Would it be related to the size and quality of the property? How would you make sure that lots of rental places didn't just disappear because it no longer made sense for the landlord to let it out? Would people's income be taken into account when working out what they should pay? These are pretty crucial details to work out if it's not just going to be some pie-in-the-sky idea.


 
The reason its "a pie in the sky" idea is seen in your post. The whole of this country revolves around the need of owners of property. Whether its the small "Buy to Let" operator to large developers. Who are increasingly seeing rental property as good investment.

Of course , in the present state of affairs, rent controls are not seen as a practical alternative to capping HB. Much easier politically to cause the least well off a load of problems. In combination with the other "reforms" to social housing coming in its a major upheaval for the less well off. But they do not count.

Of course those who have "invested" in property wont like it. And yes they are probably the middle income floating voters who both parties feel they have to keep happy.

If you think that rent controls are to difficult to bring why not just keep the system as it is. It works. It keeps people housed.It keeps the those voters who have buy to let properties happy.

I have never noticed landlords complaining about getting HB.

To make rents controls practical this would have to be combined with building new Council housing and HA housing with secure tenancies. With the money saved from HB costs.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 20, 2012)

[quote="Badgers, post: 11619442, member: 15917
 A lot of them would be fucked because they (look at this cunt) almost all use finance to buy.
[/quote]


From the link how to "build a passive income for life through property".

Well that’s the constituency that neither political party want to upset.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 20, 2012)

teuchter said:


> I think we should start by giving renters better security of tenure - longer term contracts (5 years +) where the price is agreed at the beginning and can go up only by a certain amount per year. As in other European countries. This seems more feasible to me.


 
See this interesting article comparing Germany and UK housing market.




> The contrast between the German and UK housing markets couldn’t be more stark.
> Unlike Germany, the UK housing market is essentially a bubble factory. Wheras Germany’s highly responsive supply ensures that extra demand manifests itself in rising new home construction rather than increased prices, the opposite is the case under the UK’s restrictive land-use policies.
> 
> The UK’s deregulated rental market and lack of tenure has also ensured that renting is a second rate option, thereby encouraging residents to strive (and borrow big) for owner occupancy. And of course the UK’s lax financial system has been only too happy to oblige, providing households with no deposit mortgages during the boom followed by rationed credit during the bust.
> ...


 
​


> ​The German rental system is another key factor contributing to the stability and affordability of the housing market. While the majority of rental dwellings in Germany are private, rents are regulated and prices are prevented from increasing sharply. Tenants also have security of tenure as long as they pay the rent and behave well, except on the rare occassion when a member of the landlord’s family needs the accomodation or when the building is going to be replaced.
> 
> Further, because renting is the dominant housing choice in Germany, the political system is highly sensitive to tenants’ rights and perecived threats to the status quo typically receives prominant media attention and political responses.
> 
> ...


 
​​


----------



## editor (Oct 23, 2012)

In case anyone missed this - please sign!
*Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition.*


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 24, 2012)

Ive been in touch with Brixton Society and they are putting into an objection to the application.

I have also sent the U75/BB statement to the Ward Cllrs and asked if they will comment on the application. Had no response on that yet.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 24, 2012)

editor said:


> In case anyone missed this - please sign!
> *Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition.*


 
The petition can still be signed after the date for comments on the application have finished.

Maybe also put the joint statement up on Brixton Noticeboard or start separate thread on this application? As it will slowly grind on through the planning process.

I have asked planning to extend comments period as the notice went "missing" from outside the Brixton Square soon after it was put up. Also emailed them again has they have not answered what they are doing about missing sign. All they did was acknowledge my first email a while back telling them it had gone.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 24, 2012)

They've also not written back to us following a request for the original s106 agreement, which is needed in order to compare to the proposed agreement.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 24, 2012)

Hmm. Not very helpful.   I'll happily object if I know what to object about.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Hmm. Not very helpful. I'll happily object if I know what to object about.


Read this page from earlier in the thread and there are several links and also the text of an email which Crispy sent 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-old-cooltan-site.293394/page-6#post-11550261


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 24, 2012)

Are they correct?  I remember that brixton blog were looking into things as it was all a bit complex and unclear.  Not helped by the original not being available etc. 

I'll have a look, cheers.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Are they correct? I remember that brixton blog were looking into things as it was all a bit complex and unclear. Not helped by the original not being available etc.
> 
> I'll have a look, cheers.


Yes you're right - it's hard to make an objection without all the proper details. What I did was write a general statement saying there shouldn't be any dilution of the original social housing commitments.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 24, 2012)

Fair enough.  I can go with that.   I'll ask to see a copy of the original too.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Hmm. Not very helpful. I'll happily object if I know what to object about.


 
This is what I said. Thing is u are allowed to seek an alteration to a Section106. My objection is that I want the original Section 106 for the affordable housing element to stay as it is. Officers and Barratts can argue there case. And given the recent government "reforms" to housing they probably can make a strong case. So in the end I am saying I do not like the government "reforms" either. Officers will probably argue that given recent changes by government to the category of "affordability" , tenancies and who can be provider they have come up with the best solution possible. As a resident Im making my feelings known. I think the most feasible result that can happen is that the application can be knocked back. But officers will argue that Barratts could appeal with a result that is worse. 

I object to this variation for the following reasons.

That Barratts have already started building the flats and are only now seeking a variation. The permission to build the flats and the existing Section 106 was known by Barratts when they acquired the site. I object to the fact that they are seeking a variation now. They should be kept to there existing variation.

The variation could possibly allow a less secure tenancy than if it was Social Rented Housing tenancy. The variation applied for does not detail what sort of tenancies would be given if the variation was allowed. Its likely to be time limited tenancies instead of secure Social Rented ones. If variation is allowed there should also be a definition of the tenancies to be granted. These should be secure not time limited.

I object to the changing of the definition of provider being widened. These flats should be rented from a RSL Housing Association

Barratts are a large company. Having a few of the flats let as Social Rented on secure tenancies is not going to undermine the viability of the scheme.

This could set a precedent for future developments in Brixton area. As the Brixton Masterplan is developed new housing will be built. If this definition of affordable housing is allowed it would lead to lack of affordable housing with a Social Rent and secure tenancies on developments. If this variation is allowed it could set a precedent for other large schemes in Brixton Masterplan area. This is one of the few ways to get Social Rented flats built at the present moment.

This is a policy issue. Officers should not be allowed to decide policy ad hoc in discussions with developers. Issues of affordable housing as part of planning gain in large developments should be decided with the consultation of the local community and there representatives- Cllrs. If this variation is allowed its will set a precedent for other large schemes. Therefore I object on the grounds that this is a policy issue that should not be decided in this way. At the moment the SPD for the Brixton Masterplan area is being consulted on. This sets out the planning guidance for the area. This issue of planning gain should be consulted on there.

I also object as if these flats are not let as RSL Housing Association flats on a Social Rent then I see a possibility of another provider (or Barratts) later on putting in another variation asking for a higher percentage of market rent on these flats.

I emailed planning that the sign outside the development about this application disappeared. I am concerned that someone took the notice down. The Council had put it up securely. It went soon after local people started expressing there concerns about this issue. I do not think officers took it down.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Are they correct? I remember that brixton blog were looking into things as it was all a bit complex and unclear. Not helped by the original not being available etc.
> 
> I'll have a look, cheers.


 

The thing I have realised about planning is that lots of it is complex and unclear. As was the case with the Ice rink on the markets car park. Brixton Society put in good objection using all the planning guidelines. Officers did the same and came to opposite conclusion.

So in the end , within reason, one can voice an opinion even if it might lose in planning terms. Planning is about people having a say on what they want in there area. Its a way to let the Cllrs know the feeling of people in local community. Otherwise its just developers and officers deciding matters.

Cllrs need to look at Section 106 ( to be replaced by Community Infrastructure Levy) and what gains for local area they can get from large developments. I see this application as a retrograde step potentially.


----------



## Ol Nick (Oct 25, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> The thing I have realised about planning is that lots of it is complex and unclear. As was the case with the Ice rink on the markets car park. Brixton Society put in good objection using all the planning guidelines. Officers did the same and came to opposite conclusion.


 
Tricky one, because how do you compare the value of customer parking for the market with having ice skating on your doorstep for a couple of years?

(The rink and the Redskins are pretty cool, I have to say.)


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 26, 2012)

Ol Nick said:


> Tricky one, because how do you compare the value of customer parking for the market with having ice skating on your doorstep for a couple of years?
> 
> (The rink and the Redskins are pretty cool, I have to say.)


 
You dont. Tescos were supposed to keep the ice rink in Streatham working until the new one was built. That agreement should have been kept to.

As was said at the time Tescos could have offered there car park in Acre Lane for a temporary ice rink. Of course that was never going to happen.

Its not about value. Its about the needs of the local economy. The market traders need parking. As Tescos need there car park in Acre lane.

The argument of the officers was that this is temporary so does not go against planning guidelines for the market area. Value for residents never really came into it.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 4, 2012)

I have just read this article on the governments new "affordable" housing policy




> The programme, billed as a "new more flexible form of social housing", has provided cover for the government to slash the affordable house-building budget by 60% by enabling new or re-let social housing to be charged at rents up to a maximum of 80% of average market rent. The problem is that the supposedly social homes provided under Affordable Rent will be unaffordable for low-income households across large swaths of urban England.
> Figures show that for many parts of the country the gross annual income needed to afford new housing built under this programme is far in excess of the current average gross median annual income of social housing households in England, before receipt of housing benefit, of £13,000 a year. Take Leeds, for example, where a one-bedroom property charging 80% of median market rents will require earnings of £16,971 a year. Or Birmingham, where a two-bedroom property charging 80% of median market rents will require an annual household income of £18,857.
> The government's retort is that under the Affordable Rent programme, rents can be up to 80% of market rate and in many cases they will actually be lower. This is true. In London the average looks set to be 64.5%. Yet even in this best-case scenario the programme still prices out many low-income households, especially in London and the south east. In the City of Westminster in London, households will need a staggering gross income of £58,800 to afford a two-bed property charging 60% market rents (4.5% below the predicted London average) and things aren't much better even in London's most deprived boroughs.


 
The spreadsheet of figures for salaries required for 80% and 60% market value is here


----------



## Greebo (Nov 5, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> <snip>spreadsheet of figures for salaries required for 80% and 60% market value is here


What the unholy fuck was whoever dreamt up those figures taking?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2012)

Greebo said:


> What the unholy fuck was whoever dreamt up those figures taking?


 
They've been drinking the neoliberal Koolaid.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 6, 2012)

I have not had time to post them up individually but the figures for Lambeth even at 60% of market rent are high. 

Its states but the spreadsheet is useful info on the effect of these housing "reforms"


----------



## leanderman (Nov 6, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I have not had time to post them up individually but the figures for Lambeth even at 60% of market rent are high.
> 
> Its states but the spreadsheet is useful info on the effect of these housing "reforms"


 
can you explain? which figures are too high?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 6, 2012)

leanderman said:


> can you explain? which figures are too high?


 
Its the link to the Spreadsheet in my #449

Lambeth is number 148 on list. The first columns show the salary required if the "affordable" rent was set at 80% ( the maximum) the last columns if it set at 60% of market rent. The spreadsheet also shows the shortfall (in case of Lambeth) based on the current ( end of 2011 in this article) average gross median annual income of social housing households in England, before receipt of housing benefit, of £13,000 a year.

So the salary needed for a one bed flat in Lambeth at 80% of market rent is £34 114. The next column shows that the shortfall from medium income (£13 000) is therefore £21 114.

Scroll along spreadsheet to see the figures for 60% of market rent. (Which I think the Council is trying to get providers to do). Then the salary required for a one bed flat is £25 586. The shortfall from medium income of £13 000 is therefore £12 586.

So for Lambeth even if "affordable" rents are set at 60% the salary requires a salary that is higher than a lot of people.


The map here that gives the 80% of market value is more understandable. You can zoom in to specific parts of London. The different colours show the income needed to afford to rent a room at the "affordable" housing level . See table at bottom of map. You can zoom into London and click on boroughs to see what salaries are needed for one bed flats and studio flats at 80% "affordable" level. 

As map shows large parts of London are red and black compared with outside London. Meaning higher income is needed. So the effect of reforms will be to push people out of central London.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 6, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Its the link to the Spreadsheet in my #449
> 
> So the effect of reforms will be to push people out of central London.


 
Thanks. Interesting.

Is it a more extreme version of the familiar story of private renters or owners who leave for affordability reasons?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 6, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Thanks. Interesting.
> 
> Is it a more extreme version of the familiar story of private renters or owners who leave for affordability reasons?


 
Its a political policy to destroy all that has been built up since the end of WW2 to provide decent affordable housing. 

Private renters have had there rights reduced over the last thirty years. So that they are at the mercy of "market forces".


----------



## leanderman (Nov 6, 2012)

Well, the Tories are certainly making the most of the 'opportunities' offered by the financial crisis.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Dec 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> And 100% and interest only mortgages have gone the way of the dodo (not a bad thing as they drove the btl profiteering)


Wow wow wow have just come across this blog by chance, I have bought one of the two bed apartments in BRIXTON SQUARE, the first phase is already sold out. It may not be the most pleasing block to the eye, but location, price, high spec, it is far superior than most of the apartments I have seen in this price bracket, can't wait till October when I can move in. I am not a stockbroker if I was I would have bought the penthouse .


----------



## Crispy (Dec 28, 2012)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Wow wow wow have just come across this blog by chance, I have bought one of the two bed apartments in BRIXTON SQUARE, the first phase is already sold out. It may not be the most pleasing block to the eye, but location, price, high spec, it is far superior than most of the apartments I have seen in this price bracket, can't wait till October when I can move in. I am not a stockbroker if I was I would have bought the penthouse .


Wealth always feels relative, but if you can afford one of these flats, you are rich. Don't try and deny it


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 29, 2012)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Wow wow wow have just come across this blog by chance, I have bought one of the two bed apartments in BRIXTON SQUARE, the first phase is already sold out. It may not be the most pleasing block to the eye, but location, price, high spec, it is far superior than most of the apartments I have seen in this price bracket, can't wait till October when I can move in. I am not a stockbroker if I was I would have bought the penthouse .


You have overpaid I'm afraid fella. Still, you can save money by shopping local (i.e. not in Tesco or Sainsbury) and getting involved in the local community. Welcome to Brixton. 

What attracted you here?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 29, 2012)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> location, price, high spec, it is far superior than most of the apartments I have seen in this price bracket......


Well, the location just over the road is actually, according to official figures taking in mental health; general health; literacy; income etc, the tenth most deprived area in the UK so it's all relative.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 30, 2012)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Wow wow wow have just come across this blog by chance, I have bought one of the two bed apartments in BRIXTON SQUARE, the first phase is already sold out. It may not be the most pleasing block to the eye, but location, price, high spec, it is far superior than most of the apartments I have seen in this price bracket, can't wait till October when I can move in. I am not a stockbroker if I was I would have bought the penthouse .


 
I have my suspicions ur not a real poster.

This sounds like advertising blurb to me.

Could be this post is a wind up.

After all if u google Brixton Square the Barratts website come first and the Urban thread second. So its not hard to find.


----------



## stuff_it (Dec 30, 2012)

Fucking hell I just looked at the prices! And the cheeky cunts calling them stuff like Windrush to try and appeal to Brixton history.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 30, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I have my suspicions ur not a real poster.
> 
> This sounds like advertising blurb to me.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed - it does look like a wind-up.

The prices may seem high but are probably lower than many other areas of London, including some that have only recently become popular such as East Dulwich and Balham.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Fucking hell I just looked at the prices! And the cheeky cunts calling them stuff like Windrush to try and appeal to Brixton history.


There's even a yuppie block named after Brady's. Twats.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 30, 2012)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Wow wow wow have just come across this blog by chance, I have bought one of the two bed apartments in BRIXTON SQUARE, the first phase is already sold out. It may not be the most pleasing block to the eye, but location, price, high spec, it is far superior than most of the apartments I have seen in this price bracket, can't wait till October when I can move in. I am not a stockbroker if I was I would have bought the penthouse .


 
Average London salary is about £30k. That gets you a mortgage of £120k. Those flats start at £339k. Unless you are releasing equity from selling a flat you'd need to be on about £80k to buy one of these, nearly 3 times the average London salary. And that's the average salary. Many, many people who are not 'poor' earn a lot less than that.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Hi folks, I previously looked at a flat in Clapham, Wingate Square about the same size £625,000 could not afford it but was just Interested in what that sort of money could buy in Clapham, and the answer was NOT A LOT. I know the Brixton Square apartment sound a lot but in comparison it sounds good value for money for a London Location. Not advertising blurb, I have just seen. Lot of rubbish for not. Lot less.
cheers for the welcome BRIXTON HATTER, is Marks and Spencer's ok to shop in lol


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 22, 2013)

And yet quite bad value compared to the 30 2 bed flats I just found on a property search in Brixton for £100k less than the price of a Brixton Square flat. That's a lot of money for any modernisation and fancy fixtures and fittings one might want.

At £100k less than Brixton Square, £230k is still much more than someone on an average salary can afford. You don't sound like a very astute purchaser to be frank if that's the best you can do when bargain hunting.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> And yet quite bad value compared to the 30 2 bed flats I just found on a property search in Brixton for £100k less than the price of a Brixton Square flat. That's a lot of money for any modernisation and fancy fixtures and fittings one might want.
> 
> At £100k less than Brixton Square, £230k is still much more than someone on an average salary can afford. You don't sound like a very astute purchaser to be frank if that's the best you can do when bargain hunting.


 
True.

But the point obtains ... Brixton Square is cheaper than _equivalent_ properties in Clapham and so may sell well.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 22, 2013)

no more claphamites in brixton grr


----------



## teuchter (Jan 22, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I have my suspicions ur not a real poster.


 
Its punctuation and general abuse of the English language seems of a spam-style nature to me.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> True.
> 
> But the point obtains ... Brixton Square is cheaper than _equivalent_ properties in Clapham and so may sell well.


Except Brixton's not Clapham. Not quite yet, at least.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

Not yet. But that debate and those concerns are of little concern to buyers.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Not yet. But that debate and those concerns are of little concern to buyers.


I think the area they're moving into is pretty high of the list of things to be concerned about when people are spending over a quarter of a million on a flat, you know.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

What I meant was that they do not share your concerns about Brixton turning into Clapham. In fact they probably would welcome such an outcome. And, since Claphamisation seems to be happening, £330,000 may not be that overpriced.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> What I meant was that they do not share your concerns about Brixton turning into Clapham. In fact they probably would welcome such an outcome. And, since Claphamisation seems to be happening, £330,000 may not be that overpriced.


Well, yes. I don't imagine many of the people buying property in Brixton Square have much of a particular interest in the Brixton I know and love. But then, most of the buyers seem to be buy to let profit-seekers, so I don't imagine their here-today gone-tomorrow tenants are going to get much of a chance to contribute to Brixton's character.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

Agreed.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Sorry if my punctuation is not up to scratch, I am doing the best I can with the tools I have. I really don't understand leandermans comment about me being an astute purchaser, I like the location,I like the size and spec of the property, and I can afford the price. It ticks all my boxes and I am very content thank you very much.one mans meat etc.
I do agree with the comments regarding the buy to let's as I know one investor has purchased 5 apartments, if he has that much cash I reckon he is probably more astute than you.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I do agree with the comments regarding the buy to let's as I know one investor has purchased 5 apartments, if he has that much cash I reckon he is probably more astute than you.


Is he really? Could you explain your reasoning behind that personal slur, bearing in mind you know fuck all about my circumstances. Thanks.

Seeing as we'll soon be close neighbours, I can see you're already doing your bit to blend in with the existing community. I hope the rest aren't like you.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 22, 2013)

Younger Claphamites can't afford to buy in Clapham, hence the prices in Brixton/Streatham going up as they seek affordable properties close by. Claphamites be expanding....


----------



## Boudicca (Jan 22, 2013)

Surely Mr Bim is the estate agent selling the flats in Brixton Square?


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2013)

Boudicca said:


> Surely Mr Bim is the estate agent selling the flats in Brixton Square?


He surely has shown all the charm of an estate agent thus far.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 22, 2013)

I reckon he's just yet another troll. 

Mr Bim of Bar - how much did you pay? Which block is your flat in?


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Jan 22, 2013)

So what fun can e have with the likes of him when they move in? Big noisy welcome party outside? Banners?


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Jan 22, 2013)

Also, I bet those flats get burgled loads, especially given Granville shops next door keep getting broken into.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

Depends if they have 'porters', which would make it even more costly to live there.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 22, 2013)

Just had a look at the floorplan for the cheapest flat on there. 46.9 sq metres, single aspect, for 264K.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 22, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Just had a look at the floorplan for the cheapest flat on there. 46.9 sq metres, single aspect, for 264K.


 
Bargain compared to this poky conversion flat on Mervan Rd for 290k, that I spotted the other day.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 22, 2013)

Geezus. I'm buying one with just shy of 700sq ft just up the Hill for under 170k


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Geezus. I'm buying one with just shy of 800sq ft just up the Hill for under 170k


 
sensational. which road?


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 22, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Just had a look at the floorplan for the cheapest flat on there. 46.9 sq metres, single aspect, for 264K.


 
Oh, the cheapest I could find when I looked was £330k.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> sensational. which road?



Ex LA, overlooking Holmewood Gardens and most of SE London.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 22, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Younger Claphamites can't afford to buy in Clapham, hence the prices in Brixton/Streatham going up as they seek affordable properties close by. Claphamites be expanding....


The claphamite thing may be a misnomer since the spiritual home of the tribe is an imaginary extension of Chelsea.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2013)

Breaks my heart whenever I hear of ex-council properties going on the market. 

(Kanda I'm not having a go at you, just the politics of the situation)


----------



## Kanda (Jan 22, 2013)

I agree Ed. I turned down the opportunity to buy my mothers for the same reasons, could have made a killing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2013)

editor said:


> Except Brixton's not Clapham. Not quite yet, at least.


 
First cunt I hear refer to Brixton (or even Stockwell) as Clapham East or East Clapham get chinned!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Younger Claphamites can't afford to buy in Clapham, hence the prices in Brixton/Streatham going up as they seek affordable properties close by. Claphamites be expanding....


 
...like a genital fungus.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2013)

editor said:


> Breaks my heart whenever I hear of ex-council properties going on the market.
> 
> (Kanda I'm not having a go at you, just the politics of the situation)


 
Pisses me off that Thatcher, the diseased old cunt, legally disbarred Local Authorities from operating a "first refusal" clause on Right to BUy sales. Up until (IIRC) '84, if you'd bought your council house, you were obliged to give your council first refusal at the market price.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Looks like I am in the dog house before I even move in, did not mean to offend anyone, think I had better keep my mouth shut as I am not allowed to voice my opinion.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 22, 2013)

Why have you been threatened with a ban?


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Looks like I am in the dog house before I even move in, did not mean to offend anyone, think I had better keep my mouth shut as I am not allowed to voice my opinion.


Whatever gave you that silly Billy idea? You're absolutely entitled to voice your opinion here, just as other posters are equally entitled to comment on what you're saying. That's how a bulletin board works, you see.

So, which block are you moving into and how much did you pay?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Looks like I am in the dog house before I even move in, did not mean to offend anyone, think I had better keep my mouth shut as I am not allowed to voice my opinion.


 


Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Looks like I am in the dog house before I even move in, did not mean to offend anyone, think I had better keep my mouth shut as I am not allowed to voice my opinion.


 
Don't worry about it: the courtesies of everyday life are not always observed here!

It is however an entertaining and intelligent forum.


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Looks like I am in the dog house before I even move in, did not mean to offend anyone, think I had better keep my mouth shut as I am not allowed to voice my opinion.


Simply not true you can't have an opinion, and don't be over dramatic. If you actually want to be part of the community, you need to think about what impact you're having on it. There are people on here from all walks of life and all incomes- we just all need to think about each other's perspectives


----------



## teuchter (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Looks like I am in the dog house before I even move in, did not mean to offend anyone, think I had better keep my mouth shut as I am not allowed to voice my opinion.


 
FYI the main reasons you were put in the dog house were:
- comparing Brixton with Clapham
- suggesting wealth is an indicator of astuteness
If you are not a troll and end up sticking around, in years to come you will look back with amusement at how you managed to get both these things into your first few posts on urban75.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Looks like I am in the dog house before I even move in, did not mean to offend anyone, think I had better keep my mouth shut as I am not allowed to voice my opinion.


 
Do you think most of the flats at Brixton Square are being bought by buy-to-let landlords, or owner-occupiers?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

I think you are all grooming me to turn me into a lefty, I am already feeling guilty for moving in lol.
Editor I  have bought in the 2nd phase, they have not released the prices yet, the equivalent apartment in phase one was £360,000 but Barratts have said because phase one was sold out in one month that the price may go up, so will have to wait, I have reserved an apartment so fingers crossed they keep it at the original price.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I think you are all grooming me to turn me into a lefty, I am already feeling guilty for moving in lol.
> Editor I have bought in the 2nd phase, they have not released the prices yet, the equivalent apartment in phase one was £360,000 but Barratts have said because phase one was sold out in one month that the price may go up, so will have to wait, I have reserved an apartment so fingers crossed they keep it at the original price.


 
They won't even tell you the price? If it goes up, presumably you can pull out at no cost?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

From what the salesperson was telling me the majority of the first phase were bought by buy to let investors


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Yes £1000 deposit fully refundable if I decide to pull out


----------



## Belushi (Jan 22, 2013)

Have you considered looking at other flats in the area?  You could get a lot more bang for your buck if you looked around.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Yes Belushi, but I WANT NEW, as I said before it ticks all my boxes, oh just in case anyone is Interested the projected rental on a two bed apartment is £360 a week


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> From what the salesperson was telling me the majority of the first phase were bought by buy to let investors


 
Strike One for the editor!


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> From what the salesperson was telling me the majority of the first phase were bought by buy to let investors


That's what the place was built for.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

Transient Towers


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

I realise it's not what you want in the area but from an investment perspective that is not a bad yield for your Investment DON'T HAVE A GO AT ME


----------



## Belushi (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes Belushi, but I WANT NEW, as I said before it ticks all my boxes, oh just in case anyone is Interested the projected rental on a two bed apartment is £360 a week


 
There's no need to shout   How much would you be willing to go to if the builders keep raising the asking price?


----------



## Belushi (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I realise it's not what you want in the area but from an investment perspective that is not a bad yield for your Investment DON'T HAVE A GO AT ME


 
I'm actually beginning to like you, mad shouty people are


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> cheers for the welcome BRIXTON HATTER, is Marks and Spencer's ok to shop in lol


 
The answer is yes. M&S have been in Brixton for years in good and bad times. 

See here the Eds piece on M&S in Brixton



> c. 1910 From humble beginnings...
> 
> This is Marks and Spencer's original Penny Bazaar, located in Arch 574 on Brixton Station Road.
> 
> Opening in 1903, it was the company's first London store. In 1931 they relocated to more impressive premises at 448-450 Brixton Road.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Lol lol lol Belushi do you work for Barratts ?


----------



## Kanda (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes Belushi, but I WANT NEW, as I said before it ticks all my boxes, oh just in case anyone is Interested the projected rental on a two bed apartment is £360 a week



Which is way out of whack for the area. I suggest you read up on gentrification and a lot more of these forums etc....


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Wow thanks for the M&S history lesson, even more reason to shop at one of my fav stores, but won't buy fish, veg, or meat there, spread the wealth and all that.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Lol lol lol Belushi do you work for Barratts ?


 
No   But my brothers a very succesful salesman  and i suspect he'd love you as a customer


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

kanda you can't stop market forces without a revolution


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I think you are all grooming me to turn me into a lefty, I am already feeling guilty for moving in lol.
> Editor I have bought in the 2nd phase, they have not released the prices yet, the equivalent apartment in phase one was £360,000 but Barratts have said because phase one was sold out in one month that the price may go up, so will have to wait, I have reserved an apartment so fingers crossed they keep it at the original price.


 
I do not follow this. So u reserve a flat and Barratts still have the right to up the price later on? How do Barratts square that? If you reserve a flat I would have thought its at the price at the time.

If that is correct then Barratts are right greedy C****.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> kanda you can't stop market forces without a revolution



No, you can't. You can stop contributing to it though.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 22, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I do not follow this. So u reserve a flat and Barratts still have the right to up the price later on? How do Barratts square that? If you reserve a flat I would have thought its at the price at the time.
> 
> If that is correct then Barratts are right greedy C****.


 
You wouldn't just think 'oh, okay then'..


----------



## colacubes (Jan 22, 2013)

New build is generally smaller, shitter, less noise proof and beige as fuck.  How do you feel about the developers trying to get out of the social housing obligations that were originally granted in the planning application Mr Bim of Bar?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Yes if you reserve a flat on a phase that is not released then they reserve the right to increase the price on the release date. Once released then all the apartments in that phase are at a fixed price until sold.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> kanda you can't stop market forces without a revolution


 
Actually u can control the market. Its what Social Democracy advocated as an alternative to Marxist revolution. Its what Thatcher hated and did her best to get rid of. Housing works in much different way in other European countries. Germany for example.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Wow thanks for the M&S history lesson, even more reason to shop at one of my fav stores, but won't buy fish, veg, or meat there, spread the wealth and all that.


 
A tip Mr Bim of Bar either quote the post ur replying to or put poster name in Mr Bim of Bar. Put @ then user name to do this. This means one does not miss reply to what one said. Also it can stop confusion about who ur referring to.


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 22, 2013)

nipsla said:


> New build is generally smaller, shitter, less noise proof and beige as fuck. How do you feel about the developers trying to get out of the social housing obligations that were originally granted in the planning application Mr Bim of Bar?


 
But they are so neat and tidy with skirting boards that fit and professionally boxed in boilers rather than a hotch potch of bodged DIY like my flat.  

/visited a new build recently]


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2013)

Belushi said:


> You wouldn't just think 'oh, okay then'..


 
Not really.

Its like when you promise to buy in the Futures market. You agree to buy a certain amount of goods in 6 months time at a certain price. The price stays the same. 

What Barratts are doing means they cannot lose. But means that someone looking to buy a flat has no idea if they will be able to move in. Means they cannot plan ahead. Seems crap to me.


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> But they are so neat and tidy with skirting boards that fit and professionally boxed in boilers rather than a hotch potch of bodged DIY like my flat.
> 
> /visited a new build recently]


Not once you move in... I rented one briefly, bits fell off it....


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes if you reserve a flat on a phase that is not released then they reserve the right to increase the price on the release date. Once released then all the apartments in that phase are at a fixed price until sold.


 
So Barrats are C****

Means u might pay more than first phase for same size flat.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Nipsla I have knowledge of the social housing aspect, they did inform me that part of the block was dedicated to affordable housing, I won't lie it was not top of my agenda when I looked at the block all I wanted was a place to live


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Sorry I meant no knowledge


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I realise it's not what you want in the area but from an investment perspective that is not a bad yield for your Investment DON'T HAVE A GO AT ME


 
5.2 per cent gross yield.  Kanda's flat offers at least 7 per cent. Let for more than £1,000 a month, then more than 7 per cent!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> So Barrats are C****
> 
> Means u might pay more than first phase for same size flat.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Yes but these apartments come with a five year warranty so you will be vitually maintenance free and no grief from your tenants


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> 5.2 per cent gross yield.  Kanda's flat offers at least 7 per cent. Let for more than £1,000 a month, then more than 7 per cent!


Yeah, but you're using maths, and common sense. The barratts offering is basically for people who aren't worldly wise (I didn't mean that to come out sounding like a euphemism for old)... It is an easy, no thought required investment- that's their value proposition and why they are making so much money....


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> 5.2 per cent gross yield.  Kanda's flat offers at least 7 per cent. Let for more than £1,000 a month, then more than 7 per cent!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 22, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> A tip Mr Bim of Bar either quote the post ur replying to or put poster name in Mr Bim of Bar. Put @ then user name to do this. This means one does not miss reply to what one said. Also it can stop confusion about who ur referring to.


Ok sorry, that's cool, just getting to grips with this


----------



## Kanda (Jan 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> 5.2 per cent gross yield.  Kanda's flat offers at least 7 per cent. Let for more than £1,000 a month, then more than 7 per cent!



Mortgage of £700/month, could let it for £1200 easily once tidied up a bit. I hope not to but I'm soon unemployed and that would pay my rent in the pub. Need to see how the job market is....


----------



## teuchter (Jan 23, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Which is way out of whack for the area.


Is it?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 23, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Is it?


I really don't think it's way out of wack, things will only get better


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 23, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I really don't think it's way out of wack, things will only get better


 
Higher prices that even fewer people can afford is hardly getting 'better'.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 23, 2013)

Seems like roughly what I'd expect for a two bed flat in central Brixton.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I really don't think it's way out of wack, things will only get better


 
Better for who? The landlord or tenant?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 23, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Better for who? The landlord or tenant?


If you make an investment surely you would hope it would grow.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2013)

I thought you were buying a home, not an 'investment'?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 23, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes but these apartments come with a five year warranty so you will be vitually maintenance free and no grief from your tenants


 
bastard tenants, expecting maintenance and stuff.  blah blah blah the toilets broke blah blah blah door won't close.  always the fucking same.  plebs.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 23, 2013)

editor said:


> I thought you were buying a home, not an 'investment'?


I was wondering what he meant when he said this......



Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes but these apartments come with a five year warranty so you will be vitually maintenance free and no grief from your tenants


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 23, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> bastard tenants, expecting maintenance and stuff.  blah blah blah the toilets broke blah blah blah door won't close.  always the fucking same.  plebs.


Lol lol lol just meant it would be great for tenants to have no problems with leaking taps etc etc etc but take you point and it made me smile


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 23, 2013)

editor said:


> I thought you were buying a home, not an 'investment'?


Hey it's firstly a home but if I can make money on it I am Not adverse to that.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 23, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Seems like roughly what I'd expect for a two bed flat in central Brixton.


Here here


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 23, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Lol lol lol just meant it would be great for tenants to have no problems with leaking taps etc etc etc but take you point and it made me smile


Thanks for clearing that up, it was probably just your wording that confused us


> Mr Bim of Bar said:
> Yes but these apartments come with a five year warranty so you will be vitually maintenance free and no grief FROM your tenants


E2a I can't help wondering if the "of Bar..." bit betrays a connection, a bit of assymmetrical marketing strategy mebbe


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Looks like I am in the dog house before I even move in, did not mean to offend anyone, think I had better keep my mouth shut as I am not allowed to voice my opinion.


 
Ooh, get her with her melodramatics!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes Belushi, but I WANT NEW, as I said before it ticks all my boxes...


 
I wouldn't buy a Barretts home to live in full stop. I still recall with horror spending a couple of months labouring on a large Barretts development in Middlesex just after I left school (fitting damp course membranes and laying sealant on concrete floors), and being struck by just how closely they shaved the materials bill. The site agent thought it was okay to demand that we used scraps of membrane taped together because "the punter won't know any different". 
The same development also had stud partition walls filled with fibreglass insulation, as opposed to brick or breeze block, dividing the semis.

I haven't heard anything since that makes me more sanguine about the quality of Barratt Homes. 



> oh just in case anyone is Interested the projected rental on a two bed apartment is £360 a week


 
Two-thirds of that, I'd say, will be what they're likely to get, maybe the full £360 *if* demand tightens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> kanda you can't stop market forces without a revolution


 
Of course you can. Market forces aren't some external, unstoppable mystical force, they're artifacts of, in this case, market manipulation and a chronic undersupply of housing. A chronic undersupply that the coalition's housing benefit cap may well have an adverse effect on by shifting people who can't afford local prices outward toward the suburbs, easing supply in this area.

Make life terribly hard for buy-to-let landlords, that would.
Still, as the great Windsor Davies, says: "Oh dear, how sad, never mind!".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes but these apartments come with a five year warranty so you will be vitually maintenance free and no grief from your tenants


 
Building warranties are bunkum, for the most part, and the developers will begrudge every single penny they have to shell out for fault correction.


----------



## Manter (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Building warranties are bunkum, for the most part, and the developers will begrudge every single penny they have to shell out for fault correction.


Yes, this. You always, always have to look for the other guy's angle. If Barratt are acting as developer, land agent, estate agent, letting advisor, investment manager, insurance provider and god knows what else in between, that is a hell of a lot of margin they must be making. So how are they making their margin....? By putting lipstick on any pigs they can find and selling it as a feature.  Doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't't buy a new build from a developer, but you need to have a really clear view on what you are buying and what you're being sold


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Manter said:


> Yes, this. You always, always have to look for the other guy's angle. If Barratt are acting as developer, land agent, estate agent, letting advisor, investment manager, insurance provider and god knows what else in between, that is a hell of a lot of margin they must be making. So how are they making their margin....? By putting lipstick on any pigs they can find and selling it as a feature. Doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't't buy a new build from a developer, but you need to have a really clear view on what you are buying and what you're being sold


 
And, if at all possible, get a passing familiarity with the techniques and materials used in the build. That way it makes it easier to spot howlers like skimped drainage pipes that'll cause a damp problem and too-wide expansion joints that'll let the elements in.


----------



## Manter (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And, if at all possible, get a passing familiarity with the techniques and materials used in the build. That way it makes it easier to spot howlers like skimped drainage pipes that'll cause a damp problem and too-wide expansion joints that'll let the elements in.


Agree- but people don't because they have a glossy brochure that tells them it'll all be fine.  I have no issue with new builds per se- though they don't appeal to me particularly- but I am always amazed at the stuff people then find is wrong with them- some is preventable, some solvable, some I wouldn't buy a place because of.  And the developers are clever- eg Chelsea wharf had a rat infestation, loads of residents called rentokil and similar rather than wait for the official response, so the developers said it was no longer a development issue.  And they use reduced size furniture in the show homes- you have no comeback when yours doesn't fit... The finish in the show homes are often not what you get when you buy as the small print says something different, they can build another block pretty much up against your windows (see again Chelsea wharf) etc etc.  as I have said elsewhere, you need to know who you are doing business with- the developers do this all day every day so are pretty sharp cookies.... Yet people know nothing about property drink the mediocre wine, take the brochure and feel 'safe'.  Clever game of smoke and mirrors....


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course you can. Market forces aren't some external, unstoppable mystical force, they're artifacts of, in this case, market manipulation and a chronic undersupply of housing. A chronic undersupply that the coalition's housing benefit cap may well have an adverse effect on by shifting people who can't afford local prices outward toward the suburbs, easing supply in this area.
> 
> Make life terribly hard for buy-to-let landlords, that would.
> Still, as the great Windsor Davies, says: "Oh dear, how sad, never mind!".


 
In London I think it could be worse scenario.

Rental prices are holding up due to demand.

Benefit caps/ low wages could lead to the situation where people move out of London altogether.

Do not think the Coalition have thought about all the cleaners, waitresses etc etc who keep London going for them as cheap labour.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 24, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ok sorry, that's cool, just getting to grips with this


 
Not a problem. Takes a while to learn how to use the site.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 24, 2013)

Many lenders are wary of New Builds. Generally cos they are overpriced but not proved value, therefore you more likely had a sizeable deposit. 

Thing is, SW/SE London, the general housing market is fucked with huge deposits and it helps nobody. All you do is price everyone else out of the market, it's a shite state of affairs that, given a bit more research, if you actually give a fuck, you may come round to. 



Never gonna happen though, and yeah, some other cnut will jump in regardless.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ooh, get her with her melodramatics!


Please don't.  I know it's a cliche for comedic purposes but phrases like that contribute to and perpetuate a negative view of women.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 24, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Benefit caps/ low wages could lead to the situation where people move out of London altogether.
> 
> Do not think the Coalition have thought about all the cleaners, waitresses etc etc who keep London going for them as cheap labour.


 
That's something that I've seen suggested quite a bit on here, but I really can't see it happening. The situation regarding housing in London is fucked but it's not unique, and I've never heard of a single example of anything like that happening. It seems far more likely that what the result will be is increasingly crowded accomodation.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 24, 2013)

It needs house building on a heroic scale to keep up with London's surging population.

I wonder if the proposed conversion of office blocks will help.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 24, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> Please don't. I know it's a cliche for comedic purposes but phrases like that contribute to and perpetuate a negative view of women.


I'm afraid you've been "blinded by the shining light of your own self-righteousness".


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2013)

Imagine the how different the impact on the neighbourhood would have been if the Brixton Square development had been all social housing? 

*pipedream
*fantasy world
*'tis a cruel world


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 24, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I'm afraid you've been "blinded by the shining light of your own self-righteousness".


Or, alternatively, I'm sick of seeing part of my identity derided, and would like people to stop. Fuck off, teuchter. Don't start your 'comedy' contrarian shtick with me.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 24, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> Or, alternatively, I'm sick of seeing part of my identity derided, and would like people to stop. Fuck off, teuchter. Don't start your 'comedy' contrarian shtick with me.


I agree with you. I'm simply quoting VP's response when I pulled him up for another of his 70s-style gender-based comedy insults recently.


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I agree with you. I'm simply quoting VP's response when I pulled him up for another of his 70s-style gender-based comedy insults recently.


Perhaps it's best to keep your cross-poster, point-scoring beefs to yourself as it clearly adds nothing to the thread and only causes confusion and annoyance?


----------



## Kanda (Jan 24, 2013)

I've only just looked at the floorplans. WTF?

They're tiny, horrible flats. Silly money.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 24, 2013)

Kanda said:


> I've only just looked at the floorplans. WTF?
> 
> They're tiny, horrible flats. Silly money.



Really? In square footage, they are well short of your sprawling hilltop retreat but - when I checked the plans - they seemed to be reasonably sized, with quite some storage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I'm afraid you've been "blinded by the shining light of your own self-righteousness".


 
It's only you that gets blinded like that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> Please don't. I know it's a cliche for comedic purposes but phrases like that contribute to and perpetuate a negative view of women.


 
My apologies.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 24, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Really? In square footage, they are well short of your sprawling hilltop retreat but - when I checked the plans - they seemed to be reasonably sized, with quite some storage.


 
They're ok size I guess but for that price? The 2 bed ground floor flat I had to sell (split up with partner) was 1000 sq ft with 70ft garden and we bought late 2009 for £310k (top of the hill again)

(I've just rechecked the one I am buying, it's just shy of 700ft, not 800, my mistake)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I agree with you. I'm simply quoting VP's response when I pulled him up for another of his 70s-style gender-based comedy insults recently.


 
Allow me to quote a response I often have to make to your pissant pointscoring posts:

Pathetic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Really? In square footage, they are well short of your sprawling hilltop retreat but - when I checked the plans - they seemed to be reasonably sized, with quite some storage.


 
I couldn't work out the orientation from the plans, but I'd certainly hope for good light on top of decent size and plenty of storage, for that sort of money.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Allow me to quote a response I often have to make to your pissant pointscoring posts:
> 
> Pathetic.


 
Is that aimed at me?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2013)

Kanda said:


> They're ok size I guess but for that price? The 2 bed ground floor flat I had to sell (split up with partner) was 1000 sq ft with 70ft garden and we bought late 2009 for £310k (top of the hill again)


 
Your mentioning being at the top of a hill makes me wonder how well-insulated "Brixton Square" will be from the slings and arrows of Brixton's seasonal flooding, the ground floors being down at not much higher than places that usually flood.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Is that aimed at me?


 
No, it's aimed at the person I was responding to. teuchter.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 24, 2013)

Kanda said:


> They're ok size I guess but for that price? The 2 bed ground floor flat I had to sell (split up with partner) was 1000 sq ft with 70ft garden and we bought late 2009 for £310k (top of the hill again)
> 
> (I've just rechecked the one I am buying, it's just shy of 700ft, not 800, my mistake)




It's a lot of money. But would be a fair bit more in that unmentionable neighbouring district

We could learn from the Americans in making more use of price per sq ft.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 24, 2013)

leanderman said:


> It's a lot of money. But would be a fair bit more in that unmentionable neighbouring district
> 
> We could learn from the Americans in making more use of price per sq ft.


 
Yup. My g/f paid £385k for 588sq ft.. Battersea, crazy money. She simply refuses to move away from walking distance to Clapham Junction so she can get home to her parents quickly as her old man isn't in the best of health. £215k more than mine for about 100sq ft less!!!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 24, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> Please don't.  I know it's a cliche for comedic purposes but phrases like that contribute to and perpetuate a negative view of women.


Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol yeah especially as I am A MAN, wow I surely must be in tune with my feminine side x x x x x


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 24, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol yeah especially as I am A MAN, wow I surely must be in tune with my feminine side x x x x x


wtf? it's common with certain gay men, to address each other as 'she'. In this case, as a slur. VP knew you were a bloke.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 25, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Lol lol lol just meant it would be great for tenants to have no problems with leaking taps etc etc etc but take you point and it made me smile


Your faith in the build quality is very sweet. I know three or four people who have moved into new-build places - all had multiple problems on moving in. A snag list as long as the funky brochure you probably read...


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 25, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> . A snag list as long as the funky brochure you probably read...


......or helped write even


----------



## Boudicca (Jan 25, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> ......or helped write even


Well, he hasn't denied it, has he?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 25, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Your faith in the build quality is very sweet. I know three or four people who have moved into new-build places - all had multiple problems on moving in. A snag list as long as the funky brochure you probably read...


Better to buy a flat in a subdivided crumbling victorian terrace house that has just been spruced up for sale by the previous owners. There are never any problems with those, I've heard.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 25, 2013)

Fair play to Mr Bim for a. Sticking around to defend themselves and b. Not chucking a mental when challenged and getting instabanned 

So far


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 25, 2013)

Boudicca said:


> Well, he hasn't denied it, has he?


 
If he's selling the flats he's doing a seriously bad job.

They might as well sack him and get Black Jamaican to do it for cheap.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 26, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes but these apartments come with a five year warranty so you will be vitually maintenance free and no grief from your tenants


Grief from tenants? You mean when things go wrong like the boiler or there's a leak? How unreasonable of tenants to want such things fixed. 

And what's so wrong with being a 'lefty' anyways?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 27, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Your faith in the build quality is very sweet. I know three or four people who have moved into new-build places - all had multiple problems on moving in. A snag list as long as the funky brochure you probably read...


I hear you, but no point in me going in with a  negative attitude, I am looking forward to moving in to the area so have to have a little faith


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 27, 2013)

Dan U said:


> Fair play to Mr Bim for a. Sticking around to defend themselves and b. Not chucking a mental when challenged and getting instabanned
> 
> So far


Hey it's all good for me, I can't be negative, for all I know it may be perfect with no snagging, I may be soooooo happy I might invite you all in  For drinks x


----------



## Kanda (Jan 27, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Hey it's all good for me, I can't be negative, for all I know it may be perfect with no snagging, I may be soooooo happy I might invite you all in For drinks x


 
Bad idea...


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Grief from tenants? You mean when things go wrong like the boiler or there's a leak? How unreasonable of tenants to want such things fixed.
> 
> And what's so wrong with being a 'lefty' anyways?


hey hang fast Lefty, I was just saying that because it's a new build the chances are that tenant will be happy as THE BOILER. etc should all be up to scratch and trouble free. THEREBY NOTHING NEEDS FIXING.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 28, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Better to buy a flat in a subdivided crumbling victorian terrace house that has just been spruced up for sale by the previous owners. There are never any problems with those, I've heard.


Here here


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Hey it's all good for me, I can't be negative, for all I know it may be perfect with no snagging, I may be soooooo happy I might invite you all in For drinks x


Gosh! Drinks inside a gated community! How exclusive!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 28, 2013)

editor said:


> Gosh! Drinks inside a gated community! How exclusive!


Will have to vet you first lol


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 28, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Bad idea...


Why is it a bad idea, everyone keeps harping on about being neighbourly and part of the community


----------



## Kanda (Jan 28, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Why is it a bad idea, everyone keeps harping on about being neighbourly and part of the community


 
You're not that fucking stupid....


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 28, 2013)

Kanda said:


> You're not that fucking stupid....


 Kanda have a little faith in Mankind there as genuine and nice people out there


----------



## Kanda (Jan 28, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Kanda have a little faith in Mankind there as genuine and nice people out there


 
I know a lot of the contributors to this thread in real life.... drop it.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 28, 2013)

Kanda said:


> I know a lot of the contributors to this thread in real life.... drop it.


Ok looks like I will be drinking on my own again


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 28, 2013)

Boudicca said:


> Well, he hasn't denied it, has he?


Ok ok ok I deny it lol, why the hell can't you just be happy for me ?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 28, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> hey hang fast Lefty, I was just saying that because it's a new build the chances are that tenant will be happy as THE BOILER. etc should all be up to scratch and trouble free. THEREBY NOTHING NEEDS FIXING.


Unless the developer has bulk bought a load of cheap crappy boilers, like the developer of a certain development near me.

Sounds like you've bought as a buy to let, Mr Bim.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 28, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ok ok ok I deny it lol, why the hell can't you just be happy for me ?


 
Do you really not get it?

Not having a go at you but... you've just moved into what is classed as a kinda deprived area. There's poverty, poor, etc etc... I don't (shouldn't) need to go into it.. you've rocked up to this thread, on a forum where there is a lot of discussion about gentrification/pricing locals out of the area etc etc... this is why I said to you earlier in the thread to read up about gentrification... this forum will give you an idea about how the locals think, the economic consequences of that block etc... take some time, read up, think...

I understand where you're at, I don't agree with your thoughts but that's cos I've been here a while....


Read more....


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 28, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Hey it's all good for me, I can't be negative, for all I know *it may be perfect with no snagging*, I may be soooooo happy I might invite you all in For drinks x


 
No chance. There will be some snags, even if there's just a few minor ones, but there will be snags to fix. See how fast the developer fixes them too.


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Why is it a bad idea, everyone keeps harping on about being neighbourly and part of the community


With those wafer-thin Barratt Homes walls you'll be keeping up all your new neighbours!


----------



## Kanda (Jan 28, 2013)

editor said:


> With those wafer-thin Barratt Homes walls you'll be keeping up all your new neighbours!


 
To be fair Ed.. that block will probably be more soundproofed than most of the shit Victorian conversions elsewhere in Brixton...


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2013)

Kanda said:


> To be fair Ed.. that block will probably be more soundproofed than most of the shit Victorian conversions elsewhere in Brixton...


Well, that would be damning it with very feint praise indeed!

I've known a few friends who have lived in Barratt new builds and the walls have been _truly_ wafer thin.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 28, 2013)

editor said:


> Well, that would be damning it with very feint praise indeed!
> 
> I've known a few friends who have lived in Barratt new builds and the walls have been _truly_ wafer thin.


 
Absolutely.. to quote the novel 'Jaws' ... walls made of kleenexe and spit  But a lot of conversions around here are just as bad.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 28, 2013)

As far as I know Barratts aren't exempt from building regulations. Therefore the soundproofing between flats should be hugely superior to any kind of Victorian conversion, or indeed new-builds from 15-20+ years ago.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 28, 2013)

teuchter said:


> As far as I know Barratts aren't exempt from building regulations. Therefore the soundproofing between flats should be hugely superior to any kind of Victorian conversion, or indeed new-builds from 15-20+ years ago.


When I asked about soundproofing during my sleuthing mission, the person I spoke to dodged the question, despite me pressing her repeatedly. I think she didn't actually know. She just tried to reassure me that it'd "be fine"....


----------



## peterkro (Jan 28, 2013)

Part of the trouble is builders are only required to use "robust building methods" e.g. if done properly sound proofing should be fine.However no actual testing is required and given most workers will be on measured day rate the only way to get a reasonable wage is to bodge it.This is why new builds have their well deserved reputation as being crap.


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2013)

teuchter said:


> As far as I know Barratts aren't exempt from building regulations. Therefore the soundproofing between flats should be hugely superior to any kind of Victorian conversion, or indeed new-builds from 15-20+ years ago.


Maybe, but flats are generally a lot smaller these days.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 28, 2013)

peterkro said:


> Part of the trouble is builders are only required to use "robust building methods" e.g. if done properly sound proofing should be fine.However no actual testing is required and given most workers will be on measured day rate the only way to get a reasonable wage is to bodge it.This is why new builds have their well deserved reputation as being crap.


 
You can either do it by testing or by using the robust details. Agreed that the robust details can potentially be bodged, but even a partially bodged version should still be better than what you will find in most conversions and older builds.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 28, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You can either do it by testing or by using the robust details. Agreed that the robust details can potentially be bodged, but even a partially bodged version should still be better than what you will find in most conversions and older builds.


Dodgy paint and filler jobs sure (they are the most common).I've just moved into a flat that is late Victorian and was refurbed coming up to twenty years ago,there's a restaurant with live music and dancing up until 1am directly overhead,I can't hear a thing.While fiddling about with a light fitting I found out why.The ceiling plaster is two inches thick plus six inches of insulation plus a two foot air break plus a concrete floor above.So it can be done.
The trouble with robust methods is as far as I'm aware unless there is legal action tests are very seldom done.If you look at the forums on new builds you'll see it appears to be random regards sound proofing pointing I'd suspect to how well it's done.
In a situation where workers,managers and checkers are all paid according to completion rates the tendency is to let it go unless it's so bad as to be actually visible.Something as simple as a screw too long can break the separation needed for good soundproofing.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 28, 2013)

Kanda said:


> Do you really not get it?
> 
> Not having a go at you but... you've just moved into what is classed as a kinda deprived area. There's poverty, poor, etc etc... I don't (shouldn't) need to go into it.. you've rocked up to this thread, on a forum where there is a lot of discussion about gentrification/pricing locals out of the area etc etc... this is why I said to you earlier in the thread to read up about gentrification... this forum will give you an idea about how the locals think, the economic consequences of that block etc... take some time, read up, think...
> 
> ...


Yes I get it, I have seen somewhere I want to live, I have been told the price, I can afford it so I buy it. I would love to ask the developer to reduce the price by £100,000 as its in a deprived area with lots of poor people. I think we all know the answer to that. I also hear what you are saying but there is nothing I can do if I want the property. There are poor people and wealthy people in every neighbourhood.


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes I get it, I have seen somewhere I want to live, I have been told the price, I can afford it so I buy it. I would love to ask the developer to reduce the price by £100,000 as its in a deprived area with lots of poor people. I think we all know the answer to that. I also hear what you are saying but there is nothing I can do if I want the property. There are poor people and wealthy people in every neighbourhood.


Why do you want to live in Brixton Square?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 28, 2013)

I live 5 mi s up the road in Streatham Hill, I am renting a small flat, and as I have said before this development ticks all my boxes,price location etc


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I live 5 mi s up the road in Streatham Hill, I am renting a small flat, and as I have said before this development ticks all my boxes,price location etc


What do you find so attractive about Brixton and why haven't you moved her before?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 28, 2013)

editor said:


> What do you find so attractive about Brixton and why haven't you moved her before?


The lady's not for moving.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 29, 2013)

I don't really see why this guy should get hassle for moving into the development. Have a go at the developer for squeezing out the affordable housing or whatever, but he's just one of many people planning to buy somewhere to live in Brixton. There are lots of properties around Brixton that are way more expensive than these flats, and have been for a long time.


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I don't really see why this guy should get hassle for moving into the development.


I don't think asking what someone finds so attractive about the area they're moving into is 'hassling' them. I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I don't really see why this guy should get hassle for moving into the development. Have a go at the developer for squeezing out the affordable housing or whatever, but he's just one of many people planning to buy somewhere to live in Brixton. There are lots of properties around Brixton that are way more expensive than these flats, and have been for a long time.


Ahhhh thanks teuchter sanity prevails


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 30, 2013)

editor said:


> I don't think asking what someone finds so attractive about the area they're moving into is 'hassling' them. I'm genuinely curious.


I already live in the area only 5 mins up the hill, and I just want somewhere local that needs no work done to it, it's simple


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 1, 2013)

Interesting that the planning application to restrict the social rent/affordable housing element of this development (which loads of us objected to) has still not been determined by the council planners. Should have been done back in November...

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MAA4WOBO0GL00


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 2, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Interesting that the planning application to restrict the social rent/affordable housing element of this development (which loads of us objected to) has still not been determined by the council planners. Should have been done back in November...
> 
> http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MAA4WOBO0GL00


 
I was wondering about that. If it goes to committee or is refused by officers they should let those who commented know by letter.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Feb 2, 2013)

Thinl Lambeth has a massive backlog of planning applications. We objected to one in late 2010, took nearly a year for it to officially get turned down. They resubmitted and objections closed in early December 2011, we objected again but still haven't had any response.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Feb 2, 2013)

Doh, my dates are out by a year! Meant 2011 and 12


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Mar 1, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I don't really see why this guy should get hassle for moving into the development. Have a go at the developer for squeezing out the affordable housing or whatever, but he's just one of many people planning to buy somewhere to live in Brixton. There are lots of properties around Brixton that are way more expensive than these flats, and have been for a long time.


Hey just in case you are Interested, Barratts have released the prices for the 2nd phase, the  1st phase sold so fast they have upped the  price of a 2 bed from £350,000 to £386,000 and they  say there's IS NO MONEY AROUND


----------



## leanderman (Mar 1, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Hey just in case you are Interested, Barratts have released the prices for the 2nd phase, the 1st phase sold so fast they have upped the price of a 2 bed from £350,000 to £386,000 and they say there's IS NO MONEY AROUND


 
10pc! These kind of prices are going to leave people in debt for decades, whether they rent or buy in 'Brixton Square'.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 1, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Hey just in case you are Interested, Barratts have released the prices for the 2nd phase, the 1st phase sold so fast they have upped the price of a 2 bed from £350,000 to £386,000 and they say there's IS NO MONEY AROUND


 
you can get a beauty of a house for that just a bus ride away. a fool and his money etc. i can't see them being amazing investments either, brixton's prices will flatten out soon enough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> you can get a beauty of a house for that just a bus ride away. a fool and his money etc. i can't see them being amazing investments either, brixton's prices will flatten out soon enough.


 
Depends on supply and demand at the end of the day, and demand outstrips supply by a fair margin.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 2, 2013)

As I keep saying, prices will rise as long as we build homes for x people and london's population rises by 2x


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Mar 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Hey just in case you are Interested, Barratts have released the prices for the 2nd phase, the 1st phase sold so fast they have upped the price of a 2 bed from £350,000 to £386,000 and they say there's IS NO MONEY AROUND


Bloody hell, with a bit of searching you can get three bed+ houses for less than that, away from the centre or in the surrounding areas. £386k for a two bed flat in Brixton is _obscene! _


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 2, 2013)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Bloody hell, with a bit of searching you can get three bed+ houses for less than that, away from the centre or in the surrounding areas. £386k for a two bed flat in Brixton is _obscene! _


i put one two bed flat up the other week that was a cool half a million. and it was nowt special. kennington borders was why some said it was normal. but HALF A MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS for a nothing special two bed. if i really think about it, it makes no sense on any level.


----------



## crawl (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes I get it, I have seen somewhere I want to live, I have been told the price, I can afford it so I buy it. I would love to ask the developer to reduce the price by £100,000 as its in a deprived area with lots of poor people. I think we all know the answer to that. I also hear what you are saying but there is nothing I can do if I want the property. There are poor people and wealthy people in every neighbourhood.



Are there any reassurances that you will _stay_ inside your gated community?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2013)

Am I right in thinking the Barrier Block is a gated community too?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 6, 2013)

just a point on the "soaring house prices mean soaring social housing rent increases" - now this is a genuine question, and i am not stirring up anything, but if that was the case, how about all the estates in chelsea, W1, westminster, etc  - are they also on prices that are high due to their proximity to very value property? genuine question! i thought the price of paying rent for a council place is pretty stable, no? could be wrong.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Am I right in thinking the Barrier Block is a gated community too?


Only if you were so desperate to prove some tedious point or another point you were hell-bent on stretching the commonly understood meaning of a gated community into hitherto unknown and quite fanciful territories.

It's a tower block. It has no gates, just normal doors.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Am I right in thinking the Barrier Block is a gated community too?


Most apartment buildings are "gated" - ie. you must pass an outer door/gate that only gets you as far as the shared hallways/stairs/courtyard. From there you can knock on peoples doors.
I take "gated community" to mean a series of separate residential and amenity buildings, with a gate across the only access road.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Crispy said:


> I take "gated community" to mean a series of separate residential and amenity buildings, with a gate across the only access road.


That's how most normal people see it too:


> Gated communities usually consist of small residential streets and include various shared amenities. For smaller communities this may be only a park or other common area. For larger communities, it may be possible for residents to stay within the community for most day-to-day activities.
> 
> Gated communities are... often characterized by a closed perimeter of walls and fences
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_community


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 6, 2013)

might as well say most homes are gated because they've got, eh, gates!


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 6, 2013)

_Gated communities usually consist of small residential streets and include various shared amenities. For smaller communities this may be only a park or other common area. For larger communities, it may be possible for residents to stay within the community for most day-to-day activities._​​_Gated communities are... often characterized by a closed perimeter of walls and fences_​_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_community_​ 
so similar to a  compound in some respects then ?


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> so similar to a  compound in some respects then ?


You're trying hard here and I respect that, but your analogy is brimming with bubbling globules of fail.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> You're trying hard here and I respect that, but your analogy is brimming with bubbling globules of fail.


how so ?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 6, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> _Gated communities usually consist of small residential streets and include various shared amenities. For smaller communities this may be only a park or other common area. For larger communities, it may be possible for residents to stay within the community for most day-to-day activities._​​_Gated communities are... often characterized by a closed perimeter of walls and fences_​_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_community_​
> so similar to a  compound in some respects then ?


Yes, in some respects.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> how so ?


Edit: I thought you were doing a teuchter-style daft twist to suggest that the Barrier Block was some sort of 'compound'.

Apols if I misread it.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2013)

The point is that whatever definition you take of "gated community", surely the Barratt development is no more a "gated community" than the barrier block or lots of other housing developments, social or otherwise.

It seems slightly unfair to criticise it for having controlled entrances, in other words.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> The point is that whatever definition you take of "gated community", surely the Barratt development is no more a "gated community" than the barrier block or lots of other housing developments, social or otherwise.


You're quite wrong. The Brixton Square development contains five individual large blocks and a large courtyard, all kept secure from the public behind a big gate at the front. And each individual block will have its own secure entrance.



The Barrier Block has no gates and no private courtyards.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 6, 2013)

It's definitely nestling up to, or even straddling, the border between definitions.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 6, 2013)

> _* a compound is* a type of fortification *made up of walls or fences surrounding several buildings in the center of a large piece of land*. _





> *.....*_*Compounds can be designed to double as living spaces* and military structures *in the middle of hostile territory* or as a military area within a country's territory; *they are also used by the *extremely* wealthy, powerful, paranoid* or criminal *to protect against threats to themselves or their property*._


my reasoning was gated communities in the accepted sense are similar to compounds in certain respects some of which I have quoted in bold above, the wiki article on compounds contains a link at the end to the entry on gated communities, which suggests the correlation is correct so to say my post was "bubbling with globules of fail" seems a little harsh, which I see you have now acknowledged, apology accepted


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Crispy said:


> It's definitely nestling up to, or even straddling, the border between definitions.


Like a converted flat in a house then?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2013)

In the barrier block (if I remember correctly from last time I was in there) there is a controlled entry at street level, which takes you into the stairwell, then you go out onto a non-public open terrace/walkway on the other side, then through the front door to the individual flats (some of them I think have private outdoor spaces between the terrace walkway and the flat).

In the Barratt development there's controlled entry at street level, then a non-public courtyard, then controlled entry to stairwell, then door to individual flat.

The main difference is in the nature of the non-public/communal outdoor space - in the barrier block open terraces, in the Barratt building a largish internal courtyard. Both are inaccessible to the public. The question it seems to me, if you are going to criticise the Barratt development and describe it as a "gated community" or whatever, is whether it would be reasonable to expect that communal courtyard to be open to the street.

It's not space that was previously public space, it's not blocking a through access route to anywhere, and if there are bike stores and suchlike in there I can see why you might want entry to be controlled.

It's also not in any way unprecedented or abnormal to have an urban development with a street entrance and private internal courtyard. It's a very common arrangement that you can see examples of in cities pretty much anywhere in the world and from any historical era. 

I can think of various types of housing which would have been built with a publicly accessible internal courtyard originally, but to which controlled entry has been subsequently added. Glasgow tenement blocks for example, or various postwar social housing developments. I think I'm right in saying that the controlled entry to the barrier block was added later and that originally the terraces were publicly accessible.

If there are good reasons for social housing to have controlled access and private outdoor communal spaces then why don't they apply to a development like this? What actually is the problem here?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 6, 2013)

Clifton Mansions has exactly the same arrangement, it's just a bit more tightly packed.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Clifton Mansions has exactly the same arrangement, it's just a bit more tightly packed.


I was about to say the same thing. I fail to understand why Clifton is suddenly being labelled as a gated community when it has been all along and the squatter community never did anything to address that in more than ten years. The only difference is that the occupants are likely to be employed middle classes. Whatever anyone thinks of that, it doesn't make it any more or less gated than it was back in the 'good old' squatting days.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

There is no private courtyard in the Barrier Block. There are no communal areas past the entrance and the bit outside the lifts. There is no gate. The green space outside the block is public and  accessible to all, as are all the roads and paths associated with the block.

If you think that's exactly the same as an upmarket development in five blocks behind a big gate with a large private courtyard with no public access, that's entirely up to you.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I was about to say the same thing. I fail to understand why Clifton is suddenly being labelled as a gated community when it has been all along and the squatter community never did anything to address that in more than ten years. The only difference is that the occupants are likely to be employed middle classes. Whatever anyone thinks of that, it doesn't make it any more or less gated than it was back in the 'good old' squatting days.


It wasn't very gated when some of the neighbours decided to use it as a car park!


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> The green space outside the block is public and accessible to all, *as are all the roads* and paths associated with the block.


 
Well - not quite:


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Well - not quite:
> 
> View attachment 29826


What's to stop you walking right up there? Nothing, that's what.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> What's to stop you walking right up there? Nothing, that's what.


I want to take my car up there. Why can't I? I feel excluded.


----------



## peterkro (Mar 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I want to take my car up there. Why can't I? I feel excluded.


You ever looked at the Shell centre on the SouthBank that's a gated community not anything like the Barrier block.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I want to take my car up there. Why can't I? I feel excluded.


At least you can walk along the road and make 'vroom' sounds to yourself if you're that distraught.

You won't be able to do that at Brixton Square mind, on account of it being a gated community with no public access.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I want to take my car up there. Why can't I? I feel excluded.


has anyone got a fob for the little road barrier so rushy can take his car up there?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> If you think that's exactly the same as an upmarket development in five blocks behind a big gate with a large private courtyard with no public access, that's entirely up to you.


*sigh*


----------



## Crispy (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> You won't be able to do that at Brixton Square mind, on account of it being a gated community with no public access.


This is probably the least significant thing that's Bad about this development and the last two pages are a waste of everybody's time and effort.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> has anyone got a fob for the little road barrier so rushy can take his car up there?


It's only for privileged residents. According to one of them I should be satisfied with standing there and making car noises.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2013)

I thought these communal walkways weren't publicly accessible and that you have to go through the controlled entrances to get onto them. My mistake if that's not the case.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> A
> You won't be able to do that at Brixton Square mind, on account of it being a gated community with no public access.


Like Clifton Mansions was for the past decade. Except no one complained about it because gated communities are all right when they have an 'approved' type of person living there.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2013)

peterkro said:


> You ever looked at the Shell centre on the SouthBank that's a gated community not anything like the Barrier block.


It is bloody annoying that you can't go straight down to the river from the overpass anymore.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I thought these communal walkways weren't publicly accessible and that you have to go through the controlled entrances to get onto them. My mistake if that's not the case.


You mean the direct access to the front doors of the flats, yes?

If that's your definition of a 'gated community' then I've been living in them all my life, because I've had to go through at least one other door to get my front door in every flat I've ever lived in - as do most people.

Anyway, I'm done with this bore-a-thon. Here's how a gated community is defined. Make up your own minds if a council tower block fits the description.. 


> In its modern form, a gated community is a form of residential community or housing estate containing strictly-controlled entrances for pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles, and often characterized by a closed perimeter of walls and fences.
> 
> Gated communities usually consist of small residential streets and include various shared amenities. For smaller communities this may be only a park or other common area. For larger communities, it may be possible for residents to stay within the community for most day-to-day activities. Gated communities are a type of common interest development, but are distinct from intentional communities.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> It's only for privileged residents. According to one of them I should be satisfied with standing there and making car noises.


No need to cry. You can always park in the nice big illegal parking lot directly outside the block. Lots of space there!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2013)

The definition of a "gated community" is not the issue.

The question is why it's ok to have controlled access to those communal walkways in the barrier block (I'm taking it you're now confirming that there _is_ controlled access to them?) but not the courtyard in the Barratt scheme?

What are the justifications for having controlled access to the BB walkways that can't reasonably be applied to the Barratts courtyard?


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> No need to cry. You can always park in the nice big illegal parking lot directly outside the block. Lots of space there!


If Somerleyton Heights wasn't so damned exclusive no one would have to park in the illegal place. Whilst you all sit in pretty in your Private Estate with exclusive barricaded residents only parking the rest of us are being exploited on the streets.

Anyway - what time do you get up? I'm going to take my van down for a good clean just before.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> _Given that gated communities are spatially a type of enclave, Setha M. Low, among other anthropologists, has argued that they have a negative effect on the overall social capital of the broader community outside the gated community._


 
I've never heard of Setha, but Che has always been fairly reliable:


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> If Somerleyton Heights wasn't so damned exclusive no one would have to park in the illegal place. Whilst you all sit in pretty in your Private Estate with exclusive barricaded residents only parking the rest of us are being exploited on the streets.


I've no idea why you think you should be able to park for free anywhere you like considering the fact that the residents have to _pay_ for their garage spaces. Are you some sort of special case?


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> The definition of a "gated community" is not the issue.


There go the goalposts again!

Just in case you missed it: I can't be arsed with another of your extra-tedious twisty specials.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> I've no idea why you think you should be able to park for free [linger] anywhere you like considering the fact that the residents have to _pay_ for their garage spaces [flats]. Are you some sort of special case?


 
You sound more and more like a 'have' talking to a 'have not'.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> You sound more and more like a 'have' talking to a 'have not'.


I don't have a car - I can't afford such a luxury - but you're welcome to linger around my block if you like, if that's what you're into.

To be honest, I've no idea what you're on about. Why do you think you should be entitled to park in garage spaces that people pay for?

PS I don't have a garage space either but you'd be welcome to use it if I did.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> Only if you were so desperate to prove some tedious point or another point you were hell-bent on stretching the commonly understood meaning of a gated community into hitherto unknown and quite fanciful territories.
> .


 


editor said:


> Edit: I thought you were doing a teuchter-style daft twist to suggest that the Barrier Block was some sort of 'compound'.


 


editor said:


> Anyway, I'm done with this bore-a-thon.





editor said:


> There go the goalposts again!
> 
> Just in case you missed it: I can't be arsed with another of your extra-tedious twisty specials.


 
I thought we had an agreement we weren't going to go through all this kind of nonsense any more? I have been trying to keep to my side of the deal.

If you don't want to discuss the point I raised, which was initially a response to another poster describing the Barratt development as a "gated community", then just don't.

If you do, then perhaps you could try and do it in a constructive way and without misrepresenting everything that I say and you don't bother to read properly.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 6, 2013)

One could argue that 'Brixton Square' is delivering a broader social mix by providing private housing for apparently wealthy people in an area of largely social housing for apparently non-wealthy people.

And social housing should, by the same token, be the only development allowed in exclusive areas such as Chelsea.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I thought we had an agreement we weren't going to go through all this kind of nonsense any more? I have been trying to keep to my side of the deal.


If you want to think that the Barrier Block is a gated community directly comparable to Brixton Square, then you go right ahead.
I don't care what you think. End of. Bye.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

leanderman said:


> And social housing should, by the same token, be the only development allowed in exclusive areas such as Chelsea.


If only.


----------



## Winot (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> I don't have a car - I can't afford such a luxury - but you're welcome to linger around my block if you like, if that's what you're into.
> 
> To be honest, I've no idea what you're on about. Why do you think you should be entitled to park in garage spaces that people pay for?
> 
> PS I don't have a garage space either but you'd be welcome to use it if I did.



I think it's safe to say that Rushy is not being entirely serious.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Winot said:


> I think it's safe to say that Rushy is not being entirely serious.


Well he could still use my garage space. If I had any. 

As an aside, there's a whole floor of the Barrier Block that has been unused since the day they built in. I've been inside and it's huge. It couldn't be used for housing (there's no windows) but I've been seeing if there's any way it could be put to community use. Loads of obstacles to that though.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> I don't have a car - I can't afford such a luxury - but you're welcome to linger around my block if you like, if that's what you're into.
> 
> To be honest, I've no idea what you're on about.


 
OK - I can tell that I am confusing you (or you are pretending to be confused) by trying to be imaginative with the way I put my argument to you after you conveniently sidestepped the comment about Clifton with a little gag in #663. So I'll be really direct.

You are extremely vocal about branding the (as yet almost entirely unoccupied) developments at Clifton Mansions and Brixton Square as 'gated communities'. You quote academics as saying that gated communities have a negative effect on the community outside the gated area. But Clifton has been gated in exactly the same manner for well over a decade and you don't appear to have ever had any issues with that. What seems to have prompted your ire is a change of occupants to people who you don't know and with whom you feel you will probably have less in common. That seems to imply that you are ok with gated communities of people you know, but not gated communities of people you don't. Which is not really much of a principle.

Could you clarify? I wouldn't ask but you do tend to dominate this kind of discussion at times and you categorise people with a very broad brush, so I thought it would be helpful to really understand where you are really coming from.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Could you clarify? I wouldn't ask but you do tend to dominate this kind of discussion at times and you categorise people with a very broad brush, so I thought it would be helpful to really understand where you are really coming from.


Do you really think a well established squat that _incidentally_ happened to have a gate attached (that was usually open) isn't any different at all to an upmarket gated development full of hugely expensive flats that most locals could only dream of affording? That squat was home to a diverse community that played an active part in shaping the Brixton that many people recognise. The Brixton I loved.

Perhaps it makes no difference to you at all if the flats are full of the well-heeled or squatters, but I suggest that the character of that stretch of Brixton may change considerably once the new residents are in - certainly the 414 and Albert are very concerned indeed about their futures. Again, perhaps that makes no odds to you, but it does to me.

Oh, and the only reason I "dominate" these discussions is because people like you seem to think that my opinion is of such great importance that I have to be _relentlessly_ grilled in the minutia of every point ever made in the hope of unearthing a minor inconsistency. If none is found, the discussion inevitably instantly switches to some other vaguely related trip-wire laden topic, with one or two bullying types joining in from the sidelines on the big quest to Prove The Editor Wrong.

I've given my opinion. I don't care if you think it's right or wrong. Perhaps it's laden with those inconsistencies and hypocrisies you're so keen to unearth, but there you go. I'm human, I have opinions and I'm passionate about some things - and that passion doesn't always translate into the cold unyielding logic you and a few others crave.


----------



## Ozone (Mar 6, 2013)

If you look on right move, there are currently 55 two bedroom properties for sale in Brixton for over £375 000, and not all of them are in Brixton Square. So I don't think it's the only exclusive development in Brixton. 
Don't shoot me down for saying this, but the flats in BS are well designed and nicely finished and if new build is your thing, and Brixton is where you want to live, in comparison to many other areas (close to central London) then I would say they are quite reasonably priced for their size and finish.

There are other places to grumble about - how about this (in Brixton!) http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/27429047

Now that is exorbitant.
(Yes, I know it's not a gated development, but if we're talking price of properties, surely it's important to look at the general area too, not just one development)


----------



## nagapie (Mar 6, 2013)

Ozone said:


> There are other places to grumble about - how about this (in Brixton!) http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/27429047


 
Has anyone ever actually bought that property, isn't it just permanently for sale? It's pretty ugly inside too and it looks pokey.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 6, 2013)

nagapie said:


> Has anyone ever actually bought that property, isn't it just permanently for sale? It's pretty ugly inside too and it looks pokey.


All those pictures and not one of the bathroom...


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 6, 2013)

they


Ozone said:


> If you look on right move, there are currently 55 two bedroom properties for sale in Brixton for over £375 000, and not all of them are in Brixton Square. So I don't think it's the only exclusive development in Brixton.
> Don't shoot me down for saying this, but the flats in BS are well designed and nicely finished and if new build is your thing, and Brixton is where you want to live, in comparison to many other areas (close to central London) then I would say they are quite reasonably priced for their size and finish.
> 
> There are other places to grumble about - how about this (in Brixton!) http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/27429047
> ...


 
they might be cheap for central london, but who can afford them? i would think a combined income of 110k a year might just cover it. we're all suburb bound - FACT!


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> they
> 
> 
> they might be cheap for central london, but who can afford them? i would think a combined income of 110k a year might just cover it. we're all suburb bound - FACT!


I've quite often found myself in conversation with long term Brixtonites all worrying about where the hell they're going to go when they inevitably get priced out of Brixton.

It always makes for a depressing conversation.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Back to the Skwaaaare, the newly exposed front brickwork isn't looking so great.


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 6, 2013)

nagapie said:


> Has anyone ever actually bought that property, isn't it just permanently for sale? It's pretty ugly inside too and it looks pokey.


No I'm pretty sure it's just come on the market... maybe you're thinking of the one at 31 BG that's always on for £1.6M - so a  bit less and you get an extra bed!!


----------



## leanderman (Mar 6, 2013)

Inexplicable price. I'd go to about £650,000 on it. Tops. (And if I had no kids)


----------



## TruXta (Mar 6, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Inexplicable price. I'd go to about £650,000 on it. Tops. (And if I had no kids)


It's all the trimmings I guess. But yeah, more than 1 mill seems odd.


----------



## shifting gears (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> I've quite often found myself in conversation with long term Brixtonites all worrying about where the hell they're going to go when they inevitably get priced out of Brixton.
> 
> It always makes for a depressing conversation.



I had to quote this, as this really is a major and increasingly commonplace issue, and one I find myself discussing with other locals on a regular basis nowadays. 

The long and the short of it is we're fucked. Those of us on lower incomes, who have lived in the area for many years (approaching 10 in my own case), face the imminent prospect of having to relocate. And Brixton is my home, my stomping ground, call it what you will. I love it here. And frankly, I don't want to live anywhere else, and it deeply fucking troubles me that I'm eventually going to be uprooted, and have to start again. Hence why, I have to say, these petty squabbles such as 'what constitutes a gated community?' piss me right off - I mean the Barrier Block, for fucks sake? Jesus Christ. It's an ominous (no offence to anyone that lives there - and personally I'd kill for a flat there!) building that the the influx of moneyed 'professionals' wouldn't set foot in if you paid them. It seems a safe bet that the Brixton Square Henry's won't be making much of an effort to get to know the older Caribbean set who perenially hang around outside the BB either. Though maybe Bim of Bar will prove me wrong. But I doubt it as he sounds a right plum.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 6, 2013)

Got a letter from the council about application to change social housing provision in the planning application.  There is going to be a planning meeting on the 12th.  Apparently the recommendation for the application is 'Minded to Grant Permission'.  

If you want to speak you have to apply in advance.  3 people will be allowed to speak in favour and 3 people against.  Ward Councillors are allowed 3 minutes each.


----------



## colacubes (Mar 6, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> Got a letter from the council about application to change social housing provision in the planning application. There is going to be a planning meeting on the 12th. Apparently the recommendation for the application is 'Minded to Grant Permission'.
> 
> If you want to speak you have to *apply in advance*. 3 people will be allowed to speak in favour and 3 people against. Ward Councillors are allowed 3 minutes each.


 
That's interesting.  Maybe I'm having a brain freeze, but I'm pretty sure we didn't have to apply to speak when I spoke against the ice rink.  Gramsci might remember better as he spoke at the same meeting.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> The long and the short of it is we're fucked. Those of us on lower incomes, who have lived in the area for many years (approaching 10 in my own case), face the imminent prospect of having to relocate. And Brixton is my home, my stomping ground, call it what you will. I love it here. And frankly, I don't want to live anywhere else, and it deeply fucking troubles me that I'm eventually going to be uprooted, and have to start again. Hence why, I have to say, these petty squabbles such as 'what constitutes a gated community?' piss me right off - I mean the Barrier Block, for fucks sake? Jesus Christ. It's an ominous (no offence to anyone that lives there - and personally I'd kill for a flat there!) building that the the influx of moneyed 'professionals' wouldn't set foot in if you paid them. It seems a safe bet that the Brixton Square Henry's won't be making much of an effort to get to know the older Caribbean set who perenially hang around outside the BB either. Though maybe Bim of Bar will prove me wrong. But I doubt it as he sounds a right plum.


I fear you're right. What's particularly depressing is that there isn't any obvious place for the displaced of Brixton to go.

Maybe ten years ago Peckham could have fitted the bill, but prices there are soaring at a similar rate to Brixton - and it's the same story in most other formerly run down areas within a 10 mile radius.

These depressing 'where shall we go?' chats almost almost always all end up with the conclusion that the only prospect is to move out of London altogether - and that really fucking hurts because we've all put down deep roots here.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 6, 2013)

nipsla said:


> That's interesting. Maybe I'm having a brain freeze, but I'm pretty sure we didn't have to apply to speak when I spoke against the ice rink. Gramsci might remember better as he spoke at the same meeting.


 
You can circulate written representation, which must be with the case officer by 12 noon that day.

It's a 5 page letter. I'm not typing it all up here. Presumably all the people who objected as discussed upthread will get the same letter. *pointed look*

BS is 368-372 Coldharbour lane isn't it?


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Fucking hell. A one bedroom flat in the shonky Viaduct development next to BS is nearly £16k a year.

That's more than I earn.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> I fear you're right. What's particularly depressing is that there isn't any obvious place for the displaced of Brixton to go.
> 
> Maybe ten years ago Peckham could have fitted the bill, but prices there are soaring at a similar rate to Brixton - and it's the same story in most other formerly run down areas within a 10 mile radius.
> 
> These depressing 'where shall we go?' chats almost almost always all end up with the conclusion that the only prospect is to move out of London altogether - and that really fucking hurts because we've all put down deep roots here.


Looking at prices, the logical move is south and east, from about Lee down to Catford, Bellingham, parts of Penge and Anerley, Norwood Junction/ SNorewood and Fort Neaf, down towards Croydon.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> Fucking hell. A one bedroom flat in the shonky Viaduct development next to the BS is nearly £16k a year.
> 
> That's more than I earn.





> Available to let a stunning modern and spacious one double bedroom apartment located on Valentia Place/Coldharbour Lane besides the infamous Brixton Village.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Looking at prices, the logical move is south and east, from about Lee down to Catford, Bellingham, parts of Penge and Anerley, Norwood Junction/ SNorewood and Fort Neaf, down towards Croydon.


I'd die a thousand deaths every day living in those characterless outposts of civilisation.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> I'd die a thousand deaths every day living in those characterless outposts of civilisation.


Oh get over yourself.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Oh get over yourself.


I'm sure you used to have a sense of humour, you know.


----------



## shifting gears (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> I fear you're right. What's particularly depressing is that there isn't any obvious place for the displaced of Brixton to go.
> 
> Maybe ten years ago Peckham could have fitted the bill, but prices there are soaring at a similar rate to Brixton - and it's the same story in most other formerly run down areas within a 10 mile radius.
> 
> These depressing 'where shall we go?' chats almost almost always all end up with the conclusion that the only prospect is to move out of London altogether - and that really fucking hurts because we've all put down deep roots here.



Yes, this is all part of the overall picture - these less central/transport-friendly areas which have formerly been more affordable (though crucially, generally at the expense of things such as community - an oft-stated and of late perhaps cliched, but nonetheless defining characteristic of Brixton) are also on the rise, making even the prospect of relocating fairly locally (and preserving ties with Brixton) seem a pipedream. 

And then you get all sorts of naysayers moaning about our moaning on gentrification  

I wonder why some of us are vocal and insistent about it? (Not even typically myself, or not at least on the Internet, anyway, but tonight I'm riled.) Of course if you're salaried up to the nines and like to be able to eat overpriced food at a different eaterie every night while claiming you're not part of all that 'nasty gentrification business, I always go to the farmers market on saturday' then I guess you would take that stance... But don't be surprised if some of the rest of us have got your number.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm sure you used to have a sense of humour, you know.


I've heard you say similar too many times to believe that was all in jest. No matter.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> Back to the Skwaaaare, the newly exposed front brickwork isn't looking so great.


It's the salt in the bricks leaching out. Happens to all new bricks, to varying degrees depending on the original salt content. It'll fade with time and rain.


editor said:


> I'd die a thousand deaths every day living in those characterless outposts of civilisation.


Tongue half in check: Nothing like an influx of new people to enliven a previously run-down area, leading to a resurgence of local character and eventual gentrification. The cycle will carry on repeating as long as London's population grows.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 6, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> Yes, this is all part of the overall picture - these less central/transport-friendly areas which have formerly been more affordable (though crucially, generally at the expense of things such as community - an oft-stated and of late perhaps cliched, but nonetheless defining characteristic of Brixton) are also on the rise, making even the prospect of relocating fairly locally (and preserving ties with Brixton) seem a pipedream.
> 
> And then you get all sorts of naysayers moaning about our moaning on gentrification
> 
> I wonder why some of us are vocal and insistent about it? (Not even typically myself, or not at least on the Internet, anyway, but tonight I'm riled.) Of course if you're salaried up to the nines and like to be able to eat overpriced food at a different eaterie every night while claiming you're not part of all that 'nasty gentrification business, I always go to the farmers market on saturday' then I guess you would take that stance... But don't be surprised if some of the rest of us have got your number.


Tell you what, as part of a very well remunerated household compared to most people (and by that I don't mean rich as in Bentleys and caviar, but probably in the upper tenth decile), we're nowhere near being able to afford more than a 1 bed flat here, and even that would be a stretch. If we can't afford it as Yuppie Dinks, then it's fairly obvious what kinda people can afford to move in and who has to move out. We came 6 years ago and loved the place to bits, but the last 12-18 months something has changed. Prices have gone massively up of course, but the faces I see on the street are not the faces that were there 2-3, not to say 5-6 years ago. And those new faces simply aren't as nice or as interesting as the ones that were there before.

Anyway, by the looks of things we're off to some hellhole called Anerley.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I've heard you say similar too many times to believe that was all in jest. No matter.


Really? So exactly where and when have I gone on and on about places like Anerley, Bellingham, Penge and Catford then? Feel free to use the search function because I know what I've said. 

Repeat: I was joking.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2013)

Crispy said:


> It's the salt in the bricks leaching out. Happens to all new bricks, to varying degrees depending on the original salt content. It'll fade with time and rain.


I'm not a fan of that yellowy brick.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> Really? So exactly where and when have I gone on and on about places like Anerley, Bellingham, Penge and Catford then? Feel free to use the search function.


I didn't say you've gone on about any specific places (except you just did above). Two can play the pedant, but I can't be bothered. You don't wanna move from Brixton cuz you thought/think it's ace, got it, move on.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2013)

editor said:


> I have to be _relentlessly_ grilled in the minutia of every point ever made in the hope of unearthing a minor inconsistency.


 
What a lot of nonsense. You are trying to make out this is what is happening - whilst you repeatedly avoid answering straightforward questions and consistently demonstrate that you don't even bother to read others' posts properly.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What a lot of nonsense. You are trying to make out this is what is happening - whilst you repeatedly avoid answering straightforward questions and consistently demonstrate that you don't even bother to read others' posts properly.


Can you just give it a rest, please? Thanks.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 7, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> I had to quote this, as this really is a major and increasingly commonplace issue, and one I find myself discussing with other locals on a regular basis nowadays.
> 
> The long and the short of it is we're fucked. Those of us on lower incomes, who have lived in the area for many years (approaching 10 in my own case), face the imminent prospect of having to relocate. And Brixton is my home, my stomping ground, call it what you will. I love it here. And frankly, I don't want to live anywhere else, and it deeply fucking troubles me that I'm eventually going to be uprooted, and have to start again. Hence why, I have to say, these petty squabbles such as 'what constitutes a gated community?' piss me right off - I mean the Barrier Block, for fucks sake? Jesus Christ. It's an ominous (no offence to anyone that lives there - and personally I'd kill for a flat there!) building that the the influx of moneyed 'professionals' wouldn't set foot in if you paid them. It seems a safe bet that the Brixton Square Henry's won't be making much of an effort to get to know the older Caribbean set who perenially hang around outside the BB either. Though maybe Bim of Bar will prove me wrong. But I doubt it as he sounds a right plum.


 
Do you think the fact that there will be controlled access to the Brixton Square courtyard is an issue that's relevant to the discussion about the changes we are all seeing in Brixton at the moment?

Or is griping about it being a "gated community" a lazy way of trying to portray that particular development as something it isn't, to make its future residents an easier target to caricature and hate upon, in place of talking about stuff that's actually much more important like whether or not the developers succeed in reducing the affordable housing provision?


----------



## shifting gears (Mar 7, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you think the fact that there will be controlled access to the Brixton Square courtyard is an issue that's relevant to the discussion about the changes we are all seeing in Brixton at the moment?
> 
> Or is griping about it being a "gated community" a lazy way of trying to portray that particular development as something it isn't, to make its future residents an easier target to caricature and hate upon, in place of talking about stuff that's actually much more important like whether or not the developers succeed in reducing the affordable housing provision?



1/ yes, I fucking do, and frankly if you can't see why a gated community being erected in one of the poorest parts of Brixton presents an issue then I'm not sure there's any point discussing it further with you. 

2/ no, it isn't. That development in many ways characterises exactly what the problems faced by longterm Brixton residents and victims of Lambeth council's policies are: the issue regarding Barrett's own disgraceful u-turns and slipperiness are a separate issue.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 7, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> 1/ yes, I fucking do, and frankly if you can't see why a gated community being erected in one of the poorest parts of Brixton presents an issue then I'm not sure there's any point discussing it further with you.


 
So, like the editor, you refuse to discuss why it is you think that the reasons it's appropriate to have controlled access to the barrier block communal areas don't also apply to the Brixton Square communal areas. Or maybe you don't think it's appropriate to have controlled access to communal areas in the barrier block or any other building in general? Oh well, I guess we'll never know.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> Can you just give it a rest, please? Thanks.


Give what a rest, exactly?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 7, 2013)

.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 7, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Tell you what, as part of a very well remunerated household compared to most people (and by that I don't mean rich as in Bentleys and caviar, but probably in the upper tenth decile), we're nowhere near being able to afford more than a 1 bed flat here, and even that would be a stretch. If we can't afford it as Yuppie Dinks, then it's fairly obvious what kinda people can afford to move in and who has to move out. We came 6 years ago and loved the place to bits, but the last 12-18 months something has changed. Prices have gone massively up of course, but the faces I see on the street are not the faces that were there 2-3, not to say 5-6 years ago. And those new faces simply aren't as nice or as interesting as the ones that were there before.
> 
> Anyway, by the looks of things we're off to some hellhole called Anerley.


i'd shit on a bus for a house in anerley.

anerley, penge, catford, etc are still very much in the heart of the things - mere bus journey's away from good things. it's when you get out to places like orpington, sutton, etc when suicidal thoughts might slowly creep in.


----------



## Winot (Mar 7, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> i'd shit on a bus for a house in anerley.
> 
> anerley, penge, catford, etc are still very much in the heart of the things - mere bus journey's away from good things. it's when you get out to places like orpington, sutton, etc when suicidal thoughts might slowly creep in.



"If it's a choice between Richmond and death, give me death"


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 7, 2013)

Yeah.  I grew up in Bexleyheath. Sydenham (where we've recently moved cos it was much cheaper than herne hill, where we were) is nothing like that kind of suburban slow death.  

I've never been able to afford Brixton though.  It's always (at least the last 15 yrs or so) been more expensive than most of the locality.


----------



## peterkro (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm not a fan of that yellowy brick.


I like London yellow stocks but don't think they go with red brick and whoever mixed the ones in the photo made an appalling job.

I know I bang on about this but a large number of short life people have been thrown out of their communities,Clifton,Villa rd,St Agnes,Gypsy hill and so on.Most have been rehoused all over Lambeth.I lucked out an got rehoused in a co-op on the SouthBank which is all very nice but it isn't Brixton.The only time I see the people who I'd been communards with for over thirty years is on the off chance when shopping in Brixton.It's been going on for about fifteen years and now is the end only a handful are still clinging on.I was complaining about this shit 25 years ago (I worked in the building trade quite often on the houses being bought by those affluent enough to buy so know a bit about young professionals).I know it's pitiful but I'd very much like the old Brixton back.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Inexplicable price. I'd go to about £650,000 on it. Tops. (And if I had no kids)


 
£650,000? It's about 100sqm bigger than any of the houses on your street. And extremely convenient for the post office!


----------



## leanderman (Mar 7, 2013)

Ok. £900,000


----------



## TruXta (Mar 7, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> i'd shit on a bus for a house in anerley.
> 
> anerley, penge, catford, etc are still very much in the heart of the things - mere bus journey's away from good things. it's when you get out to places like orpington, sutton, etc when suicidal thoughts might slowly creep in.


I'll not have a BR or CR postcode so God help me.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2013)

nipsla said:


> That's interesting. Maybe I'm having a brain freeze, but I'm pretty sure we didn't have to apply to speak when I spoke against the ice rink. Gramsci might remember better as he spoke at the same meeting.


 
I got a letter as well. My internet connection is down. So have a problem keeping up with this.

I want to put myself down to speak. Is that ok with everyone?

I talked to Zoe Brixton Blog on phone last night about it.

I think its important to see this to the end.

Can Brixton Buzz cover this as well? As BZ always covered original article

editor


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

peterkro said:


> I like London yellow stocks but don't think they go with red brick and whoever mixed the ones in the photo made an appalling job.


I think the whole development looks more like bland office blocks than residential blocks. Between that and the adjacent Viaduct, that stretch of Coldharbour Lane is going to look very soulless indeed.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I got a letter as well. My internet connection is down. So have a problem keeping up with this.
> 
> I want to put myself down to speak. Is that ok with everyone?
> 
> ...


Can someone write up a précis of the story? I'd be happy to post it on BB.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> just a point on the "soaring house prices mean soaring social housing rent increases" - now this is a genuine question, and i am not stirring up anything, but if that was the case, how about all the estates in chelsea, W1, westminster, etc - are they also on prices that are high due to their proximity to very value property? genuine question! i thought the price of paying rent for a council place is pretty stable, no? could be wrong.


 
The government has changed policy on social housing. UR talking about social rent. The government has given Councils option ( they do not have to do it) of charging new "affordable rent" of up to 80% of the market rent for the area. So as market rent in area increases so can the "affordable rent".


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> i'd shit on a bus for a house in anerley.
> 
> anerley, penge, catford, etc are still very much in the heart of the things - mere bus journey's away from good things. it's when you get out to places like orpington, sutton, etc when suicidal thoughts might slowly creep in.


As I recall, Anerley has some lovely Victorian architecture and some really interesting history. Wouldn't particularly want to live there, mind, but I'd take it over Croydon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anerley


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> Can someone write up a précis of the story? I'd be happy to post it on BB.


 
I think the original piece on it is worth putting up again with addition that its going to committee.

Zoe is away but says she will get someone from Brixton Blog to go.

I will email my local Cllr (Matt Parr) as he took an interest in this.

It would be good if those who oppose Barratts watering down of the affordable housing element turned up at the committee meeting. Speakers are limited to 3 on one topic. But a good audience will show that this is something local people are concerned about.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> Do you really think a well established squat that _incidentally_ happened to have a gate attached (that was usually open) isn't any different at all to an upmarket gated development full of hugely expensive flats that most locals could only dream of affording? That squat was home to a diverse community that played an active part in shaping the Brixton that many people recognise. The Brixton I loved.


 
_Incidentally_ gated community.





> I've given my opinion. I don't care if you think it's right or wrong. Perhaps it's laden with those inconsistencies and hypocrisies you're so keen to unearth, but there you go. I'm human, I have opinions and I'm passionate about some things - and that passion doesn't always translate into the cold unyielding logic you and a few others crave.


 
Being passionate, or even just fearing change, does not excuse broadly characterising, vilifying and labelling every new person moving into Brixton in the lazy and divisive way that you do. There will be both socially conscious and unconscious people moving in, just are both exist here already. You know better than anyone how the the boards work and you should expect to be picked up on it by those who take issue with what you say. Perhaps being Editor makes you a little more conspicuous than others, but being so generous with your criticism and then playing the "why does everybody pick on me" card seems awfully naive.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Being passionate, or even just fearing change, does not excuse broadly characterising, vilifying and labelling every new person moving into Brixton in the lazy and divisive way that you do.


That's a bit rich coming from you, after your nonsense about "exclusive barricaded residents" but feel free to back up this latest pile of bullshit you've just posted with some actual examples of me "vilifying every new person moving into Brixton" from this thread. Can you do that?

Christ this is tedious.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I think the original piece on it is worth putting up again with addition that its going to committee.


If you have a few moments, can you mail it to me? I'm trying to do about ten things right now, but I want to post up about it because it's important, but I want to get it right!


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

The prices for flats in the Square are now ranging from £268,000 to _*half a million!*_ 

Some one bedroom  flats are going for over £300,000.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> _*half a million!*_


 
Some really great interior design skills have been applied to that flat. Well done, Barratt homes.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> That's a bit rich coming from you, after your nonsense about "exclusive barricaded residents" but feel free to back up this latest pile of bullshit you've just posted with some actual examples of me "vilifying every new person moving into Brixton" from this thread. Can you do that?



Oh dear, Ed. How has


> Private Estate with exclusive barricaded residents only parking


suddenly managed to become "exclusive barricaded residents" in your hands?

Surely you know better than to use yet another misquote in order to try to discredit someone. Particularly when you are surely aware that the original original quote was a piss-take of your inflammatory posting style.

I have no doubt that you could carry on twisting all day and then trying to assert your superiority by finishing each and every post with yet another expression of boredom. So you win. You have worn me out. 

.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Oh dear, Ed. How has
> suddenly managed to become "exclusive barricaded residents" in your hands?
> 
> Surely you know better than to use yet another misquote in order to try to discredit someone. Particularly when you are surely aware that the original original quote was a piss-take of your inflammatory posting style.


To be honest, I'm increasingly having trouble separating fact from fiction and pisstake from reality with your posts recently, but the quote is indeed accurate, as well you know.


Rushy said:


> If Somerleyton Heights wasn't so damned exclusive no one would have to park in the illegal place. Whilst you all sit in pretty in your Private Estate with exclusive barricaded residents only parking the rest of us are being exploited on the streets.


Now have you found any examples of me "vilifying every new person moving into Brixton" in this thread, or would you like to apologise for making up such stupid rubbish?


----------



## Ms T (Mar 7, 2013)

Rushy said:


> £650,000? It's about 100sqm bigger than any of the houses on your street. And extremely convenient for the post office!


 
It only has two bedrooms though, which makes the price tag a bit eye-watering.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2013)

Ms T said:


> It only has two bedrooms though, which makes the price tag a bit eye-watering.


I don't think that you are fully appreciating the convenience of its location for someone who misses a lot of post deliveries.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> The prices for flats in the Square are now ranging from £268,000 to _*half a million!*_
> 
> Some one bedroom  flats are going for over £300,000.



The latest flat to go on sale in this street is £335,000 and has ONE bedroom


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The latest flat to go on sale in this street is £335,000 and has ONE bedroom


Jeez. Who the fuck can afford that around here?


----------



## leanderman (Mar 7, 2013)

You mean not everyone has an £80,000 deposit, £12,000 for stamp duty etc and £1,300 a month for the rest of their lives (and more when rates go up)?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> To be honest, I'm increasingly having trouble separating fact from fiction and pisstake from reality with your posts recently, but *the quote is indeed accurate, as well you know*.


Unbelievable.


editor said:


> Now have you found any examples of me "vilifying every new person moving into Brixton" in this thread, or would you like to apologise for making up such stupid rubbish?


 

I found one!



editor said:


> There's been other waves of gentrification in the past, but this is the first one that looks like it's going to wash away a lot of what is good about Brixton.
> 
> *A tsunami of twats, if you will.*


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 7, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The government has changed policy on social housing. UR talking about social rent. The government has given Councils option ( they do not have to do it) of charging new "affordable rent" of up to 80% of the market rent for the area. So as market rent in area increases so can the "affordable rent".


thank you, that explains it. cheers


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> To be honest, I'm increasingly having trouble separating fact from fiction and pisstake from reality with your posts recently, but the quote is indeed accurate, as well you know.
> Now have you found any examples of me "vilifying every new person moving into Brixton" in this thread, or would you like to apologise for making up such stupid rubbish?


 
Ed. I said that I conceded defeat to you.

If that's not enough in itself I specifically admit that you weren't misquoting or deliberately misinterpreting me, that you weren't twisting words to make things sound more inflammatory than they are and that your hostility to newcomers is all in my muddled little mind. 

I've reflected on #692 and wholeheartedly apologise if I was one of the people who made you feel bullied from the sidelines.

There. It's over.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> The prices for flats in the Square are now ranging from £268,000 to _*half a million!*_
> 
> Some one bedroom flats are going for over £300,000.


i tell you what, that half million one - that is a fucking joke. look at it! it's fuck all!. if that's their half million one, christ knows what the 265 ones are like.

world's gone mad.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The government has changed policy on social housing. UR talking about social rent. The government has given Councils option ( they do not have to do it) of charging new "affordable rent" of up to 80% of the market rent for the area. So as market rent in area increases so can the "affordable rent".


Has Lambeth clarified whether they are going to take that option?


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Unbelievable.


Can you just give it a rest and move on, please? It's all getting a bit stalkery now and it adds nothing of interest to the discussion of Brixton Square. Thanks.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> i tell you what, that half million one - that is a fucking joke. look at it! it's fuck all!. if that's their half million one, christ knows what the 265 ones are like.
> 
> world's gone mad.


I was thinking - wow, that living room looks huge. But they have illustrated it with mirrors across the back wall so that it looks twice the size!

Mind you, 91.5sqm is big, it is on two floors and it has vaulted ceilings and galleries in places.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 7, 2013)

Takes two to play editor teuchter. Frankly you deserve each other given the "conversations" you've been having the last year or so.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Takes two to play editor teuchter. Frankly you deserve each other given the "conversations" you've been having the last year or so.


Thanks for your opinion. Can we now move on please?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> Thanks for your opinion. Can we now move on please?


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 7, 2013)

It is all down to supply and demand... Successive governments have not done enough to encourage house building in the capital and therefore, as the population of the city has increased, house prices have continued to rise in spite of the recession.

Ultimately, unless more blocks like this are built the supply imbalance will just get worse and more people will be “priced-out” of areas in which they have lived for many years.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> It is all down to supply and demand... Successive governments have not done enough to encourage house building in the capital and therefore, as the population of the city has increased, house prices have continued to rise in spite of the recession.
> 
> Ultimately, unless more blocks like this are built the supply imbalance will just get worse and more people will be “priced-out” of areas in which they have lived for many years.


There's another very big housing development coming soon right opposite Brixton Square (along Somerleyton Road) and it's still unclear how much "affordable" housing will be included in that scheme.

I doubt very much there'll be much that can be afforded by long term local residents.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 7, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> It is all down to supply and demand... Successive governments have not done enough to encourage house building in the capital and therefore, as the population of the city has increased, house prices have continued to rise in spite of the recession.
> 
> Ultimately, unless more blocks like this are built the supply imbalance will just get worse and more people will be “priced-out” of areas in which they have lived for many years.



Although it will be too late for most, the supply and demand situation may calm down once London has made the crazy leap from a capital city to a global city.

Who guessed that the world's rich - who are more numerous and richer than ever before - would hole up here or that 500,000 Poles would want to settle in the UK?

Oh, and we have to build more. Lots more.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 7, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Although it will be too late for most, the supply and demand situation may calm down once London has made the crazy leap from a capital city to a global city.
> 
> Who guessed that the world's rich - who are more numerous and richer than ever before - would hole up here or that 500,000 Poles would want to settle in the UK?
> 
> Oh, and we have to build more. Lots more.


Ideally they'd tighten up regulations so that foreign investors can't just buy a fuckload of apartments and them let them sit there empty, purely because it's a good economic investment.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Although it will be too late for most, the supply and demand situation may calm down once London has made the crazy leap from a capital city to a global city.
> 
> Who guessed that the world's rich - who are more numerous and richer than ever before - would hole up here or that 500,000 Poles would want to settle in the UK?
> 
> Oh, and we have to build more. Lots more.


The devaluation of the £ isn't going to help. We are becoming more and more affordable - although it probably makes us less attractive as an employment destination for those looking to send cash home.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 7, 2013)

editor said:


> There's another very big housing development coming soon right opposite Brixton Square (along Somerleyton Road) and it's still unclear how much "affordable" housing will be included in that scheme.
> 
> I doubt very much there'll be much that can be afforded by long term local residents.


 

I think prices in Brixton will continue to increase regardless of whether new housing developments are built... Ultimately, new schemes like this will increase supply and will add some “affordable” housing to the area.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 7, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Ideally they'd tighten up regulations so that foreign investors can't just buy a fuckload of apartments and them let them sit there empty, purely because it's a good economic investment.



Yes. Does anyone even live in 1 Hyde Park? It's something like 70 per cent idle.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 7, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Yes. Does anyone even live in 1 Hyde Park? It's something like 70 per cent idle.


Probably not many no.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 7, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Yes. Does anyone even live in 1 Hyde Park? It's something like 70 per cent idle.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-the-superrich-owners-of-one-hyde-park-8518871.html


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Yes. Does anyone even live in 1 Hyde Park? It's something like 70 per cent idle.


That's because it's so noisy.


----------



## secateurz (Mar 8, 2013)

Brockwell gate is..umm..gated! whas there an uproar when that was built?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 8, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Has Lambeth clarified whether they are going to take that option?


 
On there existing Council housing?

Heard that they were for new Council tenancies but have changed there mind. But I think its still under discussion with Tenants Council.


----------



## Winot (Mar 8, 2013)

secateurz said:


> Brockwell gate is..umm..gated! whas there an uproar when that was built?



Yes


----------



## Winot (Mar 8, 2013)

At the risk of stirring things up further, it seems to me that what's important is the intention behind the 'gated' aspect of a development.  I think it's pretty clear with Brixton Square and Brockwell Gate that the intention is to shut out the wider community.  And that's not a good thing in my book.


----------



## editor (Mar 8, 2013)

Winot said:


> At the risk of stirring things up further, it seems to me that what's important is the intention behind the 'gated' aspect of a development. I think it's pretty clear with Brixton Square and Brockwell Gate that the intention is to shut out the wider community. And that's not a good thing in my book.


That's what I find so offensive about the name. 'Brixton Square' suggests some kind of open community space. It's not.


----------



## T & P (Mar 8, 2013)

I guess at least the developers of 'Brockwell Gate' were honest about their intentions on that aspect


----------



## TruXta (Mar 8, 2013)

Winot said:


> At the risk of stirring things up further, it seems to me that what's important is the intention behind the 'gated' aspect of a development. I think it's pretty clear with Brixton Square and Brockwell Gate that the intention is to shut out the wider community. And that's not a good thing in my book.


I don't believe that's a stated intention - it's more likely than not a security feature. It of course does shut out non-residents.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2013)

Winot said:


> At the risk of stirring things up further, it seems to me that what's important is the intention behind the 'gated' aspect of a development. I think it's pretty clear with Brixton Square and Brockwell Gate that the intention is to shut out the wider community. And that's not a good thing in my book.


 
Do you think the Barrier Block should not shut out the wider community from its south-facing communal walkway terraces? If not, what's the significant difference?

By the way, Brockwell Gate isn't shut off is it? - maybe to cars, but you can walk through.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 8, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you think the Barrier Block should not shut out the wider community from its south-facing communal walkway terraces? If not, what's the significant difference?
> 
> By the way, Brockwell Gate isn't shut off is it? - maybe to cars, but you can walk through.


That's what I thought as well. Never actually tried mind you.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 8, 2013)

TruXta said:


> That's what I thought as well. Never actually tried mind you.


Loads of people go through to get to the park from Tulse Hill.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 8, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Loads of people go through to get to the park from Tulse Hill.


Thought so yeah.


----------



## editor (Mar 8, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you think the Barrier Block should not shut out the wider community from its south-facing communal walkway terraces? If not, what's the significant difference?


No gate. That's what you need for a gated community, you see. And it's not a "communal walkway terrace." It's only for people who _live on that floor_, and the key fobs were programmed to keep out residents from other floors. I've never been on any of the other walkways, unless I'm visiting someone and I have no access at all to the other half of the block. And of course there is no large communal courtyard. And no gate anywhere.

I hope that clears up that silly misunderstanding once and for all.


----------



## Winot (Mar 8, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Loads of people go through to get to the park from Tulse Hill.


 
There's a thoroughfare to the park, yes.  There are also signs making clear that you only have the right to go straight through, not to stray off the thoroughfare.


----------



## Winot (Mar 8, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you think the Barrier Block should not shut out the wider community from its south-facing communal walkway terraces? If not, what's the significant difference?
> 
> By the way, Brockwell Gate isn't shut off is it? - maybe to cars, but you can walk through.


 
Don't know anything about the barrier block.  There may well be ways it could have been designed better, but it's a bit late now.

re. Brockwell Gate - see post above.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 8, 2013)

Just waded through the last 5 pages of shit... 

Can anyone tell me when the planning meeting is please? I don't seem to have had my letter yet....


----------



## Rushy (Mar 8, 2013)

Winot said:


> At the risk of stirring things up further, it seems to me that what's important is the intention behind the 'gated' aspect of a development. I think it's pretty clear with Brixton Square and Brockwell Gate that the intention is to shut out the wider community. And that's not a good thing in my book.


I also don't want to stir this up. But I think talk of keeping out the 'wider community' is inflammatory. It's a about controlling who has unfettered access and when.

In terms of preventing integration with the local community, if a gated development has loads of its own facilities inside, such as a pub, restaurant, shops, cinema, gym, pool, whatever, as many do making them self sufficient, then of course it affects integration. People outside are prevented from accessing those, usually far superior, facilities and people inside wont use facilities outside the development. These types of places are widespread in the States, Africa, Middle East. But there is no comparison to what is being built in Brixton. The occupants of the buildings are as reliant as anyone else upon outside services and facilities available in the local community. They will drink and eat in pubs and restaurants. Shop in the same market or supermarkets. Go to the Ritzy or Whirled Cineama. Sign up at the Brockwell Lido or Rec. As for the 'wider community' being excluded from the courtyard : from the artist's impression it appears to be mostly raised beds and paths with a couple of benches. And it will be shaded most of the year because it is narrow and surrounded by tall buildings. I really don't think anyone is being excluded from anything important or worthwhile and no pubic rights of way or shortcuts have been lost. I'd go as far as to say, why would anyone want or need to be in there other than curiosity?

I was fascinated by Clifton Mansions for years - there was something exciting, mysterious and even romantic about that hidden courtyard with its artworks, such as the horse's head, mosaics, dim yellow lighting, etc.. I have no recollection of the gate being regularly left open for anyone to casually wander in and out. And the few times I asked people if I could come in and take a look I was told no and was reminded that it was people's homes and "how would you feel if someone was walking around in your front garden", blah blah blah. Which was disappointing but I never really thought it was all that unreasonable.

I put a lockable gate at the front of my house. I did it because I was tired of people wandering into the front garden and taking a piss, being woken by prostitutes shagging clients outside the window (once opening the front door whilst a girl was being shagged against it from beind), dealers, junkies shooting up or smoking pipes, often followed by taking a huge messy shit or, in one case, dry humping the stone paving at 5am screaming "I love you". [Ok the last one was quite amusing but quite frightening for the person downstairs.] Frankly, I can't think of any good reason for someone to be in my 6' front garden.

My Brixton Housing Coop neighbours have also had a locked gate put in for exactly the same reasons.

So whilst it might be nice for the place not to be gated - I think there is a reasonable practical reason why it is. The reason is the same reason that communal areas in a block have security. Pretending that it is something more sinister which reflects on the nature of the occupants is, I think, divisive.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 8, 2013)

Great post Rushy. The gated/not gated thing is a massive red herring.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2013)

editor said:


> No gate. That's what you need for a gated community, you see. And it's not a "communal walkway terrace." It's only for people who _live on that floor_, and the key fobs were programmed to keep out residents from other floors. I've never been on any of the other walkways, unless I'm visiting someone and I have no access at all to the other half of the block. And of course there is no large communal courtyard. And no gate anywhere.
> 
> I hope that clears up that silly misunderstanding once and for all.


 
When you say there's "no gate anywhere", do you mean that instead of a gate, it's a door? Do you consider this to be the significant difference?

An area that serves a group of individual dwellings is a communal area, FYI, so the walkways most definitely are communal areas.

Do you feel it's wrong that there is controlled access to the walkway terraces? Would you rather the public had access?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I also don't want to stir this up. But I think talk of keeping out the 'wider community' is inflammatory. It's a about controlling who has unfettered access and when.
> 
> In terms of preventing integration with the local community, if a gated development has loads of its own facilities inside, such as a pub, restaurant, shops, cinema, gym, pool, whatever, as many do making them self sufficient, then of course it affects integration. People outside are prevented from accessing those, usually far superior, facilities and people inside wont use facilities outside the development. These types of places are widespread in the States, Africa, Middle East. But there is no comparison to what is being built in Brixton. The occupants of the buildings are as reliant as anyone else upon outside services and facilities available in the local community. They will drink and eat in pubs and restaurants. Shop in the same market or supermarkets. Go to the Ritzy or Whirled Cineama. Sign up at the Brockwell Lido or Rec. As for the 'wider community' being excluded from the courtyard : from the artist's impression it appears to be mostly raised beds and paths with a couple of benches. And it will be shaded most of the year because it is narrow and surrounded by tall buildings. I really don't think anyone is being excluded from anything important or worthwhile and no pubic rights of way or shortcuts have been lost. I'd go as far as to say, why would anyone want or need to be in there other than curiosity?
> 
> ...


Spot on.


----------



## Winot (Mar 8, 2013)

Yes, some good points there Rushy. I spent a few weeks in posh Pretoria a while back and I agree this is nothing like that. 

I don't blame you for your lockable gate. Hell, we've even started closing ours to try to keep out shitting dogs.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 8, 2013)

Let's not forget... A substantial amount of affordable housing will be included behind this infamous gate!


----------



## TruXta (Mar 8, 2013)

"Affordable"....


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 8, 2013)

TruXta said:


> "Affordable"....


 
in the view of Lambeth Council's Planning department...


----------



## editor (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Let's not forget... A substantial amount of affordable housing will be included behind this infamous gate!


Got the precise figures for this "substantial" amount and the costings for the "affordable" housing? Thanks.


----------



## colacubes (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Let's not forget... A substantial amount of affordable housing will be included behind this infamous gate!


 
They're trying to reduce the amount of "affordable" housing they have to provide.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 8, 2013)

editor said:


> Got the precise figures for this "substantial" amount and the costings for the "affordable" housing? Thanks.


 
The amount of affordable housing is a matter of public record - you can look at the Lambeth Council's planning website.

Haven't a clue about how much it will cost people who rent / buy it... But I guess the fact is was acceptable for Lambeth Council provides some comfort that the needs of the wider community have been appropriately considered...


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 8, 2013)

I live behind gates in some of the cheapest private flats to be found in Brixton. Gates etc as communal security features for blocks of flats and parking are neither new nor restricted to private (wealthy) developments.   As said it's a massive red herring.  I'm sick of hearing it. 

My friend lives in a 'gated community' too, in Kennington. You have to pass through two security doors to get to the 'community areas'  then a further security door for each block of flats.  It even has a concierge!  You can't get a car onto the property unless you have a key to lower security blocks. It's council housing though.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 8, 2013)

nipsla said:


> They're trying to reduce the amount of "affordable" housing they have to provide.


 
Of course - they are in it to make a profit... It is the council's job to consider the wider needs of the community.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 8, 2013)

Lots of flats in the area have a security gate at pavement edge, then some kind of communal area, lawn, garden, car park etc, and then flats.  quimcunx lives in one.  The estate opposite the hootahob does too, iirc.  


There are many, many things to be pissed off about with Brixton square.  But it the fact of a secure gate, at street level, is not a novelty in the area at all.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> <snip>But I guess the fact is was acceptable for Lambeth Council provides some comfort that the needs of the wider community have been appropriately considered...


You guess.  This is Lambeth - and I'm guessing that you haven't lived here very long if you guess that the council seriously considers the needs of people living here.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> The amount of affordable housing is a matter of public record - you can look at the Lambeth Council's planning website.
> 
> Haven't a clue about how much it will cost people who rent / buy it... But I guess the fact is was acceptable for Lambeth Council provides some comfort that the needs of the wider community have been appropriately considered...


 
Ahahahahahahahaha! HAHAHA! HA!

No, the needs of the community have not been considered at all. The need for LC to line their pockets and schmooze with property developers has.


----------



## Chilavert (Mar 8, 2013)

nipsla said:


> They're trying to reduce the amount of "affordable" housing they have to provide.


Quite.  And this is the real issue, not all the talk of gates, as has already been mentioned more than once.


----------



## 299 old timer (Mar 8, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I put a lockable gate at the front of my house. I did it because I was tired of people wandering into the front garden and taking a piss, being woken by prostitutes shagging clients outside the window (once opening the front door whilst a girl was being shagged against it from beind), dealers, junkies shooting up or smoking pipes, often followed by taking a huge messy shit or, in one case, dry humping the stone paving at 5am screaming "I love you". [Ok the last one was quite amusing but quite frightening for the person downstairs.] Frankly, I can't think of any good reason for someone to be in my 6' front garden.


 
Excellent points. Wandering around old stomping grounds I note that everything has a high fence or a gate nowadays, it's really obvious if you haven't been to a particular area for a few years.
As for the development in question, I'd rather ask: Who in their right mind would pay £400k to live in that dump?"


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 8, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Ahahahahahahahaha! HAHAHA! HA!
> 
> No, the needs of the community have not been considered at all. The need for LC to line their pockets and schmooze with property developers has.


 
in that case, it is a good thing that they are elected officials who can be held to account by their constituents.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 8, 2013)

yeah right.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 8, 2013)

I have emailed a reqest to speak at the planning committee on the 12th on the variation of the Section 106 on affordable housing. There can be up to three speakers who oppose the applicatio. Each get 3 minutes. If anyone else who put in a written individual comment on the application wants to speak. You have to contact Lambeth at the lastest the day before.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 8, 2013)

My internet at home is down so have only skimmed recent posts.

The issue is property developers (big and small) and buy to let merchants with there portfolio of houses to rent do not care if the prices they charge push people out of Brixton.

Whether its gated or not these businesses and individuals who profit from a basic human need to be housed are the enemy.

They are out to make a profit not to provide a much needed resource- housing.

Barratts are a large business and are trying to argue that the original Section 106 of a few units being let at social rent is to onerous on them.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 8, 2013)

I agree with you when it comes to buy-to-let. BTL sucks supply out of the market as it only makes use of existing housing stock which forces up rents and house prices.

The key issue is that not enough housing is being built in London. This is forcing up prices as the population continues to grow. Prices in Brixton will rise regardless of whether this block is built.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 8, 2013)

What about the Gates of Heaven? Is that a gated community?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 8, 2013)

gates communities are inevitable if crime happens in the area. get rid of crime and people would be less inclined to put up gates. take down gates, and i don't think people will be less inclined to commit crime. "hey keith, they've taken down all the gates, lets not go out on the rob today...", not going to happen is it. i think rushy's example is why an argument for a gates can exist. and if he took down the gate, there's a good chance them same issues would come back straight away...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Most apartment buildings are "gated" - ie. you must pass an outer door/gate that only gets you as far as the shared hallways/stairs/courtyard. From there you can knock on peoples doors.
> I take "gated community" to mean a series of separate residential and amenity buildings, with a gate across the only access road.


 
Brockwell Gate, as it was intended, before the LFB enforced through-access to the park.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> just a point on the "soaring house prices mean soaring social housing rent increases" - now this is a genuine question, and i am not stirring up anything, but if that was the case, how about all the estates in chelsea, W1, westminster, etc - are they also on prices that are high due to their proximity to very value property? genuine question! i thought the price of paying rent for a council place is pretty stable, no? could be wrong.


 
"Social housing" isn't just council housing, it's Housing Association too, and HAs have an obligation (apparently) to charge a market rent (or sometimes a "market" minus _X_% rent) for their properties, so high prices for private housing definitely cause an upward trend on Housing Association rental prices.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 8, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> i think rushy's example is why an argument for a gates can exist. and if he took down the gate, there's a good chance them same issues would come back straight away...


The example of the chap dry humping the floor happened recentlyish when one of us left the gate open overnight, so yes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I want to take my car up there. Why can't I? I feel excluded.


 
Aren't they the barriers that just stop a one-way rd being used as a two-way road?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 8, 2013)

Rushy said:


> The example of the chap dry humping the floor happened recentlyish when one of us left the gate open overnight, so yes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you think the fact that there will be controlled access to the Brixton Square courtyard is an issue that's relevant to the discussion about the changes we are all seeing in Brixton at the moment?


 
It's an issue among others.How couldn't it be if it excludes the public from formerly-public (or publicly-accessible) space?

This is where I think your comparison of a "gated community" and a council block with controlled entry to the block itself falls down. The "gated community" is developed in order to exclude the public not only from access to the housing, but to exclude them from the environs of the enclave too. That's not the case with any council block I'm aware of. Controlled entry to housing is rational. Controlled entry to an entire area of space isn't as easily-justified except through reference to the desires of the developers and possible residents.



> Or is griping about it being a "gated community" a lazy way of trying to portray that particular development as something it isn't, to make its future residents an easier target to caricature and hate upon, in place of talking about stuff that's actually much more important like whether or not the developers succeed in reducing the affordable housing provision?


 
"Gated community" is a fair label to apply, given the mooted access/lack of public access. That "gated communities" are often subject to caricature is partly because they fit some of the stereotypes of "gated communities" that have crossed the Atlantic in many ways (although here they're nowhere ar as racially-exclusive).
As for the possible reduction of affordable housing provision, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the reduction will be tied to the "quality" of the "future residents" the developer wishes to attract.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> i'd shit on a bus for a house in anerley.
> 
> anerley, penge, catford, etc are still very much in the heart of the things - mere bus journey's away from good things. it's when you get out to places like orpington, sutton, etc when suicidal thoughts might slowly creep in.


 
A mate moved to Meopham because it was "affordable".

He moved back to South London because his expenditure on booze and drugs to make the place bearable went from about £30 a week to £100.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you think the Barrier Block should not shut out the wider community from its south-facing communal walkway terraces? If not, what's the significant difference?
> 
> By the way, Brockwell Gate isn't shut off is it? - maybe to cars, but you can walk through.


 
Until the park closes, at which time the through-gates are shut to public access.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Let's not forget... A substantial amount of affordable housing will be included behind this infamous gate!


 
Please quantify both "affordable" and "substantial".

Thank you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> The amount of affordable housing is a matter of public record - you can look at the Lambeth Council's planning website.
> 
> Haven't a clue about how much it will cost people who rent / buy it... But I guess the fact is was acceptable for Lambeth Council provides some comfort that the needs of the wider community have been appropriately considered...


 
So basically you've farted out a few "formula" words while having little idea what you're actually saying?


----------



## Rushy (Mar 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Aren't they the barriers that just stop a one-way rd being used as a two-way road?


No, I don't think so - pretty sure that's 2 way. There is another one blocking the only entry and exit (ie 2 way) to the service layby immediately to the right out of the photo. And the 10mph limit sign is on the opposite side to that which the traffic would be coming from if it were a 1-way control. But I wasn't making a particularly serious point about Southwyck Heights - my point was about the way in which we can twist normal factual descriptions to characterise people/places to suit our agendas. We've all moved on now.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 8, 2013)

Rushy said:


> No, I don't think so - pretty sure that's 2 way. There is another one blocking the only entry and exit (ie 2 way) to the service layby immediately to the right out of the photo. And the 10mph limit sign is on the opposite side to that which the traffic would be coming from if it were a 1-way control. But I wasn't making a particularly serious point about Southwyck Heights - my point was about the way in which we can twist normal factual descriptions to characterise people/places to suit our agendas. We've all moved on now.


any luck in getting a key fob to open them?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Of course - they are in it to make a profit... It is the council's job to consider the wider needs of the community.


 
They're in it to *maximise* their profit, not merely to "make *a* profit".
It's also difficult for the officers of the council to "consider wider needs" within the business-pleasing constraints imposed on them by central government, and in operation against the well-paid negotiators of the developers.

But hey, fuck that asymmetry of power shit, eh?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A mate moved to Meopham because it was "affordable".
> 
> He moved back to South London because his expenditure on booze and drugs to make the place bearable went from about £30 a week to £100.


my parents done almost exactly the same. they retired back to london, sick of the country.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

Rushy said:


> No, I don't think so - pretty sure that's 2 way. There is another one blocking the only entry and exit (ie 2 way) to the service layby immediately to the right out of the photo. And the 10mph limit sign is on the opposite side to that which the traffic would be coming from if it were a 1-way control. But I wasn't making a particularly serious point about Southwyck Heights - my point was about the way in which we can twist normal factual descriptions to characterise people/places to suit our agendas. We've all moved on now.


 
That's because you're all hippies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Ahahahahahahahaha! HAHAHA! HA!
> 
> No, the needs of the community have not been considered at all. The need for LC to line their pockets and schmooze with property developers has.


 
Hence the ongoing studies into potential "re-purposing" of green spaces on Lambeth's council estates, to follow up on the Myatts Fields clusterfuckery.
All legitimated by "localism" and "local government best practice", of course!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> I agree with you when it comes to buy-to-let. BTL sucks supply out of the market as it only makes use of existing housing stock which forces up rents and house prices.
> 
> The key issue is that not enough housing is being built in London. This is forcing up prices as the population continues to grow. Prices in Brixton will rise regardless of whether this block is built.


 
Prices in the majority of the UK will continue to rise because high property prices are currently assisting the stabilisation of the economy. Build enough to ease demand, and the Treasury will start worrying in very short order how to explain a decline in the economy that'll make the current stall look like peanuts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> gates communities are inevitable if crime happens in the area. get rid of crime and people would be less inclined to put up gates. take down gates, and i don't think people will be less inclined to commit crime. "hey keith, they've taken down all the gates, lets not go out on the rob today...", not going to happen is it. i think rushy's example is why an argument for a gates can exist. and if he took down the gate, there's a good chance them same issues would come back straight away...


 
Actually, they're inevitable whether crime rises or falls in the area, purely because people buy into the idea of gated communities based on their *perceptions*, not because they've rationally researched local crime statistics and made a judgement based on that.
Sell someone who's worried about crime (generally because the media tell them the world is going down the crapper) the idea that living in such a community makes them "safer", and they'll generally stump up the asking price happily. Even BTLers like 'em because of the perception that their investment is "safer".


----------



## Winot (Mar 8, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> my parents done almost exactly the same. they retired back to london, sick of the country.



Were they spending too much money on drugs too?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 8, 2013)

Winot said:


> Were they spending too much money on drugs too?


 
naaahhh


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 8, 2013)

it is all in here:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf

40% of the scheme is "affordable housing"

if you read this document you will see that the council has assessed the cost of this "affordable housing" and determined that it would be "affordable" to people claiming housing benefit...

It sounds like the council has done a very good job in taking into account the needs of the vulnerable.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's an issue among others.How couldn't it be if it excludes the public from formerly-public (or publicly-accessible) space?


 
Does the objection to the private courtyard hinge on whether or not we consider the lans "publicly accessible" in the past, then?

Of course if it were previously genuine public land then it would be different. However, as I understand, it was previously only accessible due to dereliction, and for the past few years has not been accessible at all.

You say that controlled access to the barrier block terraces is "rational" - what are the reasons and why shouldn't they also apply to the BS courtyard?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Does the objection to the private courtyard hinge on whether or not we consider the lans "publicly accessible" in the past, then?


 
It doesn't "hinge" on it (if only things were so clear cut!), but it's certainly a factor.



> Of course if it were previously genuine public land then it would be different. However, as I understand, it was previously only accessible due to dereliction, and for the past few years has not been accessible at all.


 
Depends what you want "genuine" to mean, doesn't it? If you want it to mean "legally defined as", then a lot of land that is public from custom and usage suddenly becomes "not public". If you want "genuine" to mean "treated as such" (for whatever reason) or "reclaimed for public use" then it's germane.



> You say that controlled access to the barrier block terraces is "rational" - what are the reasons and why shouldn't they also apply to the BS courtyard?


 
No, I said that controlled access to the *housing* (i.e. control of the commons that give access to the individual units) is rational (whether in a gated community or on a council estate), and it is, from the point of view of both the local authority (reduction of crime and the possibility of crime, in line with their obligations w/r/t the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and other "community safety" legislation), and the tenants (less easy access to individual housing units by persons who don't live either in that individual housing unit and/or on that development) in the case of council housing whose design warrants such, and in the case of gated communities, for the purpose of maximising security as necessary and minimising insurance premiums.

What I disagree with is the "enclosure" of open space inherent to gated communities, something that barely manifests in social housing.


----------



## editor (Mar 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What I disagree with is the "enclosure" of open space inherent to gated communities, something that barely manifests in social housing.


Indeed, and a valid comparison is the green space outside the Barrier Block (no fences, no gates, open to all) and the green space inside Brixton Square (gated, inaccessible to the public, strictly private use only).


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 8, 2013)

Like my 60s block then. I call it 'our garden' and 'our carpark'* rather than 'the green space'. And like Sandhurst court on Acre lane (1920s at a guess) which has an enclosed garden. And plenty more I'm sure. The fence and gate are a boundary to our (communal) private property.

*communal to all residents of our flats, but not communal to all residents of brixton.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It doesn't "hinge" on it (if only things were so clear cut!), but it's certainly a factor.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends what you want "genuine" to mean, doesn't it? If you want it to mean "legally defined as", then a lot of land that is public from custom and usage suddenly becomes "not public". If you want "genuine" to mean "treated as such" (for whatever reason) or "reclaimed for public use" then it's germane.


 
Do you feel it's fair to describe the site of the BS development as "public from custom and usage" though? In the 12 years I've lived in Brixton I've never been in there or felt that access was reasonably possible. I don't think there is any custom of it being used as general public space. I know there were various quasi-public uses of the building previously (for how many years I don't know) but I don't see that these are uses that it's reasonable to expect to continue in an enclosed residential courtyard.



ViolentPanda said:


> No, I said that controlled access to the *housing* (i.e. control of the commons that give access to the individual units) is rational (whether in a gated community or on a council estate), and it is, from the point of view of both the local authority (reduction of crime and the possibility of crime, in line with their obligations w/r/t the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and other "community safety" legislation), and the tenants (less easy access to individual housing units by persons who don't live either in that individual housing unit and/or on that development) in the case of council housing whose design warrants such, and in the case of gated communities, for the purpose of maximising security as necessary and minimising insurance premiums.
> 
> What I disagree with is the "enclosure" of open space inherent to gated communities, something that barely manifests in social housing.


 
Open space is one thing, an urban internal courtyard is another. As I said in a previous post it's in no way unprecedented to have controlled access to a residential internal courtyard. It's a completely un-abnormal situation. People are using the term "gated community" to make it sound like it's a network of streets and the like with a security guard sitting at the gate. It's not. It's a bog-standard high density courtyard housing block development.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2013)

editor said:


> Indeed, and a valid comparison is the green space outside the Barrier Block (no fences, no gates, open to all) and the green space inside Brixton Square (gated, inaccessible to the public, strictly private use only).


 
That green space is
a) genuinely green space
b) open to and visible from the street
c) has been such for quite some time
d) of a significant area

BS courtyard is:
a) not green space but a courtyard with a few planters
b) not visible from the street (like the barrier block walkways), with associated security implications
c) no tradition of a public space
d) basically, in the scheme of things, TINY!

perspective anyone??


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> it is all in here:
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf
> 
> ...


 
Have not had time to read all this yet.

But it still does not explain why a previously agreed Section 106 which Barratts did not question when they started building the flats needed , in Barratts view, to be changed.

The application was by Barratts not the Council. They could have left the Section 106 alone and not sought to alter it. So why did they?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> It is all down to supply and demand... Successive governments have not done enough to encourage house building in the capital and therefore, as the population of the city has increased, house prices have continued to rise in spite of the recession.
> 
> Ultimately, unless more blocks like this are built the supply imbalance will just get worse and more people will be “priced-out” of areas in which they have lived for many years.


 
Really?

Or it could be that developers sit on land banks and are part of the problem themselves. Not government. It is not in the interests of developers to start a mass building programme. And then see prices of properties diminish.

Building more houses will not solve the problem of affordability in London. There is a serious issue of unequal incomes in London. What is needed is rent controls for a start. Also secure  long tenancies for private renters without the landlord being able to up the rent dramatically.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 8, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Really?
> 
> Or it could be that developers sit on land banks and are part of the problem themselves. Not government. It is not in the interests of developers to start a mass building programme. And then see prices of properties diminish.
> 
> Building more houses will not solve the problem of affordability in London. There is a serious issue of unequal incomes in London. What is needed is rent controls for a start. Also secure long tenancies for private renters without the landlord being able to up the rent dramatically.


 
A good summary of the issue in London published in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/dav...ris-johnson-london-housing-crisis-andrew-boff

A complex issue, but the author notes the lack of supply and a rising population as being a core issue.

On a side note, I think schemes like this one in Brixton are good as they integrate social housing with private housing - this avoids the creation of ghettos as some of the large council estates seem to have become.

I'm actually purchasing a flat in Brixton Square with the aid of the "Newbuy" scheme which allows people with small deposits (around 5%) to obtain a mortgage. London housing costs are disgusting and I could not care less about the value of my new property appreciating.I like the area, the flat is decent size, with good storage and a nice fit-out. And the prices are comparable with much of the existing housing stock which a glace at rightmove shows...

I hope that more developments spring up as this is the only thing that will reduce house prices.


----------



## ash (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> A good summary of the issue in London published in the Guardian:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/dav...ris-johnson-london-housing-crisis-andrew-boff
> 
> ...


Do you work for Foxtons ??


----------



## colacubes (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> A good summary of the issue in London published in the Guardian:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/dav...ris-johnson-london-housing-crisis-andrew-boff
> 
> ...


 
I'm glad you feel that way.  How do you feel about the fact the developers are trying to reduce that beyond the statutory minimum they have to apply? Will you be attending the planning meeting next week to lobby the council not to do so?


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 8, 2013)

ash said:


> Do you work for Foxtons ??


 
No I don't.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 8, 2013)

nipsla said:


> I'm glad you feel that way. How do you feel about the fact the developers are trying to reduce that beyond the statutory minimum they have to apply? Will you be attending the planning meeting next week to lobby the council not to do so?


 
I don't agree with this as the development was clearly economically viable for them to start work under the requirements of the original s106.They are obviously trying to boost their profits.

Work permitting, I may attend.


----------



## colacubes (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> I don't agree with this as the development was clearly economically viable for them to start work under the requirements of the original s106.They are obviously trying to boost their profits.
> 
> Work permitting, I may attend.


 
Good


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 8, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> On a side note, I think schemes like this one in Brixton are good as they integrate social housing with private housing - this avoids the creation of ghettos as some of the large council estates seem to have become.
> 
> .


 
Many Council estates do integrate private and Council housing due to RTB over the years.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 9, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Many Council estates do integrate private and Council housing due to RTB over the years.


 
Right to buy was a terrible mistake. If so much social housing hadn't been sold off on the cheap, I'm sure the current housing crisis would be nowhere near as bad.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 9, 2013)

London property investment article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/.../London-property-the-ultimate-investment.html

Not 'new news' exactly but seems about right. 

"At the same time, while the global workforce may be very mobile, those buying in the capital don't tend to sell their property if they move out as the strong rental yields make for an attractive investment. As a result there are now 30pc fewer "unsold" homes on the market than in the five years before 2007, when the market dipped. Elsewhere in the country this trend is reversed."


----------



## leanderman (Mar 9, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Right to buy was a terrible mistake. If so much social housing hadn't been sold off on the cheap, I'm sure the current housing crisis would be nowhere near as bad.



And how ... 

This is the most awful article I have read :http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2013)

leanderman said:


> And how ...
> 
> This is the most awful article I have read :http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338


 
estimate for Lambeth ex Council that is owned by Buy to let merchants is:




> *Lambeth Council – 26%*
> Response: “Lambeth Council’s current dwelling stock comprises 34,348 properties.
> “16 leaseholders currently hold 5 or more leases on properties, namely: 6 companies that own 36 leases between them, 10 Individuals that own 98 leases between them.
> “According to our most up to date records, based on 8863 leasehold accounts which had service charge estimates issued during the 2012-2013 financial year, 2331 leaseholders have registered a forwarding address which is different from the property address.”
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2013)

Badgers said:


> London property investment article:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/.../London-property-the-ultimate-investment.html
> 
> ...


 
I like this quote from the article:



> Your typical Russian oligarch isn't in his local Halifax branch quibbling about the deposit needed.


 
There has been a lot of stuff in the news about opening borders to Romanians but the real problem is the way London welcomes the super rich.


----------



## editor (Mar 9, 2013)

leanderman said:


> And how ...
> 
> This is the most awful article I have read :http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338


Lambeth are still shoving leaflets through doors encouraging tenants to buy their council flat.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 9, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I like this quote from the article:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a lot of stuff in the news about opening borders to Romanians but the real problem is the way London welcomes the super rich.




The Romanian stuff is nonsense. And you are right about the super rich but you are wrong if you think London's surging population is not a factor in the housing crisis. That does not mean to say I would close our borders.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 9, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> estimate for Lambeth ex Council that is owned by Buy to let merchants is:


 
That's quite depressing.  Part of the problem being that it can be difficult to get a mortgage on ex council properties, for instance if the building is more than 4 storeys high.   I guess buy to let landlords have cash or easier access to suitable loans.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 9, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> That's quite depressing. Part of the problem being that it can be difficult to get a mortgage on ex council properties, for instance if the building is more than 4 storeys high. I guess buy to let landlords have cash or easier access to suitable loans.


Yup, often see flats in tower blocks etc advertised for sale for pretty cheap compared to similar sized places in "conventional" buildings, but only people who can pay cash can get them because of the mortgage situation. And people who have that much cash knocking around probably don't want to live in an ex council flat in a tower block, so it's fairly inevitable that they'll be bought to let out.

Cheapest housing only available to the cash rich.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> That's quite depressing. Part of the problem being that it can be difficult to get a mortgage on ex council properties, for instance if the building is more than 4 storeys high. I guess buy to let landlords have cash or easier access to suitable loans.


 
There are special Buy to Let mortgages. I was surprised by this but a friend re-mortgaged her old flat with one when she moved. 

There is a whole financial industry behind the Buy to Let merchants.


----------



## editor (Mar 9, 2013)

Fucking Tories.







And these are the fuckers making a killing: 






http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 9, 2013)

We could have been in a very different place now if money from selling council homes had been spent on building more council homes and if policy had made buying ex council easier for 1st time buyers and more difficult for commercial landlords.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 9, 2013)

I would vote for any politician who promised to do the following:

ban buy-to-let investing fro properties valued under £1m
regulate letting agents to restrict excessive fees
end right-to-buy
encourage longer tenancy agreements with rent reviews linked to inflation
Can't see any of them having the guts to do this though...


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The Romanian stuff is nonsense. And you are right about the super rich but you are wrong if you think London's surging population is not a factor in the housing crisis. That does not mean to say I would close our borders.


 
I have East European friends. Also meet people from outside the EU.

Its get increasingly difficult for people from outside EU to come here as students or to work. Whatever Cameron says.

Romanians have got a lot of stick over the past year in tabloids. 

This does not apply to the super rich. The assorted bunch of Russian Oligarchs, Nigerian "politicians" etc etc. Unlike other countries they can buy houses / flats here with front companies. One Hyde Park is an example. The super rich can come and live in London no questions asked.

Borders are being partially closed to ordinary people but not to super rich.

Both the Labour and Tory party have done this. They are both parties who like to pick on the little people because its easy and populist but abase themselves at the feet of the rich and powerful.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 9, 2013)

editor said:


> Fucking Tories.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Disgraceful that Labour did nothing to correct this situation during their time in power.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2013)

editor said:


> Fucking Tories.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
How is it that just after WW2 when the country was basically broke it managed to build so much Council Housing?


----------



## leanderman (Mar 9, 2013)

I can agree with that. But I find it unlikely that, for example, 500,000 Poles settling in the UK is not a factor in the housing crisis. And I apologise for using this example again, because the Poles have every right to live here. it is national census fact and we have to build the homes to deal with it.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 9, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I can agree with that. But I find it unlikely that, for example, 500,000 Poles settling in the UK is not a factor in the housing crisis. And I apologise for using this example again, because the Poles have every right to live here. it is national census fact and we have to build the homes to deal with it.


 
How many units of housing is that?  What does settling mean?   Is that a total or how many come year each year?  How many stay? How many leave again?  I haven't read anything about migration of Poles or any other immigrant/emigrant info.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 9, 2013)

Good questions. I doubt anyone knows. It just shows that, on the night of the 2011 census, 545,000 people living in England and Wales gave Polish as their first language. In 2001, it was 61,000. 

In 2011, there were 562,000 Welsh speakers.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> How many units of housing is that? What does settling mean? Is that a total or how many come year each year? How many stay? How many leave again? I haven't read anything about migration of Poles or any other immigrant/emigrant info.


 
Leanderman is right. The last census put Polish as UK second language.




> Data from 2011 census reveals 546,000 people in England and Wales speak Polish


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I can agree with that. But I find it unlikely that, for example, 500,000 Poles settling in the UK is not a factor in the housing crisis. And I apologise for using this example again, because the Poles have every right to live here. it is national census fact and we have to build the homes to deal with it.


 
Heard someone from Labour party apologizing for not doing anything about this when they were in power. It happened under there watch.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 9, 2013)

I think how many housing units that translates to matters and if they are settling. A constant round of flatsharing youth has different housing needs to families coming to stay for ever for instance.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 9, 2013)

My shared ownership block is full of young Polish and Lithuanian couples.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 9, 2013)

The census also revealed the population of England and Wales rose by 7.5 per cent between 2001 and 2011. I doubt we built 7.5 per more cent bed spaces. (Modified as I mis-wrote million)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Right to buy was a terrible mistake. If so much social housing hadn't been sold off on the cheap, I'm sure the current housing crisis would be nowhere near as bad.


 
Greater London has, IIRC, lost about 600,000 social housing units to social use (about 20% of the entire loss in England and Wales) since 1983 (the year the floodgates were opened with the *amendment* of the existing Right to Buy legislation).
Housing Associations have built new social housing stock since then that takes up less that 15% of that deficit alone in Greater London.

It's not so much the sell-off that caused the problem, as the accompanying legislation that a), ended the obligation for RtB purchasers to give the local authority the purchased from a "first refusal" to re-purchase the house when the owner put it on the market; b) ended the system of penalties that meant that RtB purchasers forfeited discount if they sold before a statutory minimum residency of 5 years (effectively minimising short-termism), and c) disbarring local authorities from developing new social housing (slightly eased now/since around 2007-08).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2013)

editor said:


> Lambeth are still shoving leaflets through doors encouraging tenants to buy their council flat.


 
So are Fuckstons, tbf.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2013)

editor said:


> Fucking Tories.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
TBF, Charles Gow was always likely going to be a grasping cunt, given his revolting union-hating, pov-baiting piss-stain of a late father.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> We could have been in a very different place now if money from selling council homes had been spent on building more council homes and if policy had made buying ex council easier for 1st time buyers and more difficult for commercial landlords.


 
The Tories *deliberately* revised/amended the RtB legislation so that building more council homes was impossible. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they knew exactly what the results would be down the line - They just didn't care and don't care.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> How is it that just after WW2 when the country was basically broke it managed to build so much Council Housing?


 
TBF, the mass of building was '50s-'60s, with a spurt of crap high-rise in the late '60s to mid-'70s, but it got built because of both political will and social and political necessity.
While we have social necessity, we no longer have the leverage on politicians to make the social housing issue a political necessity, which in turn means there's no political will to rock the neoliberal boat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Disgraceful that Labour did nothing to correct this situation during their time in power.


 
"Nothing" is an inaccurate description. They did eventually (2007-08 IIRC) legislate so that LAs could develop low-volume social housing funded from their own reserves (ie.e. development that wouldn't be funded by "on book" borrowing), and did loosen the strings on RtB receipts.
So, they did *something*, just nowhere near enough.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 9, 2013)

This is all true but, whatever Labour's faults, it's hard to see how they could have built enough homes to cope with a 3.7million rise in the population in 10 years.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> I think how many housing units that translates to matters and if they are settling. A constant round of flatsharing youth has different housing needs to families coming to stay for ever for instance.


 
I know/ have met a lot of East Europeans. The ones that the previous "Labour" government did not have a clue were coming here as Labour party people were to busy dining out with bankers and the rich to notice such details.

I would say , based on my experience, that half the ones I know have stayed and the rest gone back for various reasons.

One reason the Poles stay here is that compared to Poland this is a socially liberal country. Catholic Nationalism of various types is strong in Poland.

The Romanians and Bulgarians I know come here as there is little work in there own countries. One Bulgarian told me that there is nothing in Bulgaria for her.

I have recently met more Spanish and Italians due to the economic situation in there countries. One Spanish girl told me there are no jobs in Spain of any kind when she left college.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 9, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> How is it that just after WW2 when the country was basically broke it managed to build so much Council Housing?


They had to - lots of places that were bombed out needed rebuilding, including large parts of London, the Midlands and Clydebank.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2013)

leanderman said:


> This is all true but, whatever Labour's faults, it's hard to see how they could have built enough homes to cope with a 3.7million rise in the population in 10 years.


They managed to build 1.2 million new houses built from 1945 to 1951, and given the state of the country then, you'd think we'd at least be able to equal that now.

In 2010, just 134,000 new homes were built in the UK - the lowest number since World War II. It's not right.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2013)

editor said:


> They managed to build 1.2 million new houses built from 1945 to 1951, and given the state of the country then, you'd think we'd at least be able to equal that now.
> 
> In 2010, just 134,000 new homes were built in the UK - the lowest number since World War II. It's not right.


 
The 2010 total works out at 23% fewer new homes per year than immediately after a war in which large quantities  of housing stock had been completely destroyed, which doesn't initially sound surprising.

In order for these figures to be meaningful they need to be quoted in the context of the population at each time and the number of people without proper accommodation.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2013)

The point being that with sufficient political will, an awful lot more houses could be built.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 10, 2013)

editor said:


> They managed to build 1.2 million new houses built from 1945 to 1951, and given the state of the country then, you'd think we'd at least be able to equal that now.
> 
> In 2010, just 134,000 new homes were built in the UK - the lowest number since World War II. It's not right.


...and there was much less of an 'us & them' politically just after the war. My Grandfather, who was definitely a tory, sold a field behind his house for council housing after the war because, along with the formation of the NHS, he thought it was the right thing to do for his country. He wasn't a farmer, he'd just moved his surgery into an old farm in the 1930s. Although there were massive social divisions then, there was more of a sense of one nation, and doing what was best for the nation. It's all really selfish now in comparison. I can't imagine a tory selling a field behind his house for council housing now.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 10, 2013)

Actually I can't imagine a Labour or Lib Dem with a field behind their house selling it for social housing either these days to be honest.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Actually I can't imagine a Labour or Lib Dem with a field behind their house selling it for social housing either these days to be honest.


I find it hard to imagine new council housing being built


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 10, 2013)

Innit, just when we need it just as much as after the war  If you'd said to me in the seventies that exploitative landlords would be cramming people into sheds and garages I would have laughed in your face.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2013)

Maybe what we need is another war.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Maybe what we need is another war.


 
Maybe what we need is a Chavez.



> Venezuela continues to see a big surge in housing construction since the government launched the “Great Venezuelan Housing Mission” in April of last year.


 


> “Venezuela is the only country that has built more than 200 thousand homes in a year,” said private constructor Carmelo de Estéfano Ramírez. “No country has been able to do something like that. The best have made around 70 thousand, if that, in a year”.


 


Last 30 years in this country neo-liberalism has ruled. The invisible hand of market forces untrammelled by interference by the state was supposed to provide goods and services in a more efficient way.

Has not worked.

Chavez (democratically elected) movement has managed to redistribute wealth from rich Oligarch class ( as its known in South America) to the less well off. Thus showing the neo liberal orthodoxy is not the only way.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 10, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Maybe what we need is a Chavez.
> 
> Last 30 years in this country neo-liberalism has ruled. The invisible hand of market forces untrammelled by interference by the state was supposed to provide goods and services in a more efficient way.
> 
> ...



http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy

Yeah - he was a great bloke!


----------



## peterkro (Mar 10, 2013)

Chavez horrendous bloke look at the list of horrors:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/8133

/thread derail.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2013)

I talked to Zoe  of Brixton Blog  she has reprinted the joint piece on the application with bit on the planning committee on Tuesday.

See here




> Councillors will make a crucial decision about the provision of social housing in the Brixton Square development on Coldharbour Lane next Tuesday March 12, Lambeth Council announced this week.
> Brixton Blog, Brixton Buzz and urban75 teamed up to campaign against the application by Barratt Homes to change the quota of social housing in the apartment blocks to ‘affordable’ housing at a percentage of the market rent.
> However, the planning officer responsible has recommended that the alteration be approved. This would mean no social housing as previously promised and instead affordable housing with rents pegged to the market rate, which is rising in Brixton. It is now up to councillors at the planning meeting on Tuesday to decide. Although only three speakers are allowed to speak for and against the application, we urge all who want to retain social housing in the area to attend the meeting and make their feelings clear by their presence. It will take place at Room 8 in the Town Hall at 7pm.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2013)

peterkro said:


> Chavez horrendous bloke look at the list of horrors:
> 
> http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/8133
> 
> /thread derail.


 
I know you mean his achievements.

It is a derail. But my point is that, like in post 45 in UK, its not inevitable that no affordable housing can be built. It requires political will.

Quote:



> 15. From 1999 to 2011, the poverty rate decreased from 42.8% to 26.5% and the rate of extreme poverty fell from 16.6% in 1999 to 7% in 2011.
> 16. In the rankings of the Human Development Index (HDI) of the United Nations Program for Development (UNDP), Venezuela jumped from 83 in 2000 (0.656) at position 73 in 2011 (0.735), and entered into the category Nations with 'High HDI'.
> 17. The GINI coefficient, which allows calculation of inequality in a country, fell from 0.46 in 1999 to 0.39 in 2011.
> 18. According to the UNDP, Venezuela holds the lowest recorded Gini coefficient in Latin America, that is, Venezuela is the country in the region with the least inequality.
> 19. Child malnutrition was reduced by 40% since 1999.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I talked to Zoe of Brixton Blog she has reprinted the joint piece on the application with bit on the planning committee on Tuesday.
> 
> See here


I'll post up about it on the urban blog Monday morning.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy
> 
> Yeah - he was a great bloke!


 
I have friend in Argentina who I correspond with and it all looks different from her South American point of view.

For her ( a supporter of Peronist President Cristina) Chavez is part of long line of heroes of Latin American independence and struggle against Yanqui supporting Oligarchs.

The question is whether the Chavista movement can outlive the death of Chavez like Peronism did in Argentina.

Unlike here, where politics is about opinion polls and managerial, in South America it raises big emotions. Politics means something there. Last election in Venezuela had big turnout.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2013)

The petition against the application got 231 signatures.


----------



## jeremyclyne (Mar 10, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I talked to Zoe of Brixton Blog she has reprinted the joint piece on the application with bit on the planning committee on Tuesday.
> 
> See here


I see the row over "affordable" or social rented housing levels at 368-372 Coldharbour Lane has exploded again - the self-same site where in 2007 the level of proposed affordable housing was allowed to be cut because it was claimed the developer had paid too much for the site:-
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/price-of-land-forces-affordability-cut/1448829.article

Back at Lambeth planning committee on Tuesday, almost six years to the day since that was reported to  the committee (on March 13 2007)
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=101&MId=295


----------



## Winot (Mar 10, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I can agree with that. But I find it unlikely that, for example, 500,000 Poles settling in the UK is not a factor in the housing crisis. And I apologise for using this example again, because the Poles have every right to live here. it is national census fact and we have to build the homes to deal with it.



Interesting Tim Harford column in the FT on a related point (free registration needed). Says that immigrants from EU succession countries have been net contributors to public purse every year since 2004. 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45120e10-869d-11e2-b907-00144feabdc0.html #FT


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2013)

jeremyclyne said:


> I see the row over "affordable" or social rented housing levels at 368-372 Coldharbour Lane has exploded again - the self-same site where in 2007 the level of proposed affordable housing was allowed to be cut because it was claimed the developer had paid too much for the site:-
> http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/price-of-land-forces-affordability-cut/1448829.article
> 
> Back at Lambeth planning committee on Tuesday, almost six years to the day since that was reported to the committee (on March 13 2007)
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=101&MId=295


 
Thanks for this info. The inside housing article says:




> Places for People is cutting the level of affordable housing from 50 per cent to 35 per cent on the Brixton scheme to minimise its financial losses.
> The group paid £5.6 million for the land. But a planning application report for Lambeth Council, seen by Inside Housing, reveals that if the developer went ahead with the original plans it would lose £6.4 million, taking into account the cost of the land.
> The council's financial consultant took the view that the ‘price paid for the site was excessive, resulting in a negative value in residual land valuation', the report says.


 



> A spokesperson for Places for People denied that the housing association had paid too much for the land. ‘The site was purchased at market value two years ago and was valued by an established valuer.'
> He also defended the reduction in social housing from Lambeth council targets of 50 per cent to 35 per cent.
> ‘The percentage of affordable homes at Coldharbour Lane has been agreed with Lambeth's councils and is supported by the planning inspectorate and will help provide a better balanced mix of housing in an area that has a large number of social housing properties.'


 
Places for People sold the site onto Barratts with the existing planning permission for £8.5 million

What I disagree with is the (Labour) Council continually saying that there is to much social housing in parts of Brixton. It keeps coming up in there docs.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2013)

BTW has anyone else put there name down to speak who put in objection?

CH1


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2013)

How can you have "too much" social housing?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Actually I can't imagine a Labour or Lib Dem with a field behind their house selling it for social housing either these days to be honest.


 
Reminds me of something my dad read me from his "local" paper a couple of years ago about a local Tory who offered North Norfolk Council about 16 acres of land to build social housing on, and pretty much got monstered by other local landowners for potentially lowering the tone (and prices) of the neighbourhood. Council couldn't afford to develop it anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy
> 
> Yeah - he was a great bloke!


 
Show me a modern politician that isn't an authoritarian, and I'll show you that he's not a politician.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 11, 2013)

editor said:


> How can you have "too much" social housing?


 
Would it be cynical to suggest Lambeth might like 'Brixton Square' because it delivers well-off residents presumed to pay full council tax and having little need of local services, such as schools?

On the other hand, since Lambeth's funding is determined by - and mostly comes from - central government it may make no difference to the council's coffers who lives in the borough.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Would it be cynical to suggest Lambeth might like 'Brixton Square' because it delivers well-off residents presumed to pay full council tax and having little need of local services, such as schools?
> 
> On the other hand, since Lambeth's funding is determined by - and mostly comes from - central government it may make no difference to the council's coffers who lives in the borough.


 
It could do as Council Tax benefits are being cut. So the less well off will not get all the rebate they used to. In theory its better for a Council to have well off people moving into an area as they are less likely to apply for Council Tax benefits. Makes life easier for cash strapped Councils.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Nothing" is an inaccurate description. They did eventually (2007-08 IIRC) legislate so that LAs could develop low-volume social housing funded from their own reserves (ie.e. development that wouldn't be funded by "on book" borrowing), and did loosen the strings on RtB receipts.
> So, they did *something*, just nowhere near enough.


 
Poor showing...

And if you look at the chart you can see that house prices (and in turn rents) really took off during the Blair/Brown years... All the worst excesses of 125%, interest only mortgages went completely unregulated...

Shame that Tony B was more focused on waging ill-advised wars with Bush II than looking after genuine domestic concerns...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Poor showing...
> 
> And if you look at the chart you can see that house prices (and in turn rents) really took off during the Blair/Brown years... All the worst excesses of 125%, interest only mortgages went completely unregulated...


 
Although there's a fair argument to be made (much as I'm loath to defend most things new Labour did/were involved in) that house prices and "novel" mortgage products (such as self-certified mortgages for anyone who wanted them) were merely an evolutionary step on from the Major years and the "own your home or you're nothing" attitude promulgated by Thatcher and perpetuated by Major.



> Shame that Tony B was more focused on waging ill-advised wars with Bush II than looking after genuine domestic concerns...


 
It was fairly obvious (at least to those of us who take party politics with a large pinch of salt) even before he became Prime Minister, that Blair was looking to make his mark on the world as a statesman, rather than on the UK as a good Prime Minister, just as it was fairly obvious given his political and ideological affiliations that he was a thoroughgoing Atlanticist who'd always bend the knee to the US (as were the majority of his cabinet appointments).


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although there's a fair argument to be made (much as I'm loath to defend most things new Labour did/were involved in) that house prices and "novel" mortgage products (such as self-certified mortgages for anyone who wanted them) were merely an evolutionary step on from the Major years and the "own your home or you're nothing" attitude promulgated by Thatcher and perpetuated by Major.
> 
> 
> 
> It was fairly obvious (at least to those of us who take party politics with a large pinch of salt) even before he became Prime Minister, that Blair was looking to make his mark on the world as a statesman, rather than on the UK as a good Prime Minister, just as it was fairly obvious given his political and ideological affiliations that he was a thoroughgoing Atlanticist who'd always bend the knee to the US (as were the majority of his cabinet appointments).


 
Agreed - Labour did a rubbish job when it came to controlling house price inflation / rent inflation. This has made life much more challenging for the younger generation. Don't even get me started on top-up fees! I just hope that the next Labour government makes a real effort to improve things.

Yeah - you're right. He had his eyes on the history books from day one...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Agreed - Labour did a rubbish job when it came to controlling house price inflation / rent inflation. This has made life much more challenging for the younger generation. Don't even get me started on top-up fees! I just hope that the next Labour government makes a real effort to improve things.


 
They won't and they can't, without changing the ground on which their political game is played. Blair's acceptance of neoliberalism as the _de facto_ economic _status quo_ meant that the Labour party was from there on in stuck with conforming to a fairly narrow set of economic predicates while attempting to convince the electorate that the differences between their ideology and those of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was anything more than a set of skin-deep tribal markings. Miliband can only manouvre within the ground that Blair, Brown and Cameron have already defined *unless* he breaks with neoliberalism, and he can't - the powers behind the throne won't let him. A Labour government will do the same as the last - it'll dress up the further destruction of the fruits of the post-war social democratic consensus as "progress" while taking us into a neo-Victorian world of work ultra-insecurity, but it'll make a few gestures/distribute a few sops, to make Labour *seem* different to their blue clones and their yellow clones.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> They won't and they can't, without changing the ground on which their political game is played. Blair's acceptance of neoliberalism as the _de facto_ economic _status quo_ meant that the Labour party was from there on in stuck with conforming to a fairly narrow set of economic predicates while attempting to convince the electorate that the differences between their ideology and those of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was anything more than a set of skin-deep tribal markings. Miliband can only manouvre within the ground that Blair, Brown and Cameron have already defined *unless* he breaks with neoliberalism, and he can't - the powers behind the throne won't let him. A Labour government will do the same as the last - it'll dress up the further destruction of the fruits of the post-war social democratic consensus as "progress" while taking us into a neo-Victorian world of work ultra-insecurity, but it'll make a few gestures/distribute a few sops, to make Labour *seem* different to their blue clones and their yellow clones.


Which kinda means we're all fucked! 

Joy joy joy


----------



## CH1 (Mar 11, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> BTW has anyone else put there name down to speak who put in objection?CH1


Thanks for flagging this up. I read the committee report just now. It cleverly mentions in one tabulated line that of 5 consultation letters sent there were 9 objections, but does not elaborate in any way.
I will see if I can go tomorrow. I presume that if you want to speak the normal rules apply: notification of the committee clerk by 12 noon?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Thanks for flagging this up. I read the committee report just now. It cleverly mentions in one tabulated line that of 5 consultation letters sent there were 9 objections, but does not elaborate in any way.
> I will see if I can go tomorrow. I presume that if you want to speak the normal rules apply: notification of the committee clerk by 12 noon?


 
Yes by 12 noon tomorrow email democracy@lambeth.gov.uk

Be good if you could


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> I don't agree with this as the development was clearly economically viable for them to start work under the requirements of the original s106.They are obviously trying to boost their profits.
> 
> Work permitting, I may attend.


 
Say hello if you come along.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 12, 2013)

Musing (slightly off-topic - but still next door)
At 360-366 Coldharbour Lane (now "The Viaduct" run by Lexadon Limited) - the planning history looks even more dubious.
The first big application in 2001 was by one A Thomas (Dogstar man??). Refused and only the decision notice is on the net.
Next application by Wakeworth Estates - 03/00200/FUL has some pretty drawings and was approved by Lambeth Planning - might have looked a whole lot nicer if this had gone through smoothly, but Wakeworth collapsed into administration.
The plans corresponding to the present building are available as 09/01222/FUL - and the officers report explains how  "the buildings erected varied to the approved plans to such an extent that it was considered that the permission had not been implemented".  One of those "only in Lambeth" moments.
Lexadon's application - was approved in 2009 on the basis of 21 shared ownership units as the affordable housing element (out of 60 total).  One wonders if this happened, as Lexadon normally rent out at comercial level rents rather than sell.
Incidentally my mate Alberich insists that the Viaduct office units in Valentia Place are now occupied by residential tenants. Judging by what I see through the gaps under the blinds, I think he's right. I wonder if Lexadon are defrauding Lambeth of council tax?


----------



## editor (Mar 12, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Incidentally my mate Alberich insists that the Viaduct office units in Valentia Place are now occupied by residential tenants. Judging by what I see through the gaps under the blinds, I think he's right. I wonder if Lexadon are defrauding Lambeth of council tax?


Pretty sure the ones in the front are still empty, but they have developed the ones on Valentia Place.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 12, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> What I disagree with is the (Labour) Council continually saying that there is to much social housing in parts of Brixton. It keeps coming up in there docs.


Donatus Anyanwu , Labour councillor, has been saying this for years and it pisses me right off....

edited to add his surname which I couldn't remember for the life of me last night.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 12, 2013)

...and if you ask specific reasons why he thinks that...well, he's never answered properly and changes the subject  I think it's just a line they've been told to parrot and they accept, unquestioningly


----------



## leanderman (Mar 12, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...and if you ask specific reasons why he thinks that...well, he's never answered properly and changes the subject  I think it's just a line they've been told to parrot and they accept, unquestioningly


 
What is the right amount: 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent?

Should it vary by area? Or should it be the same percentage everywhere across inner London?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 12, 2013)

Well, that's something I've never been able to pin down when I've pressed for specific info, which is why I always thought it was just parroting a party line.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 12, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The petition against the application got 231 signatures.


up to 242 now BTW


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...and if you ask specific reasons why he thinks that...well, he's never answered properly and changes the subject  I think it's just a line they've been told to parrot and they accept, unquestioningly


 
It's definitely a party line, and it's one none of them can or will answer properly because what they actually mean is "there are too many social housing *tenants* in Lambeth, ruining our attempts to make the borough of Lambeth the new borough of Wandsworth".


----------



## leanderman (Mar 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's definitely a party line, and it's one none of them can or will answer properly because what they actually mean is "there are too many social housing *tenants* in Lambeth, ruining our attempts to make the borough of Lambeth the new borough of Wandsworth".



Yuk. Unless I can pay their rate of council tax.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Yuk. Unless I can pay their rate of council tax.


 
I knew someone would say that!


----------



## jeremyclyne (Mar 12, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Yes by 12 noon tomorrow email democracy@lambeth.gov.uk
> 
> Be good if you could


 
Word of warning re this evening.  According to the rules requests to speak have to be registered "by 12 noon on the last working day before the meeting".

All this is part of changes to the running of Planning Applications Committee, including the guillotining of discussions - the stated purpose "part of a number of measures to assist public involvement in Planning Applications Committee meetings.  See page 31 http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov...Const Changes composite list final 280411.pdf
Opposition councillors have objected to the changes and tried raising questions as there have been concerns about the changes restricting public involvement and comment.  See Question 26 http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s28321/05 Questionsandanswers.pdf

and amendment 5: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s28332/14b Constitution Amendments v1.pdf 
I wanted to speak about another item on the agenda at Planning tonight but have been turned down because it was too late.  Not unrelated to the matter of Brixton Square.  In this case (Agenda item 9) Tesco are applying to reduce the amount of social rented housing on the Streatham Hub Site and substituting it with "affordable housing" - the application was submitted on February 27 and is being put through in less than two weeks.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Mar 12, 2013)

If anyone does get to speak, wonder if its worth raising why these planning matters are being heard so quickly. Lambeth seems to have a massive backlog of planning cases, we lodged an objection to one in December and haven't heard a word, yet Tesco related ones are heard in less than two weeks...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 12, 2013)

shakespearegirl said:


> Lambeth seems to have a massive backlog of planning cases, we lodged an objection to one in December and haven't heard a word, yet Tesco related ones are heard in less than two weeks...


----------



## Greebo (Mar 12, 2013)

shakespearegirl said:


> <snip>Lambeth seems to have a massive backlog of planning cases, we lodged an objection to one in December and haven't heard a word, yet Tesco related ones are heard in less than two weeks...


How very convenient for somebody who might find it in their interest to rubberstamp such things. </cynic>


----------



## artyfarty (Mar 12, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Musing (slightly off-topic - but still next door)
> At 360-366 Coldharbour Lane (now "The Viaduct" run by Lexadon Limited) - the planning history looks even more dubious.
> The first big application in 2001 was by one A Thomas (Dogstar man??). Refused and only the decision notice is on the net.
> Next application by Wakeworth Estates - 03/00200/FUL has some pretty drawings and was approved by Lambeth Planning - might have looked a whole lot nicer if this had gone through smoothly, but Wakeworth collapsed into administration.
> ...


I think Anthony Thomas is the father of the guy who owns and runs Antic, albeit quietly and in the background, going in and out of insolvency as it suits, (allegedly)


----------



## Rushy (Mar 12, 2013)

artyfarty said:


> I think Anthony Thomas is the father of the guy who owns and runs Antic, albeit quietly and in the background, going in and out of insolvency as it suits, (allegedly)


Nope. He is the same chap. He used to be a developer and bought that site years ago.


----------



## artyfarty (Mar 12, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Nope. He is the same chap. He used to be a developer and bought that site years ago.


That makes sense, the going in and out of insolvency bit is true tho?


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 12, 2013)

Massive surprise: 

*Brixton Blog* ‏@*BrixtonBlog*
#*Lambeth* Council planning committee have approved the change of social housing at #*Brixton* Square to affordable - a rise of 20% in rents


----------



## shifting gears (Mar 12, 2013)

Councillors Steve Bradley and Brian Palmer were the only members of the committee to object to and vote against the amendment - both lib dems. 

Fuck you labour. 

The bloke from barrats was exactly the kind of smarmy twat you'd expect - with a piss poor story of why they'd backtracked to boot. 

Someone, I assume gramsci, gave a decent objection with plenty of salient points.

A thoroughly depressing affair.


----------



## editor (Mar 12, 2013)

Innit.  


> *northsouthfood* ‏@*northsouthfood*
> Tonight’s decision to convert Brixton Square to affordable housing rather than social housing is more gentrifying than any new restaurant…


----------



## TruXta (Mar 13, 2013)

CUNTS


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 13, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> Councillors Steve Bradley and Brian Palmer were the only members of the committee to object to and vote against the amendment - both lib dems.
> 
> Fuck you labour.
> 
> ...


 
What was the 'mood' in the audience?  Lot of people turn up?


----------



## shifting gears (Mar 13, 2013)

It was the last item to be dealt with, they didn't get to it till around 10.15pm

No, I'd have to say a lot of people didn't show up - was mostly a few lone stragglers (myself included), the guy I presume was gramsci and a couple of cohorts, the guy from barrats and sidekick, and a load of councillors who clearly wanted to go home. 

All in all, a right bag of shit.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 13, 2013)

Any reason for the running order?  What else was covered?


----------



## shifting gears (Mar 13, 2013)

Various other planning applications throughout the borough - At the beginning they asked the audience to raise hands to show which item they were attending for. Not many hands went up for coldharbour lane


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 13, 2013)

Very weak from the Labour members. The Lib Dems did an excellent job, asking probing questions for which the developer did not have convincing answers.

Ultimately, it is inconceivable that a developer would have broken ground on a scheme which was not financially viable. They were just trying it on to boost their profits. And in fairness, this is their job.

The planning officer did explain that the "affordable rents" would be within the revised housing benefit levels and total benefit cap - so at least that provides some comfort. I suspect this is what the Labour members will say to justify the decision, and I also believe that if rejected, Barratt could have appealed the decision and won as their plans are strictly compliant with policy...

Given the strength of feeling on this board, I'm surprised that only one person spoke up against the amendment. Whoever it was who spoke did a great job, making good points and speaking with real feeling.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 13, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Very weak from the Labour members. The Lib Dems did an excellent job, asking probing questions for which the developer did not have convincing answers.
> 
> Ultimately, it is inconceivable that a developer would have broken ground on a scheme which was not financially viable. They were just trying it on to boost their profits. And in fairness, this is their job.
> 
> ...


Were finances the only reason given?
Why do you think it would have been passed at appeal?


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 13, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Were finances the only reason given?
> Why do you think it would have been passed at appeal?


 
Basically, yes.

The guy from Barratts said that they stated work with the idea of working with the council to iron out the section 106... The Lib Dems pointed out this was nonsense as what kind of company would commit millions without being reasonably sure the scheme would be profitable.

The professional planning officers said it was compliant with defined planning policy - they were very firm about this. I was chatting to a friend from uni who works for a large developer and he said that if a planning application is compliant with policy but rejected, it is possible to go through a lengthy and costly appeal process. If the council thinks they will lose in the end, it would be wrong go to waste money in this manner...


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2013)

Well done to those of you who actually bothered to show up. I had half-intended to go along myself but was still waiting in for a delivery at 7, although that's a bit of a half-baked excuse for what was partly laziness.

It would be good to know what bit of policy it is exactly, that the change is claimed to comply with. If it's true, then fair enough that they passed it - criticism should instead be aimed at the stated policy itself.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 13, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> Various other planning applications throughout the borough - At the beginning they asked the audience to raise hands to show which item they were attending for. Not many hands went up for coldharbour lane


Some people were but weren't used to the whole set-up and didn't realise what the running order was and didn't put their hands up...I know of four people who were there at the beginning but left before the end. These things are easier to speak up in if you're not already a bit unsure of protocol and don't really understand the process.....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 13, 2013)

...as Gramsci said somewhere else...residents and the council are not equal, and it's not residents who hold the everyday power.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 13, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Well done to those of you who actually bothered to show up. I had half-intended to go along myself but was still waiting in for a delivery at 7, although that's a bit of a half-baked excuse for what was partly laziness.
> 
> It would be good to know what bit of policy it is exactly, that the change is claimed to comply with. If it's true, then fair enough that they passed it - criticism should instead be aimed at the stated policy itself.


 
Even if it complies with policy it was not the agreement they got the planning permission on in the first place.  There should not be an issue with saying 'this is what you agreed to and we are holding you to that agreement'.


----------



## happyshopper (Mar 13, 2013)

The document before the Committee is here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf

If you read the document you will see that the decision is not as dire as much of the previous discussion would suggest. And faced with the clear officer recommendation to approve, I assume the Committee decided that it would be a waste to spend Council resources on fighting an appeal.


----------



## colacubes (Mar 13, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Some people were but weren't used to the whole set-up and didn't realise what the running order was and didn't put their hands up...I know of four people who were there at the beginning but left before the end. These things are easier to speak up in if you're not already a bit unsure of protocol and don't really understand the process.....


 
I did wonder why it had been pushed to the end as I was following online as I couldn't get there myself at the end.  There was also a similar application re the Streatham Hub (Tesco ) reducing Social Housing (which I believe was also passed ) and a big application on the South Bank on the agenda.

Depressing but not surprising decision unfortunately


----------



## Rushy (Mar 13, 2013)

teuchter said:


> It would be good to know what bit of policy it is exactly, that the change is claimed to comply with. If it's true, then fair enough that they passed it - criticism should instead be aimed at the stated policy itself.


 


happyshopper said:


> The document before the Committee is here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf
> 
> If you read the document you will see that the decision is not as dire as much of the previous discussion would suggest. And faced with the clear officer recommendation to approve, I assume the Committee decided that it would be a waste to spend Council resources on fighting an appeal.


 
It does basically say that the policies upon which the condition was based have changed. Any new application or amendment would have to take into account new policies - which is effectively what they say they have done. I can't see how they could refuse it and not expect it to be overturned at appeal.

I don't see any financial argument in there about affordability of the development.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 13, 2013)

Rushy said:


> It does basically say that the policies upon which the condition was based have changed. Any new application or amendment would have to take into account new policies - which is effectively what they say they have done. I can't see how they could refuse it and not expect it to be overturned at appeal.
> 
> I don't see any financial argument in there about affordability of the development.


 
Yes - from a skim read it basically tackles the objections that have been made. I'm not sure it would even be possible for affordability to be dealt with in those terms as no-one objecting would have access to their internal costings. Maybe if the council objected it might come up.

It's noticable from this that the treatment of an amendment is to question why it shouldn't be permitted. It seems to me that 'why aren't you sticking to your agreement?' would be more appropriate.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 13, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yes - from a skim read it basically tackles the objections that have been made. I'm not sure it would even be possible for affordability to be dealt with in those terms as no-one objecting would have access to their internal costings. Maybe if the council objected it might come up.
> 
> It's noticable from this that the treatment of an amendment is to question why it shouldn't be permitted. It seems to me that 'why aren't you sticking to your agreement?' would be more appropriate.


 
The Lib Dems asked why they weren't sticking to the original agreement - the guy from Barratts had no answer.

The planning officer said they had received a development appraisal (a financial model) which they had reviewed and had reviewed by an "independent consultant"... This model suggested the scheme was not financially viable. TBH - it would be pretty easy to overstate costs and understate returns in such a model, and a review by an consultant doesn't provide much comfort re: the reasonableness of the numbers.

Re: the running order. Nothing sinister here - there was a show of hands, and the order was based on the number of people who had attended for a particular case (those with the most going earliest).


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2013)

happyshopper said:


> The document before the Committee is here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf
> 
> If you read the document you will see that the decision is not as dire as much of the previous discussion would suggest. And faced with the clear officer recommendation to approve, I assume the Committee decided that it would be a waste to spend Council resources on fighting an appeal.


 
So the new s106 sets the rents for the "affordable housing" at 49%/55%/60% of the open market rate (not the 80% rate discussed earlier in the thread).

The council seem to be saying that this won't be significantly less affordable than social rented housing...can anyone comment on that?

Also, was the original application to vary the terms asking for 80%? Has the percentage at least been changed in response to objections?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Given the strength of feeling on this board, I'm surprised that only one person spoke up against the amendment. Whoever it was who spoke did a great job, making good points and speaking with real feeling.


 
Thanks that was me.

There are only 3 minutes to speak so have to leave some things out. So said that the issue had caused caused a lot of concern and had been raised in Urban/ Brixton Blog and Brixton Buzz.

I altered what I was originally going to say at the meeting. Asking more questions. Said I objected to Barratts applying half way through building to flats.

My local ward Cllr Matt Parr turned up and spoke as well to oppose this.

We both asked a lot of questions. Some of which were not fully answered. Still not clear on the type of tenancies that officers think is ok.

I was disappointed that the Labour Cllrs on the committee did not ask questions and the Chair seemed to want to hurry things along. It was the 2 LD Cllrs- Bradley and Palmer who asked the questions ans in the end voted against the application.

The officers had amended there report at the last minute to remove the piece saying that the RSL could alter the % of market rent up to 80%. The officers report imo was poor. Did not give the reasoning behind changing definition of affordable housing. As someone said its almost as though changing this to the new "affordable housing" category is just a standard thing to do.

At meeting it was said that the reason to do it was that otherwise it would not be financially "viable" to do it. It appears that officers and Barratts have been talking to each other about this issue for a long time. Problem I have is that officers feel they are following Council policy but that residents have little say. Nor are residents given much in the way of explanation. Its only the end process of a planning committee that residents get to comment. By that time officers and Barratts have spent months dealing with this issue. The application was supported by officers.So Cllrs were not offered any alternative.

I have not read the Brixton Blog piece yet.

I took some notes so put them up later.


----------



## shifting gears (Mar 13, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks that was me.
> 
> There are only 3 minutes to speak so have to leave some things out. So said that the issue had caused caused a lot of concern and had been raised in Urban/ Brixton Blog and Brixton Buzz.
> 
> ...



Good effort fella.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 13, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> Good effort fella.


 
yes, thanks Gramsci.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2013)

happyshopper said:


> The document before the Committee is here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf
> 
> If you read the document you will see that the decision is not as dire as much of the previous discussion would suggest. And faced with the clear officer recommendation to approve, I assume the Committee decided that it would be a waste to spend Council resources on fighting an appeal.


 
Fighting an appeal was never mentioned as reason to pass this application.

It what ways do you think it is not dire?

I did not think it would be refused. I went to make a point that some local people are not happy with this new "affordable" category. 

Also I am not happy that developers can change Section106 agreements as works progress. There is a history of developers changing agreements after works having been going on. As at the Streatham hub.

It was to let the Cllrs now that the issue of affordable housing in Brixton is an issue. 

The Streatham hub variation to the Section106 to change to new "affordable" housing category was passed without discussion as no objectors turned up to speak. Also that application, according to the LD Cllrs who turned up, was rushed through with little consultation.

So imo it was worth turning up.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2013)

Here is Brixton Blog article




> In a concession to the objectors, the new affordable homes will be run by a registered social landlord.
> 
> Two Lib Dem councillors voted against the application and expressed disbelief that it was passed. Speaking to the Blog after the meeting, Cllr Steve Bradley said: “I stated robustly in the meeting that I felt they should be made to stick to their original planning permission to provide social rental properties, not just “affordable” ones which are likely to be on average 20% more expensive.
> 
> ...


 


> Under the changes, a four bed flat will go from £166.39 to £202.70 per week, and a two-bed from £149.74 t0 £192.88. The decision was taken despite a joint campaign by Brixton-based news sites Brixton Blog, Brixton Buzz and Urban 75.


 


> Cllr Matt Parr, Labour councillor for Coldharbour ward, who doesn’t sit on the planning committee, said the reasons for the change were not clear enough. He added: “I don’t think another precedent for giving in to a developers demands at a late stage in a project is a terribly good idea.”


 
The other LD who voted against was Cllr Palmer. Who is always good at planning issues. 

stevebradley
Brixton Blog


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 13, 2013)

Why is it 'us' who have to bear the cost of someone else's 'sums not working'.  

Maybe when I upgrade my phone I'll just tell them that I got my sums wrong, am cancelling the tarriff I don't want to can't afford to pay but I'll keep the phone, cheers.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 13, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> <snip>Maybe when I upgrade my phone I'll just tell them that I got my sums wrong, am cancelling the tarriff I don't want to can't afford to pay but I'll keep the phone, cheers.


Good analogy, shame it wouldn't work like that.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> Why is it 'us' who have to bear the cost of someone else's 'sums not working'.
> 
> Maybe when I upgrade my phone I'll just tell them that I got my sums wrong, am cancelling the tarriff I don't want to can't afford to pay but I'll keep the phone, cheers.


 
Particularly irritating was the man from Barratts who said that Barratts wanted to get on and build homes for local people. When I now full well the sales people having been pushing buy to let.


----------



## shifting gears (Mar 13, 2013)

Here's another analogy:

Barratt Homes + Lambeth Council: screwing the community up the arse while making sweet sultry love with one another.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2013)

There are quite a few comments like this in the report



> In terms of affordability, the Council has carried out an assessment of the
> affordability of the Affordable Rent Model, comparing different proportions of
> market rent for different postcodes within Lambeth; identifying incomes which
> would be required to afford different rents; and considering the impact of the
> ...


 
Somehow it doesn't seem quite right to me that planning officers are making judgements about what is "affordable" and effectively deciding what people should pay for social housing. It doesn't seem like it's really in their remit.

If the changes are something which is being forced on them from government/wider policy, then it doesn't make sense for them to be making comments like the one above because it's outwith their control.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Particularly irritating was the man from Barratts who said that Barratts wanted to get on and build homes for local people. When I now full well the sales people having been pushing buy to let.



Yes, the poster Bim, who is buying there, said it was mainly BTL, I think.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Yes, the poster Bim, who is buying there, said it was mainly BTL, I think.


Their marketing day was apparently all about catering to the BTL crowd, with assistants happy to offer information about the 'rent yield' of properties.


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> Why is it 'us' who have to bear the cost of someone else's 'sums not working'.
> .


 
We live in a world where the taxpayer has to bear the cost of people not working, why act suprised when this happens?


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2013)

I'm not the tiniest bit surprised.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> We live in a world where the taxpayer has to bear the cost of people not working, why act suprised when this happens?


I was under the illusion that one reason a lot more people arent working was down to a relatively small group of people in certain professions "getting their sums wrong........"


----------



## Greebo (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> We live in a world where the taxpayer has to bear the cost of people not working, why act suprised when this happens?


<derail + whinge alert>We live in a world where unpaid and (mostly) untrained carers subsidise the lack of government-funded provision from the NHS and social services, thereby depriving those carers of the ability to sustain full time paid work as well as what they do. I win, now fuck off back to reading the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.  And spare a thought for carers when you've finished work for the day and they're still on call, or worse.  </derail>


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 14, 2013)

In fairness, the council has done a decent job in extracting value from the developer.

The affordable rents sounds pretty good value for money, and as noted earlier in the thread, the rents cannot be jacked up to 80% of market value and must move in-line with inflation. It should also be noted that the rents are within the benefits cap and below the housing benefit limits.

All that achieved without having to raid council funds (which are probably fairly scarce at the moment).


----------



## teuchter (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> In fairness, the council has done a decent job in extracting value from the developer.
> 
> The affordable rents sounds pretty good value for money, and as noted earlier in the thread, the rents cannot be jacked up to 80% of market value and must move in-line with inflation. It should also be noted that the rents are within the benefits cap and below the housing benefit limits.
> 
> All that achieved without having to raid council funds (which are probably fairly scarce at the moment).


In what was does it extract better value than the original unamended agreement?


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2013)

Anyone know why Barratts were able to bring forward the building line a few yards?


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 14, 2013)

teuchter said:


> In what was does it extract better value than the original unamended agreement?


 
it doesn't. but still a good result given the planning policies they have to act within. 

do you think the rent levels are fair and affordable?


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

Greebo said:


> <derail + whinge alert>We live in a world where unpaid and (mostly) untrained carers subsidise the lack of government-funded provision from the NHS and social services, thereby depriving those carers of the ability to sustain full time paid work as well as what they do. I win, now fuck off back to reading the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.  And spare a thought for carers when you've finished work for the day and they're still on call, or worse.  </derail>


 
does this one example make my point wrong? no it doesnt, its just picked to garner sympathy (and rightly so). I bet you call it a "bedroom tax" dont you.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> does this one example make my point wrong?<snip>


Yes, it does.  I suggest that you try to generate one original thought before you post again.


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

a nerve has been touched it seems. Do you take more than you give from the state then? You might think jumping down another posters throat will scare them off, but it wont work I am afraid. I dont want to get into the arguments of leeches taking advantage of the wonderful social safety net we have in this country, but my original point stands.
for all other (relevant) points, see Tony's posts.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> a nerve has been touched it seems. Do you take more than you give from the state then? You might think jumping down another posters throat will scare them off, but it wont work I am afraid. I dont want to get into the arguments of leeches taking advantage of the wonderful social safety net we have in this country, but my original point stands.
> for all other (relevant) points, see Tony's posts.


Pretty sure it's your nerve that's been touched


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> does this one example make my point wrong? .


 
The fact that your 'point' was totally irrelevant made it wrong tbf.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> a nerve has been touched it seems. Do you take more than you give from the state then?<snip>


No. Either come up with a valid point, or hush while the grown ups talk, sweetie.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Were finances the only reason given?
> Why do you think it would have been passed at appeal?


 
At the meeting and in the report for the meeting ( unless it was in the last minute additions that were presented on the day)no reasons were given for the change to the Section106.

Nor was there any mention of danger of appeal mentioned at the meeting.

It was only after questioning by the LDs on the committee that financial viability was given as reason by Barratts first I think. ie late into the actual meeting. No evidence was presented by officers or Barratts at the meeting to back this up. As Cllr Palmer said at meeting financial viability reports are often "smoke and mirrors".

I felt that the officers had put together report saying that the "affordability" %  were in line with existing Council and National policy and that was the end of it.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> In fairness, the council has done a decent job in extracting value from the developer.
> 
> The affordable rents sounds pretty good value for money, and as noted earlier in the thread, the rents cannot be jacked up to 80% of market value and must move in-line with inflation. It should also be noted that the rents are within the benefits cap and below the housing benefit limits.
> 
> All that achieved without having to raid council funds (which are probably fairly scarce at the moment).


 
I did not think so. As usual Council let developers change already agreed Section106.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 14, 2013)

While I am doubtful as to whether central Brixton needs social housing construction more than elsewhere in London, Barratt Homes should not have been able to get away with this.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I did not think so. As usual Council let developers change already agreed Section106.


 
i can understand your frustration at the agreement being changed... but i don't know how anyone could think that numerous homes, at low rents, for no cost is anything other than a good deal...


----------



## leanderman (Mar 14, 2013)

how will these homes be allocated?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> it doesn't. but still a good result given the planning policies they have to act within.
> 
> do you think the rent levels are fair and affordable?


 
To be honest I don't really know how these "affordable" rents compare with what the rents would have been under the terms of the original agreement. Maybe someone else can be more specific about this. However, if Barratts wanted the terms changed, it seems reasonable to asume that there must be a financial advantage for them in it, which means that somewhere, some Barratts money that previously would have gone into this housing has disappeared and its hard to see how that can result in a better deal for the people who will be living in it.

The obvious question is why would the council agree to this change? What's in it for them (and ultimately "us")? And this question doesn't seem to have been answered in the report, or explicitly at the hearing. There are mumblings about "financial viability" and the risk of an appeal, but I can't at the moment see any evidence anywhere to support the idea that these were valid reasons to change the agreement.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 14, 2013)

http://www.brixtonblog.com/lambove-...ble-rents-at-brixton-square-development/10650

Under the changes, a four bed flat will go from £166.39 to £202.70 per week, and a two-bed from £149.74 t0 £192.88.  The decision was taken despite a joint campaign by Brixton-based news sites Brixton Blog, Brixton Buzz and Urban 75.


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

£202/4 in a zone 2, well served by transport location is absolutely fine isnt it? given the crazyness of the last 3 years here and all


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> £202/4 in a zone 2, well served by transport location is absolutely fine isnt it? given the crazyness of the last 3 years here and all


 
it is a very good price.

it is well within the housing benefit cap too.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> it is a very good price.
> 
> it is well within the housing benefit cap too.


Not so great if you're struggling on a low wage though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> We live in a world where the taxpayer has to bear the cost of people not working, why act suprised when this happens?


 
What is a "taxpayer"?
In the broadest sense, even people who aren't in employment pay tax. If you specifically mean Income Tax, then some of us who aren't in employment and are disabled still pay Income Tax.
You should perhaps be more concerned with what the government does with taxes, insofar as welfare benefits minimise social harms (even the Romans understood the principle of "Bread and Circuses"), whilst other things the government spends money on (billions of pounds on failed IT projects; hundreds of millions of pounds annually on poor procurement procedures; an untold amount pissed away through ongoing pisspoor contracture of services through PPP and PFI schemes, would seem more worthy of opprobrium.

Still, some people never have the gumption to look beyond the obvious easy targets, because that might involve actually thinking.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 14, 2013)

editor said:


> Not so great if you're struggling on a low wage though.


 
but hardly social cleansing given it is within benefit levels... someone on a low wage with kids would get tax credits and other benefits and could afford that rent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> does this one example make my point wrong? no it doesnt, its just picked to garner sympathy (and rightly so). I bet you call it a "bedroom tax" dont you.


 
Your "point" is neither "right" nor "wrong", it's merely your interpretation, unsupported by anything that actually substantiates it. All you did was "blah blah blah" about the taxpayer.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> but hardly social cleansing given it is within benefit levels... someone on a low wage with kids would get tax credits and other benefits and could afford that rent.


Assuming that they get the flat in the first place, of course.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 14, 2013)

editor said:


> Assuming that they get the flat in the first place, of course.


That's a different argument though - the decision hasn't reduced the number of reduced/affordable rent places.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 14, 2013)

editor said:


> Assuming that they get the flat in the first place, of course.


 
well, i'm glad you accept the level of the rents aren't going to lead to social cleansing!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> a nerve has been touched it seems. Do you take more than you give from the state then?


 
So, a person is to be judged only on what they've contributed in taxes?
That's a rather narrow criterion on which to judge someone, given that fewer than half of the population will do so.
Perhaps we could take Greebo's point about carers and look into what that actually contributes, hmm?
In 2011, carers saved the government between £79 *billion* and £119 *billion* pounds (depending on whether you choose to believe figures based on government statistics or independently-researched statistics) by providing services for either "free", or for the minimal remuneration of "Carer's Allowance" of around £60 per week, plus NI contributions, where paid assistants providing the same care would have cost around £15,000 or £20,000 per year per head, averaged out.



> You might think jumping down another posters throat will scare them off, but it wont work I am afraid. I dont want to get into the arguments of leeches taking advantage of the wonderful social safety net we have in this country, but my original point stands.


 
Your original point was nigh on content-free. It was as barren as most self-righteous posts about "the taxpayers" are.



> for all other (relevant) points, see Tony's posts.


 
Tony, at least, manages to "see the other side", you on the other hand, appear to be firmly set in your not too well-informed ways.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> http://www.brixtonblog.com/lambove-...ble-rents-at-brixton-square-development/10650
> 
> Under the changes, a four bed flat will go from £166.39 to £202.70 per week, and a two-bed from £149.74 t0 £192.88. The decision was taken despite a joint campaign by Brixton-based news sites Brixton Blog, Brixton Buzz and Urban 75.


 
So in one case a roughly 25% difference, and in the other a roughly 31% difference. Looks like the "20%" may just be a somewhat misleading "averaging out" figure. In each case that's an extra £40 a week. Not exactly "affordable" to the likes of me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> At the meeting and in the report for the meeting ( unless it was in the last minute additions that were presented on the day)no reasons were given for the change to the Section106.
> 
> Nor was there any mention of danger of appeal mentioned at the meeting.
> 
> ...


 
Not wishing to appear overly conspira-tastic, but such interpretations of section 106, that allow "affordability" to become whatever the officers say is fitting, runs the risk of appearing to be acting on certain councillors' opinions that "there's too much social housing in Lambeth".
I hope that I *am* being overly conspira-tastic, by the way, because I'd hate to think that our elected representatives were trying to gerrymander the local demographic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> but hardly social cleansing given it is within benefit levels... someone on a low wage with kids would get tax credits and other benefits and could afford that rent.


 
"Affordability" is relative, though. Most calculations about household costs (at least when I was in the Civil Service) were based around very mechanistic and spartan ideas of what an "average household" of a particular size might require, with factors like local weather conditions, cost-of-living differences, etc. If you live somewhere with a relatively high cost-of-living, your rent's "affordability" may be academic, and you may find yourself being "re-housed" away from your _locale_ and your employment, as is already happening.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

editor said:


> Assuming that they get the flat in the first place, of course.


 
Quite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

Rushy said:


> That's a different argument though - the decision hasn't reduced the number of reduced/affordable rent places.


 
You're right. *This* decision hasn't, but the precedent for reducing numbers of "affordable" homes has already been set by Boris, IIRC.


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

the bulletin board is strong in this one, I dont have the time or inclincation to write such wordy and intelligent ripostes.

I am sorry £40 a week is a lot for you...but the rent of £202 is reasonble. its not anybody elses fault that you cant afford it. In fact it isnt anybody elses fault for a lot of things in this wonderful life.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> its not anybody elses fault that you cant afford it. In fact it isnt anybody elses fault for a lot of things in this wonderful life.


Responsibility for setting wages does not lie with the employee. Average wages are not increasing at the same rate as the economy as a whole, and nowhere near as fast as house/rent prices.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> does this one example make my point wrong? no it doesnt, its just picked to garner sympathy (and rightly so). I bet you call it a "bedroom tax" dont you.


 
Nothing to do with sympathy. Unpaid carers save the economy a lot of money.


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Responsibility for setting wages does not lie with the employee. Average wages are not increasing at the same rate as the economy as a whole, and nowhere near as fast as house/rent prices.


 and public wages are rising faster than private. its a messed up environment at the moment. Thanks Labour.


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Nothing to do with sympathy. Unpaid carers save the economy a lot of money.


 
I agree.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> and public wages are rising faster than private. its a messed up environment at the moment. Thanks Labour.


The government of one country has almost nothing to do with it. The trend is long term and spans governments and countries.

EDIT: I can't find a UK version of this graph for the USA, but I know the trend is broadly the same:


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> i can understand your frustration at the agreement being changed... but i don't know how anyone could think that numerous homes, at low rents, for no cost is anything other than a good deal...


 
"No cost"? Where do you get that idea from?

Hardly numerous either.

Ken (and Lambeth) a few years ago were pushing for 50% affordable housing ( of different types shared ownership and social rent). That never reaslly happened.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> http://www.brixtonblog.com/lambove-...ble-rents-at-brixton-square-development/10650
> 
> Under the changes, a four bed flat will go from £166.39 to £202.70 per week, and a two-bed from £149.74 t0 £192.88. The decision was taken despite a joint campaign by Brixton-based news sites Brixton Blog, Brixton Buzz and Urban 75.


 
My question to officers and the Council is that if the new regime of affordability is how it works why did the officers not set the % at levels that would have put the rents equal to social rented properties?

Think I will ask that as my local Ward Cllr siad about putting a series of bullet points to officer about this.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> "No cost"? Where do you get that idea from?
> 
> Hardly numerous either.
> 
> Ken (and Lambeth) a few years ago were pushing for 50% affordable housing ( of different types shared ownership and social rent). That never reaslly happened.


 
no cash paid out for construction...


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> My question to officers and the Council is that if the new regime of affordability is how it works why did the officers not set the % at levels that would have put the rents equal to social rented properties?
> 
> Think I will ask that as my local Ward Cllr siad about putting a series of bullet points to officer about this.


 
shared ownership is still going... think there is some in Brixton Square...


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

sorry Labour are not escaping the blame here.
Their economic incompetence really put a spanner in this country


----------



## Crispy (Mar 14, 2013)

The current lot are just as bad.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 14, 2013)

But how are the homes allocated?


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

I agree they are bad....but at least the deficit is closing. Small mercies.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 14, 2013)

happyshopper said:


> The document before the Committee is here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf
> 
> If you read the document you will see that the decision is not as dire as much of the previous discussion would suggest. And faced with the clear officer recommendation to approve, I assume the Committee decided that it would be a waste to spend Council resources on fighting an appeal.


This thing is not as simple as you are saying. The Barratts spokesperson had a side-kick who had to be introduced as a former employee of Lambeth Planning (now working for BPTW partnership - planning consultants). Quite off-putting in my view - close working relationship - beneficial to all parties.  No wonder the correspondence on the matter is on first name terms.
The Barratts chap was not a smoothie at all - he was quite ruffled, and made two allegations:
1. the previous site owner [Places for People] had had no intention of "building out" the scheme. Implication: the section 106 was agreed so Places for People could realise a profit by selling on the site with planning permission.  Of course this allegation fits in with Barratts claim that the project was not viable as it stood - and references were made to a viability study, especially by the Committee chair. The viability study is not in the public domain. 
2. Barratts were "working with Lambeth" to produce the scheme without public subsidy, and had started work on the basis that the planning situation would be sorted out before completion.  Hence the issues raised by Councillor Palmer and Bradley.
No Labour Committee councillor commented on whether Lambeth encouraged Barratts to jump-start the scheme, or issues to do with Housing subsidy in principle.
Because of questions from Cllr Mat Parr (Coldharbour Ward - Labour, but not on the committee), following on from Gramsci's very clear presentation - the figures for the actual rents proposed were revealled, giving the comparisons between the notional social rents and affordable rents. The chair then said that a further document had been tabled to the effect that the "Affordable" rents would be linked to RPI based on the given starting figures, and not allowed to rise to 80% of open market rent.
It all seemed as though the information had been coming out by drip feed.  If Gramsci and Cllr Parr had not spoken and raised the issues we would not have been informed - and quite likely there would have been no assurances that the affordable rents would not be allowed to rise to the 80% level.
That is my take on the meeting. Let us see what is in the published minutes on 20th March.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> no cash paid out for construction...


 
Reference please. As I think the RSL will have to pay towards these flats.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> sorry Labour are not escaping the blame here.
> Their economic incompetence really put a spanner in this country


 
 It was the Banks that caused crisis.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> shared ownership is still going... think there is some in Brixton Square...


 
That was not the issue.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 14, 2013)

CH1 said:


> This thing is not as simple as you are saying. The Barratts spokesperson had a side-kick who had to be introduced as a former employee of Lambeth Planning (now working for BPTW partnership - planning consultants). Quite off-putting in my view - close working relationship - beneficial to all parties. No wonder the correspondence on the matter is on first name terms.
> The Barratts chap was not a smoothie at all - he was quite ruffled, and made two allegations:
> 1. the previous site owner [Places for People] had had no intention of "building out" the scheme. Implication: the section 106 was agreed so Places for People could realise a profit by selling on the site with planning permission. Of course this allegation fits in with Barratts claim that the project was not viable as it stood - and references were made to a viability study, especially by the Committee chair. The viability study is not in the public domain.
> 2. Barratts were "working with Lambeth" to produce the scheme without public subsidy, and had started work on the basis that the planning situation would be sorted out before completion. Hence the issues raised by Councillor Palmer and Bradley.
> ...


From what I have read above, I'm not sure that the argument about profitability was relevant to the decision in the end and I think the discussion is perhaps a bit of a red herring. But if Barratt was prepared to pay over what they believed the site to be worth because they hoped they could sort something out, that is speculation. Speculation carries risk. Speculators should be allowed to lose money or go bust.

I am pretty sure that the developers of the building next door went bust before it was completed. They were then bought out by another developer, Lexadon, who finished it off. The building still got built.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

CH1 said:


> This thing is not as simple as you are saying. The Barratts spokesperson had a side-kick who had to be introduced as a former employee of Lambeth Planning (now working for BPTW partnership - planning consultants). Quite off-putting in my view - close working relationship - beneficial to all parties. No wonder the correspondence on the matter is on first name terms.
> The Barratts chap was not a smoothie at all - he was quite ruffled, and made two allegations:
> 1. the previous site owner [Places for People] had had no intention of "building out" the scheme. Implication: the section 106 was agreed so Places for People could realise a profit by selling on the site with planning permission. Of course this allegation fits in with Barratts claim that the project was not viable as it stood - and references were made to a viability study, especially by the Committee chair. The viability study is not in the public domain.
> 2. Barratts were "working with Lambeth" to produce the scheme without public subsidy, and had started work on the basis that the planning situation would be sorted out before completion. Hence the issues raised by Councillor Palmer and Bradley.
> ...


 
Also my ward Cllr Matt Parr had emailed the officer a series of questions about this application. Which is also why I thought the officers came up with this last minute information.

As you say we will have to wait for the minutes. They need to be checked. The officers changed the proviso that I queried that the RSL who had the flats could alter the % later on up to 80% of market rate to one linked to RPI. This was last minute ( on day of meeting) and I did not see this worded in writing.

Ur are spot on it was drip feed. The officers report imo was poor. Cut and paste history of site and then outline of changes to section106.

Nor was the "viability doc" there or discussed at the planning committee meeting. At the very least officers should have presented a summary of it a meeting. As Barratts and officers both said it was the rational behind the need for a change to the section106.

Nor am I happy about the cozy working relationships that officers and developers can have. Both Barratts and officers had clearly thought that this should have gone through with no fuss. Like the one for Streatham hub. That is why the guy from Barratts was upset I think. From his point of view Barratts had worked constructively with officers and had come to a compromise. Then these pseky residents turn up complaining and get Cllrs asking questions. It was all running so smoothly before that.

I still do not understand why social rented units as per the original Section106 where not "viable". This was never explained.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

Rushy said:


> From what I have read above, I'm not sure that the argument about profitability was relevant to the decision in the end and I think the discussion is perhaps a bit of a red herring. But if Barratt was prepared to pay over what they believed the site to be worth because they hoped they could sort something out, that is speculation. Speculation carries risk. Speculators should be allowed to lose money or go bust.
> 
> I am pretty sure that the developers of the building next door went bust before it was completed. They were then bought out by another developer, Lexadon, who finished it off. The building still got built.


 
Barratts and officers argued at meeting , when LD Cllrs asked queastions, that it would have made the scheme unviable.

The new developer next door also went back to committee to get the affordable element reduced. As they said it made the scheme they bought not viable.


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> It was the Banks that caused crisis.


 
reference please





Gramsci said:


> It was the Banks that caused crisis.


 
incorrect. governments running deficits year after year, while deregulating the banks and causing an expansionary credit bubble "real growth"


----------



## leanderman (Mar 14, 2013)

Who cares whose fault? We are all innit together


----------



## secateurz (Mar 14, 2013)

we are! big society! thought some of us get to live in subsidised/free housing, sometimes with spare bedrooms!


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> we are! big society! thought some of us get to live in subsidised/free housing, sometimes with spare bedrooms!


Who's living in 'subsidised/free housing'?


----------



## nagapie (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> I agree they are bad....but at least the deficit is closing. Small mercies.


 
I'm pretty sure it's not. Our government is borrowing more than ever.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 14, 2013)

Maybe best not to let the thread get derailed into the same shit that's been gone over hundreds of times with all the other identical right wing fuckwits.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Reference please. As I think the RSL will have to pay towards these flats.


 
Yep they do...

But I was referring to Lambeth Council - no cash for them to pay out.

I said: "All that achieved without having to raid council funds (which are probably fairly scarce at the moment)."

Here's my reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_association#Funding_and_regulation

Wikipedia... Must be true!

Partly funded by the GLA. But also obtain funding from banks and the capital markets:

"Housing associations borrow money to pay for new homes and improvements. After the Housing Act 1988, the proportion of the cost of new homes met by capital grant was scaled back by the Government, so borrowing became the primary source of funding for investment. Much of this was simply borrowed from banks and building societies, but after the late-2000s financial crisis these institutions ceased to offer long-term loans, so developing associations are increasingly turning to corporate bonds to raise funds for expansion.[6]"

Plus developers sell at less than market prices - so the cheaper housing is effectively a cost to them which reduces profits...

The point is, that this is a very efficient way of providing affordable housing.

* NB: councils can set up RSL's - but they would still have access to wider funding sources...


----------



## teuchter (Mar 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Also my ward Cllr Matt Parr had emailed the officer a series of questions about this application. Which is also why I thought the officers came up with this last minute information.
> 
> As you say we will have to wait for the minutes. They need to be checked. The officers changed the proviso that I queried that the RSL who had the flats could alter the % later on up to 80% of market rate to one linked to RPI. This was last minute ( on day of meeting) and I did not see this worded in writing.
> 
> ...


Unlike most of the rest of us, myself included, it seems you've actually proactively done quite a lot of stuff in the real world to get questions asked and so on, and possibly can take some of the credit for those last minute alterations to the agreement. I'm impressed - good work.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

secateurz said:


> reference please
> 
> incorrect. governments running deficits year after year, while deregulating the banks and causing an expansionary credit bubble "real growth"


 
You are derailing this thread.

Answer to your question is reading some economics. Stiglitz "Freefall" would be good idea. Or Paul Mason

Anyway here is Stiglitz on Europe in general ( Banking crisis is world wide due to globalisation)




> Stiglitz: The main problem in Europe right now are the austerity packages, they depress demand and weaken economic growth. The reversal of this policy is absolutely essential to develop growth and more equality. Spain, for example, gets weaker and weaker, money flows out of the country, and it is a vicious downward spiral.
> SPIEGEL: Isn't the real problem the lack of competitiveness? Spain and the other countries in crisis have lived beyond their means, that's why they are in trouble.
> Stiglitz: No, Europe's crisis is not caused by excessive long-term debts and deficits. It is caused by cutbacks in government expenditures. The recession caused the deficits, not the other way around. Before the crisis Spain and Ireland ran budget surpluses. They cannot be accused of fiscal profligacy. More fiscal discipline will only worsen the downturn. No economy ever recovered from a downturn through austerity.


 
Come back when you have read the books.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Yep they do...
> 
> But I was referring to Lambeth Council - no cash for them to pay out.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for that info.

It is a cost to developers which is why they go back to renegotiate Section106 agreements. That is the point of Section106 agreements. It does reduce profits for a developer. Whether its for housing or money for local amenities. The idea of Section106 is that a large developer (Section106 only applies to larger developments) is making a big enough profit for some of this to be taken off them for use in local area or for housing. Its a way to control a rampant free market. Its not in the financial interest of a developer to build a park near flats or part fund a school. Business is business.

The fact is from what I've seen (Tescos ice rink etc) is that its a continual battle between Council and developers. And the developers get what they want in Lambeth. This alteration to the Section106 waters down the previous Section106.

Officers and Barratts imo should have justified it more in that case. The attitude was that the new housing regime set down by central government is a given. Thats just how things are. When it was in fact about Barratts realising they were going to lose money on this if the original Section106 went through.

edited to say I would like some clarification from officers about whether the rented affordable housing was in danger if the original Section106 was kept.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Unlike most of the rest of us, myself included, it seems you've actually proactively done quite a lot of stuff in the real world to get questions asked and so on, and possibly can take some of the credit for those last minute alterations to the agreement. I'm impressed - good work.


 
Thanks. I do this kind of thing every now and then. Also credit to Ed and Zoe of Brixton Blog for making sure it was made public issue.

I also think that all those who contributed to this thread make a difference. This is one of the more important recent threads. Council does lurk here.

ed Brixton Blog

My view is that I should not really have to do this. The Council should take on developers. It should set 50% affordable housing on large developments. If Labour Cllrs are not happy about enough affordable housing then they should say so more.

Cllrs are elected to take up issues. Officers to research reports and look at how to put what the Cllrs want as policy into practise .It realistically cannot be up to ordinary people to do this all the time. Most of us other commitments or are just keeping our heads above water. Also we do not have the resources of Council or developers.

I was pleasantly surprised that my ward (Labour) Cllrs took an interest. I think the joint U75/ Brixton Blog statement made a big difference.

I was not impressed by officers at the meeting. They are supposed to be working for the people. At the meeting both the officers and Barratts were well pissed off about the objections and comments from the 2 LD Cllrs. The officers and Barratts were supporting each other to get this through.

BTW CH1 CH1 came along to give support. Really glad about that. 

Unfortunately the concessions were minor. I am afraid a precedent has been set for other developments in the Brixton area. As developers look at what has been agreed on other sites when devising there own plans.


----------



## colacubes (Mar 14, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Unlike most of the rest of us, myself included, it seems you've actually proactively done quite a lot of stuff in the real world to get questions asked and so on, and possibly can take some of the credit for those last minute alterations to the agreement. I'm impressed - good work.


 
Gramsci is a proper real life star and campaigner on this shit.  He should get a fuck load of respect for what he does for the local community 

And in fairness I think I've only met him properly once (at a planning meeting tbf ), but his dedication to the local community, amongst people I know locally, and particularly in the town centre, is really well respected.  And rightly so  

People may disagree with him.  And that's fine.  But he properly puts the hours in and is a bigger/better/more knowledgeable campaigner than most of us


----------



## secateurz (Mar 15, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> You are derailing this thread.
> 
> Answer to your question is reading some economics. Stiglitz "Freefall" would be good idea. Or Paul Mason
> 
> ...


 
is this the pithy equivalent of no u r, no backsies?  My opinion is that you are not correct, please deal with it.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 15, 2013)

It would be nice if macroeconomics could be discussed in its own thread.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 15, 2013)

nipsla said:


> Gramsci is a proper real life star and campaigner on this shit. He should get a fuck load of respect for what he does for the local community
> 
> And in fairness I think I've only met him properly once (at a planning meeting tbf ), but his dedication to the local community, amongst people I know locally, and particularly in the town centre, is really well respected. And rightly so
> 
> People may disagree with him. And that's fine. But he properly puts the hours in and is a bigger/better/more knowledgeable campaigner than most of us


 I think he's one of the hardest working people in Brixton, year in, year out. Not for money, love or glory but because he genuinely loves the place he calls home.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 15, 2013)

I'd nominate Gramsci for a gong except I'm sure he'd turn it down.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 15, 2013)

Crispy said:


> It would be nice if macroeconomics could be discussed in its own thread.


maybe here......... http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/benefit-myths-and-those-who-fall-for-them.304486/ .......would be as good a place as any.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2013)

Solomon Smith is a real unsung hero too, as are one or two people on my estate:
http://southwyckhouse.wordpress.com...tchen-serving-hot-meals-from-southwyck-house/


----------



## secateurz (Mar 15, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I think he's one of the hardest working people in Brixton, year in, year out. Not for money, love or glory but because he genuinely loves the place he calls home.


 
what is his job..local councillor?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 15, 2013)

No, an ordinary resident.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Solomon Smith is a real unsung hero too, as are one or two people on my estate:
> http://southwyckhouse.wordpress.com...tchen-serving-hot-meals-from-southwyck-house/


Yes, he was a bit of a conversion on the road to Damascus. He was a nightmare teenager. Turned his life around.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

secateurz said:


> the bulletin board is strong in this one, I dont have the time or inclincation to write such wordy and intelligent ripostes.
> 
> I am sorry £40 a week is a lot for you...but the rent of £202 is reasonble. its not anybody elses fault that you cant afford it. In fact it isnt anybody elses fault for a lot of things in this wonderful life.


 
I don't want your apologies or your sympathy. What I'd like is for you to open your mind.
That's unlikely, given your use of the "Blame game" in your post.
How do you know where fault lies? You don't. You're just trotting out another ill-informed opinion - the one that says that everyone has so much control over their lives that "bad shit" is all their own fault, because of ignorance, lack of effort, yada yada yada.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

secateurz said:


> and public wages are rising faster than private. its a messed up environment at the moment. Thanks Labour.


 
You obviously don't grasp the basics of macroeconomics, if you think that a single government in a single nation-state is to blame for the "messed up" financial "environment".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> "No cost"? Where do you get that idea from?


 
I suspect that Tony is under the impression that developers "gift" these properties to social landlords/local authorities, rather than forming their own RSLs or collaborating with existing ones, in order to shorten the money chain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

secateurz said:


> sorry Labour are not escaping the blame here.
> Their economic incompetence really put a spanner in this country


 
So, nothing to do with the worldwide "credit crunch", then, and the knock-on effects from that?
Labour might have run up the structural deficit, but most economic predictions prior to the "credit crunch" saw the deficit as easily repayable further into the economic cycle, and the running up of the debt in the first place as "safe". Notice, for example, how none of the ratings agencies were marking down UK debt between 2004-2008, the years when the structural deficit increased.

Labour *aren't* blameless. Their unwillingness to re-regulate parts of the financial sector that had been deregulated by the Tories directly contributed to the financial products that caused the "credit crunch", but that's regulatory as opposed to economic incompetence, and anyone who understood or understands the economic agenda Labour signed up to (neoliberalism, the same agenda the Tories were already signed up to) in order to get business support in the run-up to '97, knew that hitting The City was vanishingly unlikely except in the form of the one-off "Windfall Tax".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

secateurz said:


> we are! big society! thought some of us get to live in subsidised/free housing, sometimes with spare bedrooms!


 
I might have guessed you'd be daft enough to make the argument that council housing is either subsidised or free. Charging a sub-market rent for a fully paid-for asset (which given that hardly any LA social housing was built post-'86, is 90% of it) isn't subsidy, because a return is still achieved from the asset, however loudly the Adam Smith Institute and the likes of the Taxpayer's Alliance argue otherwise. That a "market-level" return isn't made on the asset is immaterial. There's no legal obligation for the owner of *any* property to achieve the maximum possible return on their assets.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I might have guessed you'd be daft enough to make the argument that council housing is either subsidised or free. Charging a sub-market rent for a fully paid-for asset (which given that hardly any LA social housing was built post-'86, is 90% of it) isn't subsidy, because a return is still achieved from the asset, however loudly the Adam Smith Institute and the likes of the Taxpayer's Alliance argue otherwise. That a "market-level" return isn't made on the asset is immaterial. There's no legal obligation for the owner of *any* property to achieve the maximum possible return on their assets.


 
I can see why people who rent homes on the open market whilst contributing into a system which supports some but not others by giving them access to non-private sector rents feel they are subsidising others even if, as you correctly point out, the proper definition of the word 'subsidise' does not accurately describe the transaction or relationship. I suppose a better term would be that some are supporting others by giving them privileged access to non-private sector rents which they don't have access to themselves. Getting too bogged down in the technicalities of the term 'subsidise' seems to miss the real point being made.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 15, 2013)

secateurz, I think you'll find that the subsidised housing is actually that of the buy to let landlords.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I can see why people who rent homes on the open market whilst contributing into a system which supports some but not others by giving them access to non-private sector rents feel they are _subsidising_ others even if, as you correctly point out, the proper definition of the word 'subsidise' does not accurately describe the transaction or relationship. I suppose a better term would be that some are supporting others by giving them privileged access to non-private sector rents which they don't have access to themselves. Getting too bogged down in the technicalities of the term 'subsidise' seems to miss the real point being made.


 
I'd contend that the term "subsidise" is of key importance to the sort of narrative that secateurz is retailing, specifically *because* it represents the transaction as exactly that - subsidy of "the poor".
As for "privileged access", the "privilege" is entirely a result of the deliberate decision to cease the construction of local authority social housing (part of a wider attempt to socially-engineer a "property-owning democracy") that has meant that access is needs-based and therefore exclusionary when previously it was inclusive.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd contend that the term "subsidise" is of key importance to the sort of narrative that secateurz is retailing, specifically *because* it represents the transaction as exactly that - subsidy of "the poor".
> As for "privileged access", the "privilege" is entirely a result of the deliberate decision to cease the construction of local authority social housing (part of a wider attempt to socially-engineer a "property-owning democracy") that has meant that access is needs-based and therefore exclusionary when previously it was inclusive.


I can't speak for secateurz but it looks to me like you are getting caught up in the rhetoric rather than being open to understanding the general point someone else is making, even if not as precisely and eloquently as you.

As for your second point - yes - it is a result of there not being enough council owned properties to give to everyone who wants one. But the reason behind it doesn't make it any less of a privilege for those who have that benefit.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, nothing to do with the worldwide "credit crunch", then, and the knock-on effects from that?
> Labour might have run up the structural deficit, but most economic predictions prior to the "credit crunch" saw the deficit as easily repayable further into the economic cycle, and the running up of the debt in the first place as "safe". Notice, for example, how none of the ratings agencies were marking down UK debt between 2004-2008, the years when the structural deficit increased.
> 
> Labour *aren't* blameless. Their unwillingness to re-regulate parts of the financial sector that had been deregulated by the Tories directly contributed to the financial products that caused the "credit crunch", but that's regulatory as opposed to economic incompetence, and anyone who understood or understands the economic agenda Labour signed up to (neoliberalism, the same agenda the Tories were already signed up to) in order to get business support in the run-up to '97, knew that hitting The City was vanishingly unlikely except in the form of the one-off "Windfall Tax".


 
Generally agreed. Although citing the ratings agencies is a bit much!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I can't speak for secateurz but it looks to me like you are getting caught up in the rhetoric rather than being open to understanding the general point someone else is making, even if not as precisely and eloquently as you.


 
I understand the point being made very well, as well as the language used in the discourse around social housing, and *why* it is used. That's precisely why I replied to secateurz as I did.



> As for your second point - yes - it is a result of there not being enough council owned properties to give to everyone who wants one. But the reason behind it doesn't make it any less of a privilege for those who have that benefit.


 
No, it doesn't, but as a privilege, it's one that not many would actively seek, given that access to that privilege generally entails "qualifying" for it due to poverty, disability and/or a dozen other reasons that mark one down as a member of the "underclass" (however eloquent we are.  ).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Generally agreed. Although citing the ratings agencies is a bit much!


 
Well, they *were* touted as the best guide to whose debt to buy, up until the bared their baboon-like arses to the world and showed us what they were really made of in '07-08.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 15, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I can see why people who rent homes on the open market whilst contributing into a system which supports some but not others by giving them access to non-private sector rents feel they are subsidising others even if, as you correctly point out, the proper definition of the word 'subsidise' does not accurately describe the transaction or relationship. I suppose a better term would be that some are supporting others by giving them privileged access to non-private sector rents which they don't have access to themselves. Getting too bogged down in the technicalities of the term 'subsidise' seems to miss the real point being made.


 
Private landlords are doing quite nicely in London. Rent controls have gone over the years. Unlike other parts of Europe. Private landlords high rents also have led to the growth of housing benefit. A subsidy for private landlords. 

Dont see they have much to complain about in London.

The assets private landlords own increase in value as well. 

Must be a quite profitable enterprise as Barratts have been pushing there flats in Brixton square for buy to let.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 15, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Private landlords are doing quite nicely in London. Rent controls have gone over the years. Unlike other parts of Europe. Private landlords high rents also have led to the growth of housing benefit. A subsidy for private landlords.
> 
> Dont see they have much to complain about in London.
> 
> ...


I was referring to individuals who pay full market value to live in their homes. Not as in landlords who rent property out.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I was referring to individuals who pay full market value to live in their homes. Not as in landlords who rent property out.


 
So u do my mistake.

However the idea that there is a clear line between non private sector and private sector is mistaken. See here A bit of an old article, so some things have changed, but the point is that its a mistaken to look at social housing as subsidised and private housing as not. As article says its a more complicated picture.




> Of course, many private landlords dislike dealing with benefit recipients. As the Rugg report on private renting pointed out, the public sector has had to invent expensive incentive arrangements for landlords, such as leasing schemes which pay guaranteed rents for up to five years, even when the property is unoccupied.
> There is nothing wrong with such schemes, but they are clearly a form of subsidy for housing poorer tenants that goes direct to the landlord.
> Ms Wilson has one clear point, which is that social sector rents are below market levels. As Steve Wilcox, editor of the Chartered Insitute of Housing’s UK Housing Review, shows in the coming edition of the report in December, the gap is currently an average of £36 per week - much less than Ms Wilson would have us believe, and one that varies enormously between the north of England and the south east.
> It is true that this is an economic subsidy, but it is not a cash subsidy: council housing is currently in surplus at national level, as Inside Housing has repeatedly made clear.
> ...


----------



## leanderman (Mar 16, 2013)

I need to think about this - it's complicated!


----------



## CH1 (Mar 22, 2013)

For information: extract from minutes of Planning Applications Committee, as discussed above -
9. 368 - 372 COLDHARBOUR LANE, LONDON SW9 (COLDHARBOUR WARD) (12/03393/S106)
Agenda Item No. 4 and Addendum, Page 65 of the Agenda)
There was an officer presentation which stated that the wording of the last section of paragraphs 4.3 and 7.3 (which reads PROVIDED THAT…..) should be as follows: ‘The Section 106 agreement is currently in draft form. Officers are requesting that Members delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development in relation to the wording of this clause of the Section 106. A clause restricting the rent rises will be included in the legal agreement; this normally states that rent shall rise only in line with inflation (this is usually the Retail Price Index + ½%).’
The meeting was addressed by a local resident who made the
following points:
· There was a lot of concern about this issue both in Brixton and online.
· Tenants would be required to pay a percentage of market rent which would increase over time.
· Concern that work had started on the site before the application was made.
· Concern about how much the rent would be increasing.
· If the application was agreed to it would set a precedent for the future.
· There was a difference between affordable levels and social rented levels.
· Although Councillor Donatus Anyanwu, Ward Member for Coldharbour Ward, was not able to be present at the meeting he also opposed these proposals.

It was noted that the agent had previously been employed as a planning officer at Lambeth.

The applicant addressed the meeting and made the following points:
· The application had originally been granted in 2007 but that applicant had not carried out the development. The present applicant (Barratt Homes) had taken over in 2010.
· The application for the change in conditions had been agreed with the council.
The meeting was addressed by Councillor Matt Parr, Ward Councillor for Coldharbour Ward, who made the following comments:
· Whilst acknowledging that there may be a good reason to change the Section 106 agreement he questioned as to what would happen if it was not agreed.
· He asked that there be a comparison of rents under both criteria.
· If it was agreed to it would set a precedent and the Committee should not accede to the request at this late stage.
Officers made the following points:
· There had been an independent viability study carried out which had indicated that the scheme would not be viable if social rented scales were applied.
· The rent for a two bed flat would increase from £149.74 a week to £192.88 and for a four bed flat from £166.39 to £202.70.
· If the proposal was not agreed there would be fewer affordable units in the development.
· It was confirmed that the proposals met local needs.
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Ruth Ling, and RESOLVED:
(1) That the Section 106 agreement pertaining to planning permission 06/04037/FUL be amended as set out in the report as amended by the addendum.
(2) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development in relation to the wording of the definition of an ‘Affordable Rented Unit’.
Voting For – 4 Against - 2
CLOSE OF MEETING
The meeting ended at 10.42 pm


----------



## teuchter (Mar 22, 2013)

CH1 said:


> · If the proposal was not agreed there would be fewer affordable units in the development.


What does this bit mean exacly?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 22, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What does this bit mean exacly?



That they'd be social instead presumably. Technically true but weaselly as fuck.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 22, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What does this bit mean exacly?


it probably refers to Barratts previous application of December 2011 [11/04431/S106], presumably their fall-back position: converting 10 of the shared ownership flats into private for-sale AS WELL AS turning social rent flats into affordable.  That application was withdrawn and the one passed at planning committee substituted. If you access the planning applications it is clear from the correspondence that negotiations have been going on for 18 months about this.
The council bamboozled into preserving the developer's "viable" return at the expense of abolishing social rents in new build in Brixton.  Not a good omen for Somerleyton Road.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2013)

“Affordable housing: social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing
provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market.Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices.Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.”

“Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered
providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented
housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no
more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges where
applicable.”

From the officers report explaining definitions.

A LD Cllr pointed out to me that recycling of subsidy is not dealt with in report. This bit looks like it says that either rents are set at % that is affordable for those on lower incomes. ( Someone from the Tenants Council said that the average yearly income of Council Tenants in Lambeth is £13 000.) Or its set at the 80% and some recycled to provide more "affordable" housing.

This new "affordable" regime is hard to understand.

CH1

jeremyclyne


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2013)

CH1 said:


> The council bamboozled into preserving the developer's "viable" return at the expense of abolishing social rents in new build in Brixton. Not a good omen for Somerleyton Road.


 
Latest thinking by officers for Somerleyton is "65% blended rate of the market value (including service charge). This means one and two beds would be up to 80% of the market rent and larger family sized homes would be at social rent."

The officers say they will run financial appraisal to see if scheme can afford  to provide more units at target rent.

Also officers say Somerleyton road will be a "policy compliant scheme for affordable housing and therefore we are aiming for 60% private and 40% affordable."

I will post this up on the Somerleyton thread as well.

It does confirm your point that the planning application for Barratts will be seen as example of policy compliant scheme.

Also that making the smaller flats higher % is a way to subsidize family units. Maybe I do not understand all of this.

There is a big difference in that the Barratts development is private land and (most) of Somerleyton road is Council owned.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Officers made the following points:
> · There had been an independent viability study carried out which had indicated that the scheme would not be viable if social rented scales were applied.
> 
> (2) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development in relation to the wording of the definition of an ‘Affordable Rented Unit’.
> ...


 
Nothing in minutes of the LD Cllrs questions to Barratts.

The viability study was not in the officers report.

It was asked what sort of tenancies. Whether secure or time limited. This was not answered. Not that happy now that authority has been delegated to officers to define wording of definition of what is an Affordable Rented Units.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2013)

Latest issue of Lambeth Weekender has (page 10) quotes Cllr Pete Robbins , Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration, as saying that



> "both the developers and Councils hands are tied due to the coalition governments new approach to affordable homes ( abolishing the government subsidy for social rent homes last year) We fundamentally disagree with this approach but we cant wish it away. Instead we ask developers to set affordable rents at the lowest possible level in order for them to still be viable."


 
I do not understand what Cllr Robbins is going about it.


Barratts went to Council to alter the Section 106 which had already been agreed.

This was an application by Barratts. Not the Council.

No evidence was presented to the Planning Committee meeting about viability.

The officers/ Barratts did not justify the affordable rent levels they were suggesting.

The Council is not there to look after the interests of a large developer but is there to represent the interests of the less powerful.

A Labour Council should not imply that they are in the same position as a developer like Barratts. Barratts is a large profit making business and the Labour party is there to represent interests of ordinary people. Barratts can and should speak for themselves.

My experience of the meeting was that officers/ Barratts thought that this just how things are and needed no explanation. Going to committee was just a rubber stamp on an issue that as CH1 posted has been discussed between officers and Barratts for some time. In that case, and if Cllr Robbins thinks what he says is correct ,could the Council not waste residents time in planning. Obviously Council and Barratts think residents who took there right to object were wasting there time.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 25, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Latest issue of Lambeth Weekender has (page 10) quotes Cllr Pete Robbins , Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration, as saying that
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But Lambeth councillors and officers can do as they like when so few people bother to call them to account, as you have. 

Maybe we get the councils we deserve.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 25, 2013)

leanderman said:


> But Lambeth councillors and officers can do as they like when so few people bother to call them to account, as you have.
> 
> Maybe we get the councils we deserve.


 
Absolutely.

Has anyone been watching the BBC show "The Planners"? It is a documentary series looking at the planning process.

It is fascinating to contrast the Barratt's planning meeting with those relating to the construction of houses on green-field sites in rural Britain.

At these rural meetings, loads of dreadful, middle aged NIMBYs turn up in force. They sit in the front row, loudly applauding objectors and generally letting the members of the committee know that local people don't like what is going on.

This has a massive impact, and the elected members often reject officer recommendations.(The shows points out that such decisions may well be overturned on appeal).

These people are utter scum who are motivated only by preserving the value of their house - but you have to admire their organisation / motivation.

As the recent Lambeth meeting, there was one objector, and no massed presence in the front row. Absolutely no pressure was applied - so who can blame the councilors for going along with their professional advisers?


----------



## editor (Mar 25, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> These people are utter scum who are motivated only by preserving the value of their house - but you have to admire their organisation / motivation.


Why is someone 'scum' for trying to preserve the value of their home?


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 25, 2013)

editor said:


> Why is someone 'scum' for trying to preserve the value of their home?


 
Watch the show and you will see.

Daily Mail / Daily Express reading types who don't care about people who are priced out and need new houses.

The kind of people who would hate the ideal of a new development with affordable housing near to their home.

The kind of people who would love a Foxtons near their house.

The kind of people who would love to snap up a couple of BTLs in a new Barratt's scheme.

The kind of people this board hates!


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 25, 2013)

i.e - incredibly selfish and unpleasant people!

but determined people.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 25, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> These people are utter scum who are motivated only by preserving the value of their house - but you have to admire their organisation / motivation.


 
Scum? A bit rough. You're ignoring the genuine issues and playing the man rather than the ball. They may well be nimbys but many are motivated by genuine fear of change or loss of quality of life rather than house prices. I think their fears are understandable even if, on balance, the weight should often be in favour of the applicants. It has to be decided on a case by case basis.

Whilst effect on house prices is not a valid reason for planning objection it is short sighted not to recognise the real impact it can have on individuals lives. For instance, it can put people into positions of negative equity. Houses in quiet areas suddenly blighted by 5 or six years of building works become pretty much unsaleable, reducing mobility, etc.. Massive schemes can have a huge impact on qulaity of life. And of course, because they are not professional planners, objectors often fall into the trap of adding numerous tenuous reasons for objection because they feel it will bolster their cause, rather than detract from their more genuine and often more valid concerns.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Scum? A bit rough. You're ignoring the genuine issues and playing the man rather than the ball. They may well be nimbys but many are motivated by genuine fear of change or loss of quality of life rather than house prices. I think their fears are understandable even if, on balance, the weight should often be in favour of the applicants. It has to be decided on a case by case basis.
> 
> Whilst effect on house prices is not a valid reason for planning objection it is short sighted not to recognise the real impact it can have on individuals lives. For instance, it can put people into positions of negative equity. Houses in quiet areas suddenly blighted by 5 or six years of building works become pretty much unsaleable, reducing mobility, etc.. And of course, because they are not professional planners, objectors often fall into the trap of adding numerous tenuous reasons for objection because they feel it will bolster their cause, rather than detract from their more genuine and often more valid concerns.


 
Yeah - fair play, scum is a bit harsh!

Inconsiderate is probably a better thing to say.

The point I'm trying to make is that these people get mobilised and put pressure on the council.

There's lots of chat on this forum and how terrible Barratt's are for welching on their s106. But then only 1 guy shows up to object.

Leanderman is right to say that you get the council you deserve!


----------



## Rushy (Mar 25, 2013)

And house prices are often linked to quality of life in a particular area so they are not entirely separate issues.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

At the end of the day house-prices have to go down (or rather should go down) if we're to sustainably house people. So someone has to take a hit.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 25, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Yeah - fair play, scum is a bit harsh!
> 
> Inconsiderate is probably a better thing to say.
> 
> ...


Objecting does not = inconsiderate. If they don't object their concerns will often not be heard. And lots of planning apps are put in with a few very inconsiderate 'extras' which the developers use as negotiating tools.

I don't think these confrontational situations always bring out the best in people, but painting a broad picture of them as anything other than normal people is way off the mark.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> At the end of the day house-prices have to go down (or rather should go down) if we're to sustainably house people. So someone has to take a hit.



As I keep saying, there is no way house prices will go down if homebuilding cannot keep pace with the population. 

Not sure Osborne's plans will make much difference. If anything, they will push prices up.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

leanderman said:


> As I keep saying, there is no way house prices will go down if homebuilding cannot keep pace with the population.
> 
> Not sure Osborne's plans will make much difference. If anything, they will push prices up.


Sure. Hence my "if". It's a big if, granted.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> At the end of the day house-prices have to go down (or rather should go down) if we're to sustainably house people. So someone has to take a hit.


That's a totally different subject. Planning applications are localised and can affect small areas very suddenly and disproportionately whilst everywhere else in unaffected (living standards and/or house prices) . I think it is a bit much to expect people to sit back and take it without arguing their case.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 25, 2013)

editor said:


> Why is someone 'scum' for trying to preserve the value of their home?



An interesting contrast with the Barratts situation is the refusal of planning for turning the Josephine Avenue former job centre into 'student studios'. 

In this case, councillors rejected the advice of their officers.

And were perhaps influenced by the loud and numerous complaints from the owners of neighbouring houses.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> That's a totally different subject. Planning applications are localised and affect small areas very suddenly whilst everywhere else in unaffected.


Sure, but all those local decisions add up to national-level effects. It's like power plants - they've got to go somewhere.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> That's a totally different subject. Planning applications are localised and affect small areas very suddenly whilst everywhere else in unaffected.



Telegraph reports today a 25pc year-on-year rise in planning approvals.

It attributes this to changes in planning policy.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Telegraph reports today a 25pc year-on-year rise in planning approvals.
> 
> It attributes this to changes in planning policy.


Approvals for what, residential buildings?


----------



## Rushy (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Sure, but all those local decisions add up to national-level effects. It's like power plants - they've got to go somewhere.


Sorry - I edited my post slightly whilst you were replying. Primarily to add that individuals can be disproportionately affected and that we cannot expect them to just sit back and take it without arguing their cases. It doesn't make them scum or inconsiderate.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Approvals for what, residential buildings?



Yep. Housing. And no change in devolved Wales and Scotland.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Sorry - I edited my post slightly whilst you were replying. Primarily to add that individuals can be disproportionately affected and that we cannot expect them to just sit back and take it without arguing their cases. It doesn't make them scum or inconsiderate.


No, it doesn't make them scum at all in and of itself (altho it can arguable encourage anti-social behaviour).


----------



## Rushy (Mar 25, 2013)

I remember my village strongly opposing HS1 in the 80s. Not many argued that HS1 wasn't needed but just because someone had proposed putting it through their village didn't mean that it was the right place for it or that better measures needed to be put in place to protect the residents - and the inspectorate agreed. Passion ran incredibly high as people with no experience of this kind of thing felt they were being ignored or shafted.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I remember my village strongly opposing HS1 in the 80s. Not many argued that HS1 wasn't needed but just because someone had proposed putting it through their village didn't mean that it was the right place for it or that better measures needed to be put in place to protect the residents - and the inspectorate agreed. Passion ran incredibly high as people with no experience of this kind of thing felt they were being ignored or shafted.


 
Point taken, but at the end of the day change is often disruptive, and on this island there's not that many places where change won't have a significant (and sometimes negative) impact on others in some regard. As I said, someone has to take a hit on their house prices if housing policy is to return to a semblance of sanity.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 25, 2013)

I'm guessing a lot more neighbours in a rural area will be owner occupiers rather than renters. In an urban area there are probably a lot more renters and a lot more planning applications that you have to first be aware of, then understand, then decide whether you object to or not, then actually do something about. Also a lot more easy to know who your neighbours are and what sort of opinion they might have and round them up in a small village than a more anonymous sprawl.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Point taken, but at the end of the day change is often disruptive, and on this island there's not that many places where change won't have a significant (and sometimes negative) impact on others in some regard. As I said, someone has to take a hit on their house prices if housing policy is to return to a semblance of sanity.


 
I don't disagree. My only objection was the the vilification of people for objecting (not by you).  Not all proposals are good ones, not all sites are good ones, cost vs impact assessments need to be made, etc.. We need more housing. There are lots of factors affecting where it is best to put it.

Pretending (not you) that they are anything other than a normal cross section of people temporarily united by a common issue is naive and simplistic. At the end of the day the interests of the people being affected are not going to be strongly defended by anyone else.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I don't disagree. My only objection was the the vilification of people for objecting (not by you). Not all proposals are good ones, not all sites are good ones, cost vs impact assessments need to be made, etc.. We need more housing. There are lots of factors affecting where it is best to put it.
> 
> Pretending (not you) that they are anything other than a normal cross section of people temporarily united by a common issue is naive and simplistic. At the end of the day the interests of the people being affected are not going to be strongly defended by anyone else.


Nothing to disagree with there. Vilification takes us precisely nowhere.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 25, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> I'm guessing a lot more neighbours in a rural area will be owner occupiers rather than renters. In an urban area there are probably a lot more renters and a lot more planning applications that you have to first be aware of, then understand, then decide whether you object to or not, then actually do something about. Also a lot more easy to know who your neighbours are and what sort of opinion they might have and round them up in a small village than a more anonymous sprawl.


 
Certainly renters seem to feel on the whole less threatened by planning changes as they can often just up sticks and move a couple of streets away. Obviously that's not always the case and it's easier for some rather than others but in general it is much more of an issue for owner occupiers who may have problems selling or seeking new finance elsewhere, etc..


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2013)

leanderman said:


> But Lambeth councillors and officers can do as they like when so few people bother to call them to account, as you have.
> 
> Maybe we get the councils we deserve.


 
A few Cllrs opposed this.

Cllr Robbins is a cabinet member who gets approximately £29 000 in allowances. As far as Im concerned officers and Cabinet Cllrs should try harder to defend social housing.

I do not blame local people. I get annoyed that Lambeth Labour is still so Nu Labour. For a member of the Labour party to defend Barratts beggars belief.

 On weekend I was looking up stuff on housing "reforms" and benefit changes. Other Labour Councils are much more upfront about supporting social housing and opposing this governments "reforms".

People cannot be expected to spend there time doing this. Cllrs should take into account what is said on the internet. Internet is one way people who are "time poor" can have a say.

It might be ok for well off people in rural villages to oppose developments.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 26, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> A few Cllrs opposed this.
> 
> Cllr Robbins is a cabinet member who gets approximately £29 000 in allowances. As far as Im concerned officers and Cabinet Cllrs should try harder to defend social housing.
> 
> ...



I blame local people!


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 26, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> A few Cllrs opposed this.
> 
> Cllr Robbins is a cabinet member who gets approximately £29 000 in allowances. As far as Im concerned officers and Cabinet Cllrs should try harder to defend social housing.
> 
> ...


 
If someone really cares about an issue they will make the time to attend a meeting. Completing an online petition or complaining on a forum takes very little effort.

Be the change you wish to see in the world!


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> If someone really cares about an issue they will make the time to attend a meeting. Completing an online petition or complaining on a forum takes very little effort.
> 
> Be the change you wish to see in the world!


 
I really disagree. People with children and young people who would not necessarily go to meetings can use the internet.

Making a lot of effort should not be a justification of how ones opinion is judged. To increase political participation, which is of concern in older democracies, hurdles to participation need to be removed where possible.

Its about time internet was taken more seriously.

It is being used on the consultation for Somerleyton road. See how that goes.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 27, 2013)

Just got some my hands on some interesting information regarding Brixton Square.

There are 155 flats in total. 118 are for private sale. 25 are shared ownership. 12 are rented.

Not sure if this reflects the latest planning decisions... But one thing is clear - most of the “affordable” is shared ownership rather than rented which presumably prices out many people who would traditionally go for council housing.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 27, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> Just got some my hands on some interesting information regarding Brixton Square.
> 
> There are 155 flats in total. 118 are for private sale. 25 are shared ownership. 12 are rented.
> 
> Not sure if this reflects the latest planning decisions... But one thing is clear - most of the “affordable” is shared ownership rather than rented which presumably prices out many people who would traditionally go for council housing.



Are the prices of the private flats bumped up to cover the developer's presumed lower margin on the non-private flats. Or is the profit margin the same on both types of flat?


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 27, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Are the prices of the private flats bumped up to cover the developer's presumed lower margin on the non-private flats. Or is the profit margin the same on both types of flat?


 
dunno.

i presume they will try and sell the private flats for as much as the market will bear regardless of their s106 obligations.

i imagine they make a lower "loss" on shared ownership than rented.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 27, 2013)

it may also be the case that potential buyers will view shared equity more favourably that socially rented.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 27, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Cllr Robbins is a cabinet member who gets approximately £29 000 in allowances.


This seems an underestimate - according to Part 5 – Members Allowance Scheme you need to add on the basic allowance that every councillor gets (£10,597 for 2012/3) - making a grand total of £39,115 (plus a council laptop and council mobile phone)


----------



## CH1 (Mar 27, 2013)

Latest twist on Lambeth social/affordable housing policy: planning have just refused permission for a major refurbishment and redevelopment at Toplin House (former Victorian fire-station and Refugee Council/Post Office building in Ferndale Road). This looked to be quite a good scheme design-wise, opening up the frontage on Ferndale Road for shops/offices facing Bon Marché and demolishing the rear extension on the corner of Stockwell Avenue/Bellefields Road.
Decision (13/00096/FUL) was at officer delegated level - so this may be part of a ping-pong negotiation à la Barratts.
Reason No1 for refusal: The proposed residential flat building appears capable of accommodating additional units, where the size of the proposed units exceed the minimum floor space standards set out in the Councils SPD on Housing Development and resorts in a layout that therefore prohibits the provision of affordable housing. No adequate justification has been provided to demonstrate why additional units can not be achieved at the site, and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy S2 of the Core Strategy 2011 whereby it fails to address the Boroughs Housing needs.
In plain English this means that the developer has proposed to build flats which are TOO LARGE - thereby not cramming enough units in to trigger the requirement to provide affordable housing. 
I know some may disagree - but I think it is a pity that we are losing agreed social housing on the Barratts scheme - where it was written into the agreement. Now we may be losing a quality development on a key commercial site in central Brixton because the council choose to insist on treating MINIMUM FLOOR AREA as a MAXIMUM in the residential back-addition to catch the affordable housing requirement.
What do people make of that - and what will the planning inspector say if there is an appeal?


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 27, 2013)

haha - so the flats were effectively too good!


----------



## Greebo (Mar 27, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Latest twist on Lambeth social/affordable housing policy: planning have just refused permission for a major refurbishment and redevelopment <snip>we may be losing a quality development on a key commercial site in central Brixton because the council choose to insist on treating MINIMUM FLOOR AREA as a MAXIMUM in the residential back-addition to catch the affordable housing requirement.
> What do people make of that - and what will the planning inspector say if there is an appeal?


Welcome to bloody Lambeth  - where next to nothing official makes sense.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 27, 2013)

In the latest issue of Lambeth Talk an idea is floated whereby the "affordable" provision could be built off site, obviously
it's only an idea but it would give developers a lot of wriggle room.........


----------



## Rushy (Mar 27, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I know some may disagree - but I think it is a pity that we are losing agreed social housing on the Barratts scheme - where it was written into the agreement. Now we may be losing a quality development on a key commercial site in central Brixton because the council choose to insist on treating MINIMUM FLOOR AREA as a MAXIMUM in the residential back-addition to catch the affordable housing requirement.
> What do people make of that - and what will the planning inspector say if there is an appeal?


 
Having looked at it I can see what they are getting at. They feel the site has been kept down to 9 oversized units in order to avoid this policy:



> The Council will meet the borough’s housing needs to 2025 by:
> 
> c) Seeking the provision of affordable housing on sites of at least 0.1
> hectares or on sites *capable* of accommodating 10 or more homes. At
> ...


​ 
The developer's statement says that they are focussing on family size accommodation but two of the three 3 bed flats are on the top two floors and have no outside space so aren't really family accommodation in planning terms. Space-wise, those could be replaced with three two beds or another combo taking the number of flats up to 10 and making affordable kick in.

The key thing is that they have to decide whether the site is *capable* of accommodating 10 homes - which it is. But strictly applied it means that borderline developments will always have to sacrifice larger flats for smaller ones, e.g. 10 one beds rather than 7 x 2 beds or a mix, for example.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 27, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> If someone really cares about an issue they will make the time to attend a meeting. Completing an online petition or complaining on a forum takes very little effort.
> 
> Be the change you wish to see in the world!



All of it? All the changes? Animal cruelty, renewable energy, benefit reform, disability rights, illegal wars, child welfare, Palestine, mental health, sweatshops in China, bear bile farming, legal aid, amazonian rain forests, social housing etc etc. I want to see lots of change. How  much spare time do you think people have?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 27, 2013)

Rushy said:


> But strictly applied it means that borderline developments will always have to sacrifice larger flats for smaller ones, e.g. 10 one beds rather than 7 x 2 beds or a mix, for example.


That's what I was getting at.
The planners are being consistent with the policy then, on Toplin House.

Going back to Barratts, they now only have to provide 31% affordable at Brixton Square (assuming that means shared ownership and affordable rented added together). Clearly this is why they were raising the viability study - so why did the planning committee not also consider this study (other that hearing an assertion that it existed)?

48 affordable units are to be provided - 13 for affordable rent and 35 for shared ownership. 

Under the policy you quote there should have been 62  affordable units,  43 SOCIAL RENT and 19 shared ownership - in the absence of public subsidy. Barratts have been let completely off the hook. 
No doubt next step for the Toplin House developer will be to commission a viability study.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> A few Cllrs opposed this.
> 
> Cllr Robbins is a cabinet member who gets approximately £29 000 in allowances. As far as Im concerned officers and Cabinet Cllrs should try harder to defend social housing.


 
Problem is that unless their ward is top-heavy with social housing, there's no percentage in it for them, so we're left to rely on that shrinking quality among councillors: Altruism.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> In the latest issue of Lambeth Talk an idea is floated whereby the "affordable" provision could be built off site, obviously
> it's only an idea but it would give developers a lot of wriggle room.........
> 
> View attachment 30677


 
FFS

This should be resisted. Half the reason for a % of affordable housing is to have mixed communities.

If its in the Labour Administration propaganda mag then they are seriously thinking about doing this. Plus the supportive comments from local residents. Who look so happy to be run by Lambeth Labour.

What is the date of that issue of Lambeth Pravda? As I cant find it on Lambeth website.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Problem is that unless their ward is top-heavy with social housing, there's no percentage in it for them, so we're left to rely on that shrinking quality among councillors: Altruism.


 
What this country needs is this: (from my Argentinians friends FB)

¡ HERMOSO! ¡COMANDANTE SUPREMO!


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> What this country needs is this: (from my Argentinians friends FB)
> 
> ¡ HERMOSO! ¡COMANDANTE SUPREMO!


Just a bit more of this would be a good start.









> Bevan’s 1949 Housing Act removed the statutory restriction of public housing to the “working classes” – council housing was to become available to all, so its occupants could create “a living tapestry of mixed communities” of people from all backgrounds.
> 
> For a short time, council housing was a genuine alternative to private renting or ownership, and was built in large quantities. Almost a million homes were built by local authorities in Britain between 1945 and 1951; 54,000 in Wales. More council houses were built in Wales in those six years than have been built since 1975.
> 
> ...


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 29, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> FFS
> 
> This should be resisted. Half the reason for a % of affordable housing is to have mixed communities.
> 
> ...




It was in the issue dated April 2013. It's funny you mention the supportive comments from local residents because at the end of the piece it is explained the quotes are not from real people but the pov " reflects recent conversations with local residents and businesses ", and IMHO you are correct about the negative outcome of such an idea because obviously developers would cherry pick desirable locations for the more exclusive builds to maximise profits.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> What this country needs is this: (from my Argentinians friends FB)
> 
> ¡ HERMOSO! ¡COMANDANTE SUPREMO!


 
It works for me!


----------



## CH1 (Mar 30, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> It was in the issue dated April 2013. It's funny you mention the supportive comments from local residents because at the end of the piece it is explained the quotes are not from real people but the pov " reflects recent conversations with local residents and businesses ", and IMHO you are correct about the negative outcome of such an idea because obviously developers would cherry pick desirable locations for the more exclusive builds to maximise profits.


Surely this (and worse) happens already. There was controversy recently about a development at One Blackfriars Road where no social housing to be built - but a contribution to be made for Souhwark Council to arrange social housing elsewhere.
Meanwhile the leader of Southwark Coucil tweeted: 

I seem to recall back in the 1990s that when Lambeth approved the luxurious "Parliament View" block on Lambeth Bridge south side  (home to Lord Prescott) - the Council got funds to double glaze several council estates but no social housing at all.


----------



## Tom_B (Apr 1, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> FFS
> 
> This should be resisted. Half the reason for a % of affordable housing is to have mixed communities.
> 
> ...


 
This is good. Why should private buyers be forced to live in the same development as council tenants?


----------



## Tom_B (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Fucking hell. A one bedroom flat in the shonky Viaduct development next to BS is nearly £16k a year.
> 
> That's more than I earn.


 
That isn't a high rent for London. You just have a low income. Maybe London isn't the right place for you?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> You've outlasted me! I give up on this debate about the size of the state / economic policy.


 
But your sockpuppet lives on!



Tom_B said:


> This is good. Why should private buyers be forced to live in the same development as council tenants?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

Tom_B said:


> That isn't a high rent for London. You just have a low income. Maybe London isn't the right place for you?


Maybe your two identities each earn in their own right.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

So is that what you do TonyH82 / Tom_B ? When someone trounces your argument with verifiable facts you just re-register in a knuckle-dragging troll form?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

You are dishonest, but IP addresses tell the truth


----------



## TruXta (Apr 1, 2013)

Why do people bother with that shit?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Why do people bother with that shit?


.......because they aren't the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 1, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> It was in the issue dated April 2013. It's funny you mention the supportive comments from local residents because at the end of the piece it is explained the quotes are not from real people but the pov " reflects recent conversations with local residents and businesses ", and IMHO you are correct about the negative outcome of such an idea because obviously developers would cherry pick desirable locations for the more exclusive builds to maximise profits.


 
Thanks for the info. Managed to pick up a copy at the Rec.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 1, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Why do people bother with that shit?


 
Tom_B joined today. Some kind of April fool joke?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Tom_B joined today. Some kind of April fool joke?


No, after being out-debated by someone more intelligent and far more well-informed before, he thought that just coming back in another guise wouldn't be noticed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

Tom_B said:


> This is good. Why should private buyers be forced to live in the same development as council tenants?


 
Why not? What are you afraid of, that the council tenants might catch something from you, like selfishness, or scabies?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

Tom_B said:


> That isn't a high rent for London. You just have a low income. Maybe London isn't the right place for you?


 
Maybe it's *just* the right place for someone with your attitude. The right place for you to be taken down a peg or two, anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> But your sockpuppet lives on!


 
Wow, that's rather pathetic. Had all his media-derived arguments rebutted, so he opens another account to post from, where he can let go with his less socially-acceptable beliefs.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

Well, it just shows him up as someone who is fundamentally dishonest.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 1, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> No, after being out-debated by someone more intelligent and far more well-informed before, he thought that just coming back in another guise wouldn't be noticed.


 
The new guise was well spotted by you.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> It was well spotted by you.


To be honest, I don't have to do much. Plus when a new poster with shit for brains turns up and spouts shit from the word go, it does mean scrutiny. Also it relieves the tedium of correcting misspelled thread titles.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 12, 2013)

The application to dilute the social housing element of Brixton Square has been permitted by Lambeth planning  

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MAA4WOBO0GL00


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2013)

Shameful stuff:


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 13, 2013)

Lambeth planning don't give a fuck about the community. Despite hundreds of objections, they stick rigidly to the planning guidelines, which essentially let developers do whatever they want. Hundreds of people objected to the new flats opposite the Grosvenor, but they ignored it. Hundreds of people objected to the change in social housing at Brixton Square, but they ignored it. Hundreds objected to Tesco at the George IV, but they still recommend granting permission. The new development at Myatts Fields North was sneaked through without a proper consultation with local residents and the Planning Committee rubberstamped it, despite objections from Kingsley Abrams and others.

Dodgy handshakes.

Lambeth Planning, Lambeth Planning Committee councillors - if you're reading this: FUCK YOU.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Lambeth planning don't give a fuck about the community. Despite hundreds of objections, they stick rigidly to the planning guidelines, which essentially let developers do whatever they want. Hundreds of people objected to the new flats opposite the Grosvenor, but they ignored it. Hundreds of people objected to the change in social housing at Brixton Square, but they ignored it. Hundreds objected to Tesco at the George IV, but they still recommend granting permission. *The new development at Myatts Fields North was sneaked through without a proper consultation with local residents* and the Planning Committee rubberstamped it, despite objections from Kingsley Abrams and others.


 
Thats why the TRA at Cressingham Gardens is keeping a very close watch on them, cultivating the media and rooting out and exposing Lambeth's misinformation, plus generally preparing for a dirty fight.



> Lambeth Planning, Lambeth Planning Committee councillors - if you're reading this: FUCK YOU.


 
Don't forget Pete "liar" Robbins, too!


----------



## Rushy (Apr 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thats why the TRA at Cressingham Gardens is keeping a very close watch on them, cultivating the media and rooting out and exposing Lambeth's misinformation, plus generally preparing for a dirty fight.


 
What's the latest on Cressingham?

I hadn't been in there for a while and took a wander around with the dog t'other day. The single storey and houses are fantastic. Are the concrete blocked up ones (close to Brockwell Gate end) the ones with the structural problems Lambeth referred to?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Rushy said:


> What's the latest on Cressingham?


 
Council are still in full-on "charm offensive" (well, Lambeth's idea of what a charm offensive might be, anyway!) mode, while simulataneously still pulling figures out of their arses with regard to repair costs . It turns out there are a lot of estates, 17 IIRC, that are more expensive _per annum, per_ household to maintain than this one. They'd compared us to Tulse Hill estate, which just happened to cost less, while forgetting the ones that cost significantly more.



> I hadn't been in there for a while and took a wander around with the dog t'other day. The single storey and houses are fantastic. Are the concrete blocked up ones (close to Brockwell Gate end) the ones with the structural problems Lambeth referred to?


 
Yep, and they're the worst by far structurally. A combination of subsidence/movement, heavy water penetration and dereliction.
There are some problems with rain ingress on the big block at the front of the estate (apparently the access walkway for the upper _bloc_ of maisonettes is permeable and leaks into the dwellings below, but is entirely remediable), and the same moisture penetration problems in ground floor properties that the estate has apparently always had, plus issues related to age, such as movement, root penetration from trees etc. Lambeth got very coy when it was suggested that their skimping on tree control has played a part. When Greebo and I moved here in the mid '90s the trees got a thorough once-over, and at minimum a prune, once a year *in the appropriate season*. Now it's on a triennial basis, and on their last showing, they're happy to prune in November.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2013)

Tom_B said:


> This is good. Why should private buyers be forced to live in the same development as council tenants?


 
Noticed you have not been back.

I do not want your kind in Brixton.

Prejudiced is what you are.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Council are still in full-on "charm offensive" (well, Lambeth's idea of what a charm offensive might be, anyway!) mode, while simulataneously still pulling figures out of their arses with regard to repair costs . It turns out there are a lot of estates, 17 IIRC, that are more expensive _per annum, per_ household to maintain than this one. They'd compared us to Tulse Hill estate, which just happened to cost less, while forgetting the ones that cost significantly more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I get the impression that Lambeth do hardly any surveys of there stock to find faults that could be remedied year by year gradually. What they do is leave buildings for years. Then come and inspect them. Then go on how unfortunate it all is but the whole estate needs to be knocked down.

The issue at Cressingham Gardens is the same as at the proposed Somerleyton road development. The Council will probably try to get away with less rented secure housing at target rents.

At Somerleyton road ( mainly Council owned land) looks like its only going to get 40% "affordable".


----------



## Rushy (Apr 15, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I get the impression that Lambeth do hardly any surveys of there stock to find faults that could be remedied year by year gradually. What they do is leave buildings for years. Then come and inspect them. Then go on how unfortunate it all is but the whole estate needs to be knocked down.



The other problem is that the council seems to be  inexcusably inefficient cost-wise when it comes to refurbishment. Someone on here was talking about the costs quoted by Lambeth to refurb Clifton to a decent standard which rendered it uneconomical (I think it was around 170k a flat). Developers get the work done a lot more cheaply (I reckon Clifton will have been done on a third of that) and often do a better job.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2013)

Rushy said:


> The other problem is that the council seems to be inexcusably inefficient cost-wise when it comes to refurbishment. Someone on here was talking about the costs quoted by Lambeth to refurb Clifton to a decent standard which rendered it uneconomical (I think it was around 170k a flat). Developers get the work done a lot more cheaply (I reckon Clifton will have been done on a third of that) and often do a better job.


 
Yes that is something that I find hard to understand.

What I have been told is that Housing Associations and Council have to build to a higher standard? Is that correct? Are the building standards set higher for social housing? Or is it that they set themselves higher standards? That developers can just do a minimum standard. Which is why its cheaper for private developers?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Yes that is something that I find hard to understand.
> 
> What I have been told is that Housing Associations and Council have to build to a higher standard? Is that correct? Are the building standards set higher for social housing? Or is it that they set themselves higher standards? That developers can just do a minimum standard. Which is why its cheaper for private developers?


 
If I understand correctly, HAs and local authorities have to build to a minimum standard of fit, take account of accessibility for new housing etc, whereas the only "standard" private developers have to meet is what will sell, hence the weird design of some privately-developed housing, where the design is basically done with the aim of shoehorning "sales features" in.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If I understand correctly, HAs and local authorities have to build to a minimum standard of fit, take account of accessibility for new housing etc, whereas the only "standard" private developers have to meet is what will sell, hence the weird design of some privately-developed housing, where the design is basically done with the aim of shoehorning "sales features" in.


To be fair that's a bit simplistic "private developers are shit, HAs and social have standards" and that kind of myth allows the council to continue being entirely inefficient.

The LA sets minimum room standards which have to be met in any development and from a metropolitan perspective they are not particularly tight. They also have the power to assess the shapes of rooms, circulation space and storage and won't approve developments with awkward layouts for no good reason.

Also, what is this minimum standard of fit? I've never seen an LA or HA development with an exceptional standard of fit. In fact, they are usually pretty bog standard utilitarian.Trying to shoe horn in more feature per square foot should cost more rather than less and I'm not quite sure what those features are? Developers have to compete on the open market for who moves into private accommodation so they will often go the extra mile to attract buyers - particularly when it comes to bathrooms, kitchens and windows.

The council uses enormous contractors to do its work. These have enormous overheads. They employ architectural advisors on, QSs, yadda yadda. Just the admin costs are horrendous. And those responsible for commissioning the works generally aren't all that commercially minded or motivated so the contractors get to trouser huge profits, despite being hugely inefficient.

Just as an example - my mate was living in an ex LA block where the LA was still the freeholder. His windows were falling apart so he got them replaced for about £2,500. A couple of years later the council replaced all the windows in the block (with identical glazing) and it cost more than double per household, despite the fact that they should be getting massive cost savings from efficiencies of scale and their negotiating power.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2013)

Rushy said:


> To be fair that's a bit simplistic "private developers are shit, HAs and social have standards" and that kind of myth allows the council to continue being entirely inefficient.


 
yes, that's what I said, isn't it? 



> The LA sets minimum room standards which have to be met in any development and from a metropolitan perspective they are not particularly tight. They also have the power to assess the shapes of rooms, circulation space and storage and won't approve developments with awkward layouts for no good reason.


 
Yes, they do have that power.
And yet I feel that your categorical statement that LAs *won't* approve awkward layouts for no good reason is naive, given that "good reason" is so easy to find, for the right consideration.



> Also, what is this minimum standard of fit? I've never seen an LA or HA development with an exceptional standard of fit. In fact, they are usually pretty bog standard utilitarian.


 
Yes, that's the bloody point! You appear to think I'm claiming that the minimum standard is some kind of El Dorado of opulent fitments. I'm not! I'm saying there's a legislated minimum standard!



> Trying to shoe horn in more feature per square foot should cost more rather than less and I'm not quite sure what those features are? Developers have to compete on the open market for who moves into private accommodation so they will often go the extra mile to attract buyers - particularly when it comes to bathrooms, kitchens and windows.
> 
> The council uses enormous contractors to do its work. These have enormous overheads. They employ architectural advisors on, QSs, yadda yadda. Just the admin costs are horrendous. And those responsible for commissioning the works generally aren't all that commercially minded or motivated so the contractors get to trouser huge profits, despite being hugely inefficient.
> 
> Just as an example - my mate was living in an ex LA block where the LA was still the freeholder. His windows were falling apart so he got them replaced for about £2,500. A couple of years later the council replaced all the windows in the block (with identical glazing) and it cost more than double per household, despite the fact that they should be getting massive cost savings from efficiencies of scale and their negotiating power.


 
Cool story, bro!
But...
Way to miss the point!
My point is that there's a *legislated* minimum standard enforced on HAs and LAs. There isn't one enforced on private developers except a couple that hygiene regs make necessary.

Good day to you, Sir!


----------



## Rushy (Apr 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> yes, that's what I said, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry VP but you appear to be all over the place on this one. I now have have no idea what point you were trying to make in your response to Gramsci. Hygiene regs - WTF? Hope you manage to calm down soon.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Sorry VP but you appear to be all over the place on this one. I now have have no idea what point you were trying to make in your response to Gramsci.


 
You "now have no idea"? It's pretty obvious you either had no idea or grasped the wrong end of the stick from the off.



> Hygiene regs - WTF? Hope you manage to calm down soon.


 
I'm perfectly calm, thanks. Try not to project.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You "now have no idea"? It's pretty obvious you either had no idea or grasped the wrong end of the stick from the off.
> I'm perfectly calm, thanks. Try not to project.


 
Glad you have managed to calm down - you seemed to be getting in a bit of a muddle for a moment.

Now let's see if you are able to explain to a simpleton like me how your responses answered the question of why refurbishment is so very much cheaper for private developers than it is for the council. And perhaps clarify the fascinating little interjections about those pesky hygiene regs and minimum standards of "fit". I really appreciate your patience.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2013)

I know that the newish block next to Brixton sq was built so poorly built that the Housing Association asked to manage the "affordable" section of the development turned it down. So private developers can be shit as well.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 18, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I know that the newish block next to Brixton sq was built so poorly built that the Housing Association asked to manage the "affordable" section of the development turned it down. So private developers can be shit as well.


 
I didn't suggest they _can't_ be poor - nothing is so black and white. I don't think private is necessarily better quality than public built - they are both built to a variety of standards. I visited a fantastic cedar shingle clad HA developemt off Clarence Avenue during open house weekend. Basic standard inside - lots of vinyl instead of tiles, etc.. but a lovely job. I can't remember the figures but seem to remember my jaw dropping when the architect told me what the build cost was (high rather than low!). The point we were discussing was why a project like Clifton Mansions was economical for a developer when it had been deemed so much more expensive to renovate (about 2.5 times the RICS build cost guide) by the council.

I'd be curious to know the extent of the problems in the case you refer to (is it the Viaduct?).  That development was a bit of a mare from what I heard as it was being built when the crash happened - finance pulled, costs cut, developer bust, yadda yadda. HAs manage some pretty horrible places - many of which are horrible because they simply have not been properly converted and/or maintained by the HA. Often the worst projects are also the most expensive per sqft because of poor management - and vice versa.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I didn't suggest they _can't_ be poor - nothing is so black and white. I don't think private is necessarily better quality than public built - they are both built to a variety of standards. I visited a fantastic cedar shingle clad HA developemt off Clarence Avenue during open house weekend. Basic standard inside - lots of vinyl instead of tiles, etc.. but a lovely job. I can't remember the figures but seem to remember my jaw dropping when the architect told me what the build cost was (high rather than low!). The point we were discussing was why a project like Clifton Mansions was economical for a developer when it had been deemed so much more expensive to renovate (about 2.5 times the RICS build cost guide) by the council.
> 
> I'd be curious to know the extent of the problems in the case you refer to (is it the Viaduct?). That development was a bit of a mare from what I heard as it was being built when the crash happened - finance pulled, costs cut, developer bust, yadda yadda. HAs manage some pretty horrible places - many of which are horrible because they simply have not been properly converted and/or maintained by the HA. Often the worst projects are also the most expensive per sqft because of poor management - and vice versa.


 
Given recent experiences I have had with Council it does cross my mind that the estimates they gave for Clifton Mansions were high as in fact they wanted to flog it off anyway. It was an excuse. If they had set there minds to it they could have kept the flats. Or got a HA to refurbish flats. Did surprise me to see that a private developer having no problem refurbishing the flats. Council always gave me impression the building was almost beyond repair. 

The Council say this about a lot of the houses they own in streets. Ideal for families. Someone from Tenants Council told me that Council really want to get rid of all street properties and old mansion blocks. Leaving the large estates only as Council stock. So a lot of the hand wringing from Council about high costs is to be viewed sceptically.

The Viaduct was started by some dodgy developer then taken over by Lexadon who had to do a lot of remedial works to get the building liveable and keeping to the original planning permission.

Some private developers can do a good job. Take for example the Black Cat building ( the old cigarette factory now offices )at the top of Hampstead road. A building that had been hacked about for years then restored by private developer with the two Black Cats back in place.

Some HA conversion jobs are pretty basic. Converting a building to flats can be done well. I have seen it in upmarket areas. But it costs. HA new builds are often better. I think a lot more thought goes into them.

Some of the best building Ive seen is when architects design and have there own homes built. Then everything is done right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 19, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Glad you have managed to calm down - you seemed to be getting in a bit of a muddle for a moment.
> 
> Now let's see if you are able to explain to a simpleton like me...


 
"Many a true word...." and all that.



> ....how your responses answered the question of why refurbishment is so very much cheaper for private developers than it is for the council. And perhaps clarify the fascinating little interjections about those pesky hygiene regs and minimum standards of "fit". I really appreciate your patience.


 
I wasn't talking about refurbishment. You were, as an aside ("just as an example") at the end of post #1143. I was talking about new build in post #1142, where I replied to Gramsci's post #1141, where he too talked about new build..

So please take your clumping, quotidian attempts at sarcasm, and deposit them where they'll irritate your haemorrhoids.

Thanks awfully.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Many a true word...." and all that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gniewosz (May 8, 2013)

Rushy said:


> What's the latest on Cressingham?
> 
> I hadn't been in there for a while and took a wander around with the dog t'other day. The single storey and houses are fantastic. Are the concrete blocked up ones (close to Brockwell Gate end) the ones with the structural problems Lambeth referred to?


 

Here is the latest newsletter published by the Cressingham TRA for the residents:
http://www.cressinghamgardens.org.uk/content/regeneration-newsletter-april-2013

Check out the document "2012.08.08 ESTIMATE Structural Works" that was obtained through a Freedom of Information request.  Council's own estimates are that it will only cost £365k to fix the structural issues on Cressingham, including £263k for the full rennovation of the 6 boarded up flats:
http://www.cressinghamgardens.org.uk/content/regeneration


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If I understand correctly, HAs and local authorities have to build to a minimum standard of fit, take account of accessibility for new housing etc, whereas *the only "standard" private developers have to meet is what will sell*, hence the weird design of some privately-developed housing, where the design is basically done with the aim of shoehorning "sales features" in.


 

That's not correct. Private developers have to meet the standards set by building regulations which very certainly include requirements for accessibility, as well as insulation, soundproofing, ventilation, fire safety and so on.

What they don't have to meet are the standards set for social housing which (unless my knowledge is out of date) include space standards, ie. minimum room sizes and so on.

In theory LAs can impose things like space standards on private developers via planning permissions but like you say there's no reason to assume they will.


----------



## Rushy (May 8, 2013)

teuchter said:


> That's not correct. Private developers have to meet the standards set by building regulations which very certainly include requirements for accessibility, as well as insulation, soundproofing, ventilation, fire safety and so on.
> 
> What they don't have to meet are the standards set for social housing which (unless my knowledge is out of date) include space standards, ie. minimum room sizes and so on.
> 
> In theory LAs can impose things like space standards on private developers via planning permissions but like you say there's no reason to assume they will.


 
Lambeth applies minimum space standards for all new private developments and conversion as set out here. Includes overall sizes and individual room sizes. These are strictly applied by planning.

So long as it is built to plan, the internal space can later be reconfigured without planning permission so long as there are no external alterations - but this is unlikely to be done by a developer as it is expensive and could cause complications when it comes to sales.


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Lambeth applies minimum space standards for all new private developments and conversion as set out here. Includes overall sizes and individual room sizes. These are strictly applied by planning.


 
There is however a convenient get-out clause in there -



> (v) In circumstances where proposals do not fully meet relevant guidance in the SPD,
> on minimum floorspace for room sizes and overall floor areas, it will be for
> developers to demonstrate through their design and access statements that their
> proposals are of sufficiently high quality and design to meet the overall policy
> ...


 
And based on some things I've seen built in Lambeth I can't say that their idea of "high quality design" corresponds with mine.


----------



## Rushy (May 8, 2013)

teuchter said:


> There is however a convenient get-out clause in there -
> 
> 
> 
> And based on some things I've seen built in Lambeth I can't say that their idea of "high quality design" corresponds with mine.


Are there any particular examples of these disagreeable developments which you've seen built in Lambeth which have avoided meeting space standards by relying on that clause?


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Are there any particular examples of these disagreeable developments which you've seen built in Lambeth which have avoided meeting space standards by relying on that clause?


No, I can't give you any examples or claim to have knowledge of how often it happens. My comment about the disagreeableness of developments in Lambeth relates mainly to external appearance. However, having been involved in many a planning application I do know that the "design and access statement" is often used to provide some negotiation room - ie. the LA can let an applicant contravene the strict letter of the planning guidance if they justify doing so by giving  reasons in the DAS. Usually in London projects it involves comment on the restrictive nature of the site. So there are means by which the LA can avoid strictly enforcing things mentioned in planning policy.

Regarding the comparison between space standards in private developments vs social housing I've also for some time had it as "received knowledge" that minimum space standards are higher in SH developments although I can't give you figures to prove that right now and am willing to be corrected.


----------



## Rushy (May 8, 2013)

teuchter said:


> No, I can't give you any examples or claim to have knowledge of how often it happens. My comment about the disagreeableness of developments in Lambeth relates mainly to external appearance. However, having been involved in many a planning application I do know that the "design and access statement" is often used to provide some negotiation room - ie. the LA can let an applicant contravene the strict letter of the planning guidance if they justify doing so by giving reasons in the DAS. Usually in London projects it involves comment on the restrictive nature of the site. So there are means by which the LA can avoid strictly enforcing things mentioned in planning policy.
> 
> Regarding the comparison between space standards in private developments vs social housing I've also for some time had it as "received knowledge" that minimum space standards are higher in SH developments although I can't give you figures to prove that right now and am willing to be corrected.


 
That may be so. The point I made is that Lambeth _does_ have housing size standards for private developments (unlike much of the country) and that it applies them pretty strictly. You seemed to imply that the size standards are widely ignored by invoking the get-out clause referred to above resulting in crappier developments but I don't think that's generally the case and it's probably not what you meant anyway. 

How they look on the outside is a different issue. I certainly wouldn't go to a planner for aesthetic advice.


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2013)

All I meant is that it's not a given that Lambeth applies them "strictly", just because they are mentioned in that planning guidance. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I don't know one way or another.


----------



## CH1 (May 9, 2013)

Now "Catford Dogs" gets the Barratts effect: the £117m redevelopment will bring 589 new homes to the publicly owned 4.7 hectare site in south London under a deal between the Mayor and Barratt London.
The scheme will include 113 affordable rent properties which will be managed by Gallions Housing Association, 60 shared ownership properties and 416 properties for private ownership.
Barratt London is among 25 developers announced last week to sit on the Mayor’s land procurement group, the London Development Panel.
http://www.building.co.uk/news/sect...0-home-revamp-of-catford-dogs/5054306.article


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 9, 2013)

Gniewosz said:


> Here is the latest newsletter published by the Cressingham TRA for the residents:
> http://www.cressinghamgardens.org.uk/content/regeneration-newsletter-april-2013
> 
> Check out the document "2012.08.08 ESTIMATE Structural Works" that was obtained through a Freedom of Information request. Council's own estimates are that it will only cost £365k to fix the structural issues on Cressingham, including £263k for the full rennovation of the 6 boarded up flats:
> http://www.cressinghamgardens.org.uk/content/regeneration


That newsletter is very illuminating - excellent work. £3.4m "missing" for repairs at Cressingham. And the statement that:



> ...the Council has admitted that its headline claim of ‘44% of tenanted properties are non-decent’, was actually based on a sample of merely 10% of properties. They are unable at present to list exactly what is needed to make each of the tenants’ homes decent.


 

Lambeth's modus operandi with regard to housing is dodgy as fuck: make unfounded claims, lie to residents, misrepresent statistics etc. Totally appalling.

Greebo ViolentPanda


----------



## editor (May 25, 2013)

The gates are up and Brixton has just acquired two new place names, Milles Square and Carney Place.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/05/...es-square-and-carney-place-in-brixton-square/


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 1, 2013)

editor said:


> The gates are up and Brixton has just acquired two new place names, Milles Square and Carney Place.
> 
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/05/...es-square-and-carney-place-in-brixton-square/


Yipeeee not long before we move in, come on folks work through the night and get this development finished.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 1, 2013)

When's the housewarming Mr Bim? 

Thats an ugly bloody entrance.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 1, 2013)

Belushi said:


> When's the housewarming Mr Bim?
> 
> Thats an ugly bloody entrance.


Lol, I move in in November now, and I agree the gates and entrance look bloody ugly, but the courtyard looks great once inside, also has a great communal area raised up on the first floor. House warming update to follow ok .


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 1, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> I had to quote this, as this really is a major and increasingly commonplace issue, and one I find myself discussing with other locals on a regular basis nowadays.
> 
> The long and the short of it is we're fucked. Those of us on lower incomes, who have lived in the area for many years (approaching 10 in my own case), face the imminent prospect of having to relocate. And Brixton is my home, my stomping ground, call it what you will. I love it here. And frankly, I don't want to live anywhere else, and it deeply fucking troubles me that I'm eventually going to be uprooted, and have to start again. Hence why, I have to say, these petty squabbles such as 'what constitutes a gated community?' piss me right off - I mean the Barrier Block, for fucks sake? Jesus Christ. It's an ominous (no offence to anyone that lives there - and personally I'd kill for a flat there!) building that the the influx of moneyed 'professionals' wouldn't set foot in if you paid them. It seems a safe bet that the Brixton Square Henry's won't be making much of an effort to get to know the older Caribbean set who perenially hang around outside the BB either. Though maybe Bim of Bar will prove me wrong. But I doubt it as he sounds a right plum.


Lol lol lol Oh my God. I was on another link and it switched me to this page, I am often floor laughing, can't wait for my girlfriend to get home so I show her what a plum I am ( I kinda like that tag) x


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 1, 2013)

You are incredibly unfunny, Mr Bim. Better not hope the mortgage rates go up or you split from your partner, eh?


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 1, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Lol lol lol Oh my God. I was on another link and it switched me to this page, I am often floor laughing, can't wait for my girlfriend to get home so I show her what a plum I am ( I kinda like that tag) x



If there's any justice in the world you'll be beaten to death within days.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Lol lol lol Oh my God. I was on another link and it switched me to this page, I am often floor laughing, can't wait for my girlfriend to get home so I show her what a plum I am ( I kinda like that tag) x


 
Did you find all the stuff about locals being priced out of their own community hilarious too?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 1, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> If there's any justice in the world you'll be beaten to death within days.


 
I'm not sure I'd advocate violence against him. Perhaps a little burglary of his new pad instead?


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Did you find all the stuff about locals being priced out of their own community hilarious too?



Nah, the shit for brains couldn't give a fuck, and as someone who has to relocate in the near future, and has seen the current market, owing to jumped up, pompous pricks like him: I maintain: I hope you get badly battered, within days.


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 1, 2013)

Welcome to the area, cunt


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2013)

I'm afraid can't go along with your wish for someone to be physically hurt, although I understand why you might feel such a way given his obnoxious attitude.


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 1, 2013)

Possibly a little booze talking  
But fuck him


----------



## leanderman (Jun 2, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> Nah, the shit for brains couldn't give a fuck, and as someone who has to relocate in the near future, and has seen the current market, owing to jumped up, pompous pricks like him: I maintain: I hope you get badly battered, within days.



I'll say it again: the ludicrous property market has little to do with the likes of Bim. 

It is dictated by the failure of government to build enough houses to cope with a London population rising by 100,000 every year from 2001.


----------



## twistedAM (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Lol lol lol Oh my God. I was on another link and it switched me to this page, I am often floor laughing, can't wait for my girlfriend to get home so I show her what a plum I am ( I kinda like that tag) x


 
Just wondering. Did she actually come home that night?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

twistedAM said:


> Just wondering. Did she actually come home that night?


Yeah she came home with with a bowl of fruit x


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> You are incredibly unfunny, Mr Bim. Better not hope the mortgage rates go up or you split from your partner, eh?


Oh but it's fine to call me a plum, I was actually laughing at someone calling me a plum. GET A GRIP PLEASE. and don't wish Ill on people you don't know.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> If there's any justice in the world you'll be beaten to death within days.


If there is any justice, you will have sent this post from your prison cell. I can't abide people who advocate violence.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Did you find all the stuff about locals being priced out of their own community hilarious too?


NOOOOOOOOO I WAS LAUGHING AT MYSELF, AND SEEING SOMEONE CALL ME  A  PLUM.

What is the problem with some of you people, why are you always looking for the negative ?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I'm not sure I'd advocate violence against him. Perhaps a little burglary of his new pad instead?


Mmmmm not great, but I suppose it's better than being beaten to death


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I'll say it again: the ludicrous property market has little to do with the likes of Bim.
> 
> It is dictated by the failure of government to build enough houses to cope with a London population rising by 100,000 every year from 2001.


Thank you thank you, a voice of reason, if I had my way I would love to see a 50% fall in property prices


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> Welcome to the area, cunt


Thank you, I love your community spirit x x x x x x x


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Thank you thank you, a voice of reason, if I had my way I would love to see a 50% fall in property prices


 
Even though you've just bought a flat you'd happily see yourself in a negative equity situation? Really?


----------



## fogbat (Jun 2, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> Welcome to the area, cunt


Foxtons' new corporate motto from August, I believe.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> NOOOOOOOOO I WAS LAUGHING AT MYSELF, AND SEEING SOMEONE CALL ME A PLUM.
> 
> What is the problem with some of you people, why are you always looking for the negative ?


 
I think you need to reread the full content of the post you quoted.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Even though you've just bought a flat you'd happily see yourself in a negative equity situation? Really?


I have three sons trying to buy property but can't afford to, my negative equity is of little concern to me


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

editor said:


> I think you need to reread the full content of the post you quoted.


Nope I know exactly what I meant


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I have three sons trying to buy property but can't afford to, my negative equity is of little concern to me


 
It will be if you have to sell the place to meet your obligations because your mortgage is sky-high.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> It will be if you have to sell the place to meet your obligations because your mortgage is sky-high.


Fortunately I have no mortgage


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Fortunately I have no mortgage


 
Maybe you should spare a thought for those of us that don't have a handy £300k in the bank.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Maybe you should spare a thought for those of us that don't have a handy £300k in the bank.


And what makes you think I don't, please explain why you are hating on me I truly am confused with the attitude of some of the people here, everything seems sooooooo negative and spiteful


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> And what makes you think I don't, please explain why you are hating on me I truly am confused with the attitude of some of the people here, everything seems sooooooo negative and spiteful


 
I'm not 'hating on you' (stupid phrase).

But coming onto a long-running forum in an area that has suddenly seen a large influx of hipster incomers taking advantage of flats built by developers that are well outside the price bracket of many locals, and boasting about how great this is for you and how happy you are with your new property, can't you see how that is putting people's backs up? Do you know what was on the site where your flat will be - an arts collective that benefited the whole community? Do you care that nearby the council is trying to evict residents of the same mansion block where one wall has the iconic Nuclear Dawn mural? Do you care that many social housing developments within the local area are being greedily eyed up by Lambeth Council so they can make more money by selling them off for private housing development?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I'm not 'hating on you' (stupid phrase).
> 
> But coming onto a long-running forum in an area that has suddenly seen a large influx of hipster incomers taking advantage of flats built by developers that are well outside the price bracket of many locals, and boasting about how great this is for you and how happy you are with your new property, can't you see how that is putting people's backs up? Do you know what was on the site where your flat will be - an arts collective that benefited the whole community? Do you care that nearby the council is trying to evict residents of the same mansion block where one wall has the iconic Nuclear Dawn mural? Do you care that many social housing developments within the local area are being greedily eyed up by Lambeth Council so they can make more money by selling them off for private housing development?


Yes I hear you and understand fully your point, firstly I was not boasting,but I am sure if you bought a property that you liked you would be pleased and looking forward to moving in. You need to vent your anger at the council NOT ME. everyone is complaining but I read on a previous post that only ONE PERSON turned up to lodge a complaint at a recent council meeting.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes I hear you and understand fully your point, firstly I was not boasting,but I am sure if you bought a property that you liked you would be pleased and looking forward to moving in. You need to vent your anger at the council NOT ME. everyone is complaining but I read on a previous post that only ONE PERSON turned up to lodge a complaint at a recent council meeting.


 
Did you know what was on the site before?

Do you know what the nuclear dawn mural is?

If I had enough money to buy a flat I would be pleased about it. But I wouldn't insult the local community by posting about how fab it was, on a thread where everyone was clearly unhappy about the situation.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Did you know what was on the site before?
> 
> Do you know what the nuclear dawn mural is?
> 
> If I had enough money to buy a flat I would be pleased about it. But I wouldn't insult the local community by posting about how fab it was, on a thread where everyone was clearly unhappy about the situation.


Ok, my post was both positive and negative about the block, I agreed with the previous post that the block looks ugly, the entrance looks ugly, and the gates look ugly, then I went on to say how nice the courtyard and communal areas were. But again you only look for the negative. I realise now I am wasting my time


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ok, my post was both positive and negative about the block, I agreed with the previous post that the block looks ugly, the entrance looks ugly, and the gates look ugly, then I went on to say how nice the courtyard and communal areas were. But again you only look for the negative. I realise now I am wasting my time


 
Why would you buy somewhere if you thought it was ugly? 

And you haven't answered the questions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> ...and don't wish Ill on people you don't know.


 
Pusillanimous hippy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> If there is any justice, you will have sent this post from your prison cell.


 
yes, we do very obviously need to waste prison accommodation on someone who ill-wished you, rather than on real criminals. 



> I can't abide people who advocate violence.


 
I can't abide pacifists, responsibility-shirkers and gobshites, but I don't wish prison on them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> And what makes you think I don't...


 
Your previous gloating, perhaps?



> ...please explain why you are hating on me I truly am confused with the attitude of some of the people here, everything seems sooooooo negative and spiteful


 
I doubt you're confused. Puzzled by the plebs talking back, but not confused.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Why would you buy somewhere if you thought it was ugly?
> 
> And you haven't answered the questions.


Grrrrrrrrrr  it's only the facial, the entrance, and the gates I object to, the rest is fine, everything in life is a compromise.
Yes I have read extensively the reports about the previous use of the block. I also watched  a BBC  documentary about the block opposite and the landlords, I think GUINNESS, trying to evict the tenant whilst increasing the rent for tenant on short leases, as they wish to knock down the block and according to the residents GENTRIFY the block. This is a local issue and you should all gather a strong residence association and fight this. Yes I think it's unfair, but all I did was buy a property in an area where I already live.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes I hear you...


 
...is often what people say when they're not *listening* to you. 



> ...and understand fully your point, firstly I was not boasting,but I am sure if you bought a property that you liked you would be pleased and looking forward to moving in.


 
Around 20% of the entire population will ever be in the situation to buy somewhere rather than take out a mortgage, so I'm not sure your supposition is one that has much meaning beyond that fraction of the population.



> You need to vent your anger at the council NOT ME. everyone is complaining but I read on a previous post that only ONE PERSON turned up to lodge a complaint at a recent council meeting.


 
You're not well-informed about the machinations of Lambeth Council when it comes to manipulating timetables etc to exclude public comment, are you?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> yes, we do very obviously need to waste prison accommodation on someone who ill-wished you, rather than on real criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't abide pacifists, responsibility-shirkers and gobshites, but I don't wish prison on them.


Mmmm he wished me to be beaten to death, I think prison is ok for him, but I've just spotted your user name, VIOLENT panda.
I won't respond to anything you have to say. Goodbye and good luck, I still wish you well x x x


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Mmmm he wished me to be beaten to death, I think prison is ok for him...


 
He wished you beaten to death.
yet here you still are, because (and this may come as a shock to you) words on a screen seldom translate to actual action, especially when the wisher is hoping an undefined third party will be beating the recipient of the wish.
But by all means, use up valuable resources in order to make yourself feel better!



> ...but I've just spotted your user name, VIOLENT panda.
> I won't respond to anything you have to say. Goodbye and good luck, I still wish you well x x x


 
It's a name, you dolt. It's a study in contradiction because, you see, giant pandas aren't violent.

Why me, oh Dark Lady of the Night? Why is it *me* that's destined to converse with people that have the gorms of an amoeba? Was it the fact that I slept with your daughters?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes I hear you and understand fully your point, firstly I was not boasting,but I am sure if you bought a property that you liked you would be pleased and looking forward to moving in. You need to vent your anger at the council NOT ME. everyone is complaining but I read on a previous post that only ONE PERSON turned up to lodge a complaint at a recent council meeting.


 
That was me who turned up. I am also in the process of the Council trying to evict me from across the road. The  Labour Council unlike there feeble response to Barratts watering down the affordable housing element have unleashed the full force of there legal team against me. But I am one of the little people.

Your post which kicked all this off was:



> Yipeeee not long before we move in, come on folks work through the night and get this development finished.


 
This in response to Ed Brixton Buzz piece which I have read. Seems pretty fair piece to me. Mentions the fact that local people were upset about the about the affordable element being changed.

So I do not understand why you made the comment you did. Its a deliberate wind up.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> The gates are up and Brixton has just acquired two new place names, Milles Square and Carney Place.
> 
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/05/...es-square-and-carney-place-in-brixton-square/


 
Being a cat I reckon I can get under those gates.

You would have thought Barratts could have made a better effort at design. Black asphalt, wooden rails and gate make it look like some industrial site.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2013)

Although Mr Bim's tone may be misjudged for this corner of U75, he is correct that anger would be better directed at the council than him. And he's certainly not said anything that would justify his being battered to death.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Although Mr Bim's tone may be misjudged for this corner of U75, he is correct that anger would be better directed at the council than him. And he's certainly not said anything that would justify his being battered to death.


Cheers teuchter, will buy you a drink if I see you, I will be the guy walking round in full body armour.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> That was me who turned up. I am also in the process of the Council trying to evict me from across the road. The  Labour Council unlike there feeble response to Barratts watering down the affordable housing element have unleashed the full force of there legal team against me. But I am one of the little people.
> 
> Your post which kicked all this off was:
> 
> ...


Nothing wrong with my post at all, have not been to the site in a couple of months and was excited to see the progress.I think that's a natural reaction and not a wind up.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Being a cat I reckon I can get under those gates.
> 
> You would have thought Barratts could have made a better effort at design. Black asphalt, wooden rails and gate make it look like some industrial site.


Barratt Homes aren't exactly renown for their high quality builds.

Latest reviews from this site: http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews141163.html


> *“Disappointment after disappointment.....”*
> 
> *“What a Joke”*
> 
> ...


More dire reviews here:
http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/real-estate-services/barratt-homes/reviews/


----------



## Chilavert (Jun 3, 2013)

In related property news can we start using the phrase 'diverse gastronomy' to describe the Villaaaage as found here:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-25066062.html

Edited for predictive text fail.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

Chilavert said:


> In related property news can we start using the reverse 'diverse gastronomy' to describe the Villaaaage as found here:
> 
> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-25066062.html


 
Oh, that's going straight into the soon-to-be unveiled A-Z of gentrification feature.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Nothing wrong with my post at all, have not been to the site in a couple of months and was excited to see the progress.I think that's a natural reaction and not a wind up.


 
I have been on the boards long enough to know when someone is deliberately trying to wind up people up.

Its a form of trolling.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Although Mr Bim's tone may be misjudged for this corner of U75, he is correct that anger would be better directed at the council than him. And he's certainly not said anything that would justify his being battered to death.


 
I have directed my anger at the Council in a constructive way. Done all the planning comments, turned up at planning committee etc. As usual , being one of the little people, I am not taken seriously.

The Council say its the governments fault. Barratts looked annoyed that one of the plebs had opposed there planning application.

Given the little effect on the powerful the little people have in reality I do not blame posters here having a go at Mr Bim of Bar.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> Barratt Homes aren't exactly renown for their high quality builds.
> 
> Latest reviews from this site: http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews141163.htmlMore dire reviews here:
> http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/real-estate-services/barratt-homes/reviews/


 
Seeing the Brixton Square nearing completion It does not look that high standard. Pretty basic imo.

Another ugly shoddily built building to accompany the one next door. Welcome to the new Brixton.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Given the little effect on the powerful the little people have in reality I do not blame posters here having a go at Mr Bim of Bar.


 

I doubt "the powerful" will be living in Brixton Square. Not sure who made the points but surely asking anyone to give any more than a passing recognition of the arts cooperative which ceased to occupy part of that site long before permission to develop was even sought is a bit self indulgent. And as a newcomer he has no obligation to give two shits about the mural - other than to recognise the fact that it means something to some long standing residents (and not others). If someone were supporting a campaign to have it painted over that would be a different story.

ETA. I agree he is probably trying to mildly wind people up. Getting wound  up is, however, entirely optional.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

Rushy said:


> If someone were supporting a campaign to have it painted over that would be a different story.


Given the way things are moving, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if that was mooted at some point. It's certainly a point of irritation to some folks with designs on the area.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I doubt "the powerful" will be living in Brixton Square. Not sure who made the points but surely asking anyone to give any more than a passing recognition of the arts cooperative which ceased to occupy part of that site long before permission to develop was even sought is a bit self indulgent. And as a newcomer he has no obligation to give two shits about the mural - other than to recognise the fact that it means something to some long standing residents (and not others). If someone were supporting a campaign to have it painted over that would be a different story.
> 
> ETA. I agree he is probably trying to mildly wind people up. Getting wound up is, however, entirely optional.


 
I was not talking about who lives in Brixton Sq. Teuchter was saying that people anger was better directed at the Council. I was replying to that comment.

What mural? I do not think there was one on the site originally. Not something I was going on about.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 3, 2013)

Chilavert said:


> In related property news can we start using the reverse 'diverse gastronomy' to describe the Villaaaage as found here:
> 
> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-25066062.html



Can't see anywhere in the property details: 

'Grandstand view of the July 6 Leander Road street party with eight live bands (incl Hobos, Poeticat, Peter Hunnigale, Mangoseed, Missing Links), free bike clinic, tug of war etc'.

 All welcome, including Bim.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Given the little effect on the powerful the little people have in reality I do not blame posters here having a go at Mr Bim of Bar.


 

Having a go at him for his flippancy, or having a go at him for being someone fortunate enough to be able to buy a flat in London? If it's the latter, then what do people want him to do - donate his cash to charity?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> Given the way things are moving, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if that was mooted at some point. It's certainly a point of irritation to some folks with designs on the area.


 
Maybe. But I wouldn't expect it would come from residents across the road.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Maybe. But I wouldn't expect it would come from residents across the road.


I'm not blaming them for that! I doubt if many of the nu-residents will care either way.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm not blaming them for that! I doubt if many of the nu-residents will care either way.



I really like the new mural in the Windmill playground.


----------



## Chilavert (Jun 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Can't see anywhere in the property details:
> 
> 'Grandstand view of the July 6 Leander Road street party with eight live bands (incl Hobos, Poeticat, Peter Hunnigale, Mangoseed, Missing Links), free bike clinic, tug of war etc'.
> 
> All welcome, including Bim.


The kind of information that would surely add another £10k to the asking price IMO.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I was not talking about who lives in Brixton Sq. Teuchter was saying that people anger was better directed at the Council. I was replying to that comment.


 
Sorry - I thought you were suggesting that it was justified for them to direct their anger at the new residents, like Bim, on account of them having the power. Of course, I can understand why people feel that they are not being listened to and anger from some is directed in frustration at the new residents - but it is generally misdirected and unjustified.




> What mural? I do not think there was one on the site originally. Not something I was going on about.


Not you. Someone else was rather aggressively pressing him on the Nuclear Dawn mural and eviction of Carlton Mansions and the destruction of Cooltan and being able to afford a flat and a few other things, in a manner which seemed to imply it was his fault or he should care more simply on account of moving into the area. All painful for some but it sounded a tad self indulgent demanding recognition in that way.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Not you. Someone else was rather aggressively pressing him on the Nuclear Dawn mural and eviction of Carlton Mansions and the destruction of Cooltan and being able to afford a flat and a few other things, in a manner which seemed to imply it was his fault or he should care more simply on account of moving into the area.


Who was this? The last mention of Cooltan in this thread was all the way back in October 2012*!

*according to the search function


----------



## Rushy (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm not blaming them for that! I doubt if many of the nu-residents will care either way.


 
No, I know you're not. Just that from earlier posts some seem to insist that they _must_ care. Which is nonsense. I've lived here for fifteen years or so and I don't care all that much about it myself, other than that I know it means a lot to some so any plans should be carefully weighed up and considered.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> Who was this? The last mention of Cooltan in this thread was all the way back in October 2012*!
> 
> *according to the search function


 
Referred to as a community arts collective. About a page back. I assumed it was Cooltan. Was there another significant one there?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 3, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Referred to as a community arts collective. About a page back. I assumed it was Cooltan. Was there another significant one there?


 
Maybe the meant Brick Box


----------



## JAC2013 (Jun 3, 2013)

Having just seen this thread I’d just like to add a quick response that not all (indeed I’m hoping no others) moving into this development have the same views/relationship building skills as Bim. Nothing personal Bim but your approach has done nothing but antagonise everybody in what is already a fraught situation following Lambeth’s/Barratts approach.  This is ultimately blo*dy frustrating as it’s the opposite approach to mine

For clarity I move into this development in the next couple of weeks having rented and lived in SW2, SW4 and SW9 over the past several years whilst I’ve tried to pull together a deposit. Having met a few others who have purchased a property here, I have to comment that the perception that it’s all buy to let/those that are wealthy is all a bit misleading. The majority I personally have spoken are either first time who have rented in the area for a number of years, or are simply relocating from an existing property in the area.  The underlying factor for doing this seems to be that everyone has enjoyed being part of Brixton and its community and thus want to make it a more permanent arrangement rather than getting shafted every 12 months by rental increases and having to move yet again. 

Therefore to all the other Brixton folk out there, a kind request not to treat all new residents as if they are Bim, and as I have been doing for several years, I will continue enjoy the great array that Brixton has to offer. Hopefully within a short time everyone will see that in reality the majority of the new residents are just existing folk who lived and supported the area. 

Whilst I greatly sympathise and agree with the wider affordable issues, and as some have actually stated, the blame for this shouldn’t fall on the new residents.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

Rushy said:


> No, I know you're not. Just that from earlier posts some seem to insist that they _must_ care.


The thing that does worry me slightly is that given that these flats have mainly been bought by Buy To Let landlords, we're likely to get a lot of people moving here for the short term and using it as a handy place to commute to the city, and I wonder if their transient nature means they'd be less likely to get involved in grassroots community affairs and campaigns?

Note the question mark there - I'm just thinking aloud here rather than offering any considered analysis!


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> Therefore to all the other Brixton folk out there, a kind request not to treat all new residents as if they are Bim, and as I have been doing for several years, I will continue enjoy the great array that Brixton has to offer. Hopefully within a short time everyone will see that in reality the majority of the new residents are just existing folk who lived and supported the area.


I'm not entirely sure what the demographics of the new residents will be, but there was certainly a big focus on catering for Buy To Let investors at their marketing day.

I'm not going to criticise anyone just for living their either. Well, not unless they act like Bim.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> The thing that does worry me slightly is that given that these flats have mainly been bought by Buy To Let landlords, we're likely to get a lot of people moving here for the short term and using it as a handy place to commute to the city, and I wonder if their transient nature means they'd be less likely to get involved in grassroots community affairs and campaigns?
> 
> Note the question mark there - I'm just thinking aloud here rather than offering any considered analysis!


 
I think it's fairly well established that renters are less likely to get involved in that sort of stuff, for obvious reasons (sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) so that's a fair point. There's a lot of rental property anywhere in London though so I'm not sure if this place would necessarily be any worse.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> The thing that does worry me slightly is that given that these flats have mainly been bought by Buy To Let landlords, we're likely to get a lot of people moving here for the short term and using it as a handy place to commute to the city, and I wonder if their transient nature means they'd be less likely to get involved in grassroots community affairs and campaigns?


 

In other words, it's likely to be populated by pretty much exactly the same demographic as has been living/renting in Brixton for at least a couple of decades. Except it's easier to caricature them when they are perceived to be living en masse in a "gated development" instead of dispersed around houseshares and flats in converted victorian terraces off Brixton Hill. Most of which are also owned by buy-to-let landlords.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> The thing that does worry me slightly is that given that these flats have mainly been bought by Buy To Let landlords, we're likely to get a lot of people moving here for the short term and using it as a handy place to commute to the city, and I wonder if their transient nature means they'd be less likely to get involved in grassroots community affairs and campaigns?
> 
> Note the question mark there - I'm just thinking aloud here rather than offering any considered analysis!


 
I'd expect it to be fairly transient too - even for owner occupiers. The reality is they are professional starter flats and most young professionals get shifted about about by their companies, or have to move jobs to secure pay increases / climb the job ladder. My first job was with a huge US multinational and they moved me from West to South (somewhere down the A3) in the first six months and then asked me to move to a different city less than a year later, so I chucked it in. Many of my old colleagues were told to move abroad or be made redundant.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> In other words, it's likely to be populated by pretty much exactly the same demographic as has been living/renting in Brixton for at least a couple of decades. Except it's easier to caricature them when they are perceived to be living en masse in a "gated development" instead of dispersed around houseshares and flats in converted victorian terraces off Brixton Hill. Most of which are also owned by buy-to-let landlords.



Exactly. Like this road. And these landlords turn up to collect their rent in tax-free cash, while letting the front walls and paintwork fall to pieces!


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> In other words, it's likely to be populated by pretty much exactly the same demographic as has been living/renting in Brixton for at least a couple of decades. Except it's easier to caricature them when they are perceived to be living en masse in a "gated development" instead of dispersed around houseshares and flats in converted victorian terraces off Brixton Hill. Most of which are also owned by buy-to-let landlords.


 
Except they're likelier to be far better off than the vast majority of their immediate neighbours, and I'd imagine the demographic will be a lot less mixed too.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 3, 2013)

If we truly want proper mixed communities in London, then we should put any new social housing in areas like Knightsbridge and wholly private developments in areas like central Brixton.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> If we truly want proper mixed communities in London, then we should put any new social housing in areas like Knightsbridge and wholly private developments in areas like central Brixton.


We've already got the latter and I'm all for the former.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> If we truly want proper mixed communities in London, then we should put any new social housing in areas like Knightsbridge and wholly private developments in areas like central Brixton.


 
That wouldn't really get you mixed communities tbh. I don't know about Knightbridge but Chelsea for example has some large council estates and I don't think there's much integration there.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> Except they're likelier to be far better off than the vast majority of their immediate neighbours, and I'd imagine the demographic will be a lot less mixed too.


So do you want a Brixton with segregated areas for the richer and the poorer, or what?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

Think w





Gramsci said:


> I have been on the boards long enough to know when someone is deliberately trying to wind up people up.
> 
> Its a form of trolling.


think what you will, I have been honest on everyone of my post, a little flippant on a couple for which I apologise,but generally honest about how I feel about my situation


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Can't see anywhere in the property details:
> 
> 'Grandstand view of the July 6 Leander Road street party with eight live bands (incl Hobos, Poeticat, Peter Hunnigale, Mangoseed, Missing Links), free bike clinic, tug of war etc'.
> 
> All welcome, including Bim.


Thank you kind sir


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> So do you want a Brixton with segregated areas for the richer and the poorer, or what?


WTF?  

I'd like a Brixton where new developments are compelled to honour their affordable housing obligations. How about you?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> WTF?
> 
> I'd like a Brixton where new developments are compelled to honour their affordable housing obligations. How about you?


 
Me too. However, that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about your concern that many of the flats would be let by buy-to-let landlords. I pointed out that there is loads of this kind of housing in Brixton anyway. You said the difference here is that this particular housing is adjacent to areas where people will be significantly less well off. So I am wondering why you brought that point up, in the context of the discussion about the type of people that were likely to be living in the development. Because it appeared you were suggesting that the economic situation of people living near a new development was relevant to what kind of people it would be acceptable to have living in that development.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Me too. However, that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about your concern that many of the flats would be let by buy-to-let landlords. I pointed out that there is loads of this kind of housing in Brixton anyway


Yes there is. But this is a _whole fresh new batch_ of Buy To Let landlords in a development that has reneged on its commitment to provide affordable housing and that concerns me.

I can't be arsed to waste time with whatever other dull nitpicking exercise you're limbering up for, though, so you'll have to keep on "wondering."


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 3, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Sorry - I thought you were suggesting that it was justified for them to direct their anger at the new residents, like Bim, on account of them having the power. Of course, I can understand why people feel that they are not being listened to and anger from some is directed in frustration at the new residents - but it is generally misdirected and unjustified.
> 
> Not you. Someone else was rather aggressively pressing him on the Nuclear Dawn mural and eviction of Carlton Mansions and the destruction of Cooltan and being able to afford a flat and a few other things, in a manner which seemed to imply it was his fault or he should care more simply on account of moving into the area. All painful for some but it sounded a tad self indulgent demanding recognition in that way.


 
I wasn't being aggressive. He said he was a long-time resident of the Brixton and as such, when he extolls everybody else to complain to the council about the state of affairs, I find it a bit rich when he doesn't include himself in that. Really smacks of 'do I as say, not as I do'.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 3, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Referred to as a community arts collective. About a page back. I assumed it was Cooltan. Was there another significant one there?


 
I think it was me, as all the stuff I had read about Cooltan (mainly your posts and blog writings) refer to it as an arts centre/collective of some decsription. My apologies if I've not used the correct description.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I wasn't being aggressive. He said he was a long-time resident of the Brixton and as such, when he extolls everybody else to complain to the council about the state of affairs, I find it a bit rich when he doesn't include himself in that. Really smacks of 'do I as say, not as I do'.


 
Do you live in Brixton?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I wasn't being aggressive. He said he was a long-time resident of the Brixton and as such, when he extolls everybody else to complain to the council about the state of affairs, I find it a bit rich when he doesn't include himself in that. Really smacks of 'do I as say, not as I do'.


I have never said I was a long time resident (show me where I said that) I said I was moving to an area where I ALREADY LIVE. I do t need to include myself as I am not aggrieved


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 3, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I have never said I was a long time resident (show me where I said that) I said I was moving to an area where I ALREADY LIVE. I do t need to include myself as I am not aggrieved


 
My mistake. How long have you lived there?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you live in Brixton?


 
No I do not. But I am involved in fighting with my local council on various planning applications for my local area, although I haven't lived in the area long I can see the damage that will happen if every application from developers goes ahead.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm not entirely sure what the demographics of the new residents will be, but there was certainly a big focus on catering for Buy To Let investors at their marketing day.
> 
> I'm not going to criticise anyone just for living their either. Well, not unless they act like Bim.


Errrrr I am a nice guy x x


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> My mistake. How long have you lived there?


I currently live on Brixton Hill and have been here for two years, previous to that Streatham and previous to that Croydon


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you live in Brixton?


Classic stuff.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> No I do not. But I am involved in fighting with my local council on various planning applications for my local area, although I haven't lived in the area long I can see the damage that will happen if every application from developers goes ahead.


You bloody mean I had been taking all this abuse from you and you don't even live in the area lol, but I admire your tenacity,and your sense of purpose.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> Classic stuff.


Yeah I love it, you couldn't write it .........oh we just did lol


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 3, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> You bloody mean I had been taking all this abuse from you and you don't even live in the area lol, but I admire your tenacity,and your sense of purpose.


 
I did not abuse you. You'd know if I did.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 3, 2013)

Am I not allowed to have any opinion on this subject because I don't live in the area?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Am I not allowed to have any opinion on this subject because I don't live in the area?


Yes of course you can, In a way it's almost more relevant, I love your dedication, but I was slightly shocked that after all your comments we find out that you are an outsider ( nooooooooooo that was a joke don't batter me )


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Am I not allowed to have any opinion on this subject because I don't live in the area?


 

You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise. Especially if you're telling people off for not knowing about or being interested in the history of Cooltan or the nuclear dawn mural. You'll find plenty of very long-term residents of Brixton in whose life and Brixton experience Cooltan played no significant role. It so happens that U75 is largely populated by a demographic who went to all-night parties there in their youth, which is why you'll hear a lot about it on here.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise. Especially if you're telling people off for not knowing about or being interested in the history of Cooltan or the nuclear dawn mural. You'll find plenty of very long-term residents of Brixton in whose life and Brixton experience Cooltan played no significant role. It so happens that U75 is largely populated by a demographic who went to all-night parties there in their youth, which is why you'll hear a lot about it on here.


Here here


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise. Especially if you're telling people off for not knowing about or being interested in the history of Cooltan or the nuclear dawn mural. You'll find plenty of very long-term residents of Brixton in whose life and Brixton experience Cooltan played no significant role. It so happens that U75 is largely populated by a demographic who went to all-night parties there in their youth, which is why you'll hear a lot about it on here.


I'm finding this obsession with Cooltan rather strange. Who's been going on about the place recently in relation to this debate? Anyone?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 3, 2013)

I mentioned it in one post, that's all.


----------



## Manter (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Being a cat I reckon I can get under those gates.
> 
> You would have thought Barratts could have made a better effort at design. Black asphalt, wooden rails and gate make it look like some industrial site.


Lots of new builds seem to be staggeringly ugly, tbf.  The ones on Tulse Hill next to Tesco look OK compared to many- I suspect is a cost thing. Standard sized windows, gates etc look really small on a block as opposed to on a single house, which they were designed for- but developers don't want to pay for better quality/more in keeping details.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

The Barratt Homes development on Coldharbour Lane looks like a bland office block from Milton Keynes or somewhere. It's marginally better than the Viaduct building next door, but that's really not saying much.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Having a go at him for his flippancy, or having a go at him for being someone fortunate enough to be able to buy a flat in London? If it's the latter, then what do people want him to do - donate his cash to charity?


 
What I was trying to say was I can understand why some posters can go off on one in response to his post. Trying to change things in a constructive manner has not got me very far. When one lives in an unequal society like this one a section of the population can start to feel powerless. Having a go at someone may not be nice but this is what happens.

The more unequal a society the more unpleasant it can get. I have a South African friend. In SA the well off have to live in gated and guarded communities for there own safety. This is directly related to the large gap between rich and poor.

Really do not want to see that here. But the way its going in London with the "reforms" to housing and benefits London will become less mixed. Until recently it different income brackets lived in same areas. The economic crisis is also hitting the less well of more.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

editor said:


> The Barratt Homes development on Coldharbour Lane looks like a bland office block from Milton Keynes or somewhere. It's marginally better than the Viaduct building next door, but that's really not saying much.


Agreed but inside it looks great, well until we see the snagging list


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

Manter said:


> Lots of new builds seem to be staggeringly ugly, tbf. The ones on Tulse Hill next to Tesco look OK compared to many- I suspect is a cost thing. Standard sized windows, gates etc look really small on a block as opposed to on a single house, which they were designed for- but developers don't want to pay for better quality/more in keeping details.


 
Yes its the details that let it down a lot. Looks to me like cheap materials. Compare it to Clifton Mansions. Which has a much better quality look to it.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> What I was trying to say was I can understand why some posters can go off on one in response to his post. Trying to change things in a constructive manner has not got me very far. When one lives in an unequal society like this one a section of the population can start to feel powerless. Having a go at someone may not be nice but this is what happens.
> 
> The more unequal a society the more unpleasant it can get. I have a South African friend. In SA the well off have to live in gated and guarded communities for there own safety. This is directly related to the large gap between rich and poor.
> 
> Really do not want to see that here. But the way its going in London with the "reforms" to housing and benefits London will become less mixed. Until recently it different income brackets lived in same areas. The economic crisis is also hitting the less well of more.


Gramsci, I have broad shoulders, I can take it, believe it or not I do get it


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Agreed but inside it looks great, well until we see the snagging list


 
 Does not look like Barratts are good on dealing with snagging list from some of the reviews Ed put up.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> What I was trying to say was I can understand why some posters can go off on one in response to his post. Trying to change things in a constructive manner has not got me very far. When one lives in an unequal society like this one a section of the population can start to feel powerless. Having a go at someone may not be nice but this is what happens.
> 
> The more unequal a society the more unpleasant it can get. I have a South African friend. In SA the well off have to live in gated and guarded communities for there own safety. This is directly related to the large gap between rich and poor.
> 
> Really do not want to see that here. But the way its going in London with the "reforms" to housing and benefits London will become less mixed. Until recently it different income brackets lived in same areas. The economic crisis is also hitting the less well of more.


 

This is pretty much spot on.

The sad thing being that - while different income brackets have, and should, live in the same areas - the children go to different schools.


----------



## Manter (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise. Especially if you're telling people off for not knowing about or being interested in the history of Cooltan or the nuclear dawn mural. You'll find plenty of very long-term residents of Brixton in whose life and Brixton experience Cooltan played no significant role. It so happens that U75 is largely populated by a demographic who went to all-night parties there in their youth, which is why you'll hear a lot about it on here.


True..... But.....  Renters often become buyers- when I moved down to London from uni I rented in Battersea and hated it- the Northerner has rented in Notting Hill and Balham on his time and hated both- we moved to Brixton and loved it.  Sure, initially, we didn't know about the murals, or the local challenges or even the history of community action, squatting etc- we vaguely knew there were riots a long time ago, we could afford the rent and transport networks were decent (yeah, I know, pretty fucking pathetic of us).... We've since bought (and I know we're bloody lucky to be in a position to) and are committed to putting down roots here and becoming part of the community, rather than just commuters and parasites.  Even if parts of the community want to come after us with flaming pitchforks occasionally 

What is worrying though is that as gentrification gathers pace, people are being pushed out- partly because the gentrifiers have been pushed out of the last places they gentrified by rocketing prices across London, and partly because Lambeth are arrogant idiots who appear to have no concept of how to manage 'regeneration'. Brixton homogenising is a bad thing for all sorts of reasons- and I do worry, somewhat impotently, about my part in it.  That may make me slightly less irritating than some of the braying hoorays moving in (please god) but I am as much a part of the problem, I guess.  I don't want people to lose their homes, I want council (not ''affordable') housing, and so I try and get involved where I can to hold Lambeth to some kind of account.  

Struggling to express myself (its complicated and I'm tired!) but I guess I am saying the individuals, even the irritating arrogant ones are not the problem. They are just doing the best they can with the resources they have available- the system is the issue.  But the system doesn't shove past you on the way I to the market wearing designer clothes and talking crap about their latest ski holiday, so it's easier to get at the individuals.... But that just makes those individuals *less* likely to get involved in the community and try and mitigate their effect on it. 

Hmm, stream of consciousness. Will shut up now and try and order my thoughts!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> This is pretty much spot on.
> 
> The sad thing being that - while different income brackets have, and should, live in the same areas - the children go to different schools.


 
I have been hearing that is happening in London. Parents who went to state schools in 70s now are sometimes sending there children to private schools. Not a good sign for the future.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Does not look like Barratts are good on dealing with snagging list from some of the reviews Ed put up.


Yes I saw that, but bearing in mind they are the UK. Largest house builder I am sure there are more people who are happy with their property than are unhappy, happy folk don't usually post how pleased they are. BUT STILL GOT MY FINGERS CROSSED


----------



## leanderman (Jun 3, 2013)

I asked the columnist at the Economist why he has just moved opposite us.

He said: 'Last affordable house inside Zone 2. Plus an RC primary school.'


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 3, 2013)

Manter said:


> True..... But.....  Renters often become buyers- when I moved down to London from uni I rented in Battersea and hated it- the Northerner has rented in Notting Hill and Balham on his time and hated both- we moved to Brixton and loved it.  Sure, initially, we didn't know about the murals, or the local challenges or even the history of community action, squatting etc- we vaguely knew there were riots a long time ago, we could afford the rent and transport networks were decent (yeah, I know, pretty fucking pathetic of us).... We've since bought (and I know we're bloody lucky to be in a position to) and are committed to putting down roots here and becoming part of the community, rather than just commuters and parasites.  Even if parts of the community want to come after us with flaming pitchforks occasionally
> 
> What is worrying though is that as gentrification gathers pace, people are being pushed out- partly because the gentrifiers have been pushed out of the last places they gentrified by rocketing prices across London, and partly because Lambeth are arrogant idiots who appear to have no concept of how to manage 'regeneration'. Brixton homogenising is a bad thing for all sorts of reasons- and I do worry, somewhat impotently, about my part in it.  That may make me slightly less irritating than some of the braying hoorays moving in (please god) but I am as much a part of the problem, I guess.  I don't want people to lose their homes, I want council (not ''affordable') housing, and so I try and get involved where I can to hold Lambeth to some kind of account.
> 
> ...


Nope, well  said I agree with 99%


----------



## leanderman (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I have been hearing that is happening in London. Parents who went to state schools in 70s now are sometimes sending there children to private schools. Not a good sign for the future.


 

Perhaps the best-known musician in SW2 has just moved, I think temporarily, to Tooting for school catchment reasons.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> Having just seen this thread I’d just like to add a quick response that not all (indeed I’m hoping no others) moving into this development have the same views/relationship building skills as Bim. Nothing personal Bim but your approach has done nothing but antagonise everybody in what is already a fraught situation following Lambeth’s/Barratts approach. This is ultimately blo*dy frustrating as it’s the opposite approach to mine


 
Good post

Well I hope its not full of buy to let landlords.

As you say Barratts have not helped matters.

There marketing suite has been pushing sales as good buy to let investment.

There attitude at about altering the affordable element was to be annoyed that anyone would object.

The Labour Council does not give existing Council tenants the support they should get.

The Labour Council does not do enough to support affordable housing.


----------



## Manter (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Snip>>
> 
> Really do not want to see that here. But the way its going in London with the "reforms" to housing and benefits London will become less mixed. Until recently it different income brackets lived in same areas. The economic crisis is also hitting the less well of more.


I completely agree with this.  And the loveliest thing about London has always been that everyone lived on top of each other and (mostly) rubbed along.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> No I do not. But I am involved in fighting with my local council on various planning applications for my local area, although I haven't lived in the area long I can see the damage that will happen if every application from developers goes ahead.


 
You have been on the boards a long time though.

Same stuff goes on up your way?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> If we truly want proper mixed communities in London, then we should put any new social housing in areas like Knightsbridge and wholly private developments in areas like central Brixton.


 
A fair few Labour councillors would agree with you, given their belief that Lambeth has "too much" social housing already.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That wouldn't really get you mixed communities tbh. I don't know about Knightbridge but Chelsea for example has some large council estates and I don't think there's much integration there.


 
Yep, Chelsea and Pimlico etc, the whole "social housing ghettos" idea is much more advanced and obvious. Enough so that it was noticable 20 years ago.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you live in Brixton?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Errrrr I am a nice guy x x


 
Self-praise is no recommendation.


----------



## Manter (Jun 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A fair few Labour councillors would agree with you, given their belief that Lambeth has "too much" social housing already.


That is just infuriating.  Too much badly maintained and decrepit housing, sure- some ugly and intimidating estates, sure.  But that's not the fault of it being social housing, it's the fault of it being badly maintained, badly lit, badly policed and badly managed- which is their bloody fault!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Am I not allowed to have any opinion on this subject because I don't live in the area?


 
Of course you are, whatever your dour fellow-countryman says otherwise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise. Especially if you're telling people off for not knowing about or being interested in the history of Cooltan or the nuclear dawn mural. You'll find plenty of very long-term residents of Brixton in whose life and Brixton experience Cooltan played no significant role. *It so happens that U75 is largely populated by a demographic who went to all-night parties there in their youth, which is why you'll hear a lot about it on here.*


 
Evidence?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> You have been on the boards a long time though.
> 
> Same stuff goes on up your way?


 
Yes, pretty much. My dad opposed planning applications on a regular basis when I was at uni, so I learnt most of what I know about objections from him.

About 4 years ago, Tesco (via a developer) tried to get a huge superstore built across the road from where I live, on a site that was not suitable in any way shape or form, and the local residents formed an action group and managed to get Tesco to build the store elsewhere on a better site. Didn't stop them demolishing a building that was supposed to be kept just before they pulled out though - they claimed it was dangerous and it was for safety reasons. Which was a bit rich, considering they left a massive hole in in the side of a bridge when they did so.

The same developer is now trying to get planning permission on the same site for a 729 bed student residence (no parking though). I only found out about this because the residents association put a flyer through everyone's letterbox giving a copy of the objections they'd made. The notices of the application that should have been displayed on the street have clearly been torn down (although by whom is anybody's guess) and I ended up with one evening to put my objections together. I couldn't help but feel the developer really didn't want any opposition to their plans.

Many buildings here are being deliberately left to rot so that they can be demolished rather than restored. It's scandalous considering the waiting lists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2013)

Manter said:


> That is just infuriating. Too much badly maintained and decrepit housing, sure- some ugly and intimidating estates, sure. But that's not the fault of it being social housing, it's the fault of it being badly maintained, badly lit, badly policed and badly managed- which is their bloody fault!


 
Besides which, the only reason they're able to say that Lambeth has "too much" is because after Thatcher kicked the Greater London Council to death, the boroughs inherited the GLC's social housing. In Lambeth's case, that was (IIRC) a dozen or so large estates and some smaller ones added to their roster (with bugger-all in the way of extra funding for maintenance etc, because of the rates cap).
"Too much" is relative. Of course, what some of those councillors mean is "there's enough social housing that it's a block to taking the borough further upmarket".


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise. Especially if you're telling people off for not knowing about or being interested in the history of Cooltan or the nuclear dawn mural. You'll find plenty of very long-term residents of Brixton in whose life and Brixton experience Cooltan played no significant role.* It so happens that U75 is largely populated by a demographic who went to all-night parties there in their youth, which is why you'll hear a lot about it on here*.


 
ViolentPanda

Thanks to VP for highlighting that.

I didn’t. More into going to cinema. Not that sociable.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> ViolentPanda
> 
> Thanks to VP for highlighting that.
> 
> I didn’t. More into going to cinema. Not that sociable.


I don't know hardly any regular urban posters who went to Cooltan. It's a total irrelevance to this debate.


ViolentPanda said:


> Evidence?


Good luck with getting an answer to that one!


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2013)

What kind of evidence do you want? You rejecting the notion that urban75 and a significant portion of its postership have connection to the ideals and worldview that are tied up with squatting, free parties, self-organised community activism and so on that (based on what I've read about it here) were part of what cooltan was all about?

Are you objecting to my suggestion that the impression you might get of Brixton, and what matters to people who live there, by reading only urban75, would be a somewhat slanted one?

Are you actually interested in discussing the point being made, or maybe you are just "limbering up for a dull nitpicking exercise"?


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What kind of evidence do you want? You rejecting the notion that urban75 and a significant portion of its postership have connection to the ideals and worldview that are tied up with squatting, free parties, self-organised community activism and so on that (based on what I've read about it here) were part of what cooltan was all about?


LOL at that _awesome_ swerve and piece of chicanery!

Here's what you said again:


> Especially if you're telling people off for not knowing about or being interested in the history of Cooltan or the nuclear dawn mural. You'll find plenty of very long-term residents of Brixton in whose life and Brixton experience Cooltan played no significant role. It so happens that U75 is largely populated by a demographic who went to all-night parties there in their youth, which is why you'll hear a lot about it on here.


Would you care to name some of the active posters from the majority of the urban75 community who went to Cooltan's 'all night parties' because I'm struggling to think of more than a handful. I'm certainly struggling to think of many who apparently still go on about the place here, like you claimed.

Or, alternatively, you could just admit that you're talking silly tosh about something you know little about, and then we can get right back on topic.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2013)

Not actually interested in discussing the point being made, then. There's a surprise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2013)

editor said:


> I don't know hardly any regular urban posters who went to Cooltan. It's a total irrelevance to this debate.
> 
> Good luck with getting an answer to that one!


 
I'm expecting the usual havering and shifting of goalposts, frankly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What kind of evidence do you want? You rejecting the notion that urban75 and a significant portion of its postership have connection to the ideals and worldview that are tied up with squatting, free parties, self-organised community activism and so on that (based on what I've read about it here) were part of what cooltan was all about?
> 
> Are you objecting to my suggestion that the impression you might get of Brixton, and what matters to people who live there, by reading only urban75, would be a somewhat slanted one?
> 
> Are you actually interested in discussing the point being made, or maybe you are just "limbering up for a dull nitpicking exercise"?


 
So now it's a "significant portion" of Urbanites "who have connections...", rather than the boards being "largely populated" by "...a demographic who went to all-night parties in their youth"?

As ever, you teeter to the edge, then realise you're about to fall into a pit of your own making, then desperately row back.  Of course, you'll *furiously* protest that both descriptions mean the same thing.
But I suspect that you and I (and maybe other posters too!) know that they're not.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2013)

I'm unable to 'prove' my initial statement because it's imprecise, I never went to a cooltan party and I don't know most U75 members personally. I am perfectly happy to retract it and replace it with the other one, if it troubles you so.

Now tell me how this affects the general point I was making to equationgirl. Because I know how fervently you and Mr. editor despise tedious nitpicking and point-scoring.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I'm unable to 'prove' my initial statement because it's imprecise, I never went to a cooltan party and I don't know most U75 members personally. I am perfectly happy to retract it and replace it with the other one, if it troubles you so.


It's not 'imprecise.' It's completely inaccurate and untruthful bollocks that you posted up in an attempt to belittle and dismiss any opinions expressed here that you don't agree with.

And yes, that was_ exactly_ the 'general point' you were trying to make: i.e. the opinions of the majority of posters here are biased, skewed or unrepresentative of Brixton because they supposedly all went partying at Cooltan.

It was a stupid, crass attempt at smearing other posters and it's deservedly backfired spectacularly on you.

Now if you've finished with your clueless analysis of the demographics of this board, can we get back to the actual topic under discussion? Thanks.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2013)

Why is suggesting that posters on U75 went partying at cooltan a "smear"? Is there something wrong with having gone to parties at cooltan? You're taking your tilting at windmills to new extremes now.

You're so desperate to dismiss anything I say that you are effectively now arguing that it's "clueless" to suggest that a large portion of u75 posters would feel aligned with what cooltan represented.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2013)

Jeez. Give it up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I'm unable to 'prove' my initial statement because it's imprecise, I never went to a cooltan party and I don't know most U75 members personally. I am perfectly happy to retract it and replace it with the other one, if it troubles you so.
> 
> Now tell me how this affects the general point I was making to equationgirl. Because I know how fervently you and Mr. editor despise tedious nitpicking and point-scoring.


 
It affects the very basis of your "general point".


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Not actually interested in discussing the point being made, then. There's a surprise.


 
I will say it again.

I am long standing poster on this site. I am not part of this demographic:



> It so happens that U75 is largely populated by a demographic who went to all-night parties there in their youth, which is why you'll hear a lot about it on here.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2013)

You seem very keen to disassociate yourself with that demographic, gramsci .... why?


----------



## leanderman (Jun 4, 2013)

I have no idea about this Cooltan thing but I get the feeling that everyone here - bar me - likes, and goes to, the Albert!


----------



## Manter (Jun 4, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I have no idea about this Cooltan thing but I get the feeling that everyone here - bar me - likes, and goes to, the Albert!


I've never been in.  So maybe we're a minority demographic....  can we form a special interest group or something?


----------



## peterkro (Jun 4, 2013)

Baah,Cooltan,it was for a much longer time "the dole office".


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2013)

leanderman said:


> everyone here - bar me - likes, and goes to, the Albert!


 
I demand, in the strongest, most melodramatic tone possible, that you retract this outrageous smear immediately.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 5, 2013)

This will further fuel Brixton house prices (spread in today's Daily Mail). 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mo...se-Blackpool-sell-50-000--whats-going-on.html


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2013)

leanderman said:


> This will further fuel Brixton house prices (spread in today's Daily Mail). View attachment 33313
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mo...se-Blackpool-sell-50-000--whats-going-on.html


 

I see Brixton has been demoted from "vibrant" to "once-edgy".


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2013)

Sigh. 


> At Beresford Residential estate agents in once-edgy Brixton in South-West London, it is a different story altogether. A two-bedroom terrace house in this scruffy part of the capital now goes for between £400,000 and £500,000.
> 
> It’s an astonishing turnaround for a part of the city once tainted with a chequered history that includes race riots and drug peddling — it was once described as a 24-hour crack supermarket by the local police chief superintendent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rushy (Jun 5, 2013)

Reckon it will keep going too. Two stops from Vauxhall where the huge new Chinese and US embassies, as well as others, are going in. Very, very convenient for them.


----------



## Chilavert (Jun 5, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I see Brixton has been demoted from "vibrant" to "once-edgy".


*Puts flat on the market*


----------



## Manter (Jun 5, 2013)

H





leanderman said:


> This will further fuel Brixton house prices (spread in today's Daily Mail). View attachment 33313
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mo...se-Blackpool-sell-50-000--whats-going-on.html


How do they get to 100 buyers per house??!! bullshit statistics detector is going off


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2013)

Manter said:


> H
> How do they get to 100 buyers per house??!! bullshit statistics detector is going off


Well I can't imagine an estate agent would exaggerate wildly, and I am confident the Daily Mail would thoroughly check out any statistics they publish.


----------



## Manter (Jun 5, 2013)

Oh yes, silly me....


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You seem very keen to disassociate yourself with that demographic, gramsci .... why?


 
I am not "disassoiating" myself from a demographic. I was not part of the demographic. Are you saying I am part of that demgraphic despite not going to all night parties and Cooltan?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 5, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Well I can't imagine an estate agent would exaggerate wildly, and I am confident the Daily Mail would thoroughly check out any statistics they publish.


107 Apartment in Brixton Square sold out immediately upon release


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I am not "disassoiating" myself from a demographic. I was not part of the demographic. Are you saying I am part of that demgraphic despite not going to all night parties and Cooltan?


 

Nope, and I never did. Which was why I found it curious that you felt the need to point it out twice that you were not part of a group that I never said you were part of.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Nope, and I never did. Which was why I found it curious that you felt the need to point it out twice that you were not part of a group that I never said you were part of.


 
Because you say the demographic is largely populated by people who went to all night parties in there youth. Which is why you think Cooltan is mentioned a lot here.

I am pointing out that I am not part of that demographic. And I am long time Brixton resident and poster on this section of Urban.


----------



## Winot (Jun 5, 2013)

I didn't go to Cooltan either, although I don't post here as much as Gramsci. Where do I fit in eh? 

#venn


----------



## Rushy (Jun 5, 2013)

All this because one person tried to score a point from a new Brixton Square resident (although I have my doubts) by challenging them about, amongst other things, how much they knew and cared about the community arts collective their new home had allegedly replaced, perhaps not realising that said collective had been evicted some 15-16 yrs earlier.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Because you say the demographic is largely populated by people who went to all night parties in there youth.


 
No I don't. Initially I said that urban75 was largely populated by a demographic who went to the cooltan parties. My revised statement says that urban75 is largely populated by a demographic who are aligned with the ideals that cooltan represented. Neither of these statements necessarily include you in the demographic described, except in a scenario where you and editor are the only members of U75, and I think we can safely say that is not the case.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2013)

Rushy said:


> All this because one person tried to score a point from a new Brixton Square resident (although I have my doubts) by challenging them about, amongst other things, how much they knew and cared about the community arts collective their new home had allegedly replaced, perhaps not realising that said collective had been evicted some 15-16 yrs earlier.


 
Indeed.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 5, 2013)

I think the Cooltan thing is a distraction, and tangential to the main and more important contention of Teuchter, which was: 

'You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise'


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2013)

teuchter said:


> No I don't. Initially I said that urban75 was largely populated by a demographic who went to the cooltan parties. My revised statement says that urban75 is largely populated by a demographic who are aligned with the ideals that cooltan represented.


And that's a load of bollocks too. Why do you keep bringing up something you know absolutely nothing about? Cooltan was many things to many people (rehearsal space, political centre, art studio, folk gig, techno gig, cafe, community space, meeting place, dance studio etc) and to try and make out there was some sort of unified 'ethos' that now resonates through urban75 today is utter rubbish.

Cooltan has been gone for way over a decade and barely anyone here even went there, let alone knows what it's supposed to represent.


leanderman said:


> I think the Cooltan thing is a distraction, and tangential to the main and more important contention of Teuchter, which was:
> 
> 'You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise'


I don't think anyone has ever claimed u75 to represent anything other than the opinions of the posters who comment here. Sometimes those opinions all agree, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they chime with a popular view in Brixton, sometimes they don't. They're just as valid as anyone else's though.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2013)

editor said:


> And that's a load of bollocks too. Why do you keep bringing up something you know absolutely nothing about? Cooltan was many things to many people (rehearsal space, political centre, art studio, folk gig, techno gig, cafe, community space, meeting place, dance studio etc) and to try and make out there was some sort of unified 'ethos' that now resonates through urban75 today is utter rubbish.
> 
> Cooltan has been gone for way over a decade and barely anyone here even went there, let alone knows what it's supposed to represent.


 

Does your feature on cooltan misrepresent what it was all about, then? 

I challenge anyone who knows u75 to read that and state that none of it resonates in some way with popular preoccupatons and topics of discussion on urban75, in particular the Brixton section. 

"Barely anyone here even went there let alone knows what it's supposed to represent" and yet you chose to mention it in the title of this very thread. Hmm.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 5, 2013)

christ, even with him on ignore teuchter is fucking boring.


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Does your feature on cooltan misrepresent what it was all about, then?
> 
> I challenge anyone who knows u75 to read that and state that none of it resonates in some way with popular preoccupatons and topics of discussion on urban75, in particular the Brixton section.
> 
> "Barely anyone here even went there let alone knows what it's supposed to represent" and yet you chose to mention it in the title of this very thread. Hmm.


You're weird.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 5, 2013)

Rushy said:


> All this because one person tried to score a point from a new Brixton Square resident (although I have my doubts) by challenging them about, amongst other things, how much they knew and cared about the community arts collective their new home had allegedly replaced, perhaps not realising that said collective had been evicted some 15-16 yrs earlier.


 
I wasn't trying to point score.


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 5, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> christ, even with him on ignore teuchter is fucking boring.



You could die reading his endless, droning, self-important drivel. 

Anyone know how to ignore on tapatalk? I'm already near self-harm.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 5, 2013)

i don't even know what tapatalk is, soz.


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 5, 2013)

Phone forumz guv


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You seem very keen to disassociate yourself with that demographic, gramsci .... why?


 
Oh look, another goalpost shift!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2013)

peterkro said:


> Baah,Cooltan,it was for a much longer time "the dole office".


 
Kind of gives away the age of those of us who remember it that way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2013)

leanderman said:


> This will further fuel Brixton house prices (spread in today's Daily Mail). View attachment 33313
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mo...se-Blackpool-sell-50-000--whats-going-on.html


 
"Often", "mostly" and "frequently", plus taking a property agent's word. The journo must have been having a lazy day, or perhaps the estate agent slipped them a sweetener.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2013)

Manter said:


> H
> How do they get to 100 buyers per house??!! bullshit statistics detector is going off


 
I suppose they *might*, for some properties, have a hundred *enquiries*, but I'm going to be cynical and sincerely doubt that it applies to every property, or even the majority of them.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Kind of gives away the age of those of us who remember it that way.


Yes I'm afraid it very much does.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> 107 Apartment in Brixton Square sold out immediately upon release


 
After a multi-month build-up plus the usual deposit -taking etc."Sold out immediately" is relative. That is, relative to the continual publicity, the ads in the local and regional press etc etc, the open days for potential buyers...

It's not *quite* the same thing as the majority of "pre-owned" residential properties, which are also subject to chains.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I think the Cooltan thing is a distraction, and tangential to the main and more important contention of Teuchter, which was:
> 
> 'You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise'


 
Does one really need to *remember* something so patently obvious it should occur to anyone with half a functioning brain?


----------



## indigolove (Jun 5, 2013)

Winot said:


> I didn't go to Cooltan either, although I don't post here as much as Gramsci. Where do I fit in eh?
> 
> #venn


 


leanderman said:


> I think the Cooltan thing is a distraction, and tangential to the main and more important contention of Teuchter, which was:
> 
> 'You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise'


I lived my life in Cooltan and the Albert (and lets not forget Brady's and the Junction), but rarely write on U75 - how do you want to categorise me?


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 5, 2013)

indigolove said:


> I lived my life in Cooltan and the Albert (and lets not forget Brady's and the Junction), but rarely write on U75 - how do you want to categorise me?



I would imagine as someone whose community perspective was severely tainted and skewed by having, at one point or another, been to the Cooltan.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Does your feature on cooltan misrepresent what it was all about, then?
> 
> I challenge anyone who knows u75 to read that and state that none of it resonates in some way with popular preoccupatons and topics of discussion on urban75, in particular the Brixton section.
> 
> "Barely anyone here even went there let alone knows what it's supposed to represent" and yet you chose to mention it in the title of this very thread. Hmm.


 
"Resonates in some way" is somewhat of a departure from your revised claim that "...urban75 is largely populated by a demographic who are aligned with the ideals that cooltan represented".

Would you like to re-revise your claim?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2013)

No, I wouldn't. Would you like to comment on either?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> I would imagine as someone whose community perspective was severely tainted and skewed by having, at one point or another, been to the Cooltan.


 
Shall we discuss why you've chosen to use the words "skewed" and "tainted" here? (With a "severely" thrown in for good measure)


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Resonates in some way" is somewhat of a departure from your revised claim that "...urban75 is largely populated by a demographic who are aligned with the ideals that cooltan represented".
> 
> Would you like to re-revise your claim?


At the speed he's backtracking and watering down his wholly untenable claim, it'll probably soon end up as, "urban75 is largely populated by a demographic ...who possibly inhaled the same air that once occupied the Cooltan building."


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2013)

peterkro said:


> Baah,Cooltan,it was for a much longer time "the dole office".


 
Searched back for this. As ever ViolentPanda eagle eye alerted me to this.

I own up to being part of the demographic that used the dole office before those Cooltan people turned up.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2013)

editor said:


> At the speed he's backtracking and watering down his wholly untenable claim, it'll probably soon end up as, "urban75 is largely populated by a demographic ...who possibly inhaled the same air that once occupied the Cooltan building."


 
Should cover me then. Some of that must have wafted over.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2013)

Winot said:


> I didn't go to Cooltan either, although I don't post here as much as Gramsci. Where do I fit in eh?
> 
> #venn


 
According to Teuchters revised statement u may be covered by this:



> My revised statement says that urban75 is largely populated by a demographic who are aligned with the ideals that cooltan represented.


 
So an exhaustive search of the content of your posts by Teuchter will find if you are aligned with the ideas of cooltan even if you did not ever go there or were aware of its presence in Brixton until this thread.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2013)

> It was a true co-operative squat that served the local community, offering art space, a café, office space for campaign groups, rehearsals rooms, darkrooms, and - of course - some of the best techno parties we've ever been to!


 
^ I'd like to apologise to all members of urban75 for making the extremely controversial suggestion that a significant portion of them might associate with or approve of this kind of thing. It was a vicious attack on the membership that will probably have caused trauma for many and we can only hope that any damage to the reputation of the boards can be healed over time, perhaps with a concerted PR effort to distance posters from the kinds of activities described above.


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> ^ I'd like to apologise to all members of urban75 for making the extremely controversial suggestion that a significant portion of them might associate with or approve of this kind of thing. It was a vicious attack on the membership that will probably have caused trauma for many and we can only hope that any damage to the reputation of the boards can be healed over time, perhaps with a concerted PR effort to distance posters from the kinds of activities described above.


You really are getting weirder. Everyone knows exactly what you said and it bears no relation to your latest bizarre attempt to wriggle out of the deep hole you've dug for yourself.

Please give it up now because it's not fooling anyone and it's just needlessly disrupting what was an interesting thread.



teuchter said:


> You just need to remember that Brixton through the lens of U75 does not necessarily represent the view of all or even most Brixton residents, long term or otherwise. Especially if you're telling people off for not knowing about or being interested in the history of Cooltan or the nuclear dawn mural. You'll find plenty of very long-term residents of Brixton in whose life and Brixton experience Cooltan played no significant role. *It so happens that U75 is largely populated by a demographic who went to all-night parties there in their youth*, which is why you'll hear a lot about it on here.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> ^ I'd like to apologise to all members of urban75 for making the extremely controversial suggestion that a significant portion of *them might associate with or approve of this kind of thing*. It was a vicious attack on the membership that will probably have caused trauma for many and we can only hope that any damage to the reputation of the boards can be healed over time, perhaps with a concerted PR effort to distance posters from the kinds of activities described above.


 
Right so its not being at all night parties in ones youth in Brixton its instead whether one "might associate" or "approve" "of this kind of thing".

You moved a long way in this thread. Like the "might". Good catch all.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2013)

Obviously I'd also like to apologise to anyone who felt that there was a suggestion they personally went to any all night parties in Brixton in their youth, when in fact they did not go to any all night parties in Brixton in their youth. It was a seriously serious accusation and I shouldn't have been throwing such dangerous words around so carelessly.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 6, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> You could die reading his endless, droning, self-important drivel.
> 
> Anyone know how to ignore on tapatalk? I'm already near self-harm.


Ohhhh self harm eh, you could start by battering yourself to death rather than me


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 6, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ohhhh self harm eh, you could start by battering yourself to death rather than me



Do fuck off now you odious plum. Ta


----------



## leanderman (Jun 6, 2013)

Chilavert said:


> *Puts flat on the market*



Brixton's reputation survives undimmed in some quarters. 

A window fitter and electrician renewed acquaintance across the road just now, one saying: 'What are you doing in fucking Brixton with all these crackheads and Muslims?'


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Brixton's reputation survives undimmed in some quarters.
> 
> A window fitter and electrician renewed acquaintance across the road just now, one saying: 'What are you doing in fucking Brixton with all these crackheads and Muslims?'


 
Lambeth is also now STD capital of the UK too, which should help


----------



## Crispy (Jun 6, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Brixton's reputation survives undimmed in some quarters.
> 
> A window fitter and electrician renewed acquaintance across the road just now, one saying: 'What are you doing in fucking Brixton with all these crackheads and Muslims?'


Smoking crack and taking friday afternoons off work. It's great


----------



## TruXta (Jun 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Lambeth is also now STD capital of the UK too, which should help


"Lambeth had most new cases of syphilis, with 216."



Good thing I moved out then.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 6, 2013)

teuchter said:
			
		

> Lambeth is also now STD capital of the UK too, which should help



We are winning then?


----------



## Chilavert (Jun 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Lambeth is also now STD capital of the UK too, which should help


*takes flat off the market*


----------



## Rushy (Jun 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> "Lambeth had most new cases of syphilis, with 216."
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I moved out then.


 
Too late. It would seem the damage was already done.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Too late. It would seem the damage was already done.


Cheeky monkey! Unless you're on about teuchter of course.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 6, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Smoking crack and taking friday afternoons off work. It's great


 
Just Fridays? That's sooo nu-Brixton.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Cheeky monkey! Unless you're on about teuchter of course.


 
You gave Teuchter ...? That doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## Manter (Jun 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> "Lambeth had most new cases of syphilis, with 216."
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I moved out then.


Er, you have to do more than live here to get Syphilis!


(Don't you?!)


----------



## TruXta (Jun 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> bear


 
This could be your answer, but you'd have to ask teuchter really.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Lambeth is also now STD capital of the UK too, which should help


 
Nothing to do with there being a young person free sexual health drop in centre in the middle of Brixton then, and YP coming from across the three local boroughs to access it, and not tending  to give their parents postcode at all, no, no not at all.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 6, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Nothing to do with there being a young person free sexual health drop in centre in the middle of Brixton then, and YP coming from across the three local boroughs to access it, and not tending to give their parents postcode at all, no, no not at all.


That's very good point, and it'd be amazing if whoever made these stats weren't (made) aware of it.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 6, 2013)

Manter said:


> Er, you have to do more than live here to get Syphilis!
> 
> 
> (Don't you?!)


 
Yes but carry antiseptic wipes for the toilet seat in case you have to go in the pub.


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Yes but carry antiseptic wipes for the toilet seat in case you have to go in the pub.


 
And a spray can if you're popping in the Albert.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> This could be your answer, but you'd have to ask teuchter really.


 
I don't remember anything


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Lambeth is also now STD capital of the UK too, which should help


 
Has been, on and off, since the '90s, along with Southwark.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2013)

Badgers said:


> We are winning then?


 
The fucking comments on that article!


----------



## Winot (Jun 6, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Smoking crack and taking friday afternoons off work. It's great



Crispy: straddling the overlap of the Muslim/crackhead Venn.


----------



## indigolove (Jun 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Obviously I'd also like to apologise to anyone who felt that there was a suggestion they personally went to any all night parties in Brixton in their youth, when in fact they did not go to any all night parties in Brixton in their youth. It was a seriously serious accusation and I shouldn't have been throwing such dangerous words around so carelessly.


Nutter, with too much time to waste


----------



## CH1 (Jun 10, 2013)

As if things weren't bad enough Eric Pickles put a leaflet out today to all addresses in the SW9 part of Coldharbour Lane (and maybe more generally). The discount on exercising the right to buy has now been increased to £100,000 (subject to eligibility).
Do they really think that encouraging even more social housing tenants to sell their homes to buy to let speculators is goings to do something good for Brixton?  More social cleansing, and ultimately most likely more state subsidy for rich landlords.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 10, 2013)

CH1 said:


> As if things weren't bad enough Eric Pickles put a leaflet out today to all addresses in the SW9 part of Coldharbour Lane (and maybe more generally). The discount on exercising the right to buy has now been increased to £100,000 (subject to eligibility).
> Do they really think that encouraging even more social housing tenants to sell their homes to buy to let speculators is goings to do something good for Brixton? More social cleansing, and ultimately most likely more state subsidy for rich landlords.View attachment 33525


 
The family of Ian Gow, the Tory minister who pioneered right-to-buy, owns more than 100 former council homes across London.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 10, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The family of Ian Gow, the Tory minister who pioneered right-to-buy, owns more than 100 former council homes across London.


A self serving politician, whatever next   ?


----------



## editor (Jun 10, 2013)

The scummiest thing about this cunting government is that they're busy spreading fear into council tenants with shite like the bedroom tax, so you can hardly blame them for considering buying their council property just so they can stay in their local community.


----------



## lefteri (Jun 10, 2013)

editor said:


> The scummiest thing about this cunting government is that they're busy spreading fear into council tenants with shite like the bedroom tax, so you can hardly blame them for considering buying their council property just so they can stay in their local community.


 

more like sell up and leave their local community for a cheaper area further out and not in a council estate in many cases


----------



## leanderman (Jun 10, 2013)

lefteri said:


> more like sell up and leave their local community for a cheaper area further out and not in a council estate in many cases


 
Such are prices, that even a £100,000 discount may make little difference.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 10, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> A self serving politician, whatever next  ?


Not that Gow got to enjoy any return on the investment...  didn't even have a posh car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Gow#Death


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 11, 2013)

Paulie said:


> Not that Gow got to enjoy any return on the investment...  didn't even have a posh car.


Thanks for providing some context to the man in question, and apologies to the forum for my instinctive response to what I thought to be a case of blatant nepotism...... The son does appear to be a bit of a wrong 'un from what I have read about him and his property empire.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 11, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> A self serving politician, whatever next  ?


 
At least Gow got his, courtesy of the IRA.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 11, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Thanks for providing some context to the man in question, and apologies to the forum for my instinctive response to what I thought to be a case of blatant nepotism...... The son does appear to be a bit of a wrong 'un from what I have read about him and his property empire.


 
He'd probably blame his wrong'un-ness on having been deprived of his dad, rather than on himself being a Tory wankpot.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2013)

editor said:


> The scummiest thing about this cunting government is that they're busy spreading fear into council tenants with shite like the bedroom tax, so you can hardly blame them for considering buying their council property just so they can stay in their local community.


 
Also the Labour Council are hardly standing up for there tenants on this issue. Unlike some other Councils.



> There was unanimous support for a motion urging the council to protect the 170 people on the Loughborough Estate facing a 14% cut in their housing benefit because they have a spare room.
> Grace Lally, chair of the association, told a packed meeting earlier this month: “Lambeth is one of the most litigious councils in the country. It’s ridiculous how much the council spends on court actions, making people homeless, which doesn’t save the council money.”


----------



## Manter (Jun 20, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b02x8znm/File_on_4_Council_Asset_Sales/

this was interesting, on R4 last night.  Basically saying councils have no money, so are selling everything they can to try and make up budget shortfall, but have no idea what they are doing so losing a bundle  (very, very heavily paraphrased...!)


----------



## leanderman (Jun 20, 2013)

Manter said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b02x8znm/File_on_4_Council_Asset_Sales/
> 
> this was interesting, on R4 last night. Basically saying councils have no money, so are selling everything they can to try and make up budget shortfall, but have no idea what they are doing so losing a bundle (very, very heavily paraphrased...!)


 

'It's a goddamn fire sale,' as ambassador Joe Kennedy said of Britain in the dark days of 1940.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Manter said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b02x8znm/File_on_4_Council_Asset_Sales/
> 
> this was interesting, on R4 last night. Basically saying councils have no money, so are selling everything they can to try and make up budget shortfall, but have no idea what they are doing so losing a bundle (very, very heavily paraphrased...!)


 
Which is exactly what many of us on here have been saying about Lambeth's efforts with Rushcroft and Carlton Mansions, with Myatts Fields North, and with what they're trying to pull at Cressingham Gardens.
And that's just the big noticable stuff. It doesn't include the disposals of individual properties (for which Lambeth have historically realised very poor value - anyone remember the Lib-Dem councillor who saw nothing morally wrong with buying up ex-council assets at auction that *he'd* helped decide should be flogged?).


----------



## leanderman (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is exactly what many of us on here have been saying about Lambeth's efforts with Rushcroft and Carlton Mansions, with Myatts Fields North, and with what they're trying to pull at Cressingham Gardens.
> And that's just the big noticable stuff. It doesn't include the disposals of individual properties (for which Lambeth have historically realised very poor value - anyone remember the Lib-Dem councillor who saw nothing morally wrong with buying up ex-council assets at auction that *he'd* helped decide should be flogged?).


 

Southwark has sold off a stack of its Victorian conversions through auction. Is Lambeth comparable?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Southwark has sold off a stack of its Victorian conversions through auction. Is Lambeth comparable?


 
Lambeth have been bleeding them off in dribs and drabs for at least as long as I've lived in Tulse Hill (17-18 years), and it was/is mostly Victorian and Edwardian properties. Not sure of quantities, though. As I said, it's only the big stuff that's really noticeable.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 20, 2013)

Blimey, long thread.  What are the highlights pls? Perhaps there's some blog post somewhere which summarises?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 20, 2013)

Manter said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b02x8znm/File_on_4_Council_Asset_Sales/
> 
> this was interesting, on R4 last night. Basically saying councils have no money, so are selling everything they can to try and make up budget shortfall, but have no idea what they are doing so losing a bundle (very, very heavily paraphrased...!)


 
I listened to this. Depressing. Losing a bundle is an understatement. Any rational argument should be that in a recession ( the Councils in the programme were up North) retain assets.


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 20, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Blimey, long thread.  What are the highlights pls? Perhaps there's some blog post somewhere which summarises?



In summary:

People moving into BS are cunts
People supporting barretts and the councillors who passed their u-turn on social housing are cunts
Bim of bar is a cunt

That's the gist of it, and anyone who says otherwise is, yep, you guessed it, a cunt


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 20, 2013)

Thanx. What is the Bim of Bar entity?  A Barratt's householder? It doesn't seem to be on any threads but this one.


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 20, 2013)

Cunt


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 20, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Thanx. What is the Bim of Bar entity?  A Barratt's householder? It doesn't seem to be on any threads but this one.


Hello I just happened to buy an apartment in BS, apparently is a crime punishable by death ohhhh and don't forget that makes me a C--t for putting a roof over my head


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 20, 2013)

Well that seems pretty clear. Are you not that interested in what else is on the forum? Slagging off newcomers with money is only a tiny weeny fraction of what goes on. Believe it or not, some of the other members have mortgages too. (Not me, sadly.)


----------



## CH1 (Jun 21, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I listened to this. Depressing. Losing a bundle is an understatement. Any rational argument should be that in a recession ( the Councils in the programme were up North) retain assets.


The worst thing is that in the North/NorthWest etc they've used housing money to demolish houses (not redevelop). Encouraging migration to London and the South East has effectively jettisoned the efforts of post-war Keynsian governments trying to keep full employment for a fully-housed population.  
Previous governments (before 1997 anyway) used to try to move employers to zones of high unemployment. Now employment is left to "market forces" and government expect councils to sell public assets to maintain current spending.
In booming Lambeth this is morphing into a form of local development addiction - pack in more council tax payers at all costs!


----------



## leanderman (Jun 21, 2013)

CH1 said:


> In booming Lambeth this is morphing into a form of local development addiction - pack in more council tax payers at all costs!


 
I wonder if they are taking lessons from Wandsworth on this.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 21, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Well that seems pretty clear. Are you not that interested in what else is on the forum? Slagging off newcomers with money is only a tiny weeny fraction of what goes on. Believe it or not, some of the other members have mortgages too. (Not me, sadly.)


Yes I have been avidly reading all the post on lots of the Brixton forums, but have taken so much artillery fire I have had to retreat to base camp. It's all very interesting, and a lot of people have great passion, especially when it comes to social housing issues. I'm a little bruised but hopefully it's not terminal.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 21, 2013)

Well, you're part of the community now, that's a fact. And there are countless ways to engage with the community IRL. Where people do not call each other cunts so readily.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 21, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Well, you're part of the community now, that's a fact. And there are countless ways to engage with the community IRL. Where people do not call each other cunts so readily.


 

Far too much of that round here!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 21, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Well, you're part of the community now, that's a fact. And there are countless ways to engage with the community IRL. Where people do not call each other cunts so readily.


Cheers mate, that actually made me smile, I would like to think I am part of the community as I currently live on Brixton hill, how weird is that I took more offence to being called a PLUM than a C--T lol I love this area, so not bothered about my negative press. But appreciate your good wishes


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 22, 2013)

Steady on, don't be too cuddly. There are plenty of people who've got me down as a cunt, and vice versa. If you don't think I'm a cunt that must make you a double cunt. Then you have to move to Stoke on Trent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 22, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Steady on, don't be too cuddly. There are plenty of people who've got me down as a cunt, and vice versa. If you don't think I'm a cunt that must make you a double cunt. Then you have to move to Stoke on Trent.


 
No-one deserves to have to move to Stoke On Trent. Not even Stokies who've moved away.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 22, 2013)

Yeah, that was a bit extreme. Even Gitmo has its pluses compared to Stoke.


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2013)

Barratt Homes website people wrote to me about this thread.


> This email address was found to be registered as the owner of the domain listed below.  There are a number of links on this site which point to our client’s sites which we would need to have removed. The links are listed below for your reference:





> Thank you for linking to our client’s sites, however, recent changes in Google now mean the link is no longer relevant so please can we request that you have this removed and confirm when this has been done.


LOL.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 22, 2013)

editor said:


> Barratt Homes website people wrote to me about this thread.LOL.


No publicity is bad publicity I thought


----------



## Manter (Jun 22, 2013)

Hey people, lay off Stoke! It has its positives*!!

*unable to think of any right now but feel duty bound to defend it....


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jun 23, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Steady on, don't be too cuddly. There are plenty of people who've got me down as a cunt, and vice versa. If you don't think I'm a cunt that must make you a double cunt. Then you have to move to Stoke on Trent.


Ok ok ok ok ok I can't say it BUT YOU'RE A FIRST CLASS C--T ok lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2013)

Manter said:


> Hey people, lay off Stoke! It has its positives*!!
> 
> *unable to think of any right now but feel duty bound to defend it....


 
I'm descended on my dad's side from Potteries folk and Stokies. That part of Staffs has the highest distribution of my surname of anywhere in the UK, but I still believe that Stoke and the Potteries are G-dforsaken shitholes.


----------



## Manter (Jun 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm descended on my dad's side from Potteries folk and Stokies. That part of Staffs has the highest distribution of my surname of anywhere in the UK, but I still believe that Stoke and the Potteries are G-dforsaken shitholes.


They are.... but they are no more shit-holey than many other places in the UK, IMO.  And the potteries are interesting and important parts of Britain's industrial history, so they have more going for them than lots of places.

Which is all a bit damned by faint praise, but you see what I'm trying to do


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2013)

Manter said:


> They are.... but they are no more shit-holey than many other places in the UK, IMO. And the potteries are interesting and important parts of Britain's industrial history, so they have more going for them than lots of places.
> 
> Which is all a bit damned by faint praise, but you see what I'm trying to do


 
Fair dos. Shithole-ism is relative.


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2013)

Two fire engines in attendance this afternoon. 



And a cop car in attendance at 8am Sunday morning.


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2013)

Apparently it was a flood inside Brixton Square today. Of champagne, possibly.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 24, 2013)

Already? The plumbing didn't last very long.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 25, 2013)

editor said:


> And a cop car in attendance at 8am Sunday morning.
> View attachment 34233


Investigating peeing against the wall?


----------



## editor (Jun 25, 2013)

Oh, and don't forget, Barratt Homes don't like urban75 linking to their website.

So please don't add any links that point to this site: http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/
That's barratthomes.co.uk/.
Yes, http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 25, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh, and don't forget, Barratt Homes don't like urban75 linking to their website.
> 
> So please don't add any links that point to this site: http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/
> That's barratthomes.co.uk/.
> Yes, http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/


 
OK then.


----------



## Manter (Jun 25, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh, and don't forget, Barratt Homes don't like urban75 linking to their website.
> 
> So please don't add any links that point to this site: http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/
> That's barratthomes.co.uk/.
> Yes, http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/


message received and understood- no linking to http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh, and don't forget, Barratt Homes don't like urban75 linking to their website.
> 
> So please don't add any links that point to this site: http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/
> That's barratthomes.co.uk/.
> Yes, http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/


 
Why would anyone sane want to link to a bunch of cunts like http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/ anyway?


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 25, 2013)

Who are http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/ ?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 25, 2013)

Maybe recognising just what a non-conformist bunch U75 are, maybe  http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/ have double bluffed and actually wanted you to add lots more links, improving their site traffic, rankings, etc..


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 25, 2013)

Is it ok to link to  Barratt Developments instead then or wiil i need to ask  the board and  senior management first ?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 27, 2013)

This place in Southwyck House looks like remarkably good value when compared to other property locally.
1250sqft, 4/5 beds, a south facing garden and a garage for 280K.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2013)

Rushy said:


> This place in Southwyck House looks like remarkably good value when compared to other property locally.


They'll have lots of fun with the extra maintenance charges too!


----------



## Greebo (Jun 27, 2013)

On the way back from VP's hospital appointment yesterday, the minicab passed the back of "Brixton Square".  

One line from Rowan Atkinson's song in praise of Michael Fish: "...So if you feel like giving up on life and moving into a Barratt home..."
http://www.barratthomes.co.uk


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 27, 2013)

http://barratthomes.co.uk/ are cunts


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 27, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Who are http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/ ?



They're cunts


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> http://barratthomes.co.uk/ are cunts


 
http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/ are cunts, you say? Well I never!


----------



## CH1 (Jun 30, 2013)

editor said:


> The gates are up and Brixton has just acquired two new place names, Milles Square and Carney Place.
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/05/...es-square-and-carney-place-in-brixton-square/


 
A more likely candidate for commemoration by the newly arrived residents of Carney Place, London SW9?


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2013)

What truly beautiful and classy signage for a private road and a private square.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2013)

I recently noticed, by the way, that the Loughborough Estate is also a gated community with the big green spaces in between the blocks fenced off for residents' use only.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 12, 2013)

editor said:


> What truly beautiful and classy signage for a private road and a private square.
> 
> View attachment 36217


 

The font and leading are dreadful - and I though that without even seeing your comment


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 12, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I recently noticed, by the way, that the Loughborough Estate is also a gated community with the big green spaces in between the blocks fenced off for residents' use only.


The Loughborough Estate by the Hero of Switzerland ?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2013)

I've seen better signwriting on noodel restaurant's


----------



## Chilavert (Jul 12, 2013)

Yeah that's pretty uninspriring.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2013)

Chilavert said:


> Yeah that's pretty uninspriring.


 
Perfect fit for the blander-than-bland office-block architecture, mind.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 12, 2013)

editor said:


> Perfect fit for the blander-than-bland office-block architecture, mind.


 
at least it's low key, it could have been like this


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 12, 2013)

Crispy said:


> I've seen better signwriting on noodel restaurant's


 
and better spelling too.

boom!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> The Loughborough Estate by the Hero of Switzerland ?


 
Yes


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> at least it's low key, it could have been like this


 
I like that


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 12, 2013)

save for the 'suburban accountancy firm' blinds, it's pretty tidy.


----------



## Winot (Jul 12, 2013)

So do I.  Looks 'Balearic'.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 12, 2013)

a bit david hockneyey.

which is nice.

if you like that sort of thing.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I like that


I do too.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2013)

It's impossible to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure that (the shit one) is Arial.
Arial FFS.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2013)

Crispy said:


> It's impossible to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure that (the shit one) is Arial.
> Arial FFS.


 
As close as dammit. They're probably the cheapest letters they could get.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 12, 2013)

Edited... in a bleak place atm.


----------



## simonSW2 (Jul 12, 2013)

whats with the miniature ampersand!?


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Jul 13, 2013)

Mm, that lettering is a bit strange, though I've seen worse. A lot of places look like that now; aspirant, sad and generic. Almost as if people know before they move in that it is going to be a disappointment.


----------



## Manter (Jul 13, 2013)

Such an ugly building. Now with ugly signage. Sad really.... I know the while build etc is cheap, but it must be possible to put a tiny bit of thought in and make something a bit less visually offensive


----------



## teuchter (Jul 14, 2013)

Not that I want to defend this building or anything but sometimes it seems you can't win...build something nondescript and people complain it's "sad and generic", build something more adventurous and nonconventional and it's showy, ostentatious, doesn't "fit in" or is even "fancypants architecture" (cf thread about the grand designs house on Lyham Rd). I'm struggling to think of when anyone on U75 has given a specific example of modern housing that the approve of. And 150-year old stuff that would be impossible to build in the same form today doesn't count.

Also, isn't "aspirant" a slightly snobbish term to use?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 14, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> at least it's low key, it could have been like this


 

awful.


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I'm struggling to think of when anyone on U75 has given a specific example of modern housing that the approve of.


You can 'win' with effort and imagination.

The development of award winning family eco-houses at Angela Carter Close in Brixton is a example of good urban architecture. It's leagues above Barratt's shabby office-block offering. I like the Akerman building too.











> Metropolitan Housing Trust and designer Anne Thorne Architects Partnership set out to create homes with a top level Excellent rating under the EcoHomes environmental measurement system with their small scheme of nine family houses at Angela Carter Close, a backland site in a conservation area in Brixton, south London.
> 
> The houses are built from timber frame, insulated with Warmcell recycled newsprint insulation, have sedum roofs, solar thermal panels, and are surrounded by porous paving to plot an environmentally-friendly course for the future.


PDF feature:
http://www.sandwood.co.uk/images/stories/properties/wiltshire_road/angela carter close - construction news november 2007.pdf


----------



## CH1 (Jul 14, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> at least it's low key, it could have been like this


 
I assume that's where my old surgery disappeared to. They wouldn't register new patients when they were next to Iveagh House at Five Ways. Now they are advertising for patients. I imagine the concentration of three NHS doctors surgeries in one building a couple of miles from most of their patients is an enormous efficiency saving.  Nice to know that the NHS is spending its money wisely and tastefully. I wonder if Milles Square and Carney Place are in the catchment area?
Still if you can afford £500,000 for a flat you've no need to get ill eh? Oh sorry, forgot - the ones who can afford the flats are on government subsidised buy-to-let mortgages, and the one who get sick are either on HB or get evicted.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I assume that's where my old surgery disappeared to.


 
That's in Myatt's Fields?! 

Amazing, I thought it was California.

I rather like it


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I assume that's where my old surgery disappeared to. They wouldn't register new patients when they were next to Iveagh House at Five Ways. Now they are advertising for patients. I imagine the concentration of three NHS doctors surgeries in one building a couple of miles from most of their patients is an enormous efficiency saving. Nice to know that the NHS is spending its money wisely and tastefully. I wonder if Milles Square and Carney Place are in the catchment area?


I like the building but I really don't like the fact that it's a mighty long walk to see my doctor now.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> I like the building but I really don't like the fact that it's a mighty long walk to see my doctor now.


 
I changed to HRH in Herne Hill Road, which unfortunately looks like  a crack house.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jul 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I changed to HRH in Herne Hill Road, which unfortunately looks like a crack house.


 
Does it? What specifically makes it look like a crack house? Are there particular criteria that crack houses have to have to make them look like crack houses?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I assume that's where my old surgery disappeared to. They wouldn't register new patients when they were next to Iveagh House at Five Ways. Now they are advertising for patients. I imagine the concentration of three NHS doctors surgeries in one building a couple of miles from most of their patients is an enormous efficiency saving.  Nice to know that the NHS is spending its money wisely and tastefully. I wonder if Milles Square and Carney Place are in the catchment area?
> Still if you can afford £500,000 for a flat you've no need to get ill eh? Oh sorry, forgot - the ones who can afford the flats are on government subsidised buy-to-let mortgages, and the one who get sick are either on HB or get evicted.


 
If you can afford a half million pound flat you'll probably be one of the private patients they are trying to entice in.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2013)

ChrisSouth said:


> Does it? What specifically makes it look like a crack house? Are there particular criteria that crack houses have to have to make them look like crack houses?


I meant the shutters.  It looks kind of fortified out of hours.
Iveagh House surgery never had shutters, AKERMAN doesn't. When SLAM opened their outpatients at 308 Brixton Road in the 1990s they put shutters outside but Lameth Planning had them removed  - as it was a conservation area.
I think HHR surgery would benefit from a less fortified appearance, though that's down to them. It is not a CA.


----------



## Winot (Jul 15, 2013)

ChrisSouth said:


> Does it? What specifically makes it look like a crack house? Are there particular criteria that crack houses have to have to make them look like crack houses?



We lived a few doors down from a crack house once. No idea it was one until someone was shot in the head sitting outside in his car. Nice leafy bit of SE24 that was.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 25, 2013)

Whatever next? Barratts (apparently via the ex-Lambeth Planning Officer who now works for their planning consultants) are now requesting that their planning permission be varied to remove the irksome requirement for 923 square metres of commercial floorspace (A1,A2 and B2) alongside their high cost low space buy-to-let residential. See here: http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00385015.pdf
The (consultants) planning justification is given here:
http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00385017.pdf Apparently Kalmars have "intensively marketed" the commercial space for the last year to absolutely no avail. No doubt Jerry Knight will sympathise.
It is proposed to provide 9 new residential units instead of the commercial space. 4 for shared ownership and 5 for sale. 
If Lambeth approve this application, which seems highly likely, they will just be confirming what we already know - the Co-operative Council uses the language of the Rochdale Pioneers, but has the morals of Berlusconi.
Full application details here: http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...CaseNumber=IATT91BOXK000&keyVal=MP3X0ZBO67000


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2013)

I've not looked at the drawings but I'm guessing that the commercial space will just happen to have been arranged in such a way that it can easily be converted into residential units.


----------



## Manter (Jul 25, 2013)

Oh FFS they're venal. I despair


----------



## leanderman (Jul 26, 2013)

These commercial floorspaces are a joke though. They usually lie empty.

We need more homes. Although I suspect the five private flats will be snapped up by speculators


----------



## CH1 (Jul 26, 2013)

leanderman said:


> These commercial floorspaces are a joke though. They usually lie empty. We need more homes. Although I suspect the five private flats will be snapped up by speculators


 
I want an Aldi


----------



## leanderman (Jul 26, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I want an Aldi


 

Yes! Why can't we have one?


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Whatever next? Barratts (apparently via the ex-Lambeth Planning Officer who now works for their planning consultants) are now requesting that their planning permission be varied to remove the irksome requirement for 923 square metres of commercial floorspace (A1,A2 and B2) alongside their high cost low space buy-to-let residential. See here: http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00385015.pdf
> The (consultants) planning justification is given here:
> http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00385017.pdf Apparently Kalmars have "intensively marketed" the commercial space for the last year to absolutely no avail. No doubt Jerry Knight will sympathise.
> It is proposed to provide 9 new residential units instead of the commercial space. 4 for shared ownership and 5 for sale.
> ...


 
They really are piss takers.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2013)

leanderman said:


> These commercial floorspaces are a joke though. They usually lie empty.
> 
> We need more homes. Although I suspect the five private flats will be snapped up by speculators


Considering the supposed pressure clamour for commercial space in the Village you might have thought that it wouldn't have been too hard to get tenants for the commercial spaces in the Viaduct.

The fact that they haven't made any effort at all to actually make them look appealing is no doubt part of the process of eventually gaining planning permission to convert them to housing (they've been boarded up since day one).

Imagine if they'd done something really crazy like made one up to be a showroom - you know, just like they do with their homes.

I note there's people living in the 'offices' at the side of the building in Valencia Place. I wonder if they got permission for that.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2013)

What's the case for making them commercial units, though? I don't really see a big problem with it becoming residential in that location.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What's the case for making them commercial units, though? I don't really see a big problem with it becoming residential in that location.


I think that's how they got planning permission in the first place because they were replacing commercial properties.

With Piano House closing Brixton needs more commercial properties, IMO.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 26, 2013)

editor said:


> Considering the supposed pressure clamour for commercial space in the Village you might have thought that it wouldn't have been too hard to get tenants for the commercial spaces in the Viaduct.
> 
> The fact that they haven't made any effort at all to actually make them look appealing is no doubt part of the process of eventually gaining planning permission to convert them to housing (they've been boarded up since day one).
> 
> ...


 
Regarding the side units of the Viaduct they don't need permission to use existing offices as residential now apparently. It would be permitted development since April 2013. It's the same issue as the Piano House.

As for the front of the Viaduct - maybe that would be like the Barratts situation. Certainly there have been Kalmars signs up for a year or two. I imagine Lexadon might apply to change the front units to residential as they have been unable to let them for commercial use. I'm surprised Sainsbury's aren't sniffing around though. Must be a need for a third Sainsbury Local in Brixton town centre - especially proximate to those upwardly mobile customers from Barratts and the Viaduct.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I'm surprised Sainsbury's aren't sniffing around though. Must be a need for a third Sainsbury Local in Brixton town centre - especially proximate to those upwardly mobile customers from Barratts and the Viaduct.


That's the local expectation.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 26, 2013)

editor said:


> I think that's how they got planning permission in the first place because they were replacing commercial properties.
> With Piano House closing Brixton needs more commercial properties, IMO.


 
You are right - neither the Viaduct nor Brixton Square would have been approved as purely residential schemes - the council's development brief included employment generation/commercial use as an integral part of the schemes.

This current fad for everything residential in Brixton is down to how much money can be extracted and how quickly. Residential attracts currently heavily discounted mortgages. Barratts are just leaching as much cash as they can from their site. Presumably Piano House want to do the same.
Those taking the mortgages and their tenants will pay for the next 25 years so Barratts have a good result THIS YEAR ONLY.  Maybe the banks and the government will also have to pay in due course if we turn out to be in a property bubble.
Lexadon looks like a different case, as they seem to be in it for long term rental income rather than quick capital profits from hyped up sales. They have not really done anything to the Viaduct side offices - they could revert to commercial if required no doubt.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2013)

I imagine there'd be a clear knock on effect for local shops if more and more commercial spaces convert to residential use. Less workers mean less people buying lunches, drinks, snacks etc etc...


----------



## Manter (Jul 26, 2013)

leanderman said:


> These commercial floorspaces are a joke though. They usually lie empty.
> 
> We need more homes. Although I suspect the five private flats will be snapped up by speculators


Don't think they lie empty if they put any effort into filling them! Even horrors like st George's Wharf are not just accommodation blocks.... IMO some mixed use is important to keep any area 'living'- we don't want a dormitory suburb where people sleepwalk from blank, faceless blocks of flats, down identikit high streets and into the tube- we don't want this place to turn into your average Berkshire commuter town! The idea is to keep some jobs locally, encourage local commercial activity and engagement, get money circulating in the local area- which the developers will obviously jettison for a quick buck, but which the council planners ought to be aware of and protect. But hey, it's Lambeth...


----------



## Crispy (Jul 26, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I've not looked at the drawings but I'm guessing that the commercial space will just happen to have been arranged in such a way that it can easily be converted into residential units.


Doesn't particularly look that way from the drawings. I'm seeing quite a few ugly bodges. The Western block has all its bedrooms in the basement fronting onto a lightwell. The other half of the basement is being turned into "cellular storage" for use by residents and management, purely because it gets no sunlight. No, I'm pretty sure these were designed as commercial units.


----------



## thatguyhex (Jul 26, 2013)

Crispy said:


> The Western block has all its bedrooms in the basement fronting onto a lightwell.


 


Sounds like Brixton may be needing its own The Worst Room sooner or later.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 26, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Doesn't particularly look that way from the drawings. I'm seeing quite a few ugly bodges. The Western block has all its bedrooms in the basement fronting onto a lightwell. The other half of the basement is being turned into "cellular storage" for use by residents and management, purely because it gets no sunlight. No, I'm pretty sure these were designed as commercial units.


 
Are you saying it might be worth using inappropriate conversion as a ground for objecting (should anyone wish to do so?)


----------



## leanderman (Jul 26, 2013)

Manter said:


> Don't think they lie empty if they put any effort into filling them! Even horrors like st George's Wharf are not just accommodation blocks.... IMO some mixed use is important to keep any area 'living'- we don't want a dormitory suburb where people sleepwalk from blank, faceless blocks of flats, down identikit high streets and into the tube- we don't want this place to turn into your average Berkshire commuter town! The idea is to keep some jobs locally, encourage local commercial activity and engagement, get money circulating in the local area- which the developers will obviously jettison for a quick buck, but which the council planners ought to be aware of and protect. But hey, it's Lambeth...



Are we short of business space? The Josephine Avenue job centre has been empty for seven years. 

Predictably the plan is now residential. 

It may be that it is too easy to price out would-be business tenants. But I am not sure how you police this.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2013)

Of course we don't want Brixton to become a dormitory town. But I don't really think there's much danger of that. If the development were in some other location which was mainly residential and lacking shops and other services (and particularly if it was being built on a site which previously had commercial stuff on it) then I can see there's a strong planning argument to resist the development being entirely residential. But in that location on Coldharbour Lane, two minutes from the centre of Brixton and on a street which already has shops, restaurants, etc, I don't see that the same argument applies.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Jul 26, 2013)

It should be part of the planning to prove that the business units will be affordable/leasable. The Green Man and Warrior units lay empty for years, adding to the desolate feeling of LJ at the time. They were priced ridiculously highly. 
When I was at a planning meeting a few weeks ago, lots of questions were asked about one of the developments that contained retail at ground level and how they could ensure we wouldn't end up with another LJ situation


----------



## Crispy (Jul 26, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Are you saying it might be worth using inappropriate conversion as a ground for objecting (should anyone wish to do so?)


I've lived in a basement bedroom with much worse natural light provision tbf. Not reasonable grounds imo.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2013)

Here's the unattractive sight of the empty commercial under under the Viaduct development.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 26, 2013)

editor said:


> Here's the unattractive sight of the empty commercial under under the Viaduct development.View attachment 37755


 
Wonder what the units could be used for? I reckon the only likely candidates would be solicitors/estate agents that type of thing. Too far back from the road for normal shops. Ideal for something like Diamond Merchant/Plumbase if the forecourt was available for plumbers etc to park whilst popping in for their spares. No doubt the £350 per week residents might be a bit pissed off at tradesmen parking in their forecourt though.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 26, 2013)

It's the same ploy as the old shop on Brixton Water Lane - converted to flats, clearly no market for an A1 A2 premises at the bottom, stays empty for 2 years, planning permission gets granted for a house with no windows. Leasehold sold as a lump sum.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 27, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What's the case for making them commercial units, though? I don't really see a big problem with it becoming residential in that location.


 
The case is that it supplies local employment. As planning policy is supposed to protect areas that formerly provided local employment. As this site did.

Otherwise Barratts or other developers would just turn areas into dormitory areas.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 27, 2013)

Here is Barratts justification. From page 17 of there consultants report

As CH1 says above the planning guidance has recently changed to favour change of use to residential of commercial property.

6.10 says the Council tried to exempt the Brixton area from this but failed.

Notice officers already were disposed to support change from commercial to residential. Not really there place to do so considering the Council had actively tried to oppose this for Brixton as a whole. In order to protect local employment I assume.

Also not happy that senior officers seem to have a big say in planning policy as its put into practise. When this should be for local residents and Cllrs.



> 6.5
> The presence of residential accommodation in these locations would
> provide for increased levels of activity in this location throughout the day
> as opposed to employment of retail which would be closed outside
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 27, 2013)

teuchter said:


> (and particularly if it was being built on a site which previously had commercial stuff on it) then I can see there's a strong planning argument to resist the development being entirely residential. .


 
This site previously had commercial office premises on it. Voice newspaper used to have there offices on the site.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 27, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> This site previously had commercial office premises on it. Voice newspaper used to have there offices on the site.



I used to work for the Voice in Blue Star House. Were they up the road before then?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 28, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I used to work for the Voice in Blue Star House. Were they up the road before then?


 
The Voice had offices on the 1st floor of an industrial building immediately on the east side of the Labour Exchange/Cooltan site at least until 1998. So the Barratts site replaces that industrial/office building and the Labour Exchange.
The Viaduct site on the other hand was originally a disused garage which from the mid 1980s was a used tire depot.
Both sites were blighted for years in planning terms because Lambeth would not accept ANY residential - even mixed use. Now they are going to the opposite extreme.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 28, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Here is Barratts justification. From page 17 of there consultants report
> 
> As CH1 says above the planning guidance has recently changed to favour change of use to residential of commercial property.
> 
> ...


 
I don't think local residents have had any input into the goings on on this site for many years.
BTW if Brixton is so vibrant and edgy why are we getting this bland Brixton Square tat?
Have you seen their blurb on the Loampit Vale Renaissance scheme? - now that's more what I would call sexy - at least as far as Barratts are concerned http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/H454601-Renaissance/


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I don't think local residents have had any input into the goings on on this site for many years.
> BTW if Brixton is so vibrant and edgy why are we getting this bland Brixton Square tat?
> Have you seen their blurb on the Loampit Vale Renaissance scheme? - now that's more what I would call sexy - at least as far as Barratts are concerned http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/H454601-Renaissance/


 
Or this for example. Zaha Hadid project in Austria:



> A landmark project completed as part of a waterside revitalization project – our three-part structure, comprising apartments, offices and artists’ studios, woven through, around and over the arched bays of a disused railway viaduct. Our buildings interact playfully with the viaduct, creating new exterior spaces and vistas.


 
Modern architecture can be dramatic not mundane tat.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 31, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I used to work for the Voice in Blue Star House. Were they up the road before then?


Here is a photo of the Voice Communications Group office at 370 Coldharbour Lane (looks like the photo was taken round 2005 some years after they moved out)


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

Here's how it looked in 2001







And in 2006






It was quite a pleasant piece of architecture. Certainly more pleasing than the Brixton Square cheap office block look.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Here's how it looked in 2001
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm no expert, but to me it has hints of Art Deco. Check the windows - especially curving on the rounded corners of the building. cf Crownleigh Court in St Matthews Road.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 31, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I'm no expert, but to me it has hints of Art Deco. Check the windows - especially curving on the rounded corners of the building. cf Crownleigh Court in St Matthews Road.


 
The curved brickwork and windows on the corner *are* v. similar to some "Art Deco revival" places built in the '50s, as well as to original Art Deco, as are the (often leaky as fuck after a few years of expansion and contraction) metal window frames.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

I'd describe it as being inspired by 1930s Art Deco.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2013)

As a matter of interest. Was sent this about Section 106.

Barratts used financial viability ( which the planning committee never saw) to argue for alteration to the affordable housing in Brixton Square. Do not think they used these people. But goes to show that there is a whole business helping developers getting out of providing affordable housing.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 2, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> As a matter of interest. Was sent this about Section 106.
> 
> Barratts used financial viability ( which the planning committee never saw) to argue for alteration to the affordable housing in Brixton Square. Do not think they used these people. But goes to show that there is a whole business helping developers getting out of providing affordable housing.


I would love it to be from a subsidiary of Crapita.
BTW I had occasion to ring Lambeth regarding objection to the current planning application (only the Brixton Society objected according to the Planning website). I had not realised that Lambeth Planning Enquiries (both telephone and email) are dealt with by a Capita Call Centre in Bristol. This has been the case for 18 months the call centre lady informed me. No wonder Lambeth Planning are so responsive to our local needs!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2013)

I noticed yesterday that the first occupants are in now.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 5, 2013)

What's the deal with 'The Park' flats on the corner of Stockwell (Park Walk) and Brixton Rd. What happened to the people who lived there? And what kind of housing will it be now?


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 5, 2013)

The ones opposite brook were supported living units for older males if I remember correctly. 

didn't editor or onket post up some plans/drawings for the block on that corner - tall from memory.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 5, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> The ones opposite brook were supported living units for older males if I remember correctly.
> 
> didn't editor or onket post up some plans/drawings for the block on that corner - tall from memory.



Yes. They did. Big modern Shoreditch-style block.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I noticed yesterday that the first occupants are in now.


There's been people living there for quite a while now and quite a few have been having lots of jolly parties to celebrate.


----------



## Chilavert (Aug 5, 2013)

editor said:


> There's been people living there for quite a while now and quite a few have been having lots of jolly parties to celebrate.


How very dare they!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 9, 2013)

Walking past just now I noted a couple sipping rose from champagne flutes on their balcony.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 9, 2013)

I did not judge them, of course.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 9, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I did not judge them, of course.


 
call yourself an urbanite


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 9, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I did not judge them, of course.


Why not? Couldn't you see what year the champagne was?


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 10, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Latest twist on Lambeth social/affordable housing policy: planning have just refused permission for a major refurbishment and redevelopment at Toplin House (former Victorian fire-station and Refugee Council/Post Office building in Ferndale Road). This looked to be quite a good scheme design-wise, opening up the frontage on Ferndale Road for shops/offices facing Bon Marché and demolishing the rear extension on the corner of Stockwell Avenue/Bellefields Road.
> Decision (13/00096/FUL) was at officer delegated level - so this may be part of a ping-pong negotiation à la Barratts.
> Reason No1 for refusal: The proposed residential flat building appears capable of accommodating additional units, where the size of the proposed units exceed the minimum floor space standards set out in the Councils SPD on Housing Development and resorts in a layout that therefore prohibits the provision of affordable housing. No adequate justification has been provided to demonstrate why additional units can not be achieved at the site, and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy S2 of the Core Strategy 2011 whereby it fails to address the Boroughs Housing needs.
> In plain English this means that the developer has proposed to build flats which are TOO LARGE - thereby not cramming enough units in to trigger the requirement to provide affordable housing.
> ...



http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...mer-brixton-fire-station-redevelopment-plans/


----------



## Badgers (Aug 10, 2013)

teuchter said:
			
		

> Walking past just now I noted a couple sipping rose from champagne flutes on their balcony.



Are you certain it was not a bottle of Cava or Prosecco?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 10, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Are you certain it was not a bottle of Cava or Prosecco?


 
Or even the pink variety of Schloer, with the bottle where it couldn't be seen?


----------



## CH1 (Aug 10, 2013)

Thanks for the update.


cuppa tee said:


> http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...mer-brixton-fire-station-redevelopment-plans/


 
I see from the Weekender there is now another planning application on Toplin House  http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MOL4MVBO67000
seems that Black Rock are taking the opportunity to increase the number of flats for sale to 11 and still not offering social housing on "viability" grounds, taking their cue from the planning inspector.
Interesting to see if this is waved through now, or referred to committee.
Hopefully there really will be some new office/workshop space as the main part of the project, whatever the outcome on the residential add-on.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 11, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Why not? Couldn't you see what year the champagne was?


Sod the champers, it will be strictly rum when I move in.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 11, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Sod the champers, it will be strictly rum when I move in.


 
Which type?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 11, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Which type?


Mount Gay Old Gold of course and don't even mention Appletons to me lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Mount Gay Old Gold of course and don't even mention Appletons to me lol


 
You prefer pretty pretty rum to the real stuff, then?


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 12, 2013)

So how many of the 107 'sold out immediately' flats are occupied now? And how many are owner-occupied, and how many are BTL?  I demand to know.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 12, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So how many of the 107 'sold out immediately' flats are occupied now? And how many are owner-occupied, and how many are BTL?  I demand to know.


Ok the first phase sold out in one month, 2 bed priced at £340,000, upon release of the second phase Barratts put the price up to £386,000 for a 2 bed because  demand was so  high, the second phase also sold out immediately, and will be ready to occupy in November, apparently there are not to many buy to let's the vast majority of the units are owner occupiers.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 12, 2013)

Ta


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You prefer pretty pretty rum to the real stuff, then?


The real stuff makes me fall asleep and makes my head pound, pretty pretty rum for pretty pretty boys


----------



## teuchter (Aug 12, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Are you certain it was not a bottle of Cava or Prosecco?


 
No I was not.


----------



## editor (Aug 12, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ok the first phase sold out in one month, 2 bed priced at £340,000, upon release of the second phase Barratts put the price up to £386,000 for a 2 bed because demand was so high


This from the profiteering scum who wriggled out of their affordable housing commitments so they could line their pockets even more.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 13, 2013)

editor said:


> This from the profiteering scum who wriggled out of their affordable housing commitments so they could line their pockets even more.


 
The guy from Barratts very plainly laid it on the line to the planning committee last May that the original affordable housing commitment was non-viable and the scheme "never could have been built". I heard it - so did Gramsci and Cllr Matt Parr and Cllr Jeremy Clyne - neither on the planning committee.
The planning committee themselves were sufficiently supine to accept this tosh and vote through the relaxation of the section 106 terms (by a majority of 4 to 2).
Now Barratts have come back to Lambeth Council asking to cancel the employment generating business space in the project and change it to more residential. Lambeth Council is so mixed up with property developers these days that back scratching and appeasement seem the order of the day. Give Barratts an inch...


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So how many of the 107 'sold out immediately' flats are occupied now? And how many are owner-occupied, and how many are BTL?  I demand to know.


Been on the net, and can only find one apartment in BS to let, and that advert says "This property has been removed" I honestly don't think there are that many BTL


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Been on the net, and can only find one apartment in BS to let, and that advert says "This property has been removed" I honestly don't think there are that many BTL


 
It'll be impossible to tell for sure anyway, until/unless someone cross-checks ownership with occupancy.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 13, 2013)

CH1 said:


> The guy from Barratts very plainly laid it on the line to the planning committee last May that the original affordable housing commitment was non-viable and the scheme "never could have been built". I heard it - so did Gramsci and Cllr Matt Parr and Cllr Jeremy Clyne - neither on the planning committee.
> The planning committee themselves were sufficiently supine to accept this tosh and vote through the relaxation of the section 106 terms (by a majority of 4 to 2).
> Now Barratts have come back to Lambeth Council asking to cancel the employment generating business space in the project and change it to more residential. Lambeth Council is so mixed up with property developers these days that back scratching and appeasement seem the order of the day. Give Barratts an inch...



With this house price madness, this weasliness looks worse and worse.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Aug 14, 2013)

If the original scheme they proposed was non-viable and could never have been built, they should have to withdraw it and re-submit. Otherwise any development could plead this on any grounds not just affordable housing.

Those high quality finishes we promised are now unaffordable so we will have to subtitute them with cheap and nasty ones...


----------



## CH1 (Aug 15, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I noticed yesterday that the first occupants are in now.





editor said:


> There's been people living there for quite a while now and quite a few have been having lots of jolly parties to celebrate.





CH1 said:


> Now Barratts have come back to Lambeth Council asking to cancel the employment generating business space in the project and change it to more residential. Lambeth Council is so mixed up with property developers these days that back scratching and appeasement seem the order of the day. Give Barratts an inch...


It is quite clear on the decision notices on the original planning applications that the commercial floorspace must be completed and available for occupation prior to the occupation of the residential units.
What Barratts have done is the opposite of this.
Does planning have any meaning in this context - if not why not?


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2013)

It's fucking criminal the way that Lambeth just roll over and let Barratts do what they want.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> It is quite clear on the decision notices on the original planning applications that the commercial floorspace must be completed and available for occupation prior to the occupation of the residential units.
> What Barratts have done is the opposite of this.
> Does planning have any meaning in this context - if not why not?View attachment 39147View attachment 39148


 
Are they completed and available?
If they are but just not yet occupied then the condition has been satisfied.
If not it's just an email to enforcement to open a case (to which you will probably receive a response allocating an officer and then never hear anything again!)


----------



## CH1 (Aug 15, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Are they completed and available?
> If they are but just not yet occupied then the condition has been satisfied.
> If not it's just an email to enforcement to open a case (to which you will probably receive a response allocating an officer and then never hear anything again!)


 
Barratts are one step ahead:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...CaseNumber=IATT91BOXK000&keyVal=MP3X0ZBO67000


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2013)

If you think they've breached their conditions, email enforcement. If no-one ever does this, they have little motivation to enforce stuff.

I did once and it wasn't ignored - an officer came out to have a look.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Barratts are one step ahead:
> http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...CaseNumber=IATT91BOXK000&keyVal=MP3X0ZBO67000


 
As Rushy says looks like Barratts have covered themselves.

For breaches of conditions officers normally take the line that retrospective planning application is sufficient.

That does not mean that an application will get officer recommendation.

The main problem is that the Council do not want to have costly appeals. So errs on side of accepting applications.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 2, 2013)

Permission refused.


> Site:
> 
> 368 - 372 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8PL
> 
> ...


----------



## Crispy (Sep 2, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Permission refused.


And how!


----------



## editor (Sep 2, 2013)

Triple like. Fuck off Barratts, you shifty, devious, commitment-shirking fuckers.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 2, 2013)

That really is a comprehensive refusal. Sometimes these things read like "yeah, you nearly got it, but if you just tweak a bit and come back to us, no wories" but that is pretty full on.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 2, 2013)

Crispy said:


> And how!


Not a lot of room for misunderstanding there, I don't think.


----------



## editor (Sep 2, 2013)

Kudos to Lambeth for_ finally_ sticking up for something about this wretched development.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 2, 2013)

leanderman said:


> What's the deal with 'The Park' flats on the corner of Stockwell (Park Walk) and Brixton Rd. What happened to the people who lived there? And what kind of housing will it be now?


There's two separate developments - 'The Park' which was built on an area of land on Robsart Street which was empty for some time (can't remember what was there before, I think it was some of the older bits of the Stockwell Park Estate, boohoo might remember) - and Redmayne House (which is on the corner of Stockwell Park Road & Sidney Road, opposite the Grosvenor pub) which was demolished recently and is currently being rebuilt as 'luxury' apartments.

The Park is mostly private iirc with small amount of 'affordable' housing - i.e. part buy, part rent for people with incomes of £60k/£70k+. A quick search reveals two bed flats go for more than half a million quid! 

Redmayne House was only about 20 flats as far as I remember, plus unused commercial units on the ground floor....and was kept half empty for the past 10 years or so in preparation for this mundane new development of 30+ flats currently being built. The council received an unprecedented number of planning objections from the well-heeled residents of Stockwell Park (_hundreds_, iirc) objecting to the height and proximity of the new development, loss of light & privacy to gardens etc, but it still went through. So same old story basically!

edited to add: 328 of the 368 dwellings in 'The Park' were for private sale. It was on the site of old sheltered housing  Old thread here from 2006: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/new-tower-blocks-for-stockwell-park.97626/


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 2, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Permission refused.


excellent news. 

I wonder whether Barratts intended to try this on (turning the commercial units into 9 flats) right from the start?


----------



## Manter (Sep 2, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> excellent news.
> 
> I wonder whether Barratts intended to try this on (turning the commercial units into 9 flats) right from the start?


Surely not. That would be dishonest....!


----------



## boohoo (Sep 3, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> There's two separate developments - 'The Park' which was built on an area of land on Robsart Street which was empty for some time (can't remember what was there before, I think it was some of the older bits of the Stockwell Park Estate, boohoo might remember) - and Redmayne House (which is on the corner of Stockwell Park Road & Sidney Road, opposite the Grosvenor pub) which was demolished recently and is currently being rebuilt as 'luxury' apartments.
> 
> The Park is mostly private iirc with small amount of 'affordable' housing - i.e. part buy, part rent for people with incomes of £60k/£70k+. A quick search reveals two bed flats go for more than half a million quid!
> 
> ...



The top of Robsart street was garages and a bit of grass land. That was the first part of the development. Then the old people's home was dug up. Redmayne house has come down and Wayland house is gone too. The replacement for Wayland will be some taller tower block. The newer developments are quite ugly and uninspired as is much of the new builds going up. 

It's quite amazing that the Stockwell Park residents complaints didn't stick as they are quite good at getting things stopped. 

It's all so ugly that it's starting to make Stockwell Park estate look well designed.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 3, 2013)

editor said:


> Kudos to Lambeth for_ finally_ sticking up for something about this wretched development.



Shame it was the commercial units rather than the social housing eh? No doubt some vibrant shops will open and brighten up the old manor eh?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 3, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> excellent news.
> 
> I wonder whether Barratts intended to try this on (turning the commercial units into 9 flats) right from the start?



Not in my opinion. The floor plan was not conducive to residential units. It had clearly been designed for use as commercial, and had to be severely mangled to fit flats in, even by Barratts standards.


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2013)

I'm still a bit confused how the developers of the nearby Viaduct got away with converting the commercial units at the rear (on Valentia Place) because they really don't look like they're designed for residential use.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 3, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm still a bit confused how the developers of the nearby Viaduct got away with converting the commercial units at the rear (on Valentia Place) because they really don't look like they're designed for residential use.


I imagine they didn't previously get one over on the planners, eliciting scores of complaints and articles in the local press.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 3, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Not in my opinion. The floor plan was not conducive to residential units. It had clearly been designed for use as commercial, and had to be severely mangled to fit flats in, even by Barratts standards.


If they'd had it ready for use earlier this year they could have converted them under PD. Close call!


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2013)

Rushy said:


> they could have converted them under PD.



How so?


----------



## Rushy (Sep 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> How so?


New PD rules grant rights for conversion from offices to residential - so long as the offices were in existence as offices before a certain date earlier this year. There are some limited exceptions. Lambeth is challenging the legislation in relation to Piano House. Same thing being brought in shortly in relation to agricultural buildings.


----------



## JAC2013 (Sep 3, 2013)

Just a bit of clarification (and to my pleasant surprise) on BTL, I moved into the development in June and in my core there are 22 flats I think of which one is BTL.  Having spoken with the vast majority of neighbours the majority like me have lived in the local area, so I'd have to say a lot of the assumptions made are ill-founded.


----------



## fortyplus (Sep 3, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm still a bit confused how the developers of the nearby Viaduct got away with converting the commercial units at the rear (on Valentia Place) because they really don't look like they're designed for residential use.


Apparently they are live/work units.  So the agent told us when we were looking to rent one of them as a commercial unit anyway.


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2013)

fortyplus said:


> Apparently they are live/work units.  So the agent told us when we were looking to rent one of them as a commercial unit anyway.


They look very much like live/live units to me!


----------



## leanderman (Sep 3, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> Just a bit of clarification (and to my pleasant surprise) on BTL, I moved into the development in June and in my core there are 22 flats I think of which one is BTL.  Having spoken with the vast majority of neighbours the majority like me have lived in the local area, so I'd have to say a lot of the assumptions made are ill-founded.



That is a pleasant surprise.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 3, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm still a bit confused how the developers of the nearby Viaduct got away with converting the commercial units at the rear (on Valentia Place) because they really don't look like they're designed for residential use.



Unless my eyes were playing tricks on me i'm sure I saw people sat watching telly in the commercial units on the ground floor of the ugly new build opposite the crown and anchor
of course watching telly is not the same as living there.


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> That is a pleasant surprise.


It's a little at odds with my (admittedly limited) experience: I've met three people who have moved in to the flats. All were renting, and none said they were living in the area. Perhaps I found the only three examples. Maybe. Barratts were certainly aiming the development at buy to letters though.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 3, 2013)

editor said:


> It's a little at odds with my (admittedly limited) experience: I've met three people who have moved in to the flats. All were renting, and none said they were living in the area. Perhaps I found the only three examples. Maybe. Barratts were certainly aiming the development at buy to letters though.



Intriguing contrast.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> That is a pleasant surprise.



The hatemongers will be restive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2013)

Crispy said:


> That really is a comprehensive refusal. Sometimes these things read like "yeah, you nearly got it, but if you just tweak a bit and come back to us, no wories" but that is pretty full on.



I suspect that even Lambeth Planning cottoned on that local people were pissed off about Barratts being allowed to get out of the "social housing" committment, and have done this to send a message, as much as because it was the right thing to do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Intriguing contrast.



The best sort.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> The hatemongers will be restive.



As will sententious pricks like yourself who go around saying things like "the hatemongers will be restive".


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 3, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> Just a bit of clarification (and to my pleasant surprise) on BTL, I moved into the development in June and in my core there are 22 flats I think of which one is BTL.  Having spoken with the vast majority of neighbours the majority like me have lived in the local area, so I'd have to say a lot of the assumptions made are ill-founded.


Forgive me for being sceptical, but how do you know only 1 of 22 is BTL? You say "you think..." and that you've spoken to the "vast majority" but not *all* of the residents. Also, you only speak for "your core" of 22 flats - there are 5 blocks and well over 100 flats...

So methinks you are stretching the truth. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong with any evidence.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> As will sententious pricks like yourself who go around saying things like "the hatemongers will be restive".


My suspicions are confirmed.


----------



## JAC2013 (Sep 4, 2013)

Brixton Hatter – I was similarly sceptical, but there was a ‘meet the neighbours’ day of sorts recently for all of the first phase of residents, a bit of a meet and greet for all of the new residents. So we have actually had the pleasure of meeting the vast majority of all the current occupiers in both ours and the other two occupied cores.  Quite genuinely nearly all of the various people that I spoke to were living in the development with a minority renting. I think this will tie in with rightmove listings over the past 2/3 months with only  2/3 from my monitoring being BTL. Undoubtedly this could well potentially change with the second phase released later this year with a higher BTL ratio,  but I have to say it’s a really nice mix of people in my block with a high number of permanent residents, as opposed to the adjacent Valentia place which is fully rental. Hope this info is of interest!


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> Undoubtedly this could well potentially change with the second phase released later this year with a higher BTL ratio,  but I have to say it’s a really nice mix of people in my block with a high number of permanent residents, as opposed to the adjacent Valentia place which is fully rental. Hope this info is of interest!


Thanks for the update.

Shame the development is priced so high with so few affordable rents available thanks to the disgusting, obligation-wriggling antics of Barratt Homes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2013)

teuchter said:


> My suspicions are confirmed.



Mentioning that you're a sententious prick (a fact evident from many of your postings) isn't "hatemongering", it's a Public Service Announcement.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 4, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> Brixton Hatter – I was similarly sceptical, but there was a ‘meet the neighbours’ day of sorts recently for all of the first phase of residents, a bit of a meet and greet for all of the new residents. So we have actually had the pleasure of meeting the vast majority of all the current occupiers in both ours and the other two occupied cores.  Quite genuinely nearly all of the various people that I spoke to were living in the development with a minority renting. I think this will tie in with rightmove listings over the past 2/3 months with only  2/3 from my monitoring being BTL. Undoubtedly this could well potentially change with the second phase released later this year with a higher BTL ratio,  but I have to say it’s a really nice mix of people in my block with a high number of permanent residents, as opposed to the adjacent Valentia place which is fully rental. Hope this info is of interest!




Clearly, the meeting was staged by Barratts using out-of-work actors!


----------



## Rushy (Sep 4, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> as opposed to the adjacent Valentia place which is fully rental.


The guy who built it (well, _finished _building it) never sold up.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Sep 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Clearly, the meeting was staged by Barratts using out-of-work actors!


Lol I move into BS in November so will inform you about the next wave of BTL/owner occupiers/newbies


----------



## Manter (Sep 18, 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/thousands-affordable-homes-axed-councils

This is interesting- on affordable homes being axed from new developments, why, etc


----------



## editor (Sep 18, 2013)

Manter said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/thousands-affordable-homes-axed-councils
> 
> This is interesting- on affordable homes being axed from new developments, why, etc


Shameful, disgusting greed from the developers and spineless capitulation from the councils is why.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2013)

Manter said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/thousands-affordable-homes-axed-councils
> 
> This is interesting- on affordable homes being axed from new developments, why, etc


 
Developers are using financial "viability" as reason. The article says that these financial viability asssessments are commercially confidential. They are so confidential that when the alteration to the Section 106 by Barratts went to planning committee even the Cllrs on the committee did not see it.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 18, 2013)

I've worked on one of those "viability" reports. It's a sham.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 18, 2013)

The viability stuff is such a sham it's hard to think anyone genuinely believes it. Seeing as the affordable housing is agreed at the time the development is planned but then routinely (as in, every single time) not put in on affordability grounds I can only see two possible explanations: a) the developers are so poor at calculating their expected costs and incomes from a project that each time it's a massive surprise to them that they aren't working out, or b) they routinely assume that they can get rid of the affordable housing upon completion and build on that basis. I wonder which is true?


----------



## Manter (Sep 18, 2013)

editor said:


> Shameful, disgusting greed from the developers and spineless capitulation from the councils is why.


Judging from the article, the councils hand are largely tied- don't know how true that is?


----------



## Chilavert (Sep 18, 2013)

Councils are dealing with what, a 35-40% reduction in their funding at the moment? If, as Manter says, their hands are largely tied, why would they waste what little money they have appealing to the planning inspectorate over decisions they have no chance of overturning?

That being the case Ed I think your description of councils' actions is a little hyperbolic (not that there aren't other very legitimate reasons to criticise Lambeth).


----------



## Rushy (Sep 18, 2013)

Chilavert said:


> Councils are dealing with what, a 35-40% reduction in their funding at the moment? If, as Manter says, their hands are largely tied, why would they waste what little money they have appealing to the planning inspectorate over decisions they have no chance of overturning?
> 
> That being the case Ed I think your description of councils' actions is a little hyperbolic (not that there aren't other very legitimate reasons to criticise Lambeth).


Indeed. Developers spend 10s of thousands on these viability reports. Council's don't have the funds to challenge them effectively / risk losing on appeal.

I think there is an argument to made for simplifying the process. Much of the "affordability" of the project will be tied up with what was paid for the land. That should be an irrelevance. Otherwise a developer who over pays for a site can make up for it at the expense of affordable housing. They should simply have to develop it or sell it to another developer - even if it means they sell it at a loss. The profit on successful development are high because of the risks involved. It is not the government's job to take al the risk out for the developer and still maintain profit.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2013)

Chilavert said:


> over decisions they have no chance of overturning?



It's the developer who could appeal if the council refused permission, isn't it? It would still involve a cost to the council, of course, but I wonder what the appeal process would make of the "financial viability" arguments? After all, unlike the councils themselves, they might be less scared to annoy developers. Have many of these kinds of applications have actually gone to appeal I wonder?


----------



## Chilavert (Sep 18, 2013)

I'm sure you're right Teuchter, I'm by no means an expert on the planning system (who is?).


----------



## Rushy (Sep 18, 2013)

teuchter said:


> It's the developer who could appeal if the council refused permission, isn't it? It would still involve a cost to the council, of course, but I wonder what the appeal process would make of the "financial viability" arguments? After all, unlike the councils themselves, they might be less scared to annoy developers. Have many of these kinds of applications have actually gone to appeal I wonder?


I'm not really all that clued up on details but believe that if the council loses the appeal they may be liable for potentially huge costs for delay to the developer. hence appeals can be "with costs".


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2013)

I have looked this issue of renegotiation of Section 106 agreements ( which include affordable housing). There are several articles in Inside Housing.

What has happened is that this Government has changed the planning rules:



> Plans to allow developers to renegotiate their affordable housing obligations if they believe these are making schemes unviable have become law.
> 
> The Growth and Infrastructure Act, which received royal assent yesterday, will allow developers to reopen discussions over section 106 agreements and reduce the number of affordable homes they are providing.
> 
> During the passage of the bill through parliament the government accepted an amendment introducing a ‘sunset clause’ to end the measure in April 2016, although the government will be able to extend it if it feels it is still necessary.



So this is supposed to be temporary measure due to economic crisis. Also read developers were lobbying government for this. 

In the run up to passing this act the GLA assembly urged Boris to oppose this change:



> The London Assembly calls on the mayor… to reaffirm his commitment to mixed and balanced communities, and to reject any attempt to renegotiate existing planning obligations where this would lead to a reduction in the level of affordable housing being provided,’ she said.



These alterations to Section 106 were also opposed by the (national) Labour Party

This is a developers view



> The agreements were signed in January 2007 before Freshstart acquired the developments and, importantly, prior to the property market downturn.





> As first revealed by Inside Housing, section 106 agreements can now be removed if they make a project commercially unviable for a developer. This can only be a good thing for the property market and the economy on the whole.



Does look to me that developers must have lobbied government for this easing of Section 106 agreements. Given that in London the housing market is ok for sellers of property do not see how this argument can apply.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2013)

This article argues (correctly imo) that the "viability" testing can lead to long term problems.



> "However, without further guidance, the narrow definition of viability in the NPPF risks undermining the future wellbeing and resilience of our communities by reducing the delivery of social and affordable housing and weakening positive action on responding to climate change.”
> 
> Chris Cousins, local government liaison manager at BRE, said: “Viability assessments of new developments must consider the impact of the buildings, homes and infrastructure provided. Developments that don’t respond to 21st century challenges like an ageing population and climate change will have big costs to local authorities and society in the long-term.”
> 
> Naomi Luhde-Thompson, Friends of the Earth's planning and policy advisor, said: "The planning system needs to deliver in the public interest, but the current viability policy is short-term and damaging for local economies and our environment. The Government must commit to revising the policy as soon as possible for fairer and more sustainable decisions.



It would cost more to build homes to a zero carbon standard. Viability assessment that are based on short term profit or loss do not take into account long term savings that benefit society as a whole.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 18, 2013)

Manter said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/thousands-affordable-homes-axed-councils
> 
> This is interesting- on affordable homes being axed from new developments, why, etc


Edward Lister's reported comment in the article is not logical: "while the priority is to get new schemes off the ground, the mayor would intervene in future to raise affordable housing numbers if it was shown that developers were making disproportionately large profits"
If the priority in a property boom is to "get new schemes off the ground" by accepting 15 or 20% affordable and no social housing, how is the Mayor's Office going to intervene in the next property slump?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 15, 2013)




----------



## Belushi (Oct 15, 2013)

You in now Mr B?


----------



## editor (Oct 15, 2013)

I guess that's the only glimpse most Brixtonites will see of the 'square' behind the gates.


----------



## Manter (Oct 15, 2013)

you can see right into everyone else's flats!  

I guess at least you don't need to watch TV, you can watch your neighbours...


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 15, 2013)

Belushi said:


> You in now Mr B?


No just popped in as they were having a meet the builders day, another four to five weeks, but must say it looks quite impressive and the finish is very good, contrary to what I have heard about Barratts.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 15, 2013)

Manter said:


> you can see right into everyone else's flats!
> 
> I guess at least you don't need to watch TV, you can watch your neighbours...


Lol, all those apartments are empty, no one has moved in yet that's why no blinds or curtains


----------



## Dan U (Oct 15, 2013)

You gonna stand at the window and wank off a lot?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 15, 2013)

Dan U said:


> You gonna stand at the window and wank off a lot?


Yeah why not I think it's a good initiation.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 15, 2013)

Dan U said:


> You gonna stand at the window and wank off a lot?


 
Why would you stand at the window when you have a balcony?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 15, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Why would you stand at the window when you have a balcony?


Coz it's cold outside


----------



## Greebo (Oct 15, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Coz it's cold outside


Fair dos, you need to allow for the effect which cold air has on the male anatomy.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 27, 2013)

Three months ago a two bed was being advertised for £1600 per month.


----------



## Manter (Oct 27, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Lol, all those apartments are empty, no one has moved in yet that's why no blinds or curtains


It's the proximity and windows facing directly on one another I was commenting on, not the lack of curtains. I prefer to open my curtains quite a lot of the time anyway


----------



## Paulie (Oct 29, 2013)

Manter said:


> It's the proximity and windows facing directly on one another I was commenting on, not the lack of curtains. I prefer to open my curtains quite a lot of the time anyway


They don't look so close.  Think of all the L-shaped terraced houses where the side/back windows are about 10' from next door or the front windows where your neighbours are a street's width away.  That square looks wider than a street.

Mind you, does look like they won't be overimbued with daylight when the winter sun is low in the sky.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)




----------



## loulou82 (Oct 29, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> View attachment 42662



Hi Strangerdanger, which block was this photo taken from? It looks really nice.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Hi Strangerdanger, which block was this photo taken from? It looks really nice.



I cant remember what it was called, but its the block where the sales office is. They are working very hard and fast I must say.


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 29, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I cant remember what it was called, but its the block where the sales office is. They are working very hard and fast I must say.



Ah great, have you bought a flat there?


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Ah great, have you bought a flat there?



Yeah, my boyfriend and I have - just moved in a couple weeks ago. Been reading the boards for a while now but never been brave enough to get involved. I know a lot has been said on here about Barratts, but in our experience they have been quite good.   They are accommodating and the staff at BS are working very hard. 

Met only a few neighbours, all owners and all seem very nice, polite.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Hi Strangerdanger, which block was this photo taken from? It looks really nice.


What looks really nice?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 29, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Yeah, my boyfriend and I have - just moved in a couple weeks ago. Been reading the boards for a while now but never been brave enough to get involved. I know a lot has been said on here about Barratts, but in our experience they have been quite good.   They are accommodating and the staff at BS are working very hard.
> 
> Met only a few neighbours, all owners and all seem very nice, polite.


Ah that's great news stranger, I move in in three weeks, the trees were not up two weeks ago so it looks like they have been working flat out, wish you had joined in months ago and taken some of the heat off me lol.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 29, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What looks really nice?


The outside does look a bit like council office but inside the square looks really nice


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ah that's great news stranger, I move in in three weeks, the trees were not up two weeks ago so it looks like they have been working flat out, wish you had joined in months ago and taken some of the heat off me lol.
> 
> Aaah, sorry about that. I have been so tempted to chime in many times (especially in the champagne and Fromage thread, oh man my fingers were itching!) but was always to lazy/chicken. Re. The trees, I literally went to bed and they weren't there, and the next morning by the time I left for work they were there. The photo was taken a couple days ago and since then they have planted some shrubs and finished about half of the footpaths.
> 
> From what we've been told there are quite a few of you moving in within the next three weeks. Good luck, hope it goes smoothly!


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)

Oops..haven't quite got the hand of this yet. I said -
Aaah, sorry about that. I have been so tempted to chime in many times (especially in the champagne and Fromage thread, oh man my fingers were itching!) but was always to lazy/chicken. Re. The trees, I literally went to bed and they weren't there, and the next morning by the time I left for work they were there. The photo was taken a couple days ago and since then they have planted some shrubs and finished about half of the footpaths. 

From what we've been told there are quite a few of you moving in within the next three weeks. Good luck, hope it goes smoothly!


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 29, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Yeah, my boyfriend and I have - just moved in a couple weeks ago. Been reading the boards for a while now but never been brave enough to get involved. I know a lot has been said on here about Barratts, but in our experience they have been quite good.   They are accommodating and the staff at BS are working very hard.
> 
> Met only a few neighbours, all owners and all seem very nice, polite.


We have bought a flat too. We move in 2 weeks. So really interested in what's going on in there. It looks so nice. My current view has been a brick wall for 5 year so looking forward to seeing trees. We had a little tour about a month ago and there still seemed so much to do.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 29, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> We have bought a flat too. We move in 2 weeks. So really interested in what's going on in there. It looks so nice. My current view has been a brick wall for 5 year so looking forward to seeing trees. We had a little tour about a month ago and there still seemed so much to do.


What were you in for?


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 29, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What looks really nice?


All of it. Looks so nice, especially the trees.


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 29, 2013)

Rushy said:


> What were you in for?


Ha ha, my flat might as well been a prison cell. Been living on stockwell road for a long time in a pretty stinky place so can't wait to move!


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> We have bought a flat too. We move in 2 weeks. So really interested in what's going on in there. It looks so nice. My current view has been a brick wall for 5 year so looking forward to seeing trees. We had a little tour about a month ago and there still seemed so much to do.



You know, we had a tour about a month ago as well, maybe we have met? On our tour they said that they would finish the landscaping in December, but last week we got a letter apologising for the noise and saying they wanted to finish in 3 weeks, so things are happening fast. 

I agree I think the courtyard looks nice. The outside is a little bland, but at least because of this (IMO) it won't look too dated in a few years (brick usually ages well).


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 29, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> You know, we had a tour about a month ago as well, maybe we have met? On our tour they said that they would finish the landscaping in December, but last week we got a letter apologising for the noise and saying they wanted to finish in 3 weeks, so things are happening fast.
> 
> I agree I think the courtyard looks nice. The outside is a little bland, but at least because of this (IMO) it won't look too dated in a few years (brick usually ages well).


Oh maybe. We were on the 4th oct in the afternoon. Hello neighbour!

I was really worried as have been reading lots of negative posts about this development. We have lived in the area for years and thought we would have to move into areas far out when we could finally afford to buy but this place came up at the right time for us.

So far it seems that most people own their flats and are from London. So a very different picture from what the media is portraying of lots of overseas buy to let landlords piling into these new developments. Really hoping there is a nice community there!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 29, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Oh maybe. We were on the 4th oct in the afternoon. Hello neighbour!
> 
> I was really worried as have been reading lots of negative posts about this development. We have lived in the area for years and thought we would have to move into areas far out when we could finally afford to buy but this place came up at the right time for us.
> 
> ...


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Oh maybe. We were on the 4th oct in the afternoon. Hello neighbour!
> 
> I was really worried as have been reading lots of negative posts about this development. We have lived in the area for years and thought we would have to move into areas far out when we could finally afford to buy but this place came up at the right time for us.
> 
> So far it seems that most people own their flats and are from London. So a very different picture from what the media is portraying of lots of overseas buy to let landlords piling into these new developments. Really hoping there is a nice community there!


We had our tour the same day actually, but we were in the morning!

I will say, we bought on the new buy scheme and just happened upon the BS website. To be honest, owning was a bit of a pipe dream because rents are so expensive and it seemed we couldn't save a deposit fast enough. 

When we realised we were eligible for new buy, we looked at other developments as well, and one of them was in very early stages. There was no pricing info on the website at all and i thought we found it at a good time, but when I called up for info i was told that every single 1 bed had been sold to overseas investors. I was so surprised! They said the development had only been marketed overseas, so for once it's not just the media making things up. Shortly thereafter we started getting flyers (in our old rented flat) about selling "our property", with the flipside of the flyer in mandarin. Telling indeed.


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 29, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> We had our tour the same day actually, but we were in the morning!
> 
> I will say, we bought on the new buy scheme and just happened upon the BS website. To be honest, owning was a bit of a pipe dream because rents are so expensive and it seemed we couldn't save a deposit fast enough.
> 
> When we realised we were eligible for new buy, we looked at other developments as well, and one of them was in very early stages. There was no pricing info on the website at all and i thought we found it at a good time, but when I called up for info i was told that every single 1 bed had been sold to overseas investors. I was so surprised! They said the development had only been marketed overseas, so for once it's not just the media making things up. Shortly thereafter we started getting flyers (in our old rented flat) about selling "our property", with the flipside of the flyer in mandarin. Telling indeed.


Same as us, we never ever thought we would ever own a property in London. We have been so lucky to buy here. I was told that there were 20 people on the list for our flat if we didn't take first refusal. Crazy! I'm really pleased Barratt's bucked the trend and marketed this development to people living in the local area. I've seen so many new looking developments popping up that I have never even seen or heard of, and  we've been flat hunting for nearly 2 yrs solidly.

We've been living on the edge of a stress meltdown for the past month though as our mortgage needed to be extended but the bank was just not pushing anything through. Finally got it sorted today 14 days before we move in so I can finally start getting excited and can believe it's really happening. We reserved the flat in January so it seems like a lifetime ago.

We are moving in to a 1st floor flat on the academy block so I'm so excited to think I will look out my window to see the trees.


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 29, 2013)

Ha! I'll buy some Buck's Fizz to celebrate our moving in!


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Same as us, we never ever thought we would ever own a property in London. We have been so lucky to buy here. I was told that there were 20 people on the list for our flat if we didn't take first refusal. Crazy! I'm really pleased Barratt's bucked the trend and marketed this development to people living in the local area. I've seen so many new looking developments popping up that I have never even seen or heard of, and  we've been flat hunting for nearly 2 yrs solidly.
> 
> We've been living on the edge of a stress meltdown for the past month though as our mortgage needed to be extended but the bank was just not pushing anything through. Finally got it sorted today 14 days before we move in so I can finally start getting excited and can believe it's really happening. We reserved the flat in January so it seems like a lifetime ago.
> 
> ...


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)

Why do I keep doing that??

Ooh, we were really afraid of the mortgage offer expiring but luckily our block was ready around the same time it was due to expire, so Barratts prioritised our flat so that it was ready on the very last day of the mortgage offer. We were very lucky but as I said before the staff here were really helpful - and we were so grateful. It could have been a huge nightmare without them. Good luck with everything, by the time you move i I think it will all be done! They mentioned something about a party for all the residents, hopefully that goes ahead!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 29, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Ha! I'll buy some Buck's Fizz to celebrate our moving in!


Buck's Fizz ............. I was thinking more of an eve in Champagne and Fromage lol


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)

Why do


Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Buck's Fizz ............. I was thinking more of an eve in Champagne and Fromage lol


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 29, 2013)

Don't want to get myself into any trouble, but we went there for a glass of champagne to celebrate the night we completed. It also happened to be the night it opened and the night of the protest. It was interesting lol.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 29, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Don't want to get myself into any trouble, but we went there for a glass of champagne to celebrate the night we completed. It also happened to be the night it opened and the night of the protest. It was interesting lol.


Noooooooooo you're in trouble now young lady, there are some things you just never admit to on here


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2013)

Champagne-flaunting flat buyers: what do you have to say to those who claim you are taking up residence in a "gated community"?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Champagne-flaunting flat buyers: what do you have to say to those who claim you are taking up residence in a "gated community"?


Don't care whether it's got a gate on it or not, what's the big deal about a gate, most houses have a front gate.


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Don't care whether it's got a gate on it or not, what's the big deal about a gate, most houses have a front gate.


Most don't have a private road and a private square behind them though, do they?


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> They mentioned something about a party for all the residents, hopefully that goes ahead!


Will locals be invited, or is it only for those who can afford the flats?


----------



## gabi (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> Will locals be invited, or is it only for those who can afford the flats?



You would assume that a residents' party might be for 'residents'.

We're having a Halloween party in my building tomorrow. It's for residents. A good opportunity to actually meet my neighbours. Does that seem weird? Should we post the invite in the South China Morning Post?


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2013)

gabi said:


> You would assume that a residents' party might be for 'residents'.
> 
> We're having a Halloween party in my building tomorrow. It's for residents. A good opportunity to actually meet my neighbours. Does that seem weird? Should we post the invite in the South China Morning Post?


I don't know about you, but if I was putting on a private residents' party I wouldn't be posting up about it in a *public* forum.


----------



## gabi (Oct 30, 2013)

They weren't posting an invite. It was a fairly harmless conversation between new neighbours on a Brixton based bulletin board.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Champagne-flaunting flat buyers: what do you have to say to those who claim you are taking up residence in a "gated community"?


I disagree...I mean it's an outdoor space for residents only. In my opinion this is akin to me not being able to come and hang out in your back garden. A gate does not a gated community make, otherwise some council estates would also qualify.


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Champagne-flaunting flat buyers: what do you have to say to those who claim you are taking up residence in a "gated community"?


I can't wait to live in a building that has a really big and really strong gate. I have been burgled 4 times in my current flat, the last time being 3 weeks ago. This time it was pretty violent. Our door was totally smashed down and our belongings thrown everywhere and precious items taken. I really hope there is a nice community within the gate but i'd like to think the gate keeps us secure from crime not because of any other reason. Behind the gate it's a little square with a bin store and some cycle storage and 2 disabled parking spaces. It now has some trees to make it look nicer. Nothing too secret.

With regards to the party I'd find it a bit weird if people were invited who didn't live in the flats, and weirder if they turned up. I want to be able to form relationships with people who live there, I don't know my neighbors at the moment (I have tried chatting but nobody really bothers) and I find that quite sad, the people I have met so far who are moving in and Stranger and Mr Bim seem keen to get to know other residents and I find that so refreshing.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> I can't wait to live in a building that has a really big and really strong gate. I have been burgled 4 times in my current flat, the last time being 3 weeks ago. This time it was pretty violent. Our door was totally smashed down and our belongings thrown everywhere and precious items taken. I really hope there is a nice community within the gate but i'd like to think the gate keeps us secure from crime not because of any other reason. Behind the gate it's a little square with a bin store and some cycle storage and 2 disabled parking spaces. It now has some trees to make it look nicer. Nothing too secret.
> 
> With regards to the party I'd find it a bit weird if people were invited who didn't live in the flats, and weirder if they turned up. I want to be able to form relationships with people who live there, I don't know my neighbors at the moment (I have tried chatting but nobody really bothers) and I find that quite sad, the people I have met so far who are moving in and Stranger and Mr Bim seem keen to get to know other residents and I find that so refreshing.


Ohhhhh I can feel a revolution coming, we are growing in numbers and getting stronger by the day lol


----------



## Rushy (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ohhhhh I can feel a revolution coming, we are growing in numbers and getting stronger by the day lol


Who's "we"?


----------



## Badgers (Oct 30, 2013)

The royal we?


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I disagree...I mean it's an outdoor space for residents only. In my opinion this is akin to me not being able to come and hang out in your back garden. A gate does not a gated community make, otherwise some council estates would also qualify.


But wouldn't it be nicer if the communal space was of a similar nature to the one provided for the council estate opposite (i.e. a nice open stretch of public space open to all to use, 24/7) rather than having a private 'square' listed on the A-Z that lies behind a big steel gate?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> But wouldn't it be nicer if the communal space was of a similar nature to the one provided for the council estate opposite (i.e. a nice open stretch of public space open to all to use, 24/7) rather than having a private 'square' listed on the A-Z that lies behind a big steel gate?


Nooooooooo


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> But wouldn't it be nicer if the communal space was of a similar nature to the one provided for the council estate opposite (i.e. a nice open stretch of public space open to all to use, 24/7) rather than having a private 'square' listed on the A-Z that lies behind a big steel gate?


It's a square, A  POSTAGE STAMP SIZE SQUARE, not an acre of open space.


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> It's a square, A  POSTAGE STAMP SIZE SQUARE, not an acre of open space.


You must use awfully big envelopes.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> But wouldn't it be nicer if the communal space was of a similar nature to the one provided for the council estate opposite (i.e. a nice open stretch of public space open to all to use, 24/7) rather than having a private 'square' listed on the A-Z that lies behind a big steel gate?


I may be making myself a target here, but I'm going to be completely honest with you, no. If I want a communal space I can got to brockwell park or windrush square. By your logic, no one should have a back garden, they should all be for anyone to use?


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> I can't wait to live in a building that has a really big and really strong gate. I have been burgled 4 times in my current flat, the last time being 3 weeks ago. This time it was pretty violent. Our door was totally smashed down and our belongings thrown everywhere and precious items taken. I really hope there is a nice community within the gate but i'd like to think the gate keeps us secure from crime not because of any other reason. Behind the gate it's a little square with a bin store and some cycle storage and 2 disabled parking spaces. It now has some trees to make it look nicer. Nothing too secret.
> 
> With regards to the party I'd find it a bit weird if people were invited who didn't live in the flats, and weirder if they turned up. I want to be able to form relationships with people who live there, I don't know my neighbors at the moment (I have tried chatting but nobody really bothers) and I find that quite sad, the people I have met so far who are moving in and Stranger and Mr Bim seem keen to get to know other residents and I find that so refreshing.


Jesus. What an awful experience.


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> But wouldn't it be nicer if the communal space was of a similar nature to the one provided for the council estate opposite (i.e. a nice open stretch of public space open to all to use, 24/7) rather than having a private 'square' listed on the A-Z that lies behind a big steel gate?


That would be nice, i would also li


editor said:


> You must use awfully big envelopes.


Honestly it's a small pathway with a bin store and a cycle rack, i'd rather walk down to Brockwell park then spend time sitting next to a bin i've just slung my rubbish into. 

The way the building has been built is to optimize light and space by creating a central void like most large developments of a certain size. They have just chosen to call it a square rather than walkway area or bin store area which is what it is.


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> By your logic, no one should have a back garden, they should all be for anyone to use?


That is not "by my logic" at all.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 30, 2013)

The physical layout of these buildings is a red herring. Private courtyard to mid-rise residential is a very common and normal urban pattern and is used throughout Europe and the world. I do not think it's outrageous to provide a small amount of private amenity space for the residents of a building to use.

What's outrageous is the complete lack of truly affordable housing in this or any other development. Nearly everything that's wrong with this development is political in nature, not the physical design. (ignoring the bland look of the place).


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2013)

Crispy said:


> The physical layout of these buildings is a red herring. Private courtyard to mid-rise residential is a very common and normal urban pattern and is used throughout Europe and the world. I do not think it's outrageous to provide a small amount of private amenity space for the residents of a building to use.
> 
> What's outrageous is the complete lack of truly affordable housing in this or any other development. Nearly everything that's wrong with this development is political in nature, not the physical design. (ignoring the bland look of the place).


For sure, but this big steel gate and private square just puts a big strawberry on top.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> That is not "by my logic" at all.



My mistake, perhaps I misinterpreted your question.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

Crispy said:


> The physical layout of these buildings is a red herring. Private courtyard to mid-rise residential is a very common and normal urban pattern and is used throughout Europe and the world. I do not think it's outrageous to provide a small amount of private amenity space for the residents of a building to use.
> 
> What's outrageous is the complete lack of truly affordable housing in this or any other development. Nearly everything that's wrong with this development is political in nature, not the physical design. (ignoring the bland look of the place).



I agree with you. The term affordable housing is a complete joke in London.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> You must use awfully big envelopes.


Come on editor, you have seen the pictures of the square, it's far to small to accommodate a free for all, we will probably have to draw lots to see which of can can use it. As for t


Strangerdanger said:


> I may be making myself a target here, but I'm going to be completely honest with you, no. If I want a communal space I can got to brockwell park or windrush square. By your logic, no one should have a back garden, they should all be for anyone to use?


ive got your back


Crispy said:


> The physical layout of these buildings is a red herring. Private courtyard to mid-rise residential is a very common and normal urban pattern and is used throughout Europe and the world. I do not think it's outrageous to provide a small amount of private amenity space for the residents of a building to use.
> 
> What's outrageous is the complete lack of truly affordable housing in this or any other development. Nearly everything that's wrong with this development is political in nature, not the physical design. (ignoring the bland look of the place).


Think we can all agree with this.


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Jesus. What an awful experience.


It was awful, i'd come home early from work as I was unwell and walked into that. Every single flat on our floor had been done. Took our landlord 3 days to get us a new door, so didn't sleep properly for those nights. We barricaded ourselves in home alone style with washing racks and open umbrellas up against the door. Our communal door didn't get fixed for 2 weeks and I have come home to find random people just wandering round the corridors.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> It was awful, i'd come home early from work as I was unwell and walked into that. Every single flat on our floor had been done. Took our landlord 3 days to get us a new door, so didn't sleep properly for those nights. We barricaded ourselves in home alone style with washing racks and open umbrellas up against the door. Our communal door didn't get fixed for 2 weeks and I have come home to find random people just wandering round the corridors.


Wow I can see why you are so excited to move in, as a matter of interest I spoke to one of the sales team about three months ago and asked if there had been any break ins, so far so good not one.
The SQUARE is well monitored with surveillance cameras, and from your apartment there is also a video screen where you can see what's going on from three different camera angles, so this should give you a greater piece of mind, hope you are well, same thing happened to me years ago and I still haven't forgotten it.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> It was awful, i'd come home early from work as I was unwell and walked into that. Every single flat on our floor had been done. Took our landlord 3 days to get us a new door, so didn't sleep properly for those nights. We barricaded ourselves in home alone style with washing racks and open umbrellas up against the door. Our communal door didn't get fixed for 2 weeks and I have come home to find random people just wandering round the corridors.


I don't even know what to say, what a nightmare. I don't blame you for wanting to live in a "gated community" after that experience...


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 30, 2013)

This is starting to sound like something from a J G Ballard novel. 

I look forward to tales of middle class mindless consumer product related violence, drugs and sexual debauchery amongst ennui ridden tenants, culminating in an inferno.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> This is starting to sound like something from a J G Ballard novel.
> 
> I look forward to tales of middle class mindless consumer product related violence, drugs and sexual debauchery amongst ennui ridden tenants, culminating in an inferno.


How does one even begin to have a sense of ennui, when they're participating in said drug taking, sexual debauchery, and violence? Not enough hours in the day.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 30, 2013)

The ennui of gated living separated from actual reality causes it... try Millennium People as a starter.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

We are allowed out you know? Lol


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2013)

What is the level of surveillance in the barrier block? Do flats have videophone communication with the entrances?


----------



## Crispy (Oct 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What is the level of surveillance in the barrier block? Do flats have videophone communication with the entrances?


Just speakerphone. You have to be buzzed through once into the lift lobby, which is (not always) overseen by a security person in a booth, then buzzed through again to get onto the (open to the elements) access ways to the flats.


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What is the level of surveillance in the barrier block? Do flats have videophone communication with the entrances?


Wonders what on earth the Barrier Block has to do with this. Again.


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> For sure, but this big steel gate and private square just puts a big strawberry on top.


Trust me, i am loving the idea of big steel gate idea at the moment!


snowy_again said:


> The ennui of gated living separated from actual reality causes it... try Millennium People as a starter.


We are not living in a Beverly Hills or Oscar Pistorius style 'gated community' . I'm living in a block of flats that has a gate on it to stop burglars getting in. How does this cause ennui, i really don't understand!?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Trust me, i am loving the idea of big steel gate idea at the moment!



Do you have two layers of gates before the flat entrance, like the barrier block, or just one?


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you have two layers of gates before the flat entrance, like the barrier block, or just one?


Just one gate


----------



## Crispy (Oct 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Do you have two layers of gates before the flat entrance, like the barrier block, or just one?


Two would be the norm. One to get into the space that's shared by all the buildings (lift lobby, or courtyard) then another to get into your specific building or floor.


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 30, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Two would be the norm. One to get into the space that's shared by all the buildings (lift lobby, or courtyard) then another to get into your specific building or floor.


Oh right, yes we have one gate to get into the communal square and then a door to get into our particular block.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Met only a few neighbours, all owners and all seem very nice, polite.


Unlike the rest of us in Brixton, who are a total nightmare 



loulou82 said:


> Really hoping there is a nice community there!


There is already a 'nice' community in Brixton, do get involved


----------



## Rushy (Oct 30, 2013)

Is the Brixton Square development also portered?


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 30, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Unlike the rest of us in Brixton, who are a total nightmare
> 
> There is already a 'nice' community in Brixton, do get involved


Yes, I live in Brixton and have done for 7 years and want to stick around. I am talking about residential community not the wider community of Brixton. The current resident community in my building in non existent so I am hoping for a much nicer one at Brixton Square. It would be nice to get to know my neighbors on a personal level rather than just shuffling past each other in the hallway.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

I


Brixton Hatter said:


> Unlike the rest of us in Brixton, who are a total nightmare
> 
> There is already a 'nice' community in Brixton, do get involved



Actually on this note, I'm sure there are many people moving into BS that DO want to get involved within the community, but when reading through this thread may get the impression that the community isn't open to them. It could just be me, but I have been reading this thread since February and only just found the courage to chime in. In can be a bit off putting when it feels like your character is instantly judged based on the fact that you bought a flat.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Actually on this note, I'm sure there are many people moving into BS that DO want to get involved within the community, but when reading through this thread may get the impression that the community isn't open to them. It could just be me, but I have been reading this thread since February and only just found the courage to chime in. In can be a bit off putting when it feels like your character is instantly judged based on the fact that you bought a flat.



There's a fair bit of hyperbole and exaggeration on threads like these, if you actually met say editor, who's been pretty vocal on this and several threads, I think you'd find you could have a pleasant and reasonable chat with him on this and many other topics.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 30, 2013)

TruXta said:
			
		

> There's a fair bit of hyperbole and exaggeration on threads like these, if you actually met say editor, who's been pretty vocal on this and several threads, I think you'd find you could have a pleasant and reasonable chat with him on this and many other topics.



YUPPIES IN!!!!!


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 30, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Trust me, i am loving the idea of big steel gate idea at the moment!
> 
> We are not living in a Beverly Hills or Oscar Pistorius style 'gated community' . I'm living in a block of flats that has a gate on it to stop burglars getting in. How does this cause ennui, i really don't understand!?



Haha, no I understand that - go and read that book - it's in the brixton library - all set in Chelsea - which has clear parallels to what's happening in brixton at the mo - certainly not his best book, but the one that has the most immediate connection to the changes in Brixton.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2013)

Badgers said:


> YUPPIES IN!!!!!


Calm down, dear.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 30, 2013)

You shake it all about


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

TruXta said:


> There's a fair bit of hyperbole and exaggeration on threads like these, if you actually met say editor, who's been pretty vocal on this and several threads, I think you'd find you could have a pleasant and reasonable chat with him on this and many other topics.


Fwiw, I'm really glad I did join in. I enjoy a good discussion.


----------



## loulou82 (Oct 30, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Haha, no I understand that - go and read that book - it's in the brixton library - all set in Chelsea - which has clear parallels to what's happening in brixton at the mo - certainly not his best book, but the one that has the most immediate connection to the changes in Brixton.


I will check it out and give you my review!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Actually on this note, I'm sure there are many people moving into BS that DO want to get involved within the community, but when reading through this thread may get the impression that the community isn't open to them. It could just be me, but I have been reading this thread since February and only just found the courage to chime in. In can be a bit off putting when it feels like your character is instantly judged based on the fact that you bought a flat.


I wouldn't get put off by people moaning on this thread - that's the modus operandi of u75. This forum doesn't represent Brixton - it's just a small part. Stick around and you'll prob find it rewarding. 

If people are angry that's partly because many people (some of whom post here) are being forced out of their homes and out of Brixton.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I wouldn't get put off by people moaning on this thread - that's the modus operandi of u75. This forum doesn't represent Brixton - it's just a small part. Stick around and you'll prob find it rewarding.
> 
> If people are angry that's partly because many people (some of whom post here) are being forced out of their homes and out of Brixton.


Oh I totally get that. And I agree with A LOT that has been said regarding this government, the bedroom tax, etc.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> We are allowed out you know? Lol


Only with a minder


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Is the Brixton Square development also portered?


Yes we have a 16 hours a day  concierge, not seen him yet, but I hope he wears a cap and long robes


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes we have a 16 hours a day  concierge, not seen him yet, but I hope he wears a cap and long robes


That's shift work by the day, two concierges


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Yes, I live in Brixton and have done for 7 years and want to stick around. I am talking about residential community not the wider community of Brixton. The current resident community in my building in non existent so I am hoping for a much nicer one at Brixton Square. It would be nice to get to know my neighbors on a personal level rather than just shuffling past each other in the hallway.


Don't knock on my door asking to borrow a bottle of champagne ok lol


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I
> 
> 
> Actually on this note, I'm sure there are many people moving into BS that DO want to get involved within the community, but when reading through this thread may get the impression that the community isn't open to them. It could just be me, but I have been reading this thread since February and only just found the courage to chime in. In can be a bit off putting when it feels like your character is instantly judged based on the fact that you bought a flat.


That's sooooo true, in one thread I was threatened with murder, everyone thinks we have yuppie plague


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

Badgers said:


> YUPPIES IN!!!!!


YEAH WE ARE NOT ALL BAD WE JUST WANT TO BE LOVED


----------



## Badgers (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:
			
		

> YEAH WE ARE NOT ALL BAD WE JUST WANT TO BE LOVED



I will pop round


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

Badgers said:


> I will pop round


You are welcome, Just be careful and wear a dark coat, you do realise there is a badger cull going on


----------



## tommers (Oct 30, 2013)

Badgers said:


> I will pop round




((((Bimbam))))


----------



## Badgers (Oct 30, 2013)

tommers said:
			
		

> ((((Bimbam))))



 there goes the neighbourhood


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Champagne-flaunting flat buyers: what do you have to say to those who claim you are taking up residence in a "gated community"?



Still the same shit-stirring tosser, I see.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Noooooooooo you're in trouble now young lady, there are some things you just never admit to on here



You seem to miss the difference between your early posts and those of Strangerdanger.  You were twattish, and Strangerdanger hasn't been.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You seem to miss the difference between your early posts and those of Strangerdanger.  You were twattish, and Strangerdanger hasn't been.


Here we go again, give me a break please, I still remember the things you said, and me promising never to converse with you again, but things moves on and I haven't the time to hold grudges, have a few kisses x x x x x


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I disagree...I mean it's an outdoor space for residents only. In my opinion this is akin to me not being able to come and hang out in your back garden. A gate does not a gated community make, otherwise some council estates would also qualify.



Out of interest, which council estates?  I can think of some council *blocks* that have entryphone access, even a few that have _concierges_, but I'm not aware of *any* council estates that have a controlled gate.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 30, 2013)

Badgers said:


> I will pop round


Do you mean "in"?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Out of interest, which council estates?  I can think of some council *blocks* that have entryphone access, even a few that have _concierges_, but I'm not aware of *any* council estates that have a controlled gate.


STOP WITH THE GATES, ITS JUST A GATE, ITS NOT EVEN ELECTRIFIED


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I may be making myself a target here, but I'm going to be completely honest with you, no. If I want a communal space I can got to brockwell park or windrush square. By your logic, no one should have a back garden, they should all be for anyone to use?



That's hardly logic. Gardens are private space individual to the household.  Private communal space is another proposition altogether.  At best it's elitist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> STOP WITH THE GATES, ITS JUST A GATE, ITS NOT EVEN ELECTRIFIED



Please don't shout, and please don't order me around, or I might be tempted to be impolite.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Please don't shout, and please don't order me around, or I might be tempted to be impolite.


Oh sorry lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> How does one even begin to have a sense of ennui, when they're participating in said drug taking, sexual debauchery, and violence? Not enough hours in the day.



You develop the sense of ennui when you've done the same debaucheries every day for 6 months.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> Wonders what on earth the Barrier Block has to do with this. Again.



miseryguts is yet again attempting to establish a false equivalence between social housing with entryphones and private housing with "enhanced security features" (to paraphrase someone earlier in the thread).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Trust me, i am loving the idea of big steel gate idea at the moment!
> 
> We are not living in a Beverly Hills or Oscar Pistorius style 'gated community' . I'm living in a block of flats that has a gate on it to stop burglars getting in. How does this cause ennui, i really don't understand!?



What research there is about urban gated communities (bear in mind that most gated communities are *suburban*) points to inhabitants developing isolationist mentalities, part of which *can* be a sense of ennui with regard to "the wider community".  Perfectly understandable from a psychological point of view, but perhaps not the most community-enhancing attitude that can evolve!


----------



## Rushy (Oct 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What research there is about urban gated communities (bear in mind that most gated communities are *suburban*) points to inhabitants developing isolationist mentalities, part of which *can* be a sense of ennui with regard to "the wider community".  Perfectly understandable from a psychological point of view, but perhaps not the most community-enhancing attitude that can evolve!


Does this research define what it means by gated communities?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Still the same shit-stirring tosser, I see.


Another disruptive ad hominem post that would be deleted by the impartial moderator were it to appear in next month's Brixton thread. Again, I would recommend disciplinary action against those who encourage this kind of behaviour by "liking" such posts.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Does this research define what it means by gated communities?


I'd like to know this as well.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Another disruptive ad hominem post that would be deleted by the impartial moderator were it to appear in next month's Brixton thread. Again, I would recommend disciplinary action against those who encourage this kind of behaviour by "liking" such posts.


There is some good pre-like-button debate on here somewhere about whether "liking" could be used to for bullying.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's hardly logic. Gardens are private space individual to the household.  Private communal space is another proposition altogether.  At best it's elitist.


I completely disagree. In our old flat, the gardens were chopped up at the back and fenced in - one garden for each floor. We were flat E on the same floor as flat D. We shared a garden with flat D, and although I was friendly with the tenants in flat B (the floor below) I couldn't just rock up in their garden even though it was right next to ours. The were all fenced off separately. They way I see it, the square is the same, you don't live there so you don't use it. 

If I wanted to push the argument even further, take a lounge for example. It's communal space for residents of a household. Are you saying that I should be allowed in your living room? (If you are that would be pretty helpful as I'm struggling without wifi).


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What research there is about urban gated communities (bear in mind that most gated communities are *suburban*) points to inhabitants developing isolationist mentalities, part of which *can* be a sense of ennui with regard to "the wider community".  Perfectly understandable from a psychological point of view, but perhaps not the most community-enhancing attitude that can evolve!


I find that so curious as there is so much more going on outside the gates than inside...in the case of BS anyway.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Out of interest, which council estates?  I can think of some council *blocks* that have entryphone access, even a few that have _concierges_, but I'm not aware of *any* council estates that have a controlled gate.


The one I'm thinking of specifically is on Pentonville Road. Not sure if the gate locks but its definitely there, along with the secure doors.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes we have a 16 hours a day  concierge, not seen him yet, but I hope he wears a cap and long robes


Just a shirt with a BRAM logo, sorry to disappoint you. Seems like a nice guy though, very chatty and friendly.


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2013)

Rushy said:


> There is some good pre-like-button debate on here somewhere about whether "liking" could be used to for bullying.


Is someone being 'bullied' in this thread via the means of the 'like' button?
If so, please report the offending posts and be sure to explain the exact nature of the bullying to the mods please.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 30, 2013)

I used to live in a gated development in SE1. This was good but I did find a lot of the 'gated community' a but hideous. Not all but a fair majority where very insular. 

That said this was a zone 1 Edwardian factory conversion with 24 hour concierge. Not some Barratt tat in a 'vibrant' quarter of zone 2


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> the exact nature of the bullying of the mods


Freudian slip?


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Freudian slip?


Some mods most certainly have been bullied by posters in the past, but in this case the minor typo has been corrected.


----------



## Ol Nick (Oct 30, 2013)

editor said:


> Some mods most certainly have been bullied by posters in the past, but in this case the minor typo has been corrected.


Well those mods can dish it out too.


----------



## Manter (Oct 30, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I find that so curious as there is so much more going on outside the gates than inside...in the case of BS anyway.


Remember that and you'll get along fine 

Welcome to Urban... .


----------



## Manter (Oct 30, 2013)

How the m


Badgers said:


> I used to live in a gated development in SE1. This was good but I did find a lot of the 'gated community' a but hideous. Not all but a fair majority where very insular.
> 
> That said this was a zone 1 Edwardian factory conversion with 24 hour concierge. Not some Barratt tat in a 'vibrant' quarter of zone 2


How the mighty have fallen...


----------



## story (Oct 31, 2013)

I don't like gated communities. And I don't think it's the same as having a front gate. It's more like the gate at the end of the drive. It keeps outsiders out, and gives the insiders (who are often better off than a lot of the people who live outside the gates) a sense of separation and security. It keeps them separate. The gates increase any inherent separation: why would someone outside the gate want to buy a drink for someone who comes from inside but has stepped out for a moment, like a sightseer.

The other thing about gated communities is that they are often carved out of territory or open space that was considered "ours" by the local community who have lived there long enough to see the place develop. I've seen this in the States, and it makes me deeply uncomfortable.

Here in Brixton, both this place and Clifton Mansions (whose gate is now firmly locked at all times) were previously places occupied and utilised by musicians, artists, squatters, idealists, the lost and the low, and a bunch of people who made some kind of life for themselves and decided to stay in the area once they could afford to pay rent. A lot of those people are now being priced out of Brixton.

Brixton is changing. But Brixton has always changed. Imagine the reaction when the Jews moved in, an then the Theatre luvvies, and the disquiet when the West Indians started buying up properties, and then when the punks and anarchists arrived in droves. Brixton has always been a place of changing populations and fortunes. It's a wonder this current gentrification stuff hasn't happened a lot sooner.

I have a lot of misgivings about these changes, not least the rent hikes and people being priced out. And I really have to grit my teeth sometimes when I'm going about my business in Brixton these days. I was thinking today how the high street is almost more like the old Brixton now, than some parts of the Market are, because despite the chain shops, I still see Brixton people not outnumbered by the new tribes. I tend to stick to the less Bo-Bo parts of Brixton these days for coffee and chats. Trying to get breakfast at the weekend is a fucking chore these days.

I am worried that Brixton will become a pasteurised homogenised Sunday Supplement version of itself, all polite and shiny and no-where to buy tired short-life fruit and veg at knock down money for stew for a week.

But. I am prepared to be wrong. I hope, really really hope, that there won't be a separation between us old Brixton people and the new comers. I hope that rather than a schism opening up here, we can all be part of something that is still good, even though it's different.

I like a lot of the changes. I like having more choices. I like having more reasons to spend time in public spaces in my own community. And I like the way these changes have made it possible and more likely for Brixton folk pay more attention to each other, stop and chat and visit in the street with each other.

I've been in Brixton for about thirty years. Until this year, I have always considered myself a bit of an incomer, an upstart. But suddenly people are saying to me "Ah, you must have seen a lot of changes over the years...!" Yes, and most of them have been in the last three years.

I am trying hard not to be one of those grumpy old git oldtimers who never allow newcomers to become oldtimers. It's hard, though, when what I encounter in newcomers is a kind of worried confusion that seems to keep them always slightly on the back foot (It's okay! I won't _really_ eat your baby, even you insist on parking your status-pushchair in the fucking doorway) , or worse, barging arrogance (I will feed you to your own fucking baby if you do that again).

So yeah. In conclusion, I'm ambivalent about it all.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 31, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I'd like to know this as well.




And , more important, what is the 'community' or 'wider community'.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:
			
		

> How the m
> 
> How the mighty have fallen...



How the typing has failed


----------



## JAC2013 (Oct 31, 2013)

I think the gated community point is a very interesting one. If there were vast gardens and children playspace then there is a rightful case to be made that it should be open. However I think there is a massive misconception in this instance of what the public ‘square’ is.  It is essentially a section of 3 paths that are being formed at the current time to lead to the various blocks as well as allow for a reuse lorry to come in and turn, with the rest of the land being the substantial cycle and refuse storage buildings that are needed for the development with some tree/shrub planting around it.  There is therefore no grass or lawns to sit on, with two benches planned on the paths. So the case I would put forward is what benefit to the wider community is there in this being open? Are people really going to walk in to do a 10 metre circle around the path and then walk out? With the 300 odd people living here once the new people move in, I don’t fancy your chances for a spot on the benches!


As for the other big misconception that the blocks are full of bankers and buy to let landlords this is again very ill-conceived.  To all the new residents scheduled to come in shortly you’ll find that it’s a very welcoming bunch of people who live here, many of whom have lived in the local area for a number of years and have simply used the 5% mortgage guarantee offer to their benefit to finally get on the ladder after years of renting.  All in all it has been a great few months being in the development.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I completely disagree. In our old flat, the gardens were chopped up at the back and fenced in - one garden for each floor. We were flat E on the same floor as flat D. We shared a garden with flat D, and although I was friendly with the tenants in flat B (the floor below) I couldn't just rock up in their garden even though it was right next to ours. The were all fenced off separately. They way I see it, the square is the same, you don't live there so you don't use it.



I think you've just missed my point, which is that a private garden (as you had with your old flat) is the private space of the *individual(s)* occupying a household. A "private" communal space is something different entirely to a garden (where, as you say, you wouldn't enter someone elses' without permission).  It's a communal space denied to anyone but the residents of your development, and though you say it's small, it's bigger than a lot of residential communal spaces - most apartments I've stayed in in France and Germany only have courtyards big enough to hold the half a dozen different recycling bins (yes, half a dozen!) and a bike rack.



> If I wanted to push the argument even further, take a lounge for example. It's communal space for residents of a household. Are you saying that I should be allowed in your living room? (If you are that would be pretty helpful as I'm struggling without wifi).



WiFi?  I should be so lucky!!! Still "wired" here!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Does this research define what it means by gated communities?



Yes, residential communities that are self-contained (from a security point of view, as opposed to an amenities point of view, IYSWIM) and accessible only through manually-controlled entry (everything from security bods to keypad and/or identicard systems - entryphones systems aren't usually included because they're not particularly secure).

E2A:  This is from research mostly done in the US, but with a minority of it done in England and France.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Another disruptive ad hominem post that would be deleted by the impartial moderator were it to appear in next month's Brixton thread. Again, I would recommend disciplinary action against those who encourage this kind of behaviour by "liking" such posts.



Of course you would, you puling, whiny snake.


----------



## Thaw (Oct 31, 2013)

My flat is part of a house converted into 5 flats. There is a communal garden, but only for the people who live in the house. Is that OK? Are a group of private individuals allowed to share something between themselves or am I only allowed a choice between individually owned vs. accessible to Everyone? The garden has a gate.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you've just missed my point, which is that a private garden (as you had with your old flat) is the private space of the *individual(s)* occupying a household. A "private" communal space is something different entirely to a garden (where, as you say, you wouldn't enter someone elses' without permission).  It's a communal space denied to anyone but the residents of your development, and though you say it's small, it's bigger than a lot of residential communal spaces - most apartments I've stayed in in France and Germany only have courtyards big enough to hold the half a dozen different recycling bins (yes, half a dozen!) and a bike rack.
> But we shared the "private garden" with a separate household. Which makes it communal no?
> 
> 
> WiFi?  I should be so lucky!!! Still "wired" here!


Still better than my barely working 3g lol


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you've just missed my point, which is that a private garden (as you had with your old flat) is the private space of the *individual(s)* occupying a household. A "private" communal space is something different entirely to a garden (where, as you say, you wouldn't enter someone elses' without permission).  It's a communal space denied to anyone but the residents of your development, and though you say it's small, it's bigger than a lot of residential communal spaces - most apartments I've stayed in in France and Germany only have courtyards big enough to hold the half a dozen different recycling bins (yes, half a dozen!) and a bike rack.
> 
> 
> 
> WiFi?  I should be so lucky!!! Still "wired" here!



But we shared the "private garden" with a separate household. Which makes it communal no?


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

DrunkPushkin said:


> My flat is part of a house converted into 5 flats. There is a communal garden, but only for the people who live in the house. Is that OK? Are a group of private individuals allowed to share something between themselves or am I only allowed a choice between individually owned vs. accessible to Everyone? The garden has a gate.



This was the point I was trying to make  - I see BS as exactly the same concept as this.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Oct 31, 2013)

There's a new gated development up on Tulse Hill next to the Esso/Tesco. I don't object to the flats themselves but now the wall and gate have been put in it looks gash. It sets itself apart from all the other buildings around. Is this the future for our architecture and communities ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I find that so curious as there is so much more going on outside the gates than inside...in the case of BS anyway.



The phrase most often used in the US literature on gated communities is "siege mentality", but I don't think that such communities in the UK are quite at that state yet, purely because many US developments are racially-exclusive - not legislatively, obviously, but the development agents and the residents' committees control who can and can't buy into the community, whereas here the only "bar" is cost.  In the UK we also have (so far) very little "white flight", which contributes massively to the homogeneity of US gated communities. 
So yeah, I'm not surprised that you're more interested by what's happening outside, but I also suspect that you'll develop a "community spirit", at which time it'll be interesting to ask you how you feel _vis a vis_ your community and the wider community.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 31, 2013)

I dont think Brixton Square is anything like what most people think of as a gated community tbh, despite the name it's just a bog standard private development with a bit of communal space; it's not even unusual for Brixton - there are similar blocks on Brixton Hill for example.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

DrunkPushkin said:


> My flat is part of a house converted into 5 flats. There is a communal garden, but only for the people who live in the house. Is that OK? Are a group of private individuals allowed to share something between themselves or am I only allowed a choice between individually owned vs. accessible to Everyone? The garden has a gate.


You really, really can't see the difference between a small, shared garden with a little gate and this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

DrunkPushkin said:


> My flat is part of a house converted into 5 flats. There is a communal garden, but only for the people who live in the house. Is that OK? Are a group of private individuals allowed to share something between themselves or am I only allowed a choice between individually owned vs. accessible to Everyone? The garden has a gate.



It's a private dwelling, a house sub-divided into flats, with a garden sub-divided into gardenlets.  The privacy of the garden is part of the function of the original intended use of the housing.  It follows that the garden would remain private.
We're not talking about a garden with BS, though. We're talking about what in a majority of apartment buildings, social and private, is communal space, just as is available (and totally publicly accessible 24 hours a day) to the front and the back of my council flat, just as is to the front and rear of the beautiful (and private) DuCane Court on Balham High Rd. Where's the need for the gate on BS? What's it's intended purpose?  If it's to exclude burglars, then I'm going to contend that the place is poorly designed! If the purpose is to give the residents a feeling of security from the more base members of the community, then we need to be asking "why move somewhere where the locals scare you?".


----------



## Belushi (Oct 31, 2013)

> just as is to the front and rear of the beautiful (and private) DuCane Court on Balham High Rd.


 
I used to live there, and though there are no gates the Concierges will soon chase you off if youre a non resident and they think you're up to no good


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> There's a new gated development up on Tulse Hill next to the Esso/Tesco. I don't object to the flats themselves but now the wall and gate have been put in it looks gash. It sets itself apart from all the other buildings around. Is this the future for our architecture and communities ?



Last time I passed there, Greebo and I had a chuckle at the fact that a pigeon had left a rather large dissenting opinion on the development slap-bang in the middle of the name plaque.


----------



## Winot (Oct 31, 2013)

Was the land that Brixton Square occupies previously public or private land?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> But we shared the "private garden" with a separate household. Which makes it communal no?



Communal - shared by entire community.  Households haven't tended to be self-contained communities since the advent of "nuclear family".


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Winot said:


> Was the land that Brixton Square occupies previously public or private land?


Well, it was an unemployment office that was abandoned, so the space was then squatted/left empty for over a decade. It certainly functioned as a very useful and much-appreciated community space when it was squatted. 

It had a nice green space in the front too.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Last time I passed there, Greebo and I had a chuckle at the fact that a pigeon had left a rather large dissenting opinion on the development slap-bang in the middle of the name plaque.


I never fail to be amazed at the size of pigeon shit. Having white painted walls, their efforts are often particularly impressive during blackberry season.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Last time I passed there, Greebo and I had a chuckle at the fact that a pigeon had left a rather large dissenting opinion on the development slap-bang in the middle of the name plaque.



E2A: Next time you're walking past, check out the appalling quality of the brickwork on the road-facing wall.  There are already cracks developing!  I hope that the flats themselves are a bit more robust!


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> I don't like gated communities. And I don't think it's the same as having a front gate. It's more like the gate at the end of the drive. It keeps outsiders out, and gives the insiders (who are often better off than a lot of the people who live outside the gates) a sense of separation and security. It keeps them separate. The gates increase any inherent separation: why would someone outside the gate want to buy a drink for someone who comes from inside but has stepped out for a moment, like a sightseer.
> 
> The other thing about gated communities is that they are often carved out of territory or open space that was considered "ours" by the local community who have lived there long enough to see the place develop. I've seen this in the States, and it makes me deeply uncomfortable.
> 
> ...



I can see where you're coming from here. 

I'm probably what you may consider to be a yuppie, though I'm not exactly sure what that even means. I've lived my entire London life north of the river and before buying in BS never really thought about living south. I really like Champagne and Fromage and found the staff (didnt meet the infamous twatty guy) to be very nice. I think a lot of the restaurants in BV are good value for money based on taste and what you're getting. But at the same time, I like the produce and fish stalls too. In the 2 weeks I've been living here I have used them, although not as often as I would like (due to the hours they are open, etc). I've always known and been friendly with my neighbours and I don't expect that to change now that I'm in Brixton. 

All I'm saying is, someone may look or dress a certain way, fit the yuppie cliche, may be new to the area...but that's doesn't mean you don't have the same worries, interests, etc. Well, with the exception of people with big status prams. In my experience these people are usually douchebags.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Communal - shared by entire community.  Households haven't tended to be self-contained communities since the advent of "nuclear family".


Well by that definition brixton square is definitely just a private garden. I fear we are going around in circles.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> Here in Brixton, both this place and Clifton Mansions (whose gate is now firmly locked at all times) were previously places occupied and utilised by musicians, artists, squatters, idealists, the lost and the low, and a bunch of people who made some kind of life for themselves and decided to stay in the area once they could afford to pay rent. A lot of those people are now being priced out of Brixton.



I do think the gate reference is a bit of a case of "misremembering". I've posted about Clifton before - about wondering what was out of view behind the closed gates and having asked several times over the years if I could pop in for a look at the courtyard and repeatedly told no. "How would you feel if someone knocked on your door and asked to look around" etc.. It's nonsense to pretend that musicians and idealists treated it as a public open space back in the squat days. Of course, if you knew people living in there it was not exclusive to you. Same as Brixton Square.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I fear we are going around in circles.


Welcome to the my-locked-gate-is-more-inclusive-than-your-locked-gate-go-round.
Enjoy!


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a private dwelling, a house sub-divided into flats, with a garden sub-divided into gardenlets.  The privacy of the garden is part of the function of the original intended use of the housing.  It follows that the garden would remain private.
> We're not talking about a garden with BS, though. We're talking about what in a majority of apartment buildings, social and private, is communal space, just as is available (and totally publicly accessible 24 hours a day) to the front and the back of my council flat, just as is to the front and rear of the beautiful (and private) DuCane Court on Balham High Rd. Where's the need for the gate on BS? What's it's intended purpose?  If it's to exclude burglars, then I'm going to contend that the place is poorly designed! If the purpose is to give the residents a feeling of security from the more base members of the community, then we need to be asking "why move somewhere where the locals scare you?".


I think people want to feel a sense of security WHERE EVER they live - its not about locals scaring anyone. For me the appeal of a secured square is mostly about privacy, but on a subconscious level, part of it probably is the "feeling" of being safe, whether or not it is a reality. In my view, I would feel this way in any neighbourhood. My boyfriend lived in a gated place in London Bridge a few years ago. Again, I would hardly call it a community, it was similar to BS with parking in the middle instead of a footpath. I felt the same whenever i went there.


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger Careful about the clichés you claim to dislike! I have a 6week old, you can't put them in a little light pushchair as their backs and necks need to be flat. Therefore I have a 'big status pram'- and sometimes i don't realise someone is behind me trying to get past, and sometimes my baby cries on buses. It doesn't mean I'm a douchebag, it means I am trying to get from a to b, shop, socialise etc with a baby!


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> Strangerdanger Careful about the clichés you claim to dislike! I have a 6week old, you can't put them in a little light pushchair as their backs and necks need to be flat. Therefore I have a 'big status pram'- and sometimes i don't realise someone is behind me trying to get past, and sometimes my baby cries on buses. It doesn't mean I'm a douchebag, it means I am trying to get from a to b, shop, socialise etc with a baby!


Ah. See we all judge don't we? OK can I change my comments from people with big prams being douchebags to people in North London with big prams being douchebags then? Still a judgment, but probably also fact.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> Strangerdanger Careful about the clichés you claim to dislike! I have a 6week old, you can't put them in a little light pushchair as their backs and necks need to be flat. Therefore I have a 'big status pram'- and sometimes i don't realise someone is behind me trying to get past, and sometimes my baby cries on buses. It doesn't mean I'm a douchebag, it means I am trying to get from a to b, shop, socialise etc with a baby!


Hope those gates are wide enough to get my pram in


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I do think the gate reference is a bit of a case of "misremembering". I've posted about Clifton before - about wondering what was out of view behind the closed gates and having asked several times over the years if I could pop in for a look at the courtyard and repeatedly told no. "How would you feel if someone knocked on your door and asked to look around" etc.. It's nonsense to pretend that musicians and idealists treated it as a public open space back in the squat days. Of course, if you knew people living in there it was not exclusive to you. Same as Brixton Square.


Except poor people got to live in Clifton Mansions, and most of its residents were heavily involved in Brixton life. I quickly got to know many of its residents just from being out and about. 

I still haven't met anyone from Brixton Square.  Just saying, like.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Except poor people got to live in Clifton Mansions, and most of its residents were heavily involved in Brixton life. I quickly got to know many of its residents just from being out and about.
> 
> I still haven't met anyone from Brixton Square.  Just saying, like.


Why is that do you think?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Except poor people got to live in Clifton Mansions, and most of its residents were heavily involved in Brixton life. I quickly got to know many of its residents just from being out and about.
> 
> I still haven't met anyone from Brixton Square.  Just saying, like.


How long have the BS residents been around then?


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Why is that do you think?


Different people, different interests, different lifestyle, I guess. What do you think?


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> How long have the BS residents been around then?


There's been people living there for months now.

Actually, I think I did meet one nu-resident in the Dogstar once who sneered at my block when I told him I lived there. It was "ugly" he said. Nice introduction, I thought.

*not that I'm going to judge any other residents on this one person, of course.


----------



## story (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I can see where you're coming from here.
> 
> I'm probably what you may consider to be a yuppie, though I'm not exactly sure what that even means. I've lived my entire London life north of the river and before buying in BS never really thought about living south. I really like Champagne and Fromage and found the staff (didnt meet the infamous twatty guy) to be very nice. I think a lot of the restaurants in BV are good value for money based on taste and what you're getting. But at the same time, I like the produce and fish stalls too. In the 2 weeks I've been living here I have used them, although not as often as I would like (due to the hours they are open, etc). I've always known and been friendly with my neighbours and I don't expect that to change now that I'm in Brixton.
> 
> All I'm saying is, someone may look or dress a certain way, fit the yuppie cliche, may be new to the area...but that's doesn't mean you don't have the same worries, interests, etc. Well, with the exception of people with big status prams. In my experience these people are usually douchebags.





I'm not saying that you, the individual you, is someone who is ignorant or problematic. Individually, most of the newcomers I've met (those who've not shied away or snubbed us lowly locals.... seriously it has happened...) are nice interesting people.

One of my concerns is something that I think can't be helped: you have arrived in Brixton knowing nothing much about what it was like before. You don't know which shops are family run, or have changed hands, or are brand new. You don't know about the specific beggars and buskers (wither The Philosopher, by the way?), that strange influx of Roma in long colourful skirts who came and went over a couple of years, the Russian lady with the outlandish make-up and the towering black nylon hair, the local kids who were kicked down the stairs by the cops, the one who refused to take sides in a heated dangerous situation, went home to his mum, and thus, possibly, averted a riot, the fact that Patrick insisted that any restaurant run on his property must be vegetarian, that the Courtesan bar used to be run by an idiot who named it BangBang the weekend after a shooting, that the tree in Windrush Square used to have fairy lights all over it, that the Drinking School who used to hang out there is all gone entirely, that the land that was ripped up to lay Windrush Square was filled with interesting plants, some dating back to the banks of the Effra, that there is a rare example of kinetic sculpture in the garden of Lambeth College, that the old oak on Josephine Avenue apparently shaded the canoodlings of Sir Walter and Queen Bess, that there used to be a grand old squat on Porden Road that is now a car park, that the old clock in the park used to work tick tock, doesn't now, and is being refurbished by local subscription, that the little toy houses outside the secret garden, which have recently been fixed and painted, were part of a village that is now somewhere in Australia, that the Tesco by the prison used to be a great little venue... and so on and so on and so on.

This is not to say that I am precious about all this. It is to recognise that anyone who is new to an area does not know, and cannot know, what that area was like before they popped up out of the ground. When this is a few people, a few families, well they have the chance to hear and learn and join in and find out and bring their own stuff and on we go.

Right now, it's like we're being colonised. So many people all arriving at once, and all bringing with them the kind of culture that has deliberately and strongly stayed away from Brixton in the past, derided Brixton, dismissed and shunned Brixton as a place of danger and poverty and strangeness. And for many of us, one of the reasons we ended up in Brixton was exactly because we didn't find ourselves as individuals, as the people that we are, welcomed or supported by the people who shunned Brixton. We came here, some of us, to get away from that kind of snidey judgement. Outsiders, misfits, rebels, we all ended up here because here we felt comfortable.

So now we find that not just one or two pioneering curious interesting people, or families, are arriving in Brixton, but droves and packs of people who either drift through on a weekend, getting in the way of people who are doing their weekly shop and making ridiculous comments about how weird or lovely or _quaint_ (yes, really) it is to have a real life butcher opposite the vintage store... as if the butcher is the pop-up novelty, and then going home to wherever they've come from like tourists on a week's holiday in Senegal going home to claim that they really did get a sense of the local commuuuunity, such friendly people except for the strange angry ones, but who can blame them when they struggle so with the poverty and crime, bless 'em. Or they (you) are finding that Brixton is borderline affordable, so they're buying up blocks of property, that was sold outside of the community, like the Brits who arrived like locusts in the South of Spain in the eighties.

We, many of us, feel alarmed and disturbed by this. We feel sidelined. We feel as if we have been marketed as one of the charming assets of the locality.

This will pass. We are in flux at the moment. It will settle down. Not for a while yet, judging by how many _many_ developments are still being planned. But while our squatted arts centre, our college, our social housing are being taken away from us, from people who have lived here decades, generations, and tarted up to be sold to incomers, we are kind of edgy and mistrustful. Not least because no-one asked us about any of this. It has been done _to_ us, _to_ Brixton. We've lost a lot, and we're not able yet to see what has been gained.

Brixton Square: I'm sure it will be a lovely place to live, and I'm glad that you and yours have been able to get a toehold on the property ladder. I'm glad that Barratts have been decent and helpful, and I'm very glad they've bothered to plant trees. But every time I go past, I remember the CoolTan and the fun I had there, and how sad it is that we no longer have the place itself, and I am also sad that these days, we no longer have any option for such a place to ever exist again in Brixton.

And by the way, no one in France would ever eat cheese and drink champagne at the same time. It's madness!


----------



## story (Oct 31, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I do think the gate reference is a bit of a case of "misremembering". I've posted about Clifton before - about wondering what was out of view behind the closed gates and having asked several times over the years if I could pop in for a look at the courtyard and repeatedly told no. "How would you feel if someone knocked on your door and asked to look around" etc.. It's nonsense to pretend that musicians and idealists treated it as a public open space back in the squat days. Of course, if you knew people living in there it was not exclusive to you. Same as Brixton Square.




Well, perhaps you're right about this. I had a couple of friends and colleagues who lived and worked there. I think they did become more circumspect about letting people in when the Crack Wars thing got started.

The Brockwell Gate development: that was Dick Shepphard school before it was sold off and developed. I don't think I've ever met anyone who lives there, although I do know a lot of people who went to Dick Shepphard.


I'm not against blocks of flats with gates on _per se_. That's not what I mean. I mean that I don't like the way a lot of these places have been carved out of what was a local space or community, and brand new population airdropped in.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Different people, different interests, different lifestyle, I guess. What do you think?


Not sure, actually. probably all of that and more. Different ages, schedules?We could have walked by each other many times by now and not even know it. I was in a cafe the other day using the wifi and found myself wondering if the guys at the table next to us could be "editor" or "mr bim". Perhaps we should organise some sort of event where we could all meet, that way we will recognise each other while out and about?


----------



## Badgers (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Perhaps we should organise some sort of event where we could all meet, that way we will recognise each other while out and about?



 YES we need a meet up


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Not sure, actually. probably all of that and more. Different ages, schedules?We could have walked by each other many times by now and not even know it. I was in a cafe the other day using the wifi and found myself wondering if the guys at the table next to us could be "editor" or "mr bim". Perhaps we should organise some sort of event where we could all meet, that way we will recognise each other while out and about?


I will be the guy exercising on my balcony


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Not sure, actually. probably all of that and more. Different ages, schedules?We could have walked by each other many times by now and not even know it. I was in a cafe the other day using the wifi and found myself wondering if the guys at the table next to us could be "editor" or "mr bim". Perhaps we should organise some sort of event where we could all meet, that way we will recognise each other while out and about?


That sound a lot like STRANGER DANGER lol


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> I'm not saying that you, the individual you, is someone who is ignorant or problematic. Individually, most of the newcomers I've met (those who've not shied away or snubbed us lowly locals.... seriously it has happened...) are nice interesting people.
> 
> One of my concerns is something that I think can't be helped: you have arrived in Brixton knowing nothing much about what it was like before. You don't know which shops are family run, or have changed hands, or are brand new. You don't know about the specific beggars and buskers (wither The Philosopher, by the way?), that strange influx of Roma in long colourful skirts who came and went over a couple of years, the Russian lady with the outlandish make-up and the towering black nylon hair, the local kids who were kicked down the stairs by the cops, the one who refused to take sides in a heated dangerous situation, went home to his mum, and thus, possibly, averted a riot, the fact that Patrick insisted that any restaurant run on his property must be vegetarian, that the Courtesan bar used to be run by an idiot who named it BangBang the weekend after a shooting, that the tree in Windrush Square used to have fairy lights all over it, that the Drinking School who used to hang out there is all gone entirely, that the land that was ripped up to lay Windrush Square was filled with interesting plants, some dating back to the banks of the Effra, that there is a rare example of kinetic sculpture in the garden of Lambeth College, that the old oak on Josephine Avenue apparently shaded the canoodlings of Sir Walter and Queen Bess, that there used to be a grand old squat on Porden Road that is now a car park, that the old clock in the park used to work tick tock, doesn't now, and is being refurbished by local subscription, that the little toy houses outside the secret garden were part of a village that is now somewhere in Australia, that the Tesco by the prison used to be a great little venue... and so on and so on and so on.
> 
> ...


That was really well put. I can empathise with a lot and definitely understand what youre saying. I do think a lot of it is also down to wider issues in London. It's not just Brixton experiencing these changes, but perhaps its more extreme in Brixton because of location, transport, etc a lot of which have already been discussed on this board. I never knew too much history about any of the places I have lived in London. But out of pure curiosity i did take an interest in these things once i had moved, which is why I guess I'm in this forum.

Yeah, Champagne and cheese at the same time probably isn't the best idea. I have done though. I'm not picky. Lol


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> That was really well put. I can empathise with a lot and definitely understand what youre saying. I do think a lot of it is also down to wider issues in London. It's not just Brixton experiencing these changes, but perhaps its more extreme in Brixton because of location, transport, etc a lot of which have already been discussed on this board. I never knew too much history about any of the places I have lived in London. But out of pure curiosity i did take an interest in these things once i had moved, which is why I guess I'm in this forum.
> 
> Yeah, Champagne and cheese at the same time probably isn't the best idea. I have done though. I'm not picky. Lol


You clearly ARE picky tho, just not in a way that most of us would choose to be, I mean champers and smelly cheese at the same time, what were you thinking!?


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> That sound a lot like STRANGER DANGER lol


Hahahahha, i see what you did there. I did ask my boyfriend if it would be weird if I started asking random people if they were in the forum. He said yes.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You clearly ARE picky tho, just not in a way that most of us would choose to be, I mean champers and smelly cheese at the same time, what were you thinking!?


I'm GREEDY. Lol


----------



## fortyplus (Oct 31, 2013)

I am completely with  story on gated "communities". I can see that it might help sell properties in edgier, more vibrant areas - you get the vibrancy without the fear of having your car vandalised etc etc. But they're by definition _exclusive_ places (and often marketed exactly as such), which is the opposite of _inclusive. I_t's _inclusivity_ that really makes a community, and there's a real danger that the inclusivity of Brixton is being lost. Has been lost. Twenty-five years ago, we were (like strangerdanger) yuppies moving into Brixton. Brixton stole our hearts the day we moved in, the neighbours came out to help us hump furniture and two little boys asked themselves round to play (no fear of stranger-danger for them) until their mum knocked on our door at their teatime. 
As, by necessity, we have to live more densely in urban centres, we need to rebuild inclusive communities, with plenty of shared public spaces, like the piazze in old Italian cities.  This doesn't come naturally to the reserved British, our homes our castles, but we're going to have to learn. It really doesn't help when exclusive spaces are plonked right in the middle of our crowded community.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Hahahahha, i see what you did there. I did ask my boyfriend if it would be weird if I started asking random people if they were in the forum. He said yes.


Go in the garden in the Albert on a random weekend evening and chances are a passing sweep of your posh gaze will take in at least 5 urbz.


----------



## tommers (Oct 31, 2013)

Isn't all this exactly the same as any other wave of immigration?  "Oh, they're all separate!  They keep themselves to themselves! They're changing the area!  Local people are being forced out! We've lived here all our lives!"


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> I'm not saying that you, the individual you, is someone who is ignorant or problematic. Individually, most of the newcomers I've met (those who've not shied away or snubbed us lowly locals.... seriously it has happened...) are nice interesting people.
> 
> One of my concerns is something that I think can't be helped: you have arrived in Brixton knowing nothing much about what it was like before. You don't know which shops are family run, or have changed hands, or are brand new. You don't know about the specific beggars and buskers (wither The Philosopher, by the way?), that strange influx of Roma in long colourful skirts who came and went over a couple of years, the Russian lady with the outlandish make-up and the towering black nylon hair, the local kids who were kicked down the stairs by the cops, the one who refused to take sides in a heated dangerous situation, went home to his mum, and thus, possibly, averted a riot, the fact that Patrick insisted that any restaurant run on his property must be vegetarian, that the Courtesan bar used to be run by an idiot who named it BangBang the weekend after a shooting, that the tree in Windrush Square used to have fairy lights all over it, that the Drinking School who used to hang out there is all gone entirely, that the land that was ripped up to lay Windrush Square was filled with interesting plants, some dating back to the banks of the Effra, that there is a rare example of kinetic sculpture in the garden of Lambeth College, that the old oak on Josephine Avenue apparently shaded the canoodlings of Sir Walter and Queen Bess, that there used to be a grand old squat on Porden Road that is now a car park, that the old clock in the park used to work tick tock, doesn't now, and is being refurbished by local subscription, that the little toy houses outside the secret garden, which have recently been fixed and painted, were part of a village that is now somewhere in Australia, that the Tesco by the prison used to be a great little venue... and so on and so on and so on.
> 
> ...


Nailed it, right there.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

tommers said:


> Isn't all this exactly the same as any other wave of immigration?  "Oh, they're all separate!  They keep themselves to themselves! They're changing the area!  Local people are being forced out! We've lived here all our lives!"


Money seems to be playing a far bigger role in this particular wave, no?


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Ah. See we all judge don't we? OK can I change my comments from people with big prams being douchebags to people in North London with big prams being douchebags then? Still a judgment, but probably also fact.


They are probably also just mums- your highlights and house can be as expensive as you like, a small baby is baffling and stressful, and a mum is just doing the best she can. She is likely to be existing on much less sleep than you and be feeling more vulnerable and inadequate than ever before in her life: if that translates as thoughtlessness, rudeness or taking up too much pavement space (in the view of the nimble singleton trying to dodge past) it's unintentional in most instances, just preoccupation. Whether in north London, Brixton, Cardiff, Stoke, wherever. // end of derail/rant

We do all make assumptions, but should, IMO, challenge them and try and avoid them. The saner posters on here don't attack yuppies, they attack 'yuppification'. It's the process of a society becoming inaccessible to some of its members- you can be concerned by that process even if, just by doing the best you can for you and yours with the resources you have available, you are part of the process. What you can do about it is a different and more difficult question, but the first step has to be admitting the issue exists and your part in it.


----------



## tommers (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Money seems to be playing a far bigger role in this particular wave, no?



Money plays a big part in any immigration doesn't it?  Whether because an area is cheap or  because it gets trendy and people with more money want to live there.  The East End is funny cos it's had both in recent years.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

tommers said:


> Isn't all this exactly the same as any other wave of immigration?  "Oh, they're all separate!  They keep themselves to themselves! They're changing the area!  Local people are being forced out! We've lived here all our lives!"


How is this similar to say the influx of West Indians in earlier decades?


----------



## story (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Go in the garden in the Albert on a random weekend evening and chances are a passing sweep of your posh gaze will take in at least 5 urbz.




More like the garden is Urban's common room. Smoking room.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> More like the garden is Urban's common room. Smoking room.


The Urban Nurseries


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> How is this similar to say the influx of West Indians in earlier decades?


Or the activists/squatters who took over the abandoned/derelict properties in the 1970s?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> More like the garden is Urban's common room. Smoking room.


I was there two weeks ago, yep it's a smokers paradise, I didn't even think of the urbanites but next time I will have a scout around,friendly crowd though bit hippyish


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I was there two weeks ago, yep it's a smokers paradise, I didn't even think of the urbanites but next time I will have a scout around,friendly crowd though bit hippyish


Just yell out _any of you cunts off Urban then_?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

L


TruXta said:


> Just yell out _any of you cunts off Urban then_?


lol lol lol lol don't actually think I can say that word, how about " Are any of you good fellows off Urban then" ?


----------



## tommers (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> How is this similar to say the influx of West Indians in earlier decades?



I'm not sure i'm getting your question, in what way is it different?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

tommers said:


> I'm not sure i'm getting your question, in what way is it different?


What don't you understand about it?


----------



## tommers (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What don't you understand about it?



What is this? Semantics day?  I told you what I didn't understand.  "In what way is it different?"


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

tommers said:


> What is this? Semantics day?  I told you what I didn't understand.  "In what way is it different?"


Back then it was poor black people coming in to a mainly middle-class white area, not it's white upper/middle-class people bumping out working class/lower middle class people.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I didn't even think of the urbanites but next time I will have a scout around,friendly crowd though bit hippyish


_Hippyish?_


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> _Hippyish?_


That'd be you, ed.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I will be the guy exercising on my balcony


Maybe you should hook up with the chick who was doing yoga on Monday morning?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Maybe you should hook up with the chick who was doing yoga on Monday morning?


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh things are looking brighter


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> That'd be you, ed.


I may be many things, but a hippy I am not, and never have been. Well, maybe when I was about 14 when I had a Pink Floyd t-shirt and thought smoking nutmeg might get me somewhere interesting.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> That'd be you, ed.


Yeah a real mixed bag, white guy with dreads, a couple of people dressed in 60s hippy style outfits, a couple in the corner having a joint, the pub was empty everyone was outside, I felt out of place with my pimms.
Had a good night though really diverse crowd. AND VERY FRIENDLY


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh things are looking brighter


Oh how do I delete this in case the girlfriend sees it ? Lol


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> I may be many things, but a hippy I am not, and never have been. Well, maybe when I was about 14 when I had a Pink Floyd t-shirt and thought smoking nutmeg might get me somewhere interesting.


Clearly hippyISH then


----------



## leanderman (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> I'm not saying that you, the individual you, is someone who is ignorant or problematic. Individually, most of the newcomers I've met (those who've not shied away or snubbed us lowly locals.... seriously it has happened...) are nice interesting people.
> 
> One of my concerns is something that I think can't be helped: you have arrived in Brixton knowing nothing much about what it was like before. You don't know which shops are family run, or have changed hands, or are brand new. You don't know about the specific beggars and buskers (wither The Philosopher, by the way?), that strange influx of Roma in long colourful skirts who came and went over a couple of years, the Russian lady with the outlandish make-up and the towering black nylon hair, the local kids who were kicked down the stairs by the cops, the one who refused to take sides in a heated dangerous situation, went home to his mum, and thus, possibly, averted a riot, the fact that Patrick insisted that any restaurant run on his property must be vegetarian, that the Courtesan bar used to be run by an idiot who named it BangBang the weekend after a shooting, that the tree in Windrush Square used to have fairy lights all over it, that the Drinking School who used to hang out there is all gone entirely, that the land that was ripped up to lay Windrush Square was filled with interesting plants, some dating back to the banks of the Effra, that there is a rare example of kinetic sculpture in the garden of Lambeth College, that the old oak on Josephine Avenue apparently shaded the canoodlings of Sir Walter and Queen Bess, that there used to be a grand old squat on Porden Road that is now a car park, that the old clock in the park used to work tick tock, doesn't now, and is being refurbished by local subscription, that the little toy houses outside the secret garden were part of a village that is now somewhere in Australia, that the Tesco by the prison used to be a great little venue... and so on and so on and so on.
> 
> ...



Nicely put. 

I imagine the same kind of arguments were put by Brixton's residents before Story and friends 'popped up out of the ground'!


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Clearly hippyISH then


I remain informed by punk ideals. Truly. I ain't no lentil-munching, yoga-stretching bongo basher.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Oh how do I delete this in case the girlfriend sees it ? Lol


HAHAHA


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

I am seriously getting NO work done because of this forum.


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

fortyplus said:


> I am completely with  story on gated "communities". I can see that it might help sell properties in edgier, more vibrant areas - you get the vibrancy without the fear of having your car vandalised etc etc. But they're by definition _exclusive_ places (and often marketed exactly as such), which is the opposite of _inclusive. I_t's _inclusivity_ that really makes a community, and there's a real danger that the inclusivity of Brixton is being lost. Has been lost. Twenty-five years ago, we were (like strangerdanger) yuppies moving into Brixton. Brixton stole our hearts the day we moved in, the neighbours came out to help us hump furniture and two little boys asked themselves round to play (no fear of stranger-danger for them) until their mum knocked on our door at their teatime.
> As, by necessity, we have to live more densely in urban centres, we need to rebuild inclusive communities, with plenty of shared public spaces, like the piazze in old Italian cities.  This doesn't come naturally to the reserved British, our homes our castles, but we're going to have to learn. It really doesn't help when exclusive spaces are plonked right in the middle of our crowded community.


^this, completely. 

If you build a cube with one entrance, and put a gate on it, people will wonder what is behind that gate (perhaps especially if you say repeatedly that it's nothing exciting but no, they can't look), if you leave the gate off people may look, decide its dull and never go back again, but in both instances you have a cube plonked as if from outer space in the middle of an area. As you say, on the continent they are much more likely to build a 'u' shape with bars and cafés at the bottom: or have a pathway through so the new housing becomes part of the existing ebb and flow of normal pedestrian traffic and is physically part of the area. I'd have thought that was safer too, as people will see what is going in, whereas once you get past the gate of somewhere like BS you 'belong' so are unlikely to be challenged.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> I remain informed by punk ideals. Truly. I ain't no lentil-munching, yoga-stretching bongo basher.


What's wrong with lentils, YOU MONSTER?! Bongos should die, yoga... not for me, but hey, I'm not gonna judge anyone that does it (as long as I don't have to watch).


----------



## tommers (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Back then it was poor black people coming in to a mainly middle-class white area, not it's white upper/middle-class people bumping out working class/lower middle class people.



I certainly agree with the 2nd part, but are you sure about the first?  I don't know the history of Brixton but I'm not sure how they would have afforded to live in a posh area.

http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/history.html



> Knackered privately rented houses were often sold to cash-strapped occupiers, while some houses on the end of their leases were left to quietly fall about as landlords tried to squeeze the last few bob out of the property.
> 
> With many houses in appalling disrepair, slum clearances followed with Council housing filling the gaps, leading to a demographic shift in the area.
> 
> In the 1940s and 1950s many of the immigrants who came to Britain from the West Indies settled in Brixton



ETA:  Actually I'm not sure I do agree with the second bit, I might, but whatever.  I don't live in Brixton so I don't see it every day.


----------



## story (Oct 31, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Nicely put.
> 
> I imagine the same kind of arguments were put by Brixton's residents before Story and friends 'popped up out of the ground'!




I made the same point myself, in post 1721.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

tommers said:


> I certainly agree with the 2nd part, but are you sure about the first?  I don't know the history of Brixton but I'm not sure how they would have afforded to live in a posh area.
> 
> http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/history.html


Not 100% no.


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Back then it was poor black people coming in to a mainly middle-class white area, not it's white upper/middle-class people bumping out working class/lower middle class people.


I thought- tho I may be wrong- that the West Indians wave of immigrants brought some money with them and often set up very successful business so started buying up housing here- Gramsci I have a vague memory of discussing it with you?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

T


Manter said:


> ^this, completely.
> 
> If you build a cube with one entrance, and put a gate on it, people will wonder what is behind that gate (perhaps especially if you say repeatedly that it's nothing exciting but no, they can't look), if you leave the gate off people may look, decide its dull and never go back again, but in both instances you have a cube plonked as if from outer space in the middle of an area. As you say, on the continent they are much more likely to build a 'u' shape with bars and cafés at the bottom: or have a pathway through so the new housing becomes part of the existing ebb and flow of normal pedestrian traffic and is physically part of the area. I'd have thought that was safer too, as people will see what is going in, whereas once you get past the gate of somewhere like BS you 'belong' so are unlikely to be challenged.


That's a fair point, but you also must appreciate that the vast majority of people who have bought in BS WANT  a gated development mostly for security reasons, Windrush Square now has a large homeless community and an alcoholism meeting venue


tommers said:


> I certainly agree with the 2nd part, but are you sure about the first?  I don't know the history of Brixton but I'm not sure how they would have afforded to live in a posh area.
> 
> http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/history.html


No blacks no dogs no Irish, I don't think they were living in the posh bit do you ?


----------



## tommers (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> I thought- tho I may be wrong- that the West Indians wave of immigrants brought some money with them and often set up very successful business so started buying up housing here- Gramsci I have a vague memory of discussing it with you?




There you go, you (I) live and learn.


----------



## story (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> T
> 
> That's a fair point, but you also must appreciate that the vast majority of people who have bought in BS WANT  a gated development mostly for security reasons, Windrush Square now has a large homeless community and an alcoholism meeting venue
> 
> No blacks no dogs no Irish, I don't think they were living in the posh bit do you ?




So fucking what? So what if homeless people and alcoholics live nearby you. What's it to you? They're not going to come zombie-like to your doors and windows.

Oooh, some poor people live nearby, I'd better raise the drawbridge!!!

Listen to yourself! You won't say cunt, you're scared your girlfriend might find out you fancy other women, you think white men with dreads are hippies, you're fearful of people who are homeless in case they.... in case they WHAT for fucksake??..... You are clearly not from round these parts, mate.

It's a kind of arrogance, you know, to believe that poor people and drunk people are in any way interested in targeting you, picking you out for your nice things and marauding through your front room. They have far more pressing things to worry about, like where to take a shit, or how to put shoes on their kids feet..

If it bothers you at all that people live on the streets and struggle with addictions. maybe go out there and meet some of them, learn their names, man the soup kitchen, petition your local MP for an INCREASE in local social housing.

Jeez. You've just undone a whole lot of good work done on this thread by Strangerdanger.


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> T
> 
> That's a fair point, but you also must appreciate that the vast majority of people who have bought in BS WANT  a gated development mostly for security reasons, Windrush Square now has a large homeless community and an alcoholism meeting venue
> 
> No blacks no dogs no Irish, I don't think they were living in the posh bit do you ?


Windrush square doesn't have a homeless community, or large numbers of alcoholics. You're really not helping people warm to you with statements like that. 

Windrush Square has people who don't look like you- that doesn't make them a security risk!  Even if one or two start drinking early in the day, the same could be said for the people drinking at lunchtime in the village- they aren't harming you, they are no danger to you, and if you don't work in public health they are none of your concern. As someone said earlier, I can't see any reason for gates unless you are scared if the people round you, in which case you are confirming everyone's concerns about a cut off, ignorant, isolationist 'community' who have no intention of engaging with the community they have parachuted into.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> I made the same point myself, in post 1721.



A few new-builds aside, is the demographic really changing? I have not seen much evidence of yuppiefication in this street. And the census, although two years out of date, doesn't provide much either.

A lot of 'yuppies' are seen, but do they live here?

And which social housing is being lost, 'squats' aside?


----------



## Badgers (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> friendly crowd though bit hippyish



  

Did you have food?


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

leanderman said:


> A few new-builds aside, is the demographic really changing? I have not seen much evidence of yuppiefication in this street. And the census, although two years out of date, doesn't provide much either.
> 
> A lot of 'yuppies' are seen, but do they live here?
> 
> And which social housing is being lost, 'squats' aside?


I think there is lots of evidence- the government data collection is, as ever, massively out of date, especially in an area changing so fast.
-The prices are definitely going up
- Owner occupiers are a changing demographic- My West Indian neighbour has just moved out, (he's renting his house not selling at the moment), the majority of the houses we looked at last year were being sold by West Indian families and we viewed at the same time as a lot of other white, middle class, professional couples
- there are two blocks of expensive luxury flats built where single family homes were within 1 min walk of me- and I'm out of the centre
- in the four or five streets in a square I live in, there have been 7 loft conversions in the last 6 months. 
I know that's anecdote not evidence, but even I (as a first wave gentrifier so part of the problem I guess) am staggered by how fast the area is changing- not just by people popping out of the tube and going straight to the Village


----------



## Rushy (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> It's a kind of arrogance, you know, to believe that poor people and drunk people are in any way interested in targeting you, picking you out for your nice things and marauding through your front room. They have far more pressing things to worry about, like where to take a shit, or how to put shoes on their kids feet.. Strangerdanger.


The "where to take a shit" dilemma is one of the main reasons quite a few people I know put locked front gates on - private and social housing.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> So fucking what? So what if homeless people and alcoholics live nearby you. What's it to you? They're not going to come zombie-like to your doors and windows.
> 
> Oooh, some poor people live nearby, I'd better raise the drawbridge!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

tommers said:


> I certainly agree with the 2nd part, but are you sure about the first?  I don't know the history of Brixton but I'm not sure how they would have afforded to live in a posh area.


Greedy landlords seized the opportunity to rent out knackered properties at extortionate rates to the first wave of immigrants. With no need to invest, properties fell into more disrepair. By the late 60s, landlords had cottoned on to the fact that there was a massive regeneration scheme in the wind, so they hung on to the properties looking to scoop up a fat wedge of compensation.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> That's a fair point, but you also must appreciate that the vast majority of people who have bought in BS WANT  a gated development mostly for security reasons, Windrush Square now has a large homeless community and an alcoholism meeting venue


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

leanderman said:


> A few new-builds aside, is the demographic really changing?


Yes, it is. It may not seem apparent in some parts of Brixton at certain times, but there's no question that a substantial demographic shift is underway, and in my case best illustrated by the growing wealth chasm along Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> I think there is lots of evidence- the government data collection is, as ever, massively out of date, especially in an area changing so fast.
> -The prices are definitely going up
> - Owner occupiers are a changing demographic- My West Indian neighbour has just moved out, (he's renting his house not selling at the moment), the majority of the houses we looked at last year were being sold by West Indian families and we viewed at the same time as a lot of other white, middle class, professional couples
> - there are two blocks of expensive luxury flats built where single family homes were within 1 min walk of me- and I'm out of the centre
> ...



Prices are soaring everywhere. 

Loft conversions are nothing new.

But I get your general argument. 

There is a lid on this though in that, generally, social housing cannot be bought and sold. 

Which, for example, helps secure 60 per cent of Coldharbour ward for social homes.

And around a third of the homes in this street, which L&Q owns and does not allow right-to-buy on.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

story said:


> So fucking what? So what if homeless people and alcoholics live nearby you. What's it to you? They're not going to come zombie-like to your doors and windows.
> 
> Oooh, some poor people live nearby, I'd better raise the drawbridge!!!
> 
> ...


Sorry but I don't want drunks and druggies hanging out in my garden and I'm not apologising, I'm glad there are gates their to keep them out. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I , and don't try and intimidate me.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Yes, it is. It may not seem apparent in some parts of Brixton at certain times, but there's no question that a substantial demographic shift is underway, and in my case best illustrated by the growing wealth chasm along Coldharbour Lane.



Certainly see more poverty.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> T
> 
> That's a fair point, but you also must appreciate that the vast majority of people who have bought in BS WANT  a gated development mostly for security reasons, Windrush Square now has a large homeless community and an alcoholism meeting venue
> 
> No blacks no dogs no Irish, I don't think they were living in the posh bit do you ?


Oh I have to disagree with you there. I can only speak for myself but we bought BS because it offered new buy, was in zone 2 and had flats for less than 350k which was the starting price of a studio where we were before. I didn't even notice there was a gate on it at first, but I did like the idea of a courtyard with trees. All I knew was that we only needed 5% to get on the ladder in zone 2 in a, forgive me, vibrant area and the idea of owning had began to feel further and further away from our grasp. Then looking at the rendering and going to see the place, obviously we knew but it was never a part of our decision making.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Certainly see more poverty.


More champagne bars too!


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Sorry but I don't want drunks and druggies hanging out in my garden and I'm not apologising, I'm glad there are gates their to keep them out. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I , and don't try and intimidate me.


Does it occur to you that those, "drunks and druggies" are part of the community that you've just moved into, and some of those "drunks and druggies" may well be residents of your very own block? Or are certain sorts of drunks fine with you - like the ones you'll see on Coldharbour Lane at 4 in the morning - so long as they're part of a demographic you like?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Does it occur to you that those, "drunks and druggies" are part of the community that you've just moved into, and some of those "drunks and druggies" may well be residents of your very own block? Or are certain sorts of drunks fine with you - like the ones you'll see on Coldharbour Lane at 4 in the morning - so long as they're part of a demographic you like?


I have not just moved here, I been on brixton hill for years


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Sorry but I don't want drunks and druggies hanging out in my garden and I'm not apologising, I'm glad there are gates their to keep them out. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I , and don't try and intimidate me.



Well when you put it that way...


----------



## Badgers (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I have not just moved here, I been on brixton hill for years



Did you drink and do drugs on 'da hill'?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Does it occur to you that those, "drunks and druggies" are part of the community that you've just moved into, and some of those "drunks and druggies" may well be residents of your very own block? Or are certain sorts of drunks fine with you - like the ones you'll see on Coldharbour Lane at 4 in the morning - so long as they're part of a demographic you like?


But point taken


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Did you drink and do drugs on 'da hill'?


Never even had a joint in my life, I like a rum and coke, sometimes too many, sorry but I just object to people leaving their empty cans scattered across the square. A drunk at 4 am on COLDHARBOUR lane going home is fine, I've got double glazing


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 31, 2013)

You are just a comedy character troll aren't you?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Still better than my barely working 3g lol


VP meant landline plus erratic 3G mobile broadband, sweetie.  And that's shared.  BT refuses to upgrade the connections onto this estate, therefore we can't get real broadband.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> You are just a comedy character troll aren't you?


Lol I'm TALL


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Oh I have to disagree with you there. I can only speak for myself but we bought BS because it offered new buy, was in zone 2 and had flats for less than 350k which was the starting price of a studio where we were before. I didn't even notice there was a gate on it at first, but I did like the idea of a courtyard with trees. All I knew was that we only needed 5% to get on the ladder in zone 2 in a, forgive me, vibrant area and the idea of owning had began to feel further and further away from our grasp. Then looking at the rendering and going to see the place, obviously we knew but it was never a part of our decision making.


That's cool, I didn't actually buy their because it's gated, but I still like the idea of the gates


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> That's cool, I didn't actually buy their because it's gated, but I still like the idea of the gates


As long as they keep the likes of you off the streets, why not indeed.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> As long as they keep the likes of you off the streets, why not indeed.


Yeah yeah yeah


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Prices are soaring everywhere.
> 
> Loft conversions are nothing new.
> 
> ...


I am seeing lots of for sale and sold signs outside the tulse hill estate andCressingham  gardens. I know a % are sellable, under right to buy etc, but it makes me wonder how much of the 'council estate' stock is actually council.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> I am seeing lots of for sale and sold signs outside the tulse hill estate andCressingham  gardens. I know a % are sellable, under right to buy etc, but it makes me wonder how much of the 'council estate' stock is actually council.


One of the houses on Cressingham just went for 390K.
They are bloody nice for the money (relatively speaking).


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> Windrush square doesn't have a homeless community, or large numbers of alcoholics. You're really not helping people warm to you with statements like that.
> 
> Windrush Square has people who don't look like you- that doesn't make them a security risk!  Even if one or two start drinking early in the day, the same could be said for the people drinking at lunchtime in the village- they aren't harming you, they are no danger to you, and if you don't work in public health they are none of your concern. As someone said earlier, I can't see any reason for gates unless you are scared if the people round you, in which case you are confirming everyone's concerns about a cut off, ignorant, isolationist 'community' who have no intention of engaging with the community they have parachuted into.


First you don't know what I look like, second drunks and druggies are a security risk, most burgularies are committed by this group,thirdly I'm not  intimidated by you or anyone I see on the street, I have lived here for years, I am sociable but if indeed I don't won't to engage with the community then that's my choice, and no concern if yours. I'm certainly not going to suck up to you or anyone else just to make you happy. I have my opinions and so do you, that's life


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Sorry but I don't want drunks and druggies hanging out in my garden and I'm not apologising, I'm glad there are gates their to keep them out. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I , and don't try and intimidate me.


I really do wonder what you are trying to achieve on this forum. The first time you spoke up there was an element if childish nose thumbing about some of your posts, but everyone has given you the benefit of the doubt, because there are basically decent people on here (they gave me the benefit of the doubt when I first joined and demonstrated a lack of understanding if some of the issues too). But you aren't trying to engage, or making intelligent contributions to the debate, just basically repeating the same lazy clichés- property good, Brixton getting better, poor people bad.  It's that sort of lazy stereotyping that puts people's backs up, gives yuppies a bad name and makes it difficult for others to join the forum - they say they've moved to BS and there is a collective eyeroll and 'oh god, not another one'
No one is trying to intimidate you- story- who is one of the more thoughtful posters on here- is simply expressing incredulity at some of the attitudes you are expressing.  
I really hope others (thinking specifically of strangerdanger here) aren't put off joining in.


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> First you don't know what I look like, second drunks and druggies are a security risk, most burgularies are committed by this group,thirdly I'm not  intimidated by you or anyone I see on the street, I have lived here for years, I am sociable but if indeed I don't won't to engage with the community then that's my choice, and no concern if yours. I'm certainly not going to suck up to you or anyone else just to make you happy. I have my opinions and so do you, that's life


I'm slightly staggered by this post tbh. If you don't want to engage with the community and have such scorn for the 'drunks and druggies' you are making such un-evidenced claims about, why are you on here?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> I'm slightly staggered by this post tbh. If you don't want to engage with the community and have such scorn for the 'drunks and druggies' you are making such un-evidenced claims about, why are you on here?


He's thumbing his nose at us ne'er-do-wells.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> thirdly I'm not  intimidated by you or anyone I see on the street



Anyone?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Anyone?


Ok perhaps a couple of hardened criminals


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 31, 2013)

I'm slightly perplexed that someone as childish as Bim has managed to negotiate a mortgage.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> First you don't know what I look like, second drunks and druggies are a security risk


Most of the street drinkers in your neighbourhood are of a West Indian/Jamaican background. They've been happily drinking there long before you showed up, and I'm curious why you view them as a 'security risk'. Could you explain, please? Thanks.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

I dunno, i mean does being engaged in the community mean you welcome people taking drugs on your doorstep? I can see what mr bim is saying, maybe it could have just been put in a more diplomatic way. My last flat was on a posh square and if any tenant left the front door open, there was a homeless man who would come in and wee in the communal hallway. I mean, nobody wants that. (In the end they pulled up the carpet because it STANK of urine). There are homeless people and drunks everywhere in London. I wish they're weren't homeless, I wish they weren't addicts, but I certainly don't welcome them to wee in my hallway? Not sure if I'm articulating myself well as I'm on a sugar come down at the moment.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I dunno, i mean does being engaged in the community mean you welcome people taking drugs on your doorstep? I can see what mr bim is saying, maybe it could have just been put in a more diplomatic way. My last flat was on a posh square and if any tenant left the front door open, there was a homeless man who would come in and wee in the communal hallway. I mean, nobody wants that. (In the end they pulled up the carpet because it STANK of urine). There are homeless people and drunks everywhere in London. I wish they're weren't homeless, I wish they weren't addicts, but I certainly don't welcome them to wee in my hallway? Not sure if I'm articulating myself well as I'm on a sugar come down at the moment.


So you think your local neighbourhood is full of people all ready to piss in your doorway and addicts ready to shoot up in your doorway? What are you basing that on?

Take a look outside. Do you see addicts wandering around with needles sticking out of their arms and homeless people  jealously eyeing up your massive gates? The community you're looking out at have been drinking on the streets for years before you arrived and although they may piss me off by using the gardens outside the block as their toilet, to suggest they're all addicts and would-be burglars that you need to be barricaded in against is pretty much offensive to my eyes.

If you want to know who the worst culprits are for pissing in the streets, you'll need to look at an entirely different demographic and it's one that - if I'm not mistaken - will look a lot more familiar to you.


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I dunno, i mean does being engaged in the community mean you welcome people taking drugs on your doorstep? I can see what mr bim is saying, maybe it could have just been put in a more diplomatic way. My last flat was on a posh square and if any tenant left the front door open, there was a homeless man who would come in and wee in the communal hallway. I mean, nobody wants that. (In the end they pulled up the carpet because it STANK of urine). There are homeless people and drunks everywhere in London. I wish they're weren't homeless, I wish they weren't addicts, but I certainly don't welcome them to wee in my hallway? Not sure if I'm articulating myself well as I'm on a sugar come down at the moment.



Sure noone wants drugs etc on their doorstep. But the guys in Windrush square aren't on the doorstep of anyone but the library and the Ritzy, you (nor I) have no idea what drugs if any they are on- all you or I know for certain is that they're sometimes in the square drinking. Not doing anyone any harm, not pissing on anyone's carpets- just drinking. 

We can agree to disagree on gated blocks (I think barricading yourself in creates way more problems than it solves, makes you a target and alienates you from the community around you, increasing hostility and the likelihood of crime, fwiw) but how bim of bar makes assumptions about people and dismisses them marks him out as a prize shit in my book


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> L
> 
> lol lol lol lol don't actually think I can say that word, how about " Are any of you good fellows off Urban then" ?


Why do you constantly put lol in your posts?


----------



## leanderman (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> Sure noone wants drugs etc on their doorstep. But the guys in Windrush square aren't on the doorstep of anyone but the library and the Ritzy, you (nor I) have no idea what drugs if any they are on- all you or I know for certain is that they're sometimes in the square drinking. Not doing anyone any harm, not pissing on anyone's carpets- just drinking.
> 
> We can agree to disagree on gated blocks (I think barricading yourself in creates way more problems than it solves, makes you a target and alienates you from the community around you, increasing hostility and the likelihood of crime, fwiw) but how bim of bar makes assumptions about people and dismisses them marks him out as a prize shit in my book



If gated blocks really are so undesirable, they should be denied planning. 

It's not the fault of those who buy flats in them. The gates are probably not top of their checklist when looking for a home.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> So you think your local neighbourhood is full of people all ready to piss in your doorway and addicts ready to shoot up in your doorway? What are you basing that on?



When I lived over the shops on the high street, there was a months-long period after the fire when we had no secure door from the back street onto the courtyard (shared access for three flats and the back door of the shop below). It quickly became a toilet, including turds. On more than one occasion, I had to step over/ around junkies getting their fix (heroin one time, crack another). Of course, this was five years ago. Who knows what would happen in a similar situation today.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> So you think your local neighbourhood is full of people all ready to piss in your doorway and addicts ready to shoot up in your doorway? What are you basing that on?
> 
> Take a look outside. Do you see addicts wandering around with needles sticking out of their arms and homeless people  jealously eyeing up your massive gates? The community you're looking out at have been drinking on the streets for years before you arrived and although they may piss me off by using the gardens outside the block as their toilet, to suggest they're all addicts and would-be burglars that you need to be barricaded in against is pretty much offensive to my eyes.
> 
> If you want to know who the worst culprits are for pissing in the streets, you'll need to look at an entirely different demographic and it's one that - if I'm not mistaken - will look a lot more familiar to you.


Chill out. I never said the locals were ready to do that at all, I merely pointed out that it doesn't matter where you are in London, as my flat was in a posh square, there are still homeless people and drunks, one of whom used the hallway as a toilet. Repeatedly.

I was simply giving an example to try to explain what i think mr bim meant.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> Sure noone wants drugs etc on their doorstep. But the guys in Windrush square aren't on the doorstep of anyone but the library and the Ritzy, you (nor I) have no idea what drugs if any they are on- all you or I know for certain is that they're sometimes in the square drinking. Not doing anyone any harm, not pissing on anyone's carpets- just drinking.
> 
> We can agree to disagree on gated blocks (I think barricading yourself in creates way more problems than it solves, makes you a target and alienates you from the community around you, increasing hostility and the likelihood of crime, fwiw) but how bim of bar makes assumptions about people and dismisses them marks him out as a prize shit in my book


Yeah fair play to that. I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt and tried to use my experience to translate what I thought he meant is all.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> T
> 
> That's a fair point, but you also must appreciate that the vast majority of people who have bought in BS WANT  a gated development mostly for security reasons, Windrush Square now has a large homeless community and an alcoholism meeting venue
> 
> No blacks no dogs no Irish, I don't think they were living in the posh bit do you ?





Mr Bim of Bar said:


> First you don't know what I look like, second drunks and druggies are a security risk, most burgularies are committed by this group,thirdly I'm not  intimidated by you or anyone I see on the street, I have lived here for years, I am sociable but if indeed I don't won't to engage with the community then that's my choice, and no concern if yours. I'm certainly not going to suck up to you or anyone else just to make you happy. I have my opinions and so do you, that's life


 Most of the drugged up drunks you will find in brixton nowadays are the new arrivals and professional types. If you are not intimidated by anyone why live behind a big metal gate?


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Who knows what would happen in a similar situation today.


Well seeing as I've seen the changes in this particular neighbourhood first hand and are out on the streets most nights, I think I could hazard a better guess than most. The junkie situation is NOTHING like it was 6-8 years ago. They've almost all moved on. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find _any_ around this stretch of Coldharbour Lane. 

We've got a different sort of nuisance now.


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Yeah fair play to that. I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt and tried to use my experience to translate what I thought he meant is all.


Give the street drinkers the benefit of the doubt instead


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Well seeing as I've seen the changes in this particular neighbourhood first hand and are out on the streets most nights, I think I could hazard a better guess than most. The junkie situation is NOTHING like it was 6-8 years ago. They've almost all moved on. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find _any_ around this stretch of Coldharbour Lane.
> 
> We've got a different sort of nuisance now.


I agree that there seems to be less of a junkie presence these days - makes me wonder where they've all gone/been shifted to.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

leanderman said:


> If gated blocks really are so undesirable, they should be denied planning.


And we all saw how Lambeth stood up so valiantly when those Barratts cunts tried to weasel out of their affordable housing commitments. Oh, hang on...


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Chill out. I never said the locals were ready to do that at all, I merely pointed out that it doesn't matter where you are in London, as my flat was in a posh square, there are still homeless people and drunks, one of whom used the hallway as a toilet. Repeatedly.


Where are all these "homeless people" in Coldharbour Lane that you keep on referring to and feel the need to be protected from?


----------



## Winot (Oct 31, 2013)

Crispy said:


> When I lived over the shops on the high street, there was a months-long period after the fire when we had no secure door from the back street onto the courtyard (shared access for three flats and the back door of the shop below). It quickly became a toilet, including turds. On more than one occasion, I had to step over/ around junkies getting their fix (heroin one time, crack another). Of course, this was five years ago. Who knows what would happen in a similar situation today.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Where are all these "homeless people" in Coldharbour Lane that you keep on referring to and feel the need to be protected from?


Are you kidding me right now? Perhaps you should go back and read my posts. Where exactly did I say there were homeless people on CHL? 

Mr Bim was talking about the homeless in windrush square, I used this point to reference the homeless in my old neighbourhood pointing, out that there are homeless people everywhere in London. I mean do I need to clarify even more?


----------



## Badgers (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I agree that there seems to be less of a junkie presence these days - makes me wonder where they've all gone/been shifted to.



((((Anerley))))


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Mr Bim was talking about the homeless in windrush square, I used this point to reference the homeless in my old neighbourhood pointing, out that there are homeless people everywhere in London. I mean do I need to clarify even more?


You seem to be constantly referring to these generic homeless people in a thread about your development in Brixton, so I was wondering where they actually all are because I don't see them in your street. And if you're saying they're not here, why are you going on about them so much?


----------



## Badgers (Oct 31, 2013)

I am only here for the 2000th post now.


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

leanderman said:


> If gated blocks really are so undesirable, they should be denied planning.
> 
> It's not the fault of those who buy flats in them. The gates are probably not top of their checklist when looking for a home.


Completely agree it isn't the 'fault' of the buyers. In fact I don't think gated blocks in town centre locations should be given planning permission- I can't see a positive to them, for the town, or community or (in the longer term) the residents. However, I suppose Lambeth don't have the power to refuse on the basis of gates (even if they wanted to)


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> You seem to be constantly referring to these generic homeless people in a thread about your development in Brixton, so I was wondering where they actually all are because I don't see them in your street. And if you're saying they're not here, why are you going on about them so much?


I talked repeatedly about homeless people, IN GENERAL, all around London, period, in response to someone else's comment about homeless people in windrush square. I dont know how i can possibly make it any clearer for you, but I'm sure that's just my fault...


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I talked repeatedly about homeless people, IN GENERAL, all around London, period, in response to someone else's comment about homeless people in windrush square. I dont know how i can possibly make it any clearer for you, but I'm sure that's just my fault...


So we're agreed then. There are barely any homeless people in Windrush Square and even less on Coldharbour Lane, so going on about them in a discussion about this specific development is something of a total red herring, yes?


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I agree that there seems to be less of a junkie presence these days - makes me wonder where they've all gone/been shifted to.


Lots in the high trees estate at the top of tulse hill. The police after I was attacked last year advised me to avoid that estate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Why is that do you think?




Because you're all Satan-worshipping, rabbit-sacrificing, scrofulous ne-er-do-wells?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Ah. See we all judge don't we? OK can I change my comments from people with big prams being douchebags to people in North London with big prams being douchebags then? Still a judgment, but probably also fact.



Ah, the good old north London/south London divide.  Something often debated on here.  Are all north Londoners versions of the archetypal "Hoxton Twat"?  I neither know nor care, because they live on the wrong side of the river!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Lol


SarfLondoner said:


> Why do you constantly put lol in your posts?


 lol lol lol I don't know lol


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Badgers said:


> I am only here for the 2000th post now.


Knew we would get there, bloody champagne and Fromage is beating us still


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> I'm slightly perplexed that someone as childish as Bim has managed to negotiate a mortgage.


Fortunately for me I don't need a mortgage, I suppose I get hate mail for that as well


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> I'm slightly staggered by this post tbh. If you don't want to engage with the community and have such scorn for the 'drunks and druggies' you are making such un-evidenced claims about, why are you on here?


Same as you. I'm Entitled to voice my opinion.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Most of the drugged up drunks you will find in brixton nowadays are the new arrivals and professional types. If you are not intimidated by anyone why live behind a big metal gate?


Even Mike Tyson has been burgled


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

tommers said:


> Isn't all this exactly the same as any other wave of immigration?  "Oh, they're all separate!  They keep themselves to themselves! They're changing the area!  Local people are being forced out! We've lived here all our lives!"



As has been said by many of us on this thread and previous threads, the last 3-5 years has seen a "torrent", compared to light rain in the previous 20 years.  It's hard for the wider community to deal with because it isn't gradual, and can feel like "our" community is having the rug pulled from under us.  Even on the council estates, we're labouring under the threat that Lambeth Council will sell off the green spaces on estates as developable land.  What has happened at Myatts Field, and is being investigated at Cressingham Gardens could be a borough-wide phenomenon.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Same as you. I'm Entitled to voice my opinion.



And it's incumbent on others to inform you of the fact if/when you post a load of prejudiced old bollocks.

Something you've got form for doing.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And it's incumbent on others to inform you of the fact if/when you post a load of prejudiced old bollocks.
> 
> Something you've got form for doing.


Fair play, but it's only prejudiced bollocks in your opinion, but I respect that


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> T
> 
> That's a fair point, but you also must appreciate that the vast majority of people who have bought in BS WANT  a gated development mostly for security reasons, Windrush Square now has a large homeless community and an alcoholism meeting venue
> 
> No blacks no dogs no Irish, I don't think they were living in the posh bit do you ?



So, because of your spurious crybaby fears (some of us have lived here for 2 decades or more with very little hassle from the homeless, or from street drinkers) you think you're *entitled*?
What you want is the _cachet_ of Brixton, without having to actually rub shoulders with the locals, some of whom *are* homeless, or may be street drinkers.  Pathetic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Fair play, but it's only prejudiced bollocks in your opinion, but I respect that



As I recall, it wasn't just my opinion, it was actually pretty much a consensus opinion.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, because of your spurious crybaby fears (some of us have lived here for 2 decades or more with very little hassle from the homeless, or from street drinkers) you think you're *entitled*?
> What you want is the _cachet_ of Brixton, without having to actually rub shoulders with the locals, some of whom *are* homeless, or may be street drinkers.  Pathetic.


Don't mind rubbing shoulders with what you call locals, but choose not to rub shoulders with drunks and druggies, if that's pathetic then so be it.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I recall, it wasn't just my opinion, it was actually pretty much a consensus opinion.


Yep in life one man sometimes has to make a stand


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Does it occur to you that those, "drunks and druggies" are part of the community that you've just moved into, and some of those "drunks and druggies" may well be residents of your very own block? Or are certain sorts of drunks fine with you - like the ones you'll see on Coldharbour Lane at 4 in the morning - so long as they're part of a demographic you like?



The ones usually pissing and puking in shop doorways, while shouting what sounds like "rah! rah! rah!" at each other, do you mean?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Don't mind rubbing shoulders with what you call locals, but choose not to rub shoulders with drunks and druggies, if that's pathetic then so be it.



Do you socialise with anyone who is a problematic drinker or has drugs issues?  I suspect you do, even if you don't know about their problem, given that about 1 in 12 people have alcohol or non-prescription drug issues serious enough to earn them a "drunk" or "druggie" tag.  What you won't admit is that when it's people you know, the issues of drink and drugs aren't so threatening as when they're attributed to people you don't know.
Pretty much a classic example of bigotry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I have not just moved here, I been on brixton hill for years



Jebb Avenue, perchance?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do you socialise with anyone who is a problematic drinker or has drugs issues?  I suspect you do, even if you don't know about their problem, given that about 1 in 12 people have alcohol or non-prescription drug issues serious enough to earn them a "drunk" or "druggie" tag.  What you won't admit is that when it's people you know, the issues of drink and drugs aren't so threatening as when they're attributed to people you don't know.
> Pretty much a classic example of bigotry.


Why are you surmising who I know and who I don't know, and then you tell me what I won't admit ,then you call be a bigot. You must be MYSTIC MEG


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jebb Avenue, perchance?


Yeah out on bail


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Lol
> 
> lol lol lol I don't know lol





Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Even Mike Tyson has been burgled


Are you looking forward to starting Nursery soon? (LOL)


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Are you looking forward to starting Nursery soon? (LOL)


Dats not four a cuple ov yeers (lol)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> I am seeing lots of for sale and sold signs outside the tulse hill estate andCressingham  gardens. I know a % are sellable, under right to buy etc, but it makes me wonder how much of the 'council estate' stock is actually council.



About a quarter of all Lambeth's social housing stock has been lost through Right to Buy.  When viewing that fraction, bear in mind that into the early '90s, Lambeth Council officers did their very best to delay, obfuscate or otherwise frustrate Right to Buy sales, whereas neighbouring boroughs such as Wandsworth and Southwark got into selling off right from when Thatcher's govt revised RtB legislation in '83 and '84.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> First you don't know what I look like, second drunks and druggies are a security risk, most burgularies are committed by this group,thirdly I'm not  intimidated by you or anyone I see on the street, I have lived here for years, I am sociable but if indeed I don't won't to engage with the community then that's my choice, and no concern if yours. I'm certainly not going to suck up to you or anyone else just to make you happy. I have my opinions and so do you, that's life



Bim, you're what criminologists call a "fuckwit".
Most "burgularies" [sic] are committed by professional burglars, not by pissheads or crackheads, who are far more likely to engage is street theft or shoplifting to facilitate their addiction.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bim, you're what criminologists call a "fuckwit".
> Most "burgularies" [sic] are committed by professional burglars, not by pissheads or crackheads, who are far more likely to engage is street theft or shoplifting to facilitate their addiction.


ABSOLUTE RUBBISH


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Why do you constantly put lol in your posts?



I suspect he thinks it makes him appear "cool", rather than a dick.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bim, you're what criminologists call a "fuckwit".
> Most "burgularies" [sic] are committed by professional burglars, not by pissheads or crackheads, who are far more likely to engage is street theft or shoplifting to facilitate their addiction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> ABSOLUTE RUBBISH



Nope, the majority of residential burglaries are carried out by people with criminal records for burglary.  How do I know this? 50 years of living in southwest London, and the fact that as a social sciences post-grad with primary interests in criminology and forensic psychology, I keep up with as much of the data as possible, everything from "Social Trends" and Home Office bulletins, to the British Crime Survey, and our police division's annual statistics.

You're the one talking rubbish, old son.  That salient facts don't fit in with your prejudices doesn't make those facts "rubbish", but it does show your opinion up as a load of old cack.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, the majority of residential burglaries are carried out by people with criminal records for burglary.  How do I know this? 50 years of living in southwest London, and the fact that as a social sciences post-grad with primary interests in criminology and forensic psychology, I keep up with as much of the data as possible, everything from "Social Trends" and Home Office bulletins, to the British Crime Survey, and our police division's annual statistics.
> 
> You're the one talking rubbish, old son.  That salient facts don't fit in with your prejudices doesn't make those facts "rubbish", but it does show your opinion up as a load of old cack.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, the majority of residential burglaries are carried out by people with criminal records for burglary.  How do I know this? 50 years of living in southwest London, and the fact that as a social sciences post-grad with primary interests in criminology and forensic psychology, I keep up with as much of the data as possible, everything from "Social Trends" and Home Office bulletins, to the British Crime Survey, and our police division's annual statistics.
> 
> You're the one talking rubbish, old son.  That salient facts don't fit in with your prejudices doesn't make those facts "rubbish", but it does show your opinion up as a load of old cack.


Get a new job mate


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 31, 2013)

People like Mr Bim make me think the Yuppies Out page is fucking Marx.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Don't mind rubbing shoulders with what you call locals, but choose not to rub shoulders with drunks and druggies, if that's pathetic then so be it.


You must find it awfully hard walking around Brixton after 9pm on a weekend given the increased amount of drunk people on the streets.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> You must find it awfully hard walking around Brixton after 9pm on a weekend given the increased amount of drunk people on the streets.


Hey I can walk past them, just don't want to engage with them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 42774






Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 42774


Did you even bother to read the pdf you screenshotted?
It claims (page 7) that "Drug users are estimated to commit *between a third and half of all acquisitive crime*, which is a substantial proportion of the total number of crimes committed. Some users will have been offenders before becoming problem drug users. But once dependent, funding aserious habit is expensive and can increase offending". (my emphasis)

So, that's an *estimate* of one third to one half of all offending.  In the pie chart on page 7, burglary is shown to be less than a thrid of *all* acquisitive crime, so lets round everything up to the higher sums, and presume that drug users commit *half* of all acquisitive crime, and that a full third of those crimes are burglaries - what's a third of one half?  In my book it's one sixth.

That's right! By the very pdf you googled up to support your argument, you're hoist by your own petard. Only a maximum of one third of drug users who commit crimes, commit burglaries, as opposed to nearly half of drug users who commit crimes, committing street robberies and shoplifting.

You mug.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did you even bother to read the pdf you screenshotted?
> It claims (page 7) that "Drug users are estimated to commit *between a third and half of all acquisitive crime*, which is a substantial proportion of the total number of crimes committed. Some users will have been offenders before becoming problem drug users. But once dependent, funding aserious habit is expensive and can increase offending". (my emphasis)
> 
> So, that's an *estimate* of one third to one half of all offending.  In the pie chart on page 7, burglary is shown to be less than a thrid of *all* acquisitive crime, so lets round everything up to the higher sums, and presume that drug users commit *half* of all acquisitive crime, and that a full third of those crimes are burglaries - what's a third of one half?  In my book it's one sixth.
> ...


Ohhhhh only A THIRD of drug  users commit burglaries , oh so sorry I didn't realise it was so few


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yep in life one man sometimes has to make a stand



So you view yourself as some sort of brave hero, making a stand?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you view yourself as some sort of brave hero, making a stand?


Yep, but unfortunately for me, on this forum I'm GENERAL CUSTER


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ohhhhh only A THIRD of drug  users commit burglaries , oh so sorry I didn't realise it was so few



You're the one who claimed "First you don't know what I look like, second drunks and druggies are a security risk, *most burgularie*s are committed by this group" (my emphasis).  You've shat on your own shoes.  Man up and admit you were talking shit.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Hey I can walk past them, just don't want to engage with them


Given the levels of intolerance and stereotyping you're throwing around here, it would appear that you may have similar feelings for quite a large chunk of your new neighbourhood, regardless of whether they're drunk or not.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

Come on panda,  A THIRD is quite a lot, can't we meet somewhere in the middle


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Given the levels of intolerance and stereotyping you're throwing around here, it would appear that you may have similar feelings for quite a large chunk of your new neighbourhood, regardless of whether they're drunk or not.


Oh another MYSTIC MEG


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Why are you surmising who I know and who I don't know, and then you tell me what I won't admit ,then you call be a bigot. You must be MYSTIC MEG



I don't need to be Septic Peg.  If one follows your logic about "drunks and druggies", and assume you move in normal social circles, then every 12th person you are acquainted with or are friends with is statistically likely to be either a "drunk" or a "druggie".  Therefore, you're happy to rub shoulders with such people, as long as they're *your* kind of people.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Oh another MYSTIC MEG


Not sure what that is supposed to mean, sorry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Come on panda,  A THIRD is quite a lot, can't we meet somewhere in the middle



A sixth.  One third of one half.  You're skipping reading properly again.  None of this is exactly intellectually-taxing, so I can only assume you're lazy and/or stupid.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't need to be Septic Peg.  If one follows your logic about "drunks and druggies", and assume you move in normal social circles, then every 12th person you are acquainted with or are friends with is statistically likely to be either a "drunk" or a "druggie".  Therefore, you're happy to rub shoulders with such people, as long as they're *your* kind of people.


Well my friends must be hiding it very well, I can't rubbish your statistics but all I can say is that's not the circle I hang with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Get a new job mate



On the strength of you being too idle or too thick to actually read the pdf you chose to suport your claim?

Dick.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A sixth.  One third of one half.  You're skipping reading properly again.  None of this is exactly intellectually-taxing, so I can only assume you're lazy and/or stupid.


Old and tired


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Well my friends must be hiding it very well, I can't rubbish your statistics but all I can say is that's not the circle I hang with.



Why would anyone tell you, if they know what a prissy, judgemental wanker you are about "drunk"and "druggies"?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why would anyone tell you, if they know what a prissy, judgemental wanker you are about "drunk"and "druggies"?


Oh dear here come the insults, didn't take you long.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Old and tired



So am I, with the added bonus of being in enough pain that my doctor prescribes morphine sulphate for it, and yet I didn't have any problem filleting the pdf you linked to, in all of 10 minutes.
So, pisspoor excuse for you to use, really.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So am I, with the added bonus of being in enough pain that my doctor prescribes morphine sulphate for it, and yet I didn't have any problem filleting the pdf you linked to, in all of 10 minutes.
> So, pisspoor excuse for you to use, really.


Yeah sorry,hope we can still be friends


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Oh dear here come the insults, didn't take you long.



So you don't think that your blanket views on such people, as expressed in this thread, reveal you as prissy, judgemental and a wanker?
I'd contend that it's a fair analysis, and not an insult at all.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 42774


So


ViolentPanda said:


> So you view yourself as some sort of brave hero, making a stand?


From his expensive plasterboard box he probably calls "my pad"


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you don't think that your blanket views on such people, as expressed in this thread, reveal you as prissy, judgemental and a wanker?
> I'd contend that it's a fair analysis, and not an insult at all.


Ok you are right


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> So
> 
> From his expensive plasterboard box he probably calls "my pad"


Hey...... It's MY YARD


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

O


ViolentPanda said:


> On the strength of you being too idle or too thick to actually read the pdf you chose to suport your claim?
> 
> Dick.


oh by the way it's Mr Bim not Dick


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

editor said:


> You really, really can't see the difference between a small, shared garden with a little gate and this?


 This looks like an exit gate to a prison.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> O
> 
> oh by the way it's Mr Bim not Dick


You forgot to add LOL, tut tut


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> You forgot to add LOL, tut tut


Love it x x x


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Love it x x x


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Hey...... It's MY YARD


correction its your Box bim and you know it.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2013)

fortyplus said:


> I am completely with  story on gated "communities". I can see that it might help sell properties in edgier, more vibrant areas - you get the vibrancy without the fear of having your car vandalised etc etc. But they're by definition _exclusive_ places (and often marketed exactly as such), which is the opposite of _inclusive. I_t's _inclusivity_ that really makes a community, and there's a real danger that the inclusivity of Brixton is being lost.



There is a simple way to make this happen. Make developers put 50% affordable element in large schemes like Brixton Square.

50% affordable is the benchmark that most Councils seek when negotiating with developers over planning permission in large schemes. ( Except Wandsworth).

Developers like Barratts fight to get affordable housing reduced. 

Its an unequal battle between powerful business interests and Council who try to keep communities inclusive. 

I have some sympathy with Labour Councils. They are up against it from Boris - who does fuck all, this Government and powerful building companies who lobby governments. 

Gentrification is not something that just happens. Its down to a whole series of policy decisions over the years that have allowed the so called "free market" rule in housing. 

RTB, getting rid of rent controls, reduction on tenants rights in favour of landlords, reduction in funding of social housing for example. 

Having been at planning committees I can see its an unequal battle when up against developers. It is frustrating to say the least.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> View attachment 42779


Ok ok ok ok I hear you, I will stop it as it pisses you off and makes me look a dick pmsl


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Oct 31, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> correction its your Box bim and you know it.


Yeah it's a box won't deny it, but it's still my yard


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> I thought- tho I may be wrong- that the West Indians wave of immigrants brought some money with them and often set up very successful business so started buying up housing here- Gramsci I have a vague memory of discussing it with you?



No.

West Indians came here to do working class jobs in hospitals, local government and buses etc. 

The Afro Caribbean who came her after the war were largely working class. 

They lived in places like Brixton and Notting Hill as a lot of landlords would not take Black people as tenants. Houses in Brixton were cheaper then. So some bought houses in the area. 

Same with Asians who came to East London.


----------



## Manter (Oct 31, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> No.
> 
> West Indians came here to do working class jobs in hospitals, local government and buses etc.
> 
> ...


knew you'd know


----------



## Belushi (Oct 31, 2013)

IIRC (think I might have learned this from a mural walk) some of the first West Indian immigrants were initially housed in the bomb shelter at Stockwell tube station, the nearest Labour Exchange was Coldharbour Lane (on the site of Brixton Square?) which is how they came to settle in Brixton.


----------



## ash (Oct 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ohhhhh I can feel a revolution coming, we are growing in numbers and getting stronger by the day lol





Belushi said:


> IIRC (think I might have learned this from a mural walk) some of the first West Indian immigrants were initially housed in the bomb shelter at Stockwell tube station, the nearest Labour Exchange was Coldharbour Lane (on the site of Brixton Square?) which is how they came to settle in Brixton.



I thought it was the deep shelters at Clapham Common, maybe there was one at Stockwell as well.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 31, 2013)

Stockwell was definitely a deep level shelter, there's a mural on one of the entrances.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2013)

Belushi said:


> IIRC (think I might have learned this from a mural walk) some of the first West Indian immigrants were initially housed in the bomb shelter at Stockwell tube station, the nearest Labour Exchange was Coldharbour Lane (on the site of Brixton Square?) which is how they came to settle in Brixton.



Clapham deep shelter was used. Photos here

There is plaque on wall in Clapham to commemorate it.

The deep shelters were purpose built for accommodating people. Clapham deep shelter was also used as "hotel" for visitors to the Festival of Britain in early 50s.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Stockwell was definitely a deep level shelter, there's a mural on one of the entrances.


There is also one opposite Claphan north tube and is for sale ! http://www.silentuk.com/?p=1768


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Clapham deep shelter was used. Photos here
> 
> There is plaque on wall in Clapham to commemorate it.
> 
> The deep shelters were purpose built for accommodating people. Clapham deep shelter was also used as "hotel" for visitors to the Festival of Britain in early 50s.


You beat me to it


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

Belushi said:


> IIRC (think I might have learned this from a mural walk) some of the first West Indian immigrants were initially housed in the bomb shelter at Stockwell tube station, the nearest Labour Exchange was Coldharbour Lane (on the site of Brixton Square?) which is how they came to settle in Brixton.


How interesting.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Clapham deep shelter was used. Photos here
> 
> There is plaque on wall in Clapham to commemorate it.
> 
> The deep shelters were purpose built for accommodating people. Clapham deep shelter was also used as "hotel" for visitors to the Festival of Britain in early 50s.


Do you know how long they were used as accommodation?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Do you know how long they were used as accommodation?



Not that long. More info here.



> To find work most of the immigrants went to the nearest Labour Exchange (Job Centre) which was in Coldharbour Lane, Brixton. Many found jobs in the National Health Service, some worked in factories and mills locally but by far the largest employer was London Transport. Sam King recorded that within three weeks each person had a job. Another immigrant wrote that none of them stayed long in the shelters. He said most were there only a few days, and he stayed about two weeks.
> Gradually the immigrants moved on to rented houses and rooms, mostly in the Brixton and Clapham areas. As time went on those who had already settled were more ready to take in their compatriots than some local landlords. There are stories of great problems in finding accommodation, signs saying 'No blacks' (also 'No Dogs' and 'No Irish') and plenty of advertisements offering accommodation, which mysteriously turned out to have been taken already when an immigrant arrived. Some were reluctant to rent property, because they did not wish to be beholden to anyone and they clubbed together to purchase houses, often in family groups.
> 
> The actual time the shelters were occupied by the immigrants from the Caribbean was relatively short, but the impact of their arrival on the area was dramatic and long-lasting — the origins of the multi-racial community in South London.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2013)

Somerleyton road was one of the first streets in Brixton that had a lot of West Indian people live in it. 

I was told recently by someone who grew up in Brixton that when the Council CPOd the buildings where the Barrier Block, Moorlands estate and Somerleyton road are there was some resistance as some of the West Indian people had bought there houses by then. 

The wholesale demolition plans for Brixton ( Hollamby plans) where opposed by a section of the settled Afro Caribbean community.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 31, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> There is also one opposite Claphan north tube and is for sale ! http://www.silentuk.com/?p=1768


http://www.hng.co.uk/property/deep-level-shelters/


----------



## Strangerdanger (Oct 31, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Not that long. More info here.


Thanks for that. Really interesting read.


----------



## happyshopper (Nov 1, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The deep shelters were purpose built for accommodating people.


No they weren't. 

They were the first stage of a plan in the 1930s to relieve congestion on the Northern Line by building a second pair of tunnels in parallel with the Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line to provide an express route through London.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 1, 2013)

2k today?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> This looks like an exit gate to a prison.



Not solid enough for an HMPS establishment.  They're only allowed solid gates or welded mesh gates  (you can guess why, I'm sure!).  On some of the historic (i.e. Victorian-era) internal barred gates at Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs prisons, they had to weld mesh over the frame of the gate, as well as blanking plates over locks and hinges back in the '80s after being told that if any inmates tried to squeeze through the bars and hurt themselves, HM Prison Service would be liable for their injuries.  but also


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2013)

Badgers said:


> 2k today?


Faltering. You need to stir up some faux outrage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2013)

Belushi said:


> IIRC (think I might have learned this from a mural walk) some of the first West Indian immigrants were initially housed in the bomb shelter at Stockwell tube station, the nearest Labour Exchange was Coldharbour Lane (on the site of Brixton Square?) which is how they came to settle in Brixton.



And (combined with Clapham Junction station) why Clapham Junction always had a fairly robust black community from the late '50s onward.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2013)

ash said:


> I thought it was the deep shelters at Clapham Common, maybe there was one at Stockwell as well.



People get a bit confused about Clapham Common, because there was the deep shelters at Clapham Common, Clapham South, Stockwell etc, that were basically originally (IIRC) excavations for platforms on line extensions/expansions that never happened, but there were also half a dozen large excavated underground shelters on Clapham Common proper (where Clapham Common West Side and Clapham Common North Side meet at Battersea Rise, and further up along North Side) - used to be tarmac'ed over, but I understand that they were stripped back, filled in and grassed over back in the '90s.  You can still see the "footprint" of one in the small bit of common where west side and north side meet on Google Maps.


----------



## shifting gears (Nov 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> T
> 
> That's a fair point, but you also must appreciate that the vast majority of people who have bought in BS WANT  a gated development mostly for security reasons, Windrush Square now has a large homeless community and an alcoholism meeting venue
> 
> No blacks no dogs no Irish, I don't think they were living in the posh bit do you ?



You've just proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that you're a cunt. 

Vindicated.


----------



## shifting gears (Nov 2, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Sorry but I don't want drunks and druggies hanging out in my garden and I'm not apologising, I'm glad there are gates their to keep them out. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I , and don't try and intimidate me.



And let me quote that for posterity.

Fuck you, you pompous, jumped up, self-righteous, odious PRICK.


----------



## mango5 (Nov 2, 2013)

I think that point has been more than adequately made. Please contribute to the thread and stop the stream of insults.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 2, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> You've just proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that you're a cunt.
> 
> Vindicated.


Yawn yawn yawn


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 2, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> And let me quote that for posterity.
> 
> Fuck you, you pompous, jumped up, self-righteous, odious PRICK.


God bless you x x


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Nov 2, 2013)

"No blacks no dogs no Irish, I don't think they were living in the posh bit do you ?"

The houses where signs saying "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" would have appeared, would have been the posh ones - by today's standards. The big houses of Somerleyton Road for instance would - if they'd not been bulldozed in the 1970s - probably be a mix of very "posh" private houses by now, and a few remaining council and Housing Association properties, as in gentrified parts of Notting Hill. So, perhaps not posh in the 50s or 60s, but if black familes had been able to rent, then buy cheaply, in thoses sort of properties (as some did) they'd now own "posh" houses. In today's London there seems to be a concerted effort (by government) to deny a decent life to poorer people, whatever their race.


----------



## loulou82 (Nov 4, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> View attachment 42662



Hi Strangedanger,
How is the courtyard looking this week? Has there been much more development since your last photo?


----------



## Rushy (Nov 4, 2013)

From the photo it looks like some of the flats are in basements - is that right? Or is that offices or something else?


----------



## loulou82 (Nov 4, 2013)

Rushy said:


> From the photo it looks like some of the flats are in basements - is that right? Or is that offices or something else?


No flats in the basement. There are units on the ground floor which i've been told will be for commercial use.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2013)

Rushy said:


> From the photo it looks like some of the flats are in basements - is that right? Or is that offices or something else?


They were the ones that those slimy, obligation-shirking fuckers at Barratts tried to turn into flats but failed miserably, thanks to an out of character show of strength from Lambeth.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 4, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> No flats in the basement. There are units on the ground floor which i've been told will be for commercial use.


A branch of Champagne & Cocaine would be rather jolly and apt.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 4, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> A branch of Champagne & Cocaine would be rather jolly and apt.


They had said the ideas they had so far for the ground floor units were a cafe, a gym, or a pharmacy.

This morning when I left the were bulldozing the other side of the courtyard to start planting that half. Over the weekend they made some progress on what I think is a covered bicycle rack in the middle. The pathways are nearly done as well. I will take a take a photo in the morning and post.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> They had said the ideas they had so far for the ground floor units were a cafe, a gym, or a pharmacy.


A pharmacy would be really useful for the local estate where's there's loads of people who would appreciate something closer.


----------



## loulou82 (Nov 4, 2013)

A pharmacy would be great and much needed.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 4, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> They had said the ideas they had so far for the ground floor units were a cafe, a gym, or a pharmacy.
> 
> This morning when I left the were bulldozing the other side of the courtyard to start planting that half. Over the weekend they made some progress on what I think is a covered bicycle rack in the middle. The pathways are nearly done as well. I will take a take a photo in the morning and post.


How fab.


----------



## loulou82 (Nov 4, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> They had said the ideas they had so far for the ground floor units were a cafe, a gym, or a pharmacy.
> 
> This morning when I left the were bulldozing the other side of the courtyard to start planting that half. Over the weekend they made some progress on what I think is a covered bicycle rack in the middle. The pathways are nearly done as well. I will take a take a photo in the morning and post.


Wow they are going for it. I really thought this wouldn't get finished until the new year.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 4, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Wow they are going for it. I really thought this wouldn't get finished until the new year.


I get the feeling they're aiming for December.


----------



## loulou82 (Nov 4, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I get the feeling they're aiming for December.


I'm counting the days until we move now. Our current landlord is a nightmare and causing problems so cannot wait to get out of there.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 5, 2013)

In this weekend's FT, Barratts claims 80 per cent of sales are to owner-occupiers. If true, this would probably give Brixton Square a lower rate of landlordry than any street or block in the area. For now ...


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

leanderman said:


> In this weekend's FT, Barratts claims 80 per cent of sales are to owner-occupiers. If true, this would probably give Brixton Square a lower rate of landlordry than any street or block in the area. For now ...[/q
> I read that article and I believe that. The difference between BS and Valentia place is like night and day and think its because they're all renting and quite young. Parties over there all the time even (gasp) on week nights.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

I read that article and I believe that. The difference between BS and Valentia place is like night and day and think its because they're all renting and quite young. Parties over there all the time even (gasp) on week nights.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Hi Strangedanger,
> How is the courtyard looking this week? Has there been much more development since your last photo?



I'm having some trouble posting the photo...


----------



## Crispy (Nov 5, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I'm having some trouble posting the photo...


www.tinypic.com


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2013)

leanderman said:


> In this weekend's FT, Barratts claims 80 per cent of sales are to owner-occupiers. If true, this would probably give Brixton Square a lower rate of landlordry than any street or block in the area. For now ...


They should be more surprised than anyone else if that is the case seeing as their marketing day was clearly hoping to attract  BTL:


> Flicking through their glossy brochures (full of pics of Brixton Village, pics of people raving it up in the Academy, and pics of parks which aren’t even in Brixton) I was soon cornered by an agent who started giving me the spiel.
> 
> I was probably the scruffiest person in there but she still asked me if I was a buy-to-let investor (!) and handed me a sheet showing potential rental income and annual gross yields etc.
> http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixton-square-marketing-day-the-awful-truth/


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)




----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)




----------



## peterkro (Nov 5, 2013)

The obligatory secondhand genuine French cafe furniture in foreground.Someone in France is making a fortune selling junk to "aspirers" in London.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 5, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> View attachment 42951


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh looking good, many thanks for the picture.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

peterkro said:


> The obligatory secondhand genuine French cafe furniture in foreground.Someone in France is making a fortune selling junk to "aspirers" in London.


Eer, those are ikea and quite ubiquitous because they're so inexpensive.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

editor said:


> They should be more surprised than anyone else if that is the case seeing as their marketing day was clearly hoping to attract  BTL:


Yeah that's terrible. Clearly it's easier/quicker money for the developer with btl. I honestly think btl needs to be regulated or heavily restricted in London, it's a complete piss take.


----------



## peterkro (Nov 5, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Eer, those are ikea and quite ubiquitous because they're so inexpensive.


I see,I didn't know the market was such that Ikea were making copies.The genuine ones are usually blue and I see them everywhere including C&F.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

peterkro said:


> I see,I didn't know the market was such that Ikea were making copies.The genuine ones are usually blue and I see them everywhere including C&F.[/quote
> I'm pretty sure they ikea do a rip off, EVERYONE has them. If I remember correctly you can get the set for about £30. Also I think they are popular because they fit tight spaces and are easily stored away.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

I'm pretty sure they ikea do a rip off, EVERYONE has them. If I remember correctly you can get the set for about £30. Also I think they are popular because they fit tight spaces and are easily stored away.


----------



## loulou82 (Nov 5, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> View attachment 42951


Thanks so much for sending these pictures. It's looking so great! I honestly thought it was just going to be a bit of tarmac.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 5, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Thanks so much for sending these pictures. It's looking so great! I honestly thought it was just going to be a bit of tarmac.


You make me laugh loulou I can actually feel you're excitement. Hope it's all you dreamt it would be


----------



## loulou82 (Nov 5, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> You make me laugh loulou I can actually feel you're excitement. Hope it's all you dreamt it would be


Mr Bim, We have never been so excited! We have saved for YEARS to own our own place. Put up with pretty ratty accommodation to save more so BS is like a total dream for us. It's made me feel quite sad reading comments from people calling it  a cheap tat development and other horrible things. To us it's a palace.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 5, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Mr Bim, We have never been so excited! We have saved for YEARS to own our own place. Put up with pretty ratty accommodation to save more so BS is like a total dream for us. It's made me feel quite sad reading comments from people calling it  a cheap tat development and other horrible things. To us it's a palace.


Hey don't anyone put a downer on your dreams, it's your life not theirs, they can say and think what they like, as long as you are your partner have improved the quality of your life then I applaud all you have achieved. I have a sneaky suspicion that this is probably the best move you have ever made and will prob secure a good future for you. Ignore the abuse it's laughable


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> Mr Bim, We have never been so excited! We have saved for YEARS to own our own place. Put up with pretty ratty accommodation to save more so BS is like a total dream for us. It's made me feel quite sad reading comments from people calling it  a cheap tat development and other horrible things. To us it's a palace.


Really happy for you Lou Lou, we've all been there with terrible landlords (flatmates in my case!) and I really wish you well with your move. 

As someone with a background in interior design (before it was trendy), I'm really happy with the standard of work and the finishing in the flat. Sure, from an architectural standpoint it resembles an office block, but I don't mind that its a bit boring. Boring brick buildings don't age  so obviously and upkeep should be easy (hopefully).


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 5, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> interior design (before it was trendy)



excuse my ignorance but when was this...... I thought interior design had been "trendy" since it was invented.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> excuse my ignorance but when was this...... I thought interior design had been "trendy" since it was invented.



Possibly, but not in my opinion. Twelve years ago when I began my degree, I had big hopes of focusing on interior architecture and working on hotels and restaurants around the world. Now, you don't even need a degree or CAD for that matter, just connections and the means to work free of charge for long enough to gain experience. Not that I'm bitter (of course I am). It could also be that when I started out it was in a different country (I'm not British), and things are very different in London.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 5, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> excuse my ignorance but when was this...... I thought interior design had been "trendy" since it was invented.


Yes - I was going to post the same question.


Strangerdanger said:


> Possibly, but not in my opinion. Twelve years ago when I began my degree, I had big hopes of focusing on interior architecture and working on hotels and restaurants around the world. Now, you don't even need a degree or CAD for that matter, just connections and the means to work free of charge for long enough to gain experience. Not that I'm bitter (of course I am). It could also be that when I started out it was in a different country (I'm not British), and things are very different in London.


Has long been thus.  

Interior design has always been plagued by unskilled wannabes (and bored wealthy housewives) claiming to have some sort of innate talent for matching cushion patterns with pelmets and choosing the most expensive homeware items from Heals. I'm not really sure how helpful CAD is to interior design anyway (as opposed to interior architecture). 15 years ago hardly anyone one used CAD anyway - even many architects.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 5, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Yes - I was going to post the same question.
> 
> Has long been thus.
> 
> Interior design has always been plagued by unskilled wannabes (and bored wealthy housewives) claiming to have some sort of innate talent for matching cushion patterns with pelmets and choosing the most expensive homeware items from Heals. I'm not really sure how helpful CAD is to interior design anyway (as opposed to interior architecture). 15 years ago hardly anyone one used CAD anyway - even many architects.


Seemed to be mainly people doing construction-related stuff - ducts, pipes, cabling etc? Maybe some types of product designers/engineers too.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 5, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Interior design has always been plagued by unskilled wannabes (and bored wealthy housewives) claiming to have some sort of innate talent for matching cushion patterns with pelmets and choosing the most expensive homeware items from Heals.



This was this type of thing I meant by interior design fwiw


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

Yeah, that's more interior decorating. Interior design as a whole includes decorating but much more. A qualified interior designer has the ability change layouts (that's where cad comes in for drawing floor plans and creating 3d models), and is knowledgeable in the code, ergonomics, the psychology of space etc. 

Heals sucks.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

Sorry didnt mean to hijack this thread! Lol


----------



## leanderman (Nov 5, 2013)

FT also makes the point that Brixton may become less appealing to landlords as its higher property values squeeze their rental margins.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 5, 2013)

leanderman said:


> FT also makes the point that Brixton may become less appealing to landlords as its higher property values squeeze their rental margins.


 
Are there examples of this happening anywhere else? Property values have been going up all over the place for years and rents just keep going up, and BTL landlords don't seem put off. I suppose there's a limit somewhere but you'd expect to see it in other places ahead of Brixton I'd have thought.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 5, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Are there examples of this happening anywhere else? Property values have been going up all over the place for years and rents just keep going up, and BTL landlords don't seem put off. I suppose there's a limit somewhere but you'd expect to see it in other places ahead of Brixton I'd have thought.



This was the suggestion. I suppose it comes down to the relationship between rents and property prices. It said the yield was now 5pc and was previously higher.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 5, 2013)

leanderman said:


> This was the suggestion. I suppose it comes down to the relationship between rents and property prices. It said the yield was now 5pc and was previously higher.


 
I guess so - that and the confidence the BTLers have that the property price will continue to increase. Just wondered if they'd cited an example really.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Nov 5, 2013)

I think the courtyard area is actually not bad architecturally. The balconies are quite generous and there is a nice attention to detail in the planting and paths. It is the street side of the building, especially the poorly positioned and poor quality signage, that gives a weak impression. I think if the signage was improved and the front landscaping given the same attention to detail as the courtyard, it could look a great deal better. If I was an enthusiastic resident, like Loulou, I would try to get Barratts to improve these things. Perhaps a residents' committee?

I feel a little sorry for Loulou. I wish you happiness in your new home. It's the sad obliteration of the history of the site and the ethics of Barratt's around the "affordable" housing quota that has upset people. "Cooltan" has a place in many hearts.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 5, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> I think the courtyard area is actually not bad architecturally. The balconies are quite generous and there is a nice attention to detail in the planting and paths. It is the street side of the building, especially the poorly positioned and poor quality signage, that gives a weak impression. I think if the signage was improved and the front landscaping given the same attention to detail as the courtyard, it could look a great deal better. If I was an enthusiastic resident, like Loulou, I would try to get Barratts to improve these things. Perhaps a residents' committee?
> 
> I feel a little sorry for Loulou. I wish you happiness in your new home. It's the sad obliteration of the history of the site and the ethics of Barratt's around the "affordable" housing quota that has upset people. "Cooltan" has a place in many hearts.


I agree about the signage. The scale is off and I think that contributes to the cheapening effect. They are landscaping the front as well. I keep trying to peak behind the fencing they have up and I can see that they've continued the pavement and planted shrubbery of some sort but I can't see any detail.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> It's the sad obliteration of the history of the site and the ethics of Barratt's around the "affordable" housing quota that has upset people. "Cooltan" has a place in many hearts.



I feel an intense connection to that place. I signed on there in 1983 and 1989 when it was a Job Centre.
I was on the planning committee when we approved a scheme to build a 2 star hotel on the site which was supposed to provide 200 local jobs in the late 1990s.
Now it is a bland fortress-gated development in Barratt house style.

Just look at what the private residents got in Clapham:

That could almost be Barcelona. Or at least Reus.
In Clapham Lambeth Council also sold the social housing sector down the river - literally. The swish neo-Gaudi/Modernism style building incorporating the library has the 136 private flats. The 44 "affordable" homes are over the road next to the sports centre.  And to boot the whole scheme is a PFI - so look for financial problems some years down the line when the PFI contract requiring £150 to change a light bulb begins to bite.
I suspect that Barratts Brixton Square will be more financially viable long-term. Pity it has no aesthetic character (unless yr into S&M)


----------



## Rushy (Nov 6, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I keep trying to peak behind the fencing they have up


You really should do that in the privacy of your own home. It's perverts like you who make gates necessary.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 6, 2013)

^^^ 2000.

And I wasn't even trying .


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> You really should do that in the privacy of your own home. It's perverts like you who make gates necessary.


HAHAHAHA. That really made me laugh. Peeking behind gates and with a moniker like "stranger danger" too...


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 6, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Are there examples of this happening anywhere else? Property values have been going up all over the place for years and rents just keep going up, and BTL landlords don't seem put off. I suppose there's a limit somewhere but you'd expect to see it in other places ahead of Brixton I'd have thought.



I think Brixton must be there already. Evidenced by the lack of BTL's in this development.

We have been toying with the idea of letting our house and the rental income at the moment compared to say 12 months ago is pretty much the same.

Whereas, for the sale value, the difference somewhat beggars belief.

I don't think anyone buying a property for rental in Brixton at this point in time could be making that much money, if any


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 6, 2013)

sparkybird said:


> I think Brixton must be there already. Evidenced by the lack of BTL's in this development.
> 
> We have been toying with the idea of letting our house and the rental income at the moment compared to say 12 months ago is pretty much the same.
> 
> ...


 
I'm slightly surprised to hear that because anecdotally (admittedly I mostly mean 'people on here say') rent has been increasing quickly. But even without that a BTL landlord would still make plenty of cash if the house prices increase so it would still make sense.


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 6, 2013)

Well house rentals have been pretty static - maybe flats are different.

If the rent ain't covering all the costs then no landlord would buy a property at current prices just on the 'hope' that money would be made on the sale (well no landlord who is financially astute that is!) as they would be making a loss for years.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 6, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> HAHAHAHA. That really made me laugh. Peeking behind gates and with a moniker like "stranger danger" too...


I am a lot less disturbed by the image of you peeking through gates than by that of you trying to peak behind a fence.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 6, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I'm slightly surprised to hear that because anecdotally (admittedly I mostly mean 'people on here say') rent has been increasing quickly. But even without that a BTL landlord would still make plenty of cash if the house prices increase so it would still make sense.





sparkybird said:


> Well house rentals have been pretty static - maybe flats are different.
> 
> If the rent ain't covering all the costs then no landlord would buy a property at current prices just on the 'hope' that money would be made on the sale (well no landlord who is financially astute that is!) as they would be making a loss for years.


IME rentals plummeted about 25% around 2009 and then recovered fairly steadily. Last year they were comparable to their previous peak and now they are higher. So if you look at the increase over 3 years it is a lot more frightening than if you average it since 2008. As with sale prices, they tend to lurch up and down rather than rise steadily over time.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I am a lot less disturbed by the image of you peeking through gates than by that of you trying to peak behind a fence.


Well I know what's happening behind the gates. The fence on the other hand is more of a mystery.

I find it hard to believe that btl investors have avoided BS because of unprofitablilty...but given the evidence on these boards that barratt were marketing to them I do wonder why the numbers were low


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 6, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Well I know what's happening behind the gates. The fence on the other hand is more of a mystery.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that btl investors have avoided BS because of unprofitablilty...but given the evidence on these boards that barratt were marketing to them I do wonder why the numbers were low


 
I'm a bit sceptical of the figure given tbh. Just looked back to see where it comes from and it was reported as 'Barratts claims...'


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I'm a bit sceptical of the figure given tbh. Just looked back to see where it comes from and it was reported as 'Barratts claims...'


Oh well, I'm thoroughly convinced then!


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 6, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh well, I'm thoroughly convinced then!  [/quote
> I believe that figure -  I mean of course I can't say for sure but of the probably 20 - 25 residents or soon to be residents I've met, are all owners. Also in all my chats with different staff there its apparent its mostly first time buyers using new buy.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 6, 2013)

I believe that figure - I mean of course I can't say for sure but of the probably 20 - 25 residents or soon to be residents I've met, are all owners. Also in all my chats with different staff there its apparent its mostly first time buyers using new buy.


----------



## Winot (Nov 6, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Well I know what's happening behind the gates. The fence on the other hand is more of a mystery.


 
I think Rushy was highlighting the different meaning of 'peak' and 'peek'!

/labouring joke


----------



## Rushy (Nov 6, 2013)

Trying to climax behind the fence.

Winot We clearly both share the same low and puerile standard of humour


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 6, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I'm slightly surprised to hear that because anecdotally (admittedly I mostly mean 'people on here say') rent has been increasing quickly. But even without that a BTL landlord would still make plenty of cash if the house prices increase so it would still make sense.


BTL in Brixton Square, one two bed flat is going for  £1800 per month and has been snapped up


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> BTL in Brixton Square, one two bed flat is going for  £1800 per month and has been snapped up


Well, that's nice and affordable. Not.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 6, 2013)

editor said:


> Well, that's nice and affordable. Not.


Just saying if a BTL investor bought for £340,000 that's not a bad return as rents will alway rise and the property has already increased in value by around £60,000, so surprised that there are so few BTL


----------



## leanderman (Nov 6, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Just saying if a BTL investor bought for £340,000 that's not a bad return as rents will alway rise and the property has already increased in value by around £60,000, so surprised that there are so few BTL



Money goes to money!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 6, 2013)

editor said:


> Well, that's nice and affordable. Not.


On the subject of "affordability", it's been interesting to see how even the pretty minimal requirements for certain numbers of properties in new developments to be "affordable" (which is usually still way too much) just get completely ignored in London these days, and it turns out that they weren't really requirements at all, just, well, bullshit to get the development approved. For instance the redevelopment of Earls Court actually has zero "affordable" units iirc.


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Just saying if a BTL investor bought for £340,000 that's not a bad return as rents will alway rise and the property has already increased in value by around £60,000, so surprised that there are so few BTL


BTL scum.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 6, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Trying to climax behind the fence.
> 
> Winot We clearly both share the same low and puerile standard of humour


That one went totally over my head


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2013)

Story's rather excellent post earlier in this thread has been brushed up and tweaked and posted up on BrixtonBuzz: 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/11/...es-new-opportunities-and-increasing-disquiet/


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 7, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> That one went totally over my head


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 7, 2013)

Hey stranger danger and loulou sign up to brixton buzz, they always have great brixton info, bars, bands, social events,local news etc.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 7, 2013)

editor said:


> Story's rather excellent post earlier in this thread has been brushed up and tweaked and posted up on BrixtonBuzz:
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/11/...es-new-opportunities-and-increasing-disquiet/



And is really good.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 7, 2013)

leanderman said:


> And is really good.


Excellent in fact


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 7, 2013)

loulou82 said:


> I'm counting the days until we move now. Our current landlord is a nightmare and causing problems so cannot wait to get out of there.


You are famous loulou, another forum has lifted your words sign up to Brixton Buzz they report great topics on Brixton.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> You are famous loulou, another forum has lifted your words sign up to Brixton Buzz they report great topics on Brixton.


Whose words have been 'lifted' ? That piece was written by a poster here.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 7, 2013)

editor said:


> Whose words have been 'lifted' ? That piece was written by a poster here.


Sorry what I meant was that Brixton Buzz had quoted loulou words


----------



## Chilavert (Nov 7, 2013)

editor said:


> Story's rather excellent post earlier in this thread has been brushed up and tweaked and posted up on BrixtonBuzz:
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/11/...es-new-opportunities-and-increasing-disquiet/


That's a great read Ed, thanks to you and Story.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 7, 2013)

Where so I sign up? I do check in there regularly and have tried the beers. Really interesting seeing the old market -- I have only lived in London for about 7 years so I had never seen what it was like circa 2003.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 7, 2013)

For those who are unaware, BrixtonBuzz is part of the same Brixton news empire as Urban75. It's not "another forum".


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 7, 2013)

editor said:


> Story's rather excellent post earlier in this thread has been brushed up and tweaked and posted up on BrixtonBuzz:
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/11/changing-brixton-gentrification-gated-communities-new-opportunities-and-increasing-disqui





teuchter said:


> For those who are unaware, BrixtonBuzz is part of the same Brixton news empire as Urban75. It's not "another forum".


ok cool I didn't realise that, but it's great to get their daily emails with news and activities


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 7, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Where so I sign up? I do check in there regularly and have tried the beers. Really interesting seeing the old market -- I have only lived in London for about 7 years so I had never seen what it was like circa 2003.


Just google brixton buzz, they will send you emails of all what is happening in brixton


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Just google brixton buzz, they will send you emails of all what is happening in brixton


No they won't. It's just a website. You look at it yourself.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2013)

teuchter said:


> For those who are unaware, BrixtonBuzz is part of the same Brixton news empire as Urban75.


First I was a web tycoon, and now I'm running an empire, you say? Things are looking up for me!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 7, 2013)

editor said:


> First I was a web tycoon, and now I'm running an empire, you say? Things are looking up for me!


Ok, can't remember how I signed up and now receive emails every day of what's going on, could you please give stranger danger  the correct information , thank you


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ok, can't remember how I signed up and now receive emails every day of what's going on, could you please give stranger danger  the correct information , thank you


Could you show me one of these daily emails please?


----------



## Rushy (Nov 7, 2013)

Twitter?


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Twitter?


You called?


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 7, 2013)

editor said:


> First I was a web tycoon, and now I'm running an empire, you say? Things are looking up for me!


Citizen Kaned ?


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2013)

Good to see the article is getting a lot of coverage on facebook and a shedload of hits on BBuzz


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2013)

This article in the New Statesman about the disgraceful fate of the Heygate Estate has worrying parallels with what is currently happening in Brixton:



> The Heygate Estate occupied a large site next to a major transport interchange in an inner London borough, and its residents had the temerity to remain poor while the land they lived on became more valuable. When people talk about the "social cleansing" of London, this is it. The classism and snobbery directed towards brutalism (but only when occupied by certain groups - see: the Barbican) compounded the Heygate Estate's fate. Read through the stories from former residents, archived on Heygate Was Home, for proof that it wasn't always considered a slum, or an eyesore, by the people who mattered.
> 
> We're losing London to the forces you can see at work at the Heygate. Regeneration schemes that push the existing community out to neo-banlieues and replacing them with white collar professionals and students living in inferior-quality buildings; councils pleased to turn a blind eye so they have higher rate payers within their boroughs; developers getting given land at a fraction of its true value on the promise of future profits that mysteriously never arrive; a revolving door between local authorities and regeneration consultancy and PR firms. The people affected by these phenomena are the last people to be given a say in, let alone be given control of, their lives. God forbid they should ever be given a way to choose how their city changes, too.



http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/heygate-estates-death-represents-l


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 7, 2013)

editor said:


> This article in the New Statesman about the disgraceful fate of the Heygate Estate has worrying parallels with what is currently happening in Brixton:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/heygate-estates-death-represents-l


This heygate estate issue actually sickens me. How could anyone think this is acceptable? I don't even know what to say.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 8, 2013)

editor said:


> This article in the New Statesman about the disgraceful fate of the Heygate Estate has worrying parallels with what is currently happening in Brixton:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/heygate-estates-death-represents-l


I have a friend that lived there for 22 years and refused to move, Southwark offered her 80k to relocate from her 1 bed flat. The price of a 1 bed flat when the heygate is "redeveloped" will 350k plus.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 8, 2013)

editor said:


> This article in the New Statesman about the disgraceful fate of the Heygate Estate has worrying parallels with what is currently happening in Brixton:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/heygate-estates-death-represents-l



I am on the email list of the 35% website.

So have been following what is happening at Heygate.

I think it shows the increasing impotence of democracy in the face of big business.

As the 35% campaign point out lots of promises were made to residents over the years. Most of which have been broken.

I do not think its that the Councils want to get rid of social housing. It is that over the last 30 years , as is the case in other area, so called private enterprise trumps democratic control.

The countless times I have heard Cllrs say that legislation "ties there hands" and they would really prefer to have more truly affordable housing.

London has a minority of people who do well at being part of the "rentier" class. Whether they are small time" buy to let" landlords or big developers. In which case I do not think people will object to seeing developers and the landlord class as the real real enemy of your average Londoner. Landlords- the kind of people who say its all down to the market. The wonderful "invisible hand"

The article is right to say that :



> The Heygate Estate occupied a large site next to a major transport interchange in an inner London borough, and its residents had the temerity to remain poor while the land they lived on became more valuable


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 8, 2013)

LendLease played the council and won, and ex-Southwark regen staff conveniently getting new jobs within private sector developers assisted knowing what was on offer and where. There's a google map of ex LB Southwark employees and their new property development companies somewhere.

I chaired a Surrey Sq TRA when I was a naive nipper and Labour started those regen plans. It was quietly obvious that despite the vocal, well established local community, the area was too close, too central to be left as it was.

The area was badly planned, poorly managed and was failing to serve the community on several indices around employment, health, education, financial confidence etc. In hindsight, it appears their answer was to move that established organised community out, and break up 30 more years of community development through the phased relocation of communities, breaking continuity and connections, whilst the unpopular new builds were made and people moved back in to estates, where their access was managed by private (and not HA owned estates with democratic involvement in their management) agents.

I used to be a bit suspicious about one of the Southwark regen team who developed a council owned asset management strategy and CP'd lots of derelict property for later community use. He sneakily put them under non LA management somehow, which worried me at the time.  Now it seems he predicted LendLease & Southwarks intentions.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 9, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> LendLease played the council and won, and ex-Southwark regen staff conveniently getting new jobs within private sector developers assisted knowing what was on offer and where. There's a google map of ex LB Southwark employees and their new property development companies somewhere.


Brixton Green has Lend Lease connections regrettably. The community need to make sure that Heygate does NOT happen in another guise in Somerleyton Road.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 9, 2013)

Really? I can't remember their elected role holders off the top of my head, and Lend Lease is just a corporate structure. Besides, it wouldn't surprise me - can you show me where? 

i've always found the BG community ownership / share thing a little suspicious - it seems to be manipulating good practice participatory planning with a more controlled approach that takes share ownership as consensus.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 9, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Really? I can't remember their elected role holders off the top of my head, and Lend Lease is just a corporate structure. Besides, it wouldn't surprise me - can you show me where?
> 
> i've always found the BG community ownership / share thing a little suspicious - it seems to be manipulating good practice participatory planning with a more controlled approach that takes share ownership as consensus.


I'll check it out tomorrow - but  at least one board member or board member candidate has worked for Lend Lease. I guess under present commercial moral standards they would be operating a "Chinese Wall" in their head and therefore totally community oriented NOT (proven yet).


----------



## leanderman (Nov 9, 2013)

I just see the word 'lendlease' and, funnily enough, think of a powerful party taking advantage of a weaker one in desperate times


----------



## CH1 (Nov 9, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Really? I can't remember their elected role holders off the top of my head, and Lend Lease is just a corporate structure. Besides, it wouldn't surprise me - can you show me where?
> I've always found the BG community ownership / share thing a little suspicious - it seems to be manipulating good practice participatory planning with a more controlled approach that takes share ownership as consensus.


I was thinking of Will Freeman - who was a candidate but not elected.
A bit like Leanderman, I find seeing the words Lend Lease kind of raises hackles.
Will Freeman was involved in designing the Olympic Village it seems - from an architectural point of view.
I guess in the cold light of the morning it's two steps too far to say Brixton Green "has Lend Lease connections" - or indeed that Mr Freeman endorses the goings on at the Heygate Estate.
What set me off is here: http://www.brixtongreen.org/candidates2013/


----------



## CH1 (Nov 10, 2013)

Dan U said:


> I love the estate agent con that is the 'Juliette Balcony' it isn't a balcony, you can not walk or stand on it, it is a large window with a glorified baby gate on the front of it.


These Juliette balconies bug me. I don't think I will ever become reconciled to the banal look of Barratts "Brixton Square" (at least from the outside).
*Why do I prefer 116-118 Coldharbour Lane to Brixton Square?*
Notting Hill Housing obtained planning permission in 2009 for a 100% affordable housing scheme. Two years later that the Barratts scheme, yet Notting Hill had completely finished theirs well over a year ago. Here are my photos:
*Embassy Apartments (social housing)*
 *Printworks Apartments (shared ownership)*




Notting Hill Housing did a good job here. It might look like St Helier Hospital -but at least it has sleek modern lines - AND PROPER BALCONIES. And SOCIAL housing suitable for local families.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 10, 2013)

I looked at the website for that place when I was buying my (shared ownership) place, I think they were already all sold by then but also I really hated those small windows. V.glad its all social housing though.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 10, 2013)

And proper balconies! I have a balcony and its great. Glad they appear to becoming more common in Britain.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 10, 2013)

Belushi said:


> And proper balconies! I have a balcony and its great. Glad they appear to becoming more common in Britain.



It's important to have somewhere to shove the bicycles and washing!


----------



## Belushi (Nov 10, 2013)

I remember on the Ferrier Estate in Kidbrooke loads of people had sheds on theirs


----------



## Manter (Nov 10, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> LendLease played the council and won, and ex-Southwark regen staff conveniently getting new jobs within private sector developers assisted knowing what was on offer and where. There's a google map of ex LB Southwark employees and their new property development companies somewhere.
> 
> I chaired a Surrey Sq TRA when I was a naive nipper and Labour started those regen plans. It was quietly obvious that despite the vocal, well established local community, the area was too close, too central to be left as it was.
> 
> ...


I'm being a bit dense, sorry.... What is CP-ing?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 10, 2013)

Manter said:


> I'm being a bit dense, sorry.... What is CP-ing?


Compulsory Purchase


----------



## Manter (Nov 10, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Compulsory Purchase


Ahha. So he CP'ed and put them in non LA ownership to protect them from southwark/lend lease?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 10, 2013)

Manter said:


> Ahha. So he CP'ed and put them in non LA ownership to protect them from southwark/lend lease?


It says non local authority management. I'm not au fait with the case - maybe get snowy_again to clarify?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2013)

CH1 said:


> These Juliette balconies bug me. I don't think I will ever become reconciled to the banal look of Barratts "Brixton Square" (at least from the outside).
> *Why do I prefer 116-118 Coldharbour Lane to Brixton Square?*
> Notting Hill Housing obtained planning permission in 2009 for a 100% affordable housing scheme. Two years later that the Barratts scheme, yet Notting Hill had completely finished theirs well over a year ago. Here are my photos:
> *Embassy Apartments (social housing)*
> ...



It's a fairly awful piece of architecture if you ask me. And I might argue that its spiky galvanised fence is more unfreindly to the street than Brixton Square's gated courtyard.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2013)

teuchter said:


> It's a fairly awful piece of architecture if you ask me. And I might argue that its spiky galvanised fence is more unfreindly to the street than Brixton Square's gated courtyard.


They look positively _welcoming_ compared to this.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2013)

*sigh*


----------



## Crispy (Nov 12, 2013)

CH1 said:


> These Juliette balconies bug me. I don't think I will ever become reconciled to the banal look of Barratts "Brixton Square" (at least from the outside).
> *Why do I prefer 116-118 Coldharbour Lane to Brixton Square?*
> Notting Hill Housing obtained planning permission in 2009 for a 100% affordable housing scheme. Two years later that the Barratts scheme, yet Notting Hill had completely finished theirs well over a year ago.
> 
> Notting Hill Housing did a good job here. It might look like St Helier Hospital -but at least it has sleek modern lines - AND PROPER BALCONIES. And SOCIAL housing suitable for local families.



An urbanite got one of those shared ownership 1-beds and I've been there. Double aspect flat with a decent amount of space and a great view. The balconies clash with the entrances but otherwise it's ok looking. Excellent efficiency rating too.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2013)

It's really not ok looking.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 12, 2013)

editor said:


> They look positively _welcoming_ compared to this.


 It's not finished!


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2013)

ChrisSouth said:


> It's not finished!


It's a massive metal gate. How is it suddenly going to become more attractive? 


Crispy said:


> An urbanite got one of those shared ownership 1-beds and I've been there. Double aspect flat with a decent amount of space and a great view. The balconies clash with the entrances but otherwise it's ok looking. Excellent efficiency rating too.


There's lots of interesting detail in that fencing too.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 12, 2013)

teuchter said:


> It's a fairly awful piece of architecture if you ask me. And I might argue that its spiky galvanised fence is more unfreindly to the street than Brixton Square's gated courtyard.


The fence can be changed when people come round to your point of view - and at very low cost.
I like the clean lines. It was built to a cost - and built very quickly. Time will tell if there are disadvantages - remember the system built blocks on "New Loughborough" with concrete cancer - and the St Matthews Estate quasi Ronan point tower blocks where gas is banned. Meanwhile I'd rather have more social housing and intermediate than Barratt style private gated blocks where the plebs have to be kept out. That reminds me of Tangier - or the old quarter at Cordoba. Except that in Tangier or Cordoba the architecture is more appealing and less prison-like than Barratts house style.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2013)

CH1 said:


> The fence can be changed when people come round to your point of view - and at very low cost.
> I like the clean lines. It was built to a cost - and built very quickly. Time will tell if there are disadvantages - remember the system built blocks on "New Loughborough" with concrete cancer - and the St Matthews Estate quasi Ronan point tower blocks where gas is banned. Meanwhile I'd rather have more social housing and intermediate than Barratt style private gated blocks where the plebs have to be kept out. That reminds me of Tangier - or the old quarter at Cordoba. Except that in Tangier or Cordoba the architecture is more appealing and less prison-like than Barratts house style.


I'd like more social and affordable housing too. I'm commenting on the outward appearance of the Coldharbour Lane block; in my view it is lumpen and inelegant (which need not be inevitable for system-built architecture; it simply requires the application of some design skills, little of which seem in evidence in that building, at least outwardy).

The Barratts block is mediocre architecturally, but I would say it takes a less aggressive approach to the streetscape. The gated courtyard is a bit of a red herring as has been discussed in endless circles on this thread already.

By the way I think the new housing blocks (student housing??) either side of the Sainsburys in Herne Hill are actually starting to look quite good. They, I think, are based on prefab modules as well, but a bit more thought has been put into the appearance of the facades.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 12, 2013)

Crispy said:


> An urbanite got one of those shared ownership 1-beds and I've been there. Double aspect flat with a decent amount of space and a great view. The balconies clash with the entrances but otherwise it's ok looking. Excellent efficiency rating too.


 
IIRC they're some kind of prefabricated Scandinavian design?  What are the windows like when you're actually inside?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 12, 2013)

Belushi said:


> IIRC they're some kind of prefabricated Scandinavian design?  What are the windows like when you're actually inside?


The bedroom's a bit gloomy, but the lounge/kitchen runs all the way front to back with a balcony on each end. Plenty of light.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 12, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I'd like more social and affordable housing too. I'm commenting on the outward appearance of the Coldharbour Lane block; in my view it is lumpen and inelegant (which need not be inevitable for system-built architecture; it simply requires the application of some design skills, little of which seem in evidence in that building, at least outwardy).
> 
> The Barratts block is mediocre architecturally, but I would say it takes a less aggressive approach to the streetscape. The gated courtyard is a bit of a red herring as has been discussed in endless circles on this thread already..



 

How very kind of Barratts to give us a welcome pack, don't suppose anyone want two barratt mugs !(no jokes please) btw they have dropped the words BRIXTON SQUARE from the address, there is no signage saying BS and we have been told not to use it In the address. STRANGE.
By the way I think the new housing blocks (student housing??) either side of the Sainsburys in Herne Hill are actually starting to look quite good. They, I think, are based on prefab modules as well, but a bit more thought has been put into the appearance of the facades


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 12, 2013)

Brixton square was just the marketing name - it was never a part of the address. Welcome mr bim. We didn't get mugs in our pack. Hmph.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 12, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Brixton square was just the marketing name - it was never a part of the address. Welcome mr bim. We didn't get mugs in our pack. Hmph.


Gracias señora


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 13, 2013)

editor said:


> It's a massive metal gate. How is it suddenly going to become more attractive?



Oh, I don't know. But perhaps this?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 43349How very kind of Barratts to give us a welcome pack, don't suppose anyone want two barratt mugs !(no jokes please)


I'd be delighted to have a Barratts mug (or even two).
Would nicely complement my Statler & Waldorf mug.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 13, 2013)

I have an annoyingly impressive collection of royalist mugs.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I have an annoyingly impressive collection of royalist mugs.


I only have the one...


----------



## leanderman (Nov 13, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I only have the one...
> View attachment 43383



A design classic


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I have an annoyingly impressive collection of royalist mugs.


Do you have the silver jubilee 1977 (i think) ? we got one each at school.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2013)

Barratts' Mug Strategy worked: the people of urban75 have been distracted from the fight against the capitalist corporations and are now reduced to posting pictures of their knowingly ironic mugs, thus revealing their true priorities.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Nov 13, 2013)

The name "Brixton Square" has probably been dropped partly because it brings up this highly critical discussion if you Google it. Therefore, keep tweeting it, forum-ing it, and saying it.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 13, 2013)

Barratts have given mugs to mugs for mugging them off.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 13, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Do you have the silver jubilee 1977 (i think) ? we got one each at school.



Definitely.

Have an Edwardian one too

I feel I should keep up what must have been a petit bourgeois family tradition but my heart's not in it.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Definitely.
> 
> Have an Edwardian one too
> 
> I feel I should keep up what must have been a petit bourgeois family tradition but my heart's not in it.


 This is what i got at school and treasured it until my dad (drunk) dropped it


----------



## thatguyhex (Nov 13, 2013)

CH1 said:


> *Embassy Apartments (social housing)*
> View attachment 43282



Those balconies always make me think of Lego.





I didn't know that it was social housing - that's great. But I agree with teuchter, it really isn't a great-looking building - it's like they've tried to do an International Style/Bauhaus sort of thing, but gone too far with the minimalism and ended up with a white box. For me, adding some personality to those bland windows with sills and lintels would do wonders.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 13, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Barratts' Mug Strategy worked: the people of urban75 have been distracted from the fight against the capitalist corporations and are now reduced to posting pictures of their knowingly ironic mugs, thus revealing their true priorities.


I'm not sure that I am particularly strong evidence that such distraction techniques are effective against the intended distractees.

And, come to think of it, I lied. I also have a 1953 coronation mug found in a cellar.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 13, 2013)

thatguyhex said:


> Those balconies always make me think of Lego.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When did Lego go that colour?

There is a lot of work goes into detailing good minimalism, which is not evident in this case. Simplism, perhaps?

That said, I don't mind it. I quite like the fact it is somewhat unapologetic.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 13, 2013)

Rushy said:


> When did Lego go that colour?
> 
> There is a lot of work goes into detailing good minimalism, which is not evident in this case.



Lego lost the plot when it stopped being simple bricks and turned into complicated dioramas with bespoke components.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 13, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Barratts' Mug Strategy worked: the people of urban75 have been distracted from the fight against the capitalist corporations and are now reduced to posting pictures of their knowingly ironic mugs, thus revealing their true priorities.


< awaits renaming of thread as "Brixton Square News gossip and general chit chat">


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2013)

thatguyhex said:


> Those balconies always make me think of Lego.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's "Value Bauhaus". But I still prefer it to Barratts house style. 
I guess it's all a matter of taste. You don't like Stockhausen either do you?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2013)

thatguyhex said:


> But I agree with teuchter, it really isn't a great-looking building - it's like they've tried to do an International Style/Bauhaus sort of thing, but gone too far with the minimalism and ended up with a white box.



What they have done is:
-Designed a unit
-Put some malproportioned windows into it in the way that was least complicated in their CAD programme, and that satisfied regulations with the minimum amount of thought on the part of the "designer"
-Multiply by 100
-Put units in stacks
-Realise it just looks like an ugly stack of ugly things
-Tried to counter this by mirroring some window/balcony arrangements on alternate floors
-Filled inbetween the stacks with service towers, which have to be higher than the stacks due to lift machine rooms, and thought "oh well they'll just be a bit higher, then, like it''s some kind of hunchbacked monster, we'll not bother to try and articulate it or anything"
-Put stupid circular windows in the stair towers for no good reason
-Squashed in some ugly yellow entrance way things at the bottom of the stair towers
-Realised it all looks pretty lumpen and imposing, so rendered it all white (except for the bits that are purply blue which was inspired by something they saw in Mothercare)
-Had a bit of an afterthought about I don't know what, and put whatever it was in some big yellow windowless boxes at ground level wherever there was some space
-Realised that their entire "concept" makes no allowance for what happens when their standard boxes meet ground level and the street, but but some balconies on there anyway
-Realised it's kind of stupid to have a projecting balcony at street level where someone could just jump onto it from the pavement, so countered this by sticking a big spiky galvanised fence along the pavement (now the lucky people with their ground level balconies can look at the back of a fence)
-Realised it's not particularly nice to have a big spiky galvanised fence all along the street so tried to disguise this by getting some public art stuck on it.

This monstrosity doesn't deserve to be associated with the words Bauhaus, Modernism, Minimalism, Design or Architecture.

But yeah I'm totally relaxed about it really.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2013)

CH1 said:


> That's "Value Bauhaus".


Gropius is turning in his grave.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Gropius is turning in his grave.


alongside Alma Mahler


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 13, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> The name "Brixton Square" has probably been dropped partly because it brings up this highly critical discussion if you Google it. Therefore, keep tweeting it, forum-ing it, and saying it.



Don't think so, it's very common for the marketing names of these developments to be just that - marketing names. They're usually dropped when the properties are sold and given the proper address which was always intended.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 13, 2013)

They taken down some of the fencing so i no longer have to peek behind it. It's just boarded up store fronts, a pavement and playing space where I guessing hedges will go.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 13, 2013)

*planter space


----------



## Manter (Nov 13, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Don't think so, it's very common for the marketing names of these developments to be just that - marketing names. They're usually dropped when the properties are sold and given the proper address which was always intended.


That's the sensible answer. Vibrant-Hubb 's is much more entertaining though


----------



## gaijingirl (Nov 13, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> < awaits renaming of thread as "Brixton Square News gossip and general chit chat">



followed by a bunfight when someone else starts a slightly differently named thread and lots of posts containing the words "ad hominem" appear...


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> They taken down some of the fencing so i no longer have to peek behind it. It's just boarded up store fronts, a pavement and playing space where I guessing hedges will go.


It doesn't look as bad as I expected. Maybe if the store fronts became occupied it might even look vibrant - in a Milton Keynes sort of way.


----------



## thatguyhex (Nov 14, 2013)

Rushy said:


> When did Lego go that colour?


Futuristic bits for Lego Technic sets, like aerials for spacecraft.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 14, 2013)

Rushy said:


> When did Lego go that colour?


Transparent neon green was introduced in the M-Tron range of spaceships, 23 years ago.

I had these ones IIRC: http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/6923_Particle_Ionizer, http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/6877_Vector_Detector, http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/6811_Pulsar_Charger


----------



## Rushy (Nov 14, 2013)

thatguyhex said:


> Futuristic bits for Lego Technic sets, like aerials for spacecraft.





Crispy said:


> Transparent neon green was introduced in the M-Tron range of spaceships, 23 years ago.
> 
> I had these ones IIRC: http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/6923_Particle_Ionizer, http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/6877_Vector_Detector, http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/6811_Pulsar_Charger


Pah! A mere newcommer.
My last lego set was second hand more than 30yrs ago


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2013)

For the benefit of the gated-community-alarmists, here are pictures of the two gated entrances to the ourtyard at the back of the legoland building (one is onto Coldharbour Lane, one onto the side street.
  

(The sign says "PRIVATE PROPERTY 24HRS A DAY & DAYS A WEEK" or similar)

I look forward to reading inventive justifications for how this is "different" to the Barratts one.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 14, 2013)

teuchter said:


> For the benefit of the gated-community-alarmists, here are pictures of the two gated entrances to the ourtyard at the back of the legoland building (one is onto Coldharbour Lane, one onto the side street.
> View attachment 43430 View attachment 43431
> 
> (The sign says "PRIVATE PROPERTY 24HRS A DAY & DAYS A WEEK" or similar)
> ...



This is shared ownership or social housing right?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2013)

leanderman said:


> This is shared ownership or social housing right?


According CH1's post a couple of pages back, it's a mixture of both. It's a shared ownership/social housing gated community.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 14, 2013)

teuchter said:


> According CH1's post a couple of pages back, it's a mixture of both. It's a shared ownership/social housing gated community.



Scoundrels


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 14, 2013)

teuchter said:


> For the benefit of the gated-community-alarmists, here are pictures of the two gated entrances to the ourtyard at the back of the legoland building (one is onto Coldharbour Lane, one onto the side street.
> View attachment 43430 View attachment 43431
> 
> (The sign says "PRIVATE PROPERTY 24HRS A DAY & DAYS A WEEK" or similar)
> ...


Can you put up a picture of the front of the building and the entrance please.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Can you put up a picture of the front of the building and the entrance please.


http://goo.gl/maps/wJFIh


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 14, 2013)

The front entrance main glass door is on the main road and is not behind a huge gate.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> The front entrance main glass door is on the main road and is not behind a huge gate.


So it's...



vs


----------



## tommers (Nov 14, 2013)

Somebody should Photoshop that image.  Put arbeit macht frei above it or something.  Or the all seeing eye of mordor.

I think I might start sculpting it out of mashed potato like Richard Dreyfus in close encounters.  I'm starting to see it when I close my eyes.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 14, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> They taken down some of the fencing so i no longer have to peek behind it. It's just boarded up store fronts, a pavement and playing space where I guessing hedges will go.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha how bloody weird is that, Loulou is my next door neighbour, I've got a bad back humping all her stuff from the lift to her apartment, may try and sort out some sort of compensation claim.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> The front entrance main glass door is on the main road and is not behind a huge gate.


Yes, I am aware of this.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Yes, I am aware of this.


So what is your point? Has anyone complained about the rear entrances of buildings having gates attached?


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2013)

tommers said:


> I think I might start sculpting it out of mashed potato like Richard Dreyfus in close encounters.  I'm starting to see it when I close my eyes.


I'll have to take a new photo just to keep you enthralled. You'll love it even more.


----------



## Manter (Nov 14, 2013)

editor said:


>


is it held closed by string??


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2013)

editor said:


> So what is your point? Has anyone complained about the rear entrances of buildings having gates attached?


People have complained about big metal gates facing onto the street. Both BS and the legoland one have this. The legoland has one onto CHL and one onto the side street, as well as glass door entrances. Would the BS gate and private courtyard be ok if there was also a glass door communal entrance facing onto the street? What would be the logic of having one (which could only serve the street-facing blocks, on a courtyard development where blocks are most efficiently and conveniently accessed from the courtyard side, and where there will be individual ground floor unit entrances along the length of the CHL elevation?


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2013)

Manter said:


> is it held closed by string??


They've beefed it up a bit and added name plates to stop thin people slipping inbetween the gaps in the railings.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2013)

teuchter said:


> People have complained about big metal gates facing onto the street. Both BS and the legoland one have this. The legoland has one onto CHL and one onto the side street, as well as glass door entrances. Would the BS gate and private courtyard be ok if there was also a glass door communal entrance facing onto the street? What would be the logic of having one (which could only serve the street-facing blocks, on a courtyard development where blocks are most efficiently and conveniently accessed from the courtyard side, and where there will be individual ground floor unit entrances along the length of the CHL elevation?


Which main entrance do you find the most attractive?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2013)

editor said:


> Which main entrance do you find the most attractive?


Answer my questions and then I'll answer yours.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 14, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha ha how bloody weird is that, Loulou is my next door neighbour, I've got a bad back humping all her stuff from the lift to her apartment, may try and sort out some sort of compensation claim.



What is under the curved roofs at back of BS?


----------



## Manter (Nov 14, 2013)

editor said:


> They've beefed it up a bit and added name plates to stop thin people slipping inbetween the gaps in the railings.


Afraid of skinny street urchins? Have they read too much Dickens?


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> What is under the curved roofs at back of BS?


They are the top floor flats which have a curved vaulted ceiling.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 14, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha ha how bloody weird is that, Loulou is my next door neighbour, I've got a bad back humping all her stuff from the lift to her apartment, may try and sort out some sort of compensation claim.


Blimey, feeling a bit left out now.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 14, 2013)

The gates at "legoland" look like they are there to stop the public from parking there, The others at bs. are part and parcel of a gated community.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 14, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Answer my questions and then I'll answer yours.


In my opinion the brick facade and metal gates are far more attractive (and timeless) than the white and neon, but to each his own. The world would be terribly boring if we all had the same taste.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 14, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> They are the top floor flats which have a curved vaulted ceiling.



They look big. I can see them from my place but not the street.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 14, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> The gates at "legoland" look like they are there to stop the public from parking there, The others at bs. are part and parcel of a gated community.


One could argue the gates at BS are also to keep the public from parking in the courtyard.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> They look big. I can see them from my place but not the street.


I can assure you that theyre not big on the inside lol. It could be because there are several flats under the curved portion youre seeing (side by side)...


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> The gates at "legoland" look like they are there to stop the public from parking there, The others at bs. are part and parcel of a gated community.


Why exactly do you classify BS as a "gated community", but not legoland?

In both cases the gates are there to keep the public out of a private communal area. It's not just cars that are excluded from the legoland courtyard; there is no pedestrain access either.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 14, 2013)

There's seating and planting back there as well, it's quite nice.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 14, 2013)

editor said:


> So it's...
> 
> View attachment 43447
> 
> vs





teuchter said:


> Why exactly do you classify BS as a "gated community", but not legoland?
> 
> In both cases the gates are there to keep the public out of a private communal area. It's not just cars that are excluded from the legoland courtyard; there is no pedestrain access either.


Simply because it has a gate.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 15, 2013)

teuchter said:


> For the benefit of the gated-community-alarmists, here are pictures of the two gated entrances to the ourtyard at the back of the legoland building (one is onto Coldharbour Lane, one onto the side street.
> View attachment 43430 View attachment 43431
> (The sign says "PRIVATE PROPERTY 24HRS A DAY & DAYS A WEEK" or similar)
> I look forward to reading inventive justifications for how this is "different" to the Barratts one.


Those are the car park gates. 
The entrances to the blocks are not gated - and address the street directly - unlike Brixton Square.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Those are the car park gates.
> The entrances to the blocks are not gated - and address the street directly - unlike Brixton Square.


What's the significance of the distinction?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 15, 2013)

Residents use the street entrances at Legoland. I go past a lot - I attend the church next door, I walk past every week for hospital appointments etc. I see people going in or out of the flats through the entrances on Coldharbour Lane pavement. I have never seen anyone drive in or out of the car park (although there are some cars parked in there obviously).
At Barratts I see young professionals sneeking though a side gate past a security guard. Like a bourgeouise Colditz.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2013)

As I felt it improper to keep posting up that photo of the 'unfinished' gates at BS, here's how the finished gates look in all their glory.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Residents use the street entrances at Legoland. I go past a lot - I attend the church next door, I walk past every week for hospital appointments etc. I see people going in or out of the flats through the entrances on Coldharbour Lane pavement. I have never seen anyone drive in or out of the car park (although there are some cars parked in there obviously).
> At Barratts I see young professionals sneeking though a side gate past a security guard. Like a bourgeouise Colditz.


So, at legoland you see people come in and out through the glass doors.
At BS you see people come in and out through the gate, except these people are "young professionals, and they are "sneeking".

It seems like we are talking more about different types of people rather than different types of entrance here.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 15, 2013)

teuchter said:


> So, at legoland you see people come in and out through the glass doors.
> At BS you see people come in and out through the gate, except these people are "young professionals, and they are "sneeking".
> It seems like we are talking more about different types of people rather than different types of entrance here.


Ambience is also important.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Residents use the street entrances at Legoland. I go past a lot - I attend the church next door, I walk past every week for hospital appointments etc. I see people going in or out of the flats through the entrances on Coldharbour Lane pavement. I have never seen anyone drive in or out of the car park (although there are some cars parked in there obviously).
> At Barratts I see young professionals sneeking though a side gate past a security guard. Like a bourgeouise Colditz.


Wow what a loaded statement. I can assure you that I don't "sneak" through any gates and that the security guard is there during construction times only. He's not there to protect us "sneaky professionals" he helps with the construction site. 

Furthermore, though admittedly not a huge percentage, there are affordable homes in the development. I suppose they don't "sneak in" to those same gates? 

Lastly, given my birthday this week, I may be a professional, but the "young" tag no longer applies.


----------



## gabi (Nov 15, 2013)

My last flat in Brixton was in Goodwood Mansions between the acaemy and the skate park there. It's a 1930s block i think. It has a gate. With a code and everything. And always has done. Some residents have been there decades. Should I warn my erstwhile neighbours to expect some furious internet people to be rocking up to beat said gate down?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 15, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Wow what a loaded statement. I can assure you that I don't "sneak" through any gates and that the security guard is there during construction times only. He's not there to protect us sneaky professionals" he helps with the construction site.
> Furthermore, though admittedly not a huge percentage, there are affordable homes in the development. I suppose they don't "sneak in" to those same gates?
> Lastly, given my birthday this week, I may be a professional, but the "young" tag no longer applies.


Belated Happy Birthday squire(ette)!
Good job the security was there this morning when I passed.
A well dressed black cyclist (overcoat, mid-twenties) was "cut up" by a 4x4 at the Barratts entrance. The cyclist was furious - but the security was on hand to deter anything other than an angry ejaculation from the cyclist.
The times we live in! I come from Suffolk originally. There we were taught to raise our cap to masters. If you weren't wearing a cap you touched your forelock.
Fortunately in those days nearly running over a "pleb" would have been considered bad form.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 15, 2013)

Thanks for the birthday wishes.

All this anecdote proves is that most 4x4 drivers (in London) are selfish people who can't drive very well. Don't know why the word pleb has been brought into it. so he tried to calm down an altercation between a driver and a cyclist on his site? Don't see what's wrong with that...


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Furthermore, though admittedly not a huge percentage, there are affordable homes in the development. I suppose they don't "sneak in" to those same gates?


A shamefully, _disgracefully_ tiny amount, thanks to Barratts disgusting wriggling and the council's pathetic acquiescence. That place is a monument to the council's social commitment failings and a reminder of how shabbily the community has been treated. And that big metal gate just rubs our faces in it even more.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 15, 2013)

editor said:


> A shamefully, _disgracefully_ tiny amount, thanks to Barratts disgusting wriggling and the council's pathetic acquiescence. That place is a monument to the council's social commitment failings and a reminder of how shabbily the community has been treated. And that big metal gate just rubs our faces in it even more.



I agree, it was awful how they wriggled out of the original agreement. I was actual at town hall that night, waited til nearly midnight when the barratt case was finally presented. I disagree with what they did, but I'm sorry it has nothing to do with me. If you want to hold Barratt in contempt for that, fair enough. I'm just trying to get a foot on the housing ladder which is getting harder and harder to do, to which I'm sure you will agree. I don't CARE if there's a gate, if there were no gate I STILL WOULDN'T CARE, and I'm sure you'll find the majority of the residents are the same - in a city where the housing stock has pretty much run out and this government aren't building more and don't care, people will take any chance they get to get in the ladder. So back to the original point, are the few affordable tenants also "sneaking" around, or is it just us professionals who have managed to actually get a foot on the housing ladder and realise (at least in my case and the cases of a few other people in this forum) that we were INCREDIBLY lucky to do so?


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I'm just trying to get a foot on the housing ladder which is getting harder and harder to do, to which I'm sure you will agree.


Hey, I'm not blaming you at all and certainly hold no kind of grudge against you or any of the other residents. They're not to blame and you're not what I'm angry about!


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Hey, I'm not blaming you at all and certainly hold no kind of grudge against you or any of the other residents. They're not to blame and you're not what I'm angry about!




Sorry, I probably misread what you were saying, will get down off my soapbox now!

Seriously though, barratt were really shady for what they did. I had a walk around the courtyard the other night and checked out some of (what i think were) the affordable units that are not yet occupied, and at least they look very nice. They're the larger (I think 4 bed?) units and have a balcony (on the ground floor) and then stairs which go down to what appears to be a lower ground terrace. Someone was asking about it upthread as it looks like a basement flat, but it looks like the lower ground and ground floor is the same flat.


----------



## loulou82 (Nov 15, 2013)

Yeahhhh! So happy! Thanks for helping! We were racing to unpack as we were getting in the builders way so thank you! Cannot believe we are neighbours!! What are the chances, very happy indeed! Looking forward to meeting our other corridor neighbour too.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 15, 2013)

Barratts are like Ryan Air. No publicity is bad publicity.
Most reading this won't remember all the fuss about Maggie Thatcher buying a Barratts Home in Dulwich.
She never lived there, but Barratts milked it for all the publicity they could get. The fact that half the population hated Thatcher and half loved her made it a win-win situation for Sir Laurie Barratt.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Barratts are like Ryan Air. No publicity is bad publicity.
> Most reading this won't remember all the fuss about Maggie Thatcher buying a Barratts Home in Dulwich.
> She never lived there, but Barratts milked it for all the publicity they could get. The fact that half the population hated Thatcher and half loved her made it a win-win situation for Sir Laurie Barratt.


Never knew about this!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Definitely.
> 
> Have an Edwardian one too



So you're quite old, then!



> I feel I should keep up what must have been a petit bourgeois family tradition but my heart's not in it.



You're a traitor to your heritage, you cad!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> That's "Value Bauhaus". But I still prefer it to Barratts house style.
> I guess it's all a matter of taste. You don't like Stockhausen either do you?



To be fair, given the amount of his own work he's reputed to have destroyed, sometimes Stockhausen didn't like Stockhausen that much!


----------



## leanderman (Nov 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Hey, I'm not blaming you at all and certainly hold no kind of grudge against you or any of the other residents. They're not to blame and you're not what I'm angry about!



Were I buying a new-build, I'd be cynical enough to try to seek out one without any affordable/social housing attached because this 'subsidy' would probably push up the sales prices.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> *planter space



I hope they don't put planters there, because otherwise every pissed-up nightlife-visitor is going to be be boaking or pissing in them, or worse.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair, given the amount of his own work he's reputed to have destroyed, sometimes Stockhausen didn't like Stockhausen that much!


I was amazed to see people walk out of a concert of Stockhausen electronic music at the Barbican a few years ago. I think he is wonderful. I'm into stretching the boundaries of taste.
I gather the complaint about the Legoland flats is they are too plain and not challenging enough.
Which is essentially what I am saying about Brixton Square - except that their *GATES* are *dominating* and *morbid* - to add a couple of descriptors to the planning department's bland vocabulary.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I hope they don't put planters there, because otherwise every pissed-up nightlife-visitor is going to be be boaking or pissing in them, or worse.


such as filling them with cans and bottles. If so will Barratts lease-holders have to pay to clear up the mess - or Lambeth council tax payers?


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> such as filling them with cans and bottles. If so will Barratts lease-holders have to pay to clear up the mess - or Lambeth council tax payers?




I think they're planting a hedge there, that's what was in the renderings. Who clears up the mess in any other flat development?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> such as filling them with cans and bottles. If so will Barratts lease-holders have to pay to clear up the mess - or Lambeth council tax payers?



Aren't Barratts leaseholders also CT-payers, though?  I suspect they'd argue that Lambeth employees dis-infesting their potted palms and bedding plants was part of what they were paying for!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I was amazed to see people walk out of a concert of Stockhausen electronic music at the Barbican a few years ago. I think he is wonderful. I'm into stretching the boundaries of taste.



Never saw any of Stockhausen's stuff performed live, but I did listen to a live broadcast of "Stimmung" on the radio back in the '90s, which was much better than the studio recording CD I had.



> I gather the complaint about the Legoland flats is they are too plain and not challenging enough.



That, at least, is what teuchter thinks.



> Which is essentially what I am saying about Brixton Square - except that their *GATES* are *dominating* and *morbid* - to add a couple of descriptors to the planning department's bland vocabulary.



Especially now they appear to have painted the gates in a gloss black, in best "interior gates on a prison wing" style.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I think they're planting a hedge there, that's what was in the renderings. Who clears up the mess in any other flat development?



Depends whether the mess is definitively within the development or not.  I suppose that if the vomit/cans and bottles/turds are on the non-street side of the hedge, then they belong to Barratts/the managing agents!


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I hope they don't put planters there, because otherwise every pissed-up nightlife-visitor is going to be be boaking or pissing in them, or worse.


I'd be all for it as it would give the garden outside the Barrier Block a rest from the all the cunts from the village pissing all over it.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> such as filling them with cans and bottles. If so will Barratts lease-holders have to pay to clear up the mess - or Lambeth council tax payers?


The lazy fuckers building the Barratts development have left a pile of rubbish scattered all over the gardens opposite after every single lunch hour.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I gather the complaint about the Legoland flats is they are too plain and not challenging enough.


It's worse than that: they are an example of rotten design and bad architecture.
I will be pleased if the "legoland" label sticks, though.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Were I buying a new-build, I'd be cynical enough to try to seek out one without any affordable/social housing attached because this 'subsidy' would probably push up the sales prices.



The reality is, the choices are far too limited in London to be that picky.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 15, 2013)

editor said:


> The lazy fuckers building the Barratts development have left a pile of rubbish scattered all over the gardens opposite after every single lunch hour.



That's out of line - complain at the sales office.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 15, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> The reality is, the choices are far too limited in London to be that picky.



Of course. It was a wicked sentiment anyway.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 15, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> What is under the curved roofs at back of BS?


Gold bars


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 15, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> What is under the curved roofs at back of BS?


There is really nothing in the square, one the right hand side there is a raised community seating social area and the rest of the square contains a few benches a bike shed and bin sheds, nothing too exciting, but the gardens look great and has a relaxing air about it.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 15, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Blimey, feeling a bit left out now.


Yeah how weird is that next apartment to mine, she is lovely


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 15, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> They look big. I can see them from my place but not the street.


Ahhhh the penthouses, I asked the electrician what they were like, he said they are really small they have a mezzanine  floor but he prefers the standard two bed apartments. I still need to have a nose though.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 15, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ahhhh the penthouses, I asked the electrician what they were like, he said they are really small they have a mezzanine  floor but he prefers the standard two bed apartments. I still need to have a nose though.



Do let us know if you do.

Been watching the development go up from the Mansions. 

BTW  Mr Bim & loulou82 welcome to Brixton.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 15, 2013)

teuchter said:


> It's worse than that: they are an example of rotten design and bad architecture.
> I will be pleased if the "legoland" label sticks, though.





Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ahhhh the penthouses, I asked the electrician what they were like, he said they are really small they have a mezzanine  floor but he prefers the standard two bed apartments. I still need to have a nose though.



Were in one of the one bed mezzanine flats. It is quite small (but so was our old flat) but there is at least good storage, and there is only 2 of us so its fine. We initially wanted one of the other one beds, but they were all gone by the time we reserved.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Nov 15, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Do let us know if you do.
> 
> Been watching the development go up from the Mansions.
> 
> BTW  Mr Bim & loulou82 welcome to Brixton.


Cheers Gramsci, I was only living a stones throw away anyway but appreciate the sentiment.
Moved in yesterday, I had shelves to put up lights etc, flat pack furniture to assemble, Barratts send one of their carpenters to my  apartment for six hours to do all the work for me FREE OF CHARGE. I'm still In shock, then they said once all my furniture is in give then a call and they will paint the whole apartment again in case the removal men have scuffed the walls. SOMEONE  WAKE ME UP, ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC SERVICE.


----------



## loulou82 (Nov 15, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Do let us know if you do.
> 
> Been watching the development go up from the Mansions.
> 
> BTW  Mr Bim & loulou82 welcome to Brixton.


Thank you!!


----------



## loulou82 (Nov 15, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Cheers Gramsci, I was only living a stones throw away anyway but appreciate the sentiment.
> Moved in yesterday, I had shelves to put up lights etc, flat pack furniture to assemble, Barratts send one of their carpenters to my  apartment for six hours to do all the work for me FREE OF CHARGE. I'm still In shock, then they said once all my furniture is in give then a call and they will paint the whole apartment again in case the removal men have scuffed the walls. SOMEONE  WAKE ME UP, ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC SERVICE.


Mr Bimmmmmm! Neighbour!!! I can't believe they did that, such great service. They really seem to understand follow up customer care. So happy!


----------



## Rushy (Nov 16, 2013)

I feel like a little soap opera is unfolding in front of my eyes. And I mean "soap opera" in its original sense.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 16, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> One could argue the gates at BS are also to keep the public from parking in the courtyard.


You could but you know thats not the case.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 16, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> You could but you know thats not the case.


Well who knows really? 

On a serious note, why DO you think the gates were put there? Maybe I'm naive, but I honestly don't think they thought "lets keep the plebs out", do you?? Heck I AM a pleb....I mean I can either be considered an expat or an immigrant depending on the argument. I just think these sort of developments with gates are what new builds are like now. I don't think it signifies any sort of segregation, and I dont think someone conciously built (or bought) the place with those intentions. I just think a private courtyard is simply a selling point now, like a garden.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 16, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Well who knows really?
> 
> On a serious note, why DO you think the gates were put there? Maybe I'm naive, but I honestly don't think they thought "lets keep the plebs out", do you?? Heck I AM a pleb....I mean I can either be considered an expat or an immigrant depending on the argument. I just think these sort of developments with gates are what new builds are like now. I don't think it signifies any sort of segregation, and I dont think someone conciously built (or bought) the place with those intentions. I just think a private courtyard is simply a selling point now, like a garden.


Who mentioned "plebs"? or segregation for that matter not me, The gates are not there for cosmetic purposes are they. As you have just stated they are a selling point and you pay for them and they serve a purpose, ie. keeping people out, keeping you safe in a poor and volatile area.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 16, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Who mentioned "plebs"? or segregation for that matter not me, The gates are not there for cosmetic purposes are they. As you have just stated they are a selling point and you pay for them and they serve a purpose, ie. keeping people out, keeping you safe in a poor and volatile area.



When did I ever say you or anyone else mentioned plebs or segregation? That phrase was in quotation marks to represent a fictional thought of someone in the barratt team. 

In my eyes, the purpose they serve is to create a private garden, which is a selling point in a crowded city. We agree that they do keep people out, but it has nothing to do with safety from poor people, but everything to do with privacy. If those gates weren't there, I still would be (and I'm sure not just me) which kind of nulls your argument.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 16, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Well who knows really?
> 
> On a serious note, why DO you think the gates were put there? Maybe I'm naive, but I honestly don't think they thought "lets keep the plebs out", do you?? Heck I AM a pleb....I mean I can either be considered an expat or an immigrant depending on the argument. I just think these sort of developments with gates are what new builds are like now. I don't think it signifies any sort of segregation, and I dont think someone conciously built (or bought) the place with those intentions. I just think a private courtyard is simply a selling point now, like a garden.


I think Sir Laurie Barratt was greatly influenced by the Islamic design period in Cordoba (obviously on a coach trip from his regular spot in Marbella). The new generation are keeping the concept alive - in tribute to their late founder's excellent period taste.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 16, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Who mentioned "plebs"? or segregation for that matter not me, The gates are not there for cosmetic purposes are they. As you have just stated they are a selling point and you pay for them and they serve a purpose, ie. keeping people out, keeping you safe in a poor and volatile area.


I think it was I - and if so I stand by my comments!


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 16, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I think Sir Laurie Barratt was greatly influenced by the Islamic design period in Cordoba (obviously on a coach trip from his regular spot in Marbella). The new generation are keeping the concept alive - in tribute to their late founder's excellent period taste.


There are numerous gated communities in Marbella that may have inspired Sir Laurie without any need to travel to Cordoba which ealier times was a gated and walled city.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 16, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Who mentioned "plebs"? or segregation for that matter not me, The gates are not there for cosmetic purposes are they. As you have just stated they are a selling point and you pay for them and they serve a purpose, ie. keeping people out, keeping you safe in a poor and volatile area.


you did #2179


----------



## CH1 (Nov 16, 2013)

On the subject of gates IMHO the ultimate failed urban design in central Brixton is Metropolitan Housing Trust's Vining Street regeneration scheme, which destroyed some old shops capable of renovation and replaced them with this: 

Worse they blotted out one of the most original of the famous Brixton Murals. Note also how well matched the styles are.Roger Tullet (for it was he) assured residents and the Brixton Society that this marvellous new development would blend in very well with the adjacent Edwardian and Victorian buildings.

The initial resulting design became a sort of mugger's paradise/crack den. So Roger's team of architects "enhanced" it making it a sort of dispersed gated community.
I think it's about time Roger Tullet was invited onto Desert Island Discs. My suggestions:
1. The Foundry by Mossolov
2. Autobahn by Kraftwerk
3. The Message by Grand Master Flash
4. The Waste Land by TS Elliott (read by the author)
5. Don Giovanni - ghetto version produced by Peter Sellars
6. "Take Me away" from the Dream of Gerontius sung by Richard Lewis
7. Homes fit for Heroes - Edgar Broughton Band
8. Walk on the Wild Side - Lou Reed


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Nov 17, 2013)

From a non-professional perspective on the relative architectures of the yellow balcony buildings and BS, I go past the yellow balcony buildings every work day, and they've grown on me. I'm quite fond of them if I'm honest. Whereas when someone posted pictures of the BS courtyard earlier in the thread it reminded me of a hall of residence.

Agree with CH1 's post above, that those caged houses at the bottom of Rushcroft Road are pretty grim.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Mark Clare, Barratt Developments CEO was interviewed this morning on a Radio 4 programme called "The Politics of Architecture".
 
The interview did not touch on Brixton Square - rather they were discussing "Cathedral View" - a naff addition to the mediaeval town of Ely, Cambridgeshire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03hvql5


----------



## simonSW2 (Nov 19, 2013)

I read a book that had a section in it called 'The Privatization Of Common Fates' which discussed how the concept / idea of privatisation can extend into domestic life. 
The gated community is a prime example. 
Not everyone is consciously trying to exclude or segregate (although some are happy to), but the consequent effect of security / gates/ CCTV is precisely that.
The need for high security is largely a psychological one, and allowing this attitude to permeate your outlook leads to societal decay. 
I'm reminded of Banksy's gag: "Crimewatch has ruined the countryside".


----------



## teuchter (Nov 20, 2013)

simonSW2 said:


> I read a book that had a section in it called 'The Privatization Of Common Fates' which discussed how the concept / idea of privatisation can extend into domestic life.
> The gated community is a prime example.
> Not everyone is consciously trying to exclude or segregate (although some are happy to), but the consequent effect of security / gates/ CCTV is precisely that.
> The need for high security is largely a psychological one, and allowing this attitude to permeate your outlook leads to societal decay.
> I'm reminded of Banksy's gag: "Crimewatch has ruined the countryside".



Two thousand posts in and people are still rattling on about "gated communities", based on the pathetically simplistic premise that because this development has a _gate_, it is therefore a _gated community_ and subject to the criticisms (quite reasonably) aimed at the kind of communities that that term refers to in common parlance when discussing urban development and design.

The kind of gated communities that operate as enclaves designed to isolate their residents from their surroundings, that are studied as indicators of massive wealth disparity, the privatisation of urban space and so on, are not blocks of flats with a modestly sized residents-only communal area. A block of flats with a modestly sized communal area only accessible to its residents is a long-established and common arrangement in cities across the planet, and certainly not unusual in any way in London. It's an arrangement that is common in many types of housing from social housing through to private developments and through many different eras.

A true gated community is one where the residents simply do not need to engage with the area outside their gates, either because (a) within the gates there are various amenities such as shops, leisure facilities and so on, or (b) because they enter and exit from it in the safety of their car which can take them directly to amenities elsewhere. Or some combination of (a) and (b). In other words it's an arrangement that effectively allows people to circumvent the need to use "public" space (except perhaps whilst in their car on a public highway) if they so wish.

That is obviously not the case here, and it's pretty disingenuous to try and hijack the terminology of "gated communities" in an attempt to make this development seem much more sinister than it is. The residents of this development will be coming and going by foot, via that notorious gate, and passing directly onto the street just like anyone else living on Coldharbour Lane, whether they live in the Barrier Block, in a mansion/tenement flat, terrace house or whatever. When they want to go to the shops, go for a drink, get the bus, get the tube to work, they will step onto the street just like anyone else. They aren't living in some segregated world with no need to venture beyond their own privatised amenities. If they were slipping in and out of a giant underground carpark in fancy cars (or any cars), then it would be a bit different, and then perhaps the term "gated community" would be a little more apt. But that's not what this is.

In fact I would argue that someone with a car living in a semi-d somewhere in suburban zone 6 would have much greater capacity to live the "gated community" lifestyle than anyone living in this development; a much greater likelihood to ignore their local area and the facilities within it.

The fact that the private courtyard looks like it's going to be actually quite pleasant seems to be taken as a target for criticism..._how dare these people have a pleasant communal area? _It feels to me like it would draw less ire from some on here if it was just a utilitarian car park - which is a pretty bog-standard feature of lots of housing developments. It's ok to gate off the courtyard at the back of the legoland building, apparently, because it's a car park and it's uncontroversial to have a private parking area (never mind the fact that it's also blocked to pedestrians). If there's going to be a courtyard I'd rather it was one designed to be a pleasant area for the shared use of residents than something to facilitate private car ownership and all the harm that does.

By the way it goes pretty hard against my grain to be defending the design of a Barratts development, given some of the stuff they do, both in terms of their general approach to design, and all the business with dodging the affordable housing requirements in this particular case.

It's right that people should make a noise about the changes to the planning conditions that they pursued and Lambeth allowed. If people google Brixton Square and find out about that history, and it deservedly tarnishes Barratts reputation, that's good. But it's a bit embarrassing that half the thread is just going round in circles with this simplistic notion that it's a "gated community" and giving the impression that's what people are, or should be, het up about. Get a grip urban75.


----------



## Nedrop (Nov 20, 2013)

Agree with Teuchter, i have family in both Seville & Faro, countless blocks of flats in those towns with a small square and entrance gate, can't see the issue to be honest


----------



## Crispy (Nov 20, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Two thousand posts in and people are still rattling on about "gated communities", based on the pathetically simplistic premise that because this development has a _gate_, it is therefore a _gated community_ and subject to the criticisms (quite reasonably) aimed at the kind of communities that that term refers to in common parlance when discussing urban development and design.
> 
> The kind of gated communities that operate as enclaves designed to isolate their residents from their surroundings, that are studied as indicators of massive wealth disparity, the privatisation of urban space and so on, are not blocks of flats with a modestly sized residents-only communal area. A block of flats with a modestly sized communal area only accessible to its residents is a long-established and common arrangement in cities across the planet, and certainly not unusual in any way in London. It's an arrangement that is common in many types of housing from social housing through to private developments and through many different eras.
> 
> ...



I agree with every single word of this excellent post.


----------



## Winot (Nov 20, 2013)

Crispy said:


> I agree with every single word of this excellent post.



Absolutely, and I'm sure it will put to bed the issue once and for all.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 20, 2013)

Winot said:


> Absolutely, and I'm sure it will put to bed the issue once and for all.



There's no need for sarcasm at this time of the morning.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 20, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Two thousand posts in and people are still rattling on about "gated communities", based on the pathetically simplistic premise that because this development has a _gate_, it is therefore a _gated community_ and subject to the criticisms (quite reasonably) aimed at the kind of communities that that term refers to in common parlance when discussing urban development and design.
> 
> The kind of gated communities that operate as enclaves designed to isolate their residents from their surroundings, that are studied as indicators of massive wealth disparity, the privatisation of urban space and so on, are not blocks of flats with a modestly sized residents-only communal area. A block of flats with a modestly sized communal area only accessible to its residents is a long-established and common arrangement in cities across the planet, and certainly not unusual in any way in London. It's an arrangement that is common in many types of housing from social housing through to private developments and through many different eras.
> 
> ...


Of course there is a wealth disparity between the people of Brixton square and many other parts of brixton, I would also suggest that you will get a decent sized house in zone 6 compared to a 1 bedroom box flat in the now trendy Brixton.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Of course there is a wealth disparity between the people of Brixton square and many other parts of brixton...


Indeed there is, and you only have to look across the road to see that.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 20, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Of course there is a wealth disparity between the people of Brixton square and many other parts of brixton, I would also suggest that you will get a decent sized house in zone 6 compared to a 1 bedroom box flat in the now trendy Brixton.



There's a Zone 6?


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2013)

leanderman said:


> There's a Zone 6?


Indeed there is, full of faraway places like Chelsfield, Crews Hill,Purley and Theydon Bois.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stations_in_London_fare_zone_6


----------



## teuchter (Nov 20, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Of course there is a wealth disparity between the people of Brixton square and many other parts of brixton, I would also suggest that you will get a decent sized house in zone 6 compared to a 1 bedroom box flat in the now trendy Brixton.


Correct on both counts, although I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by stating the obvious.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 20, 2013)

editor said:


> Indeed there is, full of faraway places like Chelsfield, Crews Hill,Purley and Theydon Bois.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stations_in_London_fare_zone_6



I might break this monitory news to my children, to scare them into doing their homework


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 20, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Two thousand posts in and people are still rattling on about "gated communities", based on the pathetically simplistic premise that because this development has a _gate_, it is therefore a _gated community_ and subject to the criticisms (quite reasonably) aimed at the kind of communities that that term refers to in common parlance when discussing urban development and design.
> 
> The kind of gated communities that operate as enclaves designed to isolate their residents from their surroundings, that are studied as indicators of massive wealth disparity, the privatisation of urban space and so on, are not blocks of flats with a modestly sized residents-only communal area. A block of flats with a modestly sized communal area only accessible to its residents is a long-established and common arrangement in cities across the planet, and certainly not unusual in any way in London. It's an arrangement that is common in many types of housing from social housing through to private developments and through many different eras.
> 
> ...



Couldn't have said it better myself. You are spot on.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 20, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Of course there is a wealth disparity between the people of Brixton square and many other parts of brixton, I would also suggest that you will get a decent sized house in zone 6 compared to a 1 bedroom box flat in the now trendy Brixton.



The amount you would pay in travel costs would be eye watering though. There's a difficult balance to be struck when working in London and moving further out to keep costs down.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 20, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Correct on both counts, although I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by stating the obvious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2013)

Nedrop said:


> Agree with Teuchter, i have family in both Seville & Faro, countless blocks of flats in those towns with a small square and entrance gate, can't see the issue to be honest



The difference being that they're only a recent feature in the UK, but a long-established feature across most of the other EU member states.
If you can't see the issue, then I recommend a trip to SpecSavers.


----------



## thatguyhex (Nov 20, 2013)

Another pile-on thank-you-I-agree for teuchter. Very, very well said.

The other day I walked past Arlington Lodge, on the corner of Baytree Road and Brixton Road. It's, roughly speaking, an E-shaped building with private space between the wings - equal to or possibly more than Brixton Square has. Entrance to the complex is through a gate. The gate itself is only waist-high, and not locked; but you would have just as little reason to pass through it as a non-resident as you would have to pass through the gate of Brixton Square. Yet I don't see it coming under fire. Is that because a) it's a council estate; b) it's not new and "trespassing"; c) the open space adjoins the street rather than being surrounded by buildings on all sides; d) the gate isn't tall and locked, e) all of the above? (It also has a private rear alley for parking in, which _does_ have a tall, locked gate, on the Brixton Road side.)

Really, the criteria that some here appear to be selecting for their definition of "gated community" appear to be fairly arbitrary.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2013)

Whatever you want to call it, it's definitely got a big ugly gate separating it from the local community and providing the only access.

 The building encroaches further onto Coldharbour Lane than its neighbour (which despite being very similar still manages to have an accessible front door) . 

I hate everything that Brixton Square represents, even down to its shitty name.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 20, 2013)

editor said:


> Whatever you want to call it, it's definitely got a big ugly gate separating it from the local community and providing the only access.
> 
> The building encroaches further onto Coldharbour Lane than its neighbour (which despite being very similar still manages to have an accessible front door) .
> 
> I hate everything that Brixton Square represents, even down to its shitty name.



It has a substantial difference from its neighbour, by which I assume you mean the block immediately to its east, in that that development has access from a side street, Valentia Place. The Brixton Square only has access from the front, and I'm guessing here, but it's very likely that because of this, the internal courtyard has to be accessible to firefighting vehicles (because that's the only way to reach the block that's up against the railway line). So, it is probably unavoidable that there needs to be vehicle access to the courtyard, hence the gate entrance instead of a glazed pedestrian-only entrance. Of course, they could have made a glazed entrance *as well as* the gate, but I suspect the gate would have to be there anyway (this I brought up in the questions you avoided answering a couple of pages back). The glazed entrance would only have been able to serve the front block though, and it would take up space where instead there will be a street-facing apartment with its own entrance. The rear blocks would still have had to be accessed via the gate, and then their own entrances, unless you made an enclosed entrance right through the front block at ground level, which would take up even more floorspace that could be used for accommodation, and would be somewhat illogical given that it would be entirely duplicating the gated through-way (which has to be there anyway) as a means of access into the courtyard. Furthermore, for residents of the rear blocks it would involve going through a glass door, then out throiugh another one into the courtyard, then into yet another one into their own block.

So the arrangement which has been chosen, ie. that everyone goes through the gate, then into the courtyard, then into their own block entrances, seems pretty sensible and is based on making the circulation work in an efficient way without taking up floorpsace that could otherwise be used to provide accommodation.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 20, 2013)

There goes my hope that this argument was over. 

It's about as useful as the one over grammar schools.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Nov 20, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> The amount you would pay in travel costs would be eye watering though. There's a difficult balance to be struck when working in London and moving further out to keep costs down.


I agree but saving maybe 100k on a place by moving further out is a big difference to saving £120 month.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 20, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> I agree but saving maybe 100k on a place by moving further out is a big difference to saving £120 month.




Yeah that's true


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 20, 2013)

teuchter said:


> It has a substantial difference from its neighbour, by which I assume you mean the block immediately to its east, in that that development has access from a side street, Valentia Place. The Brixton Square only has access from the front, and I'm guessing here, but it's very likely that because of this, the internal courtyard has to be accessible to firefighting vehicles (because that's the only way to reach the block that's up against the railway line). So, it is probably unavoidable that there needs to be vehicle access to the courtyard, hence the gate entrance instead of a glazed pedestrian-only entrance. Of course, they could have made a glazed entrance *as well as* the gate, but I suspect the gate would have to be there anyway (this I brought up in the questions you avoided answering a couple of pages back). The glazed entrance would only have been able to serve the front block though, and it would take up space where instead there will be a street-facing apartment with its own entrance. The rear blocks would still have had to be accessed via the gate, and then their own entrances, unless you made an enclosed entrance right through the front block at ground level, which would take up even more floorspace that could be used for accommodation, and would be somewhat illogical given that it would be entirely duplicating the gated through-way (which has to be there anyway) as a means of access into the courtyard. Furthermore, for residents of the rear blocks it would involve going through a glass door, then out throiugh another one into the courtyard, then into yet another one into their own block.
> 
> So the arrangement which has been chosen, ie. that everyone goes through the gate, then into the courtyard, then into their own block entrances, seems pretty sensible and is based on making the circulation work in an efficient way without taking up floorpsace that could otherwise be used to provide accommodation.





teuchter said:


> It has a substantial difference from its neighbour, by which I assume you mean the block immediately to its east, in that that development has access from a side street, Valentia Place. The Brixton Square only has access from the front, and I'm guessing here, but it's very likely that because of this, the internal courtyard has to be accessible to firefighting vehicles (because that's the only way to reach the block that's up against the railway line). So, it is probably unavoidable that there needs to be vehicle access to the courtyard, hence the gate entrance instead of a glazed pedestrian-only entrance. Of course, they could have made a glazed entrance *as well as* the gate, but I suspect the gate would have to be there anyway (this I brought up in the questions you avoided answering a couple of pages back). The glazed entrance would only have been able to serve the front block though, and it would take up space where instead there will be a street-facing apartment with its own entrance. The rear blocks would still have had to be accessed via the gate, and then their own entrances, unless you made an enclosed entrance right through the front block at ground level, which would take up even more floorspace that could be used for accommodation, and would be somewhat illogical given that it would be entirely duplicating the gated through-way (which has to be there anyway) as a means of access into the courtyard. Furthermore, for residents of the rear blocks it would involve going through a glass door, then out throiugh another one into the courtyard, then into yet another one into their own block.
> 
> So the arrangement which has been chosen, ie. that everyone goes through the gate, then into the courtyard, then into their own block entrances, seems pretty sensible and is based on making the circulation work in an efficient way without taking up floorpsace that could otherwise be used to provide accommodation.



You're correct. Inside the courtyard is- 
1. A pathway
2. Hoses and water access in a little housing in case of fire.
3. 2 disabled parking spots
4. Bicycle storage
5. Approximately 7-9 trees
6. A small garden area with 2 benches 

Hardly a "community".


----------



## Chilavert (Nov 21, 2013)

editor said:


> I hate everything that Brixton Square represents, even down to its shitty name.


That much has been patently obvious for some time.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2013)

I know some people here are a stickler for accuracy, so it should be noted that estate agents are also referring to Brixton Square as a gated development. Brixton Blog describes it thus, too.


> *Brixton Square, Brixton, SW9*
> Split level
> *Gated new development*
> Modern new build
> http://homes.trovit.co.uk/index.php/cod.frame/url.http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mouseprice.com%2Fproperty-for-rent%2Fref-24561894%3Futm_source%3DTrovit%26utm_medium%3DCPC%26utm_campaign%3DPremium/id_ad.12y1Jvah1Ph/what_d.brixton square/type.2/origin.2/section.1/section_type.1/pop.1


Depressing to see how many properies are already up for rent in the Square and at eye-wateringy high rents, even before the place is finished. That'll be all those buy to letters looking to cash in on Brixton, then.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 21, 2013)

Oh yes, you can tell a dedicated stickler for accuracy by their unquestioning acceptance of the authority of estate agents and internet bloggers.


----------



## peterkro (Nov 21, 2013)

"This spectacular two bedroom apartment is set within the Brixton Square development. A superb collection of new apartments on Brixton's famous Coldharbour Lane, Just a few minutes walk from the tube station, this one bedroom flat will please all".

Do they even read the shit they write.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Oh yes, you can tell a dedicated stickler for accuracy by their unquestioning acceptance of the authority of estate agents and internet bloggers.


The "unquestioning acceptance..." bit is all in your rather imaginative head, I'm afraid.

I was simply pointing out that the properties are indeed being advertised as being in a 'gated development'. That is a simple statement of fact, regardless of your _opinion_.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2013)

peterkro said:


> "This spectacular two bedroom apartment is set within the Brixton Square development. A superb collection of new apartments on Brixton's famous Coldharbour Lane, Just a few minutes walk from the tube station, this one bedroom flat will please all".
> 
> Do they even read the shit they write.


It's awful. Almost as awful as the ski high prices these fucking BTL leeches are demanding.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

editor said:


> I know some people here are a stickler for accuracy, so it should be noted that estate agents are also referring to Brixton Square as a gated development. Brixton Blog describes it thus, too.
> Depressing to see how many properies are already up for rent in the Square and at eye-wateringy high rents, even before the place is finished. That'll be all those buy to letters looking to cash in on Brixton, then.



I looked through a few pages and found about 20 properties on there, and some were duplicated. I'm no btl apologist by any means, but given the number of flats in the development I don't think that's a huge amount.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 21, 2013)

editor said:


> the properties are indeed being advertised as being in a 'gated development .


A 'gated mews' even, nonetheless the gate is a selling point otherwise why mention it ?


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

editor said:


> The "unquestioning acceptance..." bit is all in your rather imaginative head, I'm afraid.
> 
> I was simply pointing out that the properties are indeed being advertised as being in a 'gated development'. That is a simple statement of fact, regardless of your _opinion_.



My old flat was advertised as charming with a garden. It was cupboard sized with a shared garden which was about a mile away from the flat (and down 2 flights of stairs). Letting agents spew rubbish.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 21, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Letting agents spew rubbish.


Tbf the mews bit is pure bollocks for sure, I don't know how anyone can fool themselves into thinking a big steel gate is not going to influence at least some punters to take the plunge when they'd be more at home in Parsons Green.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Tbf the mews bit is pure bollocks for sure, I don't know how anyone can fool themselves into thinking a big steel gate is not going to influence at least some punters to take the plunge when they'd be more at home in Parsons Green.



When I first moved here I stayed with a friend in Parsons Green. Beautiful house and neighbourhood, but having just stepped "fresh off the boat" from the Caribbean, 23 and skint, it was eye opening. That's a completely different world, I can't see how this BS would be aimed at that demographic.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 21, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> When I first moved here I stayed with a friend in Parsons Green. Beautiful house and neighbourhood, but having just stepped "fresh off the boat" from the Caribbean, 23 and skint, it was eye opening. That's a completely different world, I can't see how this BS would be aimed at that demographic.


I wasn't really referring to a demographic, more of a mindset, and that mindset would probably struggle with the old brixton, or the more lurid aspects of it that used to be flung around, without the rebranding maybe it still would, even with the rebranding enough of the old is still around to make some people nervous hence the attractions of a big steel gate.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> I wasn't really referring to a demographic, more of a mindset, and that mindset would probably struggle with the old brixton, or the more lurid aspects of it that used to be flung around, without the rebranding maybe it still would, even with the rebranding enough of the old is still around to make some people nervous hence the attractions of a big steel gate.



You know what, I can actually agree with you there. I think that's exactly why they marketed it as such. I also think that its needless and if they hadn't and there were no gate, it would have made no difference for the people who bought. The chance to buy a new modern flat in zone 2, in an area like Brixton with lots going on, is more than enough to make bs marketable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Oh yes, you can tell a dedicated stickler for accuracy by their unquestioning acceptance of the authority of estate agents and internet bloggers.



And yet we all know that were the argument reversed, you'd be proferring those same sources as authoritative in support of your case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> My old flat was advertised as charming with a garden. It was cupboard sized with a shared garden which was about a mile away from the flat (and down 2 flights of stairs). Letting agents spew rubbish.



TBF "charming" has always meant "poky, with the possibility of mice".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> You know what, I can actually agree with you there. I think that's exactly why they marketed it as such. I also think that its needless and if they hadn't and there were no gate, it would have made no difference for the people who bought. The chance to buy a new modern flat in zone 2, in an area like Brixton with lots going on, is more than enough to make bs marketable.



Except to Mr Bim, who's openly stated that the presence of a fuck-off big gate influenced him.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except to Mr Bim, who's openly stated that the presence of a fuck-off big gate influenced him.



Well he lived in Brixton before, not sure what his experiences were. I know Lou Lou wrote about being burgled several times. I could see someone wanting a gate after that traumatic experience. So I think cuppa tee is right, that's why it was marketed as such AND I can see how a gate would appeal to some people. Still doesn't make it a gated community though, and I maintain that the majority of people probably wouldnt care if there were no gate.

And actually Valentia place next door has a square in the middle of the flats as well, with arguably more "community space" than BS. But it gets a pass because there's a door instead of a gate? Ok....


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> And actually Valentia place next door has a square in the middle of the flats as well, with arguably more "community space" than BS. But it gets a pass because there's a door instead of a gate? Ok....


I think you mean The Viaduct, yes?

It's a shoddy development for sure, but at least it presents a less daunting face to Coldharbour Lane, being set much further back from the road, and not having a massive steel gate as its only entrance. Surely you can see the difference?


----------



## fogbat (Nov 21, 2013)

My flat is a Doored Community


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

editor said:


> I think you mean The Viaduct, yes?
> 
> It's a shoddy development for sure, but at least it presents a less daunting face to Coldharbour Lane, being set much further back from the road, and not having a massive steel gate as its only entrance. Surely you can see the difference?



Less daunting? Really? How is bs daunting anyway? It's a brick building with a very wide pavement in the front and a hedge thats about to be planted. It's not as though its in the street.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Less daunting? Really? How is bs daunting anyway? It's a brick building with a very wide pavement in the front and a hedge thats about to be planted. It's not as though its in the street.


Oh come on. One building is set back from the street and has a normal glass door for its entrance and the other has a massive metal gate.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 21, 2013)

If you ever get the chance to get  chatting to some of the 'security/concierges' there, they will tell you how many empty properties lie vacant, owned by investors/speculators who will never live there...
Bounce into the sales office next door and they will tell you they have sold almost all 'residentials' there...
People need homes... Homes need people....
Brixton square highlights all that is wrong with the 'housing crisis' in Brixton and beyond...
End of....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Well he lived in Brixton before...



Brixton Hill, I believe.  Not quite the "frontline" that Coldharbour Lane etc are. 



> ...not sure what his experiences were. I know Lou Lou wrote about being burgled several times. I could see someone wanting a gate after that traumatic experience. So I think cuppa tee is right, that's why it was marketed as such AND I can see how a gate would appeal to some people. Still doesn't make it a gated community though, and I maintain that the majority of people probably wouldnt care if there were no gate.



I think that you're under-estimating how much of a "selling point" even the idea of a gate implies for personal safety, especially a gate where access is "managed".  It implies that only "permitted" persons gain access to any part of the development, even before they're able to gain access to individual dwellings.  For some people, that's a big attraction.



> And actually Valentia place next door has a square in the middle of the flats as well, with arguably more "community space" than BS. But it gets a pass because there's a door instead of a gate? Ok....



I wouldn't know, but isn't the ground floor of Valentia Place commercial units?  If that's the case then having a door or gate makes good insurance sense, given how pernickety commercial insurers can be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2013)

fogbat said:


> My flat is a Doored Community



Protected by a mystical feline.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Less daunting? Really? How is bs daunting anyway? It's a brick building with a very wide pavement in the front and a hedge thats about to be planted. It's not as though its in the street.



TBF, I have a similar reaction to the ed when I pass Brixton Square, or when I pass the controlled gates at Brockwell Gate, just down the road from me.  A large gate or gates set in a deep shadowy arch come across to me as nothing so much as the entrance to a fort or castle, down to the bloke letting people in and out.  The only thing that's missing is a pikestaff!


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh come on. One building is set back from the street and has a normal glass door for its entrance and the other has a massive metal gate.



The period flat I lived in before was set closer to the road than BS is, and I would hardly call a gate that people are constantly coming and going out of daunting. The gate is open half the time quite frankly. I get that you think BS represents something bigger and you don't like it - I can empathise with that... but the place is not daunting in anyway.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, I have a similar reaction to the ed when I pass Brixton Square, or when I pass the controlled gates at Brockwell Gate, just down the road from me.  A large gate or gates set in a deep shadowy arch come across to me as nothing so much as the entrance to a fort or castle, down to the bloke letting people in and out.  The only thing that's missing is a pikestaff!


 
I dunno, perhaps it's a personal thing then. I just don't see it that way at all.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 21, 2013)

I don't know about daunting, it's certainly ugly.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet we all know that were the argument reversed, you'd be proferring those same sources as authoritative in support of your case.


Absolute nonsense; in the last few pages I've written a couple of quite lengthy posts trying to explain clearly my point of view, one explaining why I don't think BS comes under the definition of a "gated community" and one trying to explain why it is probably necessary for BS to have a gated rather than a glazed entrance, and neither of these posts resorted to flimsy links from external sources. Which is why it's a little irritating for Editor to come back with his petulant remarks about "sticklers for accuracy" and suchlike instead of actually trying to reply to the various points I have made. Of course, that is entirely business as usual as is your post above. And weren't you going to come back to us with some more details on these studies you talked about, which looked at the effects of gated communities? I believe you had been asked if you could explain what definition of "gated communities" had been assumed in these studies. Apologies if you replied to that and I missed it.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Absolute nonsense; in the last few pages I've written a couple of quite lengthy posts trying to explain clearly my point of view, one explaining why I don't think BS comes under the definition of a "gated community" ...


Whatever your _personal _opinion is, it's still being widely advertised by multiple estate agents as being a 'gated development' or a 'gated mews' though.

I haven't heard of any renters expressing dissatisfaction with the supposed lack of _gated-ness_. Maybe they think it's a gated development too.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> The gate is open half the time quite frankly.


For the record, I've never seen it left open whenever I've passed.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 21, 2013)

editor said:


> Whatever your _personal _opinion is, it's still being widely advertised by multiple estate agents as being a 'gated development' or a 'gated mews' though.
> 
> I haven't heard of any renters expressing dissatisfaction with the supposed lack of _gated-ness_. Maybe they think it's a gated development too.



So what?


----------



## Manter (Nov 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, I have a similar reaction to the ed when I pass Brixton Square, or when I pass the controlled gates at Brockwell Gate, just down the road from me.  A large gate or gates set in a deep shadowy arch come across to me as nothing so much as the entrance to a fort or castle, down to the bloke letting people in and out.  The only thing that's missing is a pikestaff!


I just love the fact that at Brockwell gate they have big spiky gates, half of which have to stay open for access t the park.  There's a logic fail in there somewhere


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2013)

teuchter said:


> So what?


So quit banging on and on about it.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 21, 2013)

What exactly are you telling me to stop "banging on about"?


editor said:


> So quit banging on and on about it.


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 21, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> I wasn't really referring to a demographic, more of a mindset, and that mindset would probably struggle with the old brixton, or the more lurid aspects of it that used to be flung around, without the rebranding maybe it still would, even with the rebranding enough of the old is still around to make some people nervous hence the attractions of a big steel gate.



We used to have a car gate that anyone could duck under.  Now we have a big steel gate.  20 years in brixton without struggling with the 'more lurid aspects of it that used to be flung around' but I have to say I prefer not lying in my bed at 2am listening to prostitutes and punters as used to happen. 

Say it loud, say it proud. My name is quimcunx and I live in a 'gated development'.  As do many people in period blocks of flats and in council blocks. 

I might start calling it a mews.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> We used to have a car gate that anyone could duck under.  Now we have a big steel gate.  20 years in brixton without struggling with the 'more lurid aspects of it that used to be flung around' but I have to say I prefer not lying in my bed at 2am listening to prostitutes and punters as used to happen.
> 
> Say it loud, say it proud. My name is quimcunx and I live in a 'gated development'.  As do many people in period blocks of flats and in council blocks.
> 
> I might start calling it a mews.


I'd wager that's far more to do with massively changing demographics than a bigger gate.


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 21, 2013)

I'd wager I know more about what was done at that time at the block of flats where I live to make the change.  It wasn't just about a gate but it wasn't because the demographics of the area changed over night.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

editor said:


> For the record, I've never seen it left open whenever I've passed.


They've had to put a sign up reminding people to close it behind them.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 21, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> I'd wager I know more about what was done at that time at the block of flats where I live to make the change.  It wasn't just about a gate but it wasn't because the demographics of the area changed over night.



I could be wrong but it seems your gate was a response to a real problem and not part of the design from the off and marketed on the strength of it.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

AKA pseudonym said:


> If you ever get the chance to get  chatting to some of the 'security/concierges' there, they will tell you how many empty properties lie vacant, owned by investors/speculators who will never live there...
> Bounce into the sales office next door and they will tell you they have sold almost all 'residentials' there...
> People need homes... Homes need people....
> Brixton square highlights all that is wrong with the 'housing crisis' in Brixton and beyond...
> End of....



Brixton square has sold out. Some flats are empty as people are still moving in, and a small percentage are BTL. I agree that there is a huge housing crisis but this development has helped me and many others out of that crisis as the flats here were in my opinion very good value for money. Yes they skimped on affordable which was so wrong, but one could argue with so many first time buyers here, what we need is more Brixton squares (but obviously with more affordable units).


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 21, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> I could be wrong but it seems your gate was a response to a real problem and not part of the design from the off and marketed on the strength of it.


I was reading the property section in yesterday's standard and even  in places like Fulham they are marketing "gated developments", most notably the one built with a private garden square in the middle. As I observed upthread, I think this is just the newest "trend" in city flats.


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 21, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> I could be wrong but it seems your gate was a response to a real problem and not part of the design from the off and marketed on the strength of it.



And?  If there is a secure parking area or private communal garden of course it's going to be marketed on that basis.  And why not design security into a block of flats?  No one on here I've seen enjoys having people shitting, conducting business with prostitutes etc on their communal property.  however long they've lived here.


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 21, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I was reading the property section in yesterday's standard and even  in places like Fulham they are marketing "gated developments", most notably the one built with a private garden square in the middle. As I observed upthread, I think this is just the newest "trend" in city flats.



Sandhurst court on Acre lane has an entirely enclosed private garden.  Can't even see it exists from the outside. Built in the early 1900s I think.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 21, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> And?  If there is a secure parking area or private communal garden of course it's going to be marketed on that basis.  And why not design security into a block of flats?  No one on here I've seen enjoys having people shitting, conducting business with prostitutes etc on their communal property.  however long they've lived here.


I don't recall saying anyone enjoys those things, all I was saying was that the presence of a big steel gate makes it "gated".


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 21, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> I don't recall saying anyone enjoys those things, all I was saying was that the presence of a big steel gate makes it "gated".



This is what you said.



cuppa tee said:


> I could be wrong but it seems your gate was a response to a real problem and not part of the design from the off and marketed on the strength of it.



If I was designing a block of flats one of the things I would take into consideration is security issues in the immediate area and I would include any security measures in the marketing. Not sure what the difference is between an existing block of flats responding to local security issues with some changes and a new block responding to them with design.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 21, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> I don't recall saying anyone enjoys those things, all I was saying was that the presence of a big steel gate makes it "gated".


This, in fact, is the great insight that this thread has brought to the world. The existence of a gate demonstrates the existence of a gate.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 21, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> Sandhurst court on Acre lane has an entirely enclosed private garden.  Can't even see it exists from the outside. Built in the early 1900s I think.


1930s


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 21, 2013)

teuchter said:


> This, in fact, is the great insight that this thread has brought to the world. The existence of a gate demonstrates the existence of a gate.


So logically the new development on the site of the former Cooltan Arts is gated.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 21, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> So logically the new development on the site of the former Cooltan Arts is gated.


You don't say.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2013)

What is forgotten on this thread is that most of the land that Barratts built on was originally publicly owned land.

As CH1 reminded me recently the original reason for agreeing to the large number of flats on the site was was that it was going to have a high proportion of social housing. That was when "Places for People" had it.

Barratts are not doing anyone any favours here. They are not helping to deal with the housing crisis. Barratts are part of the problem.

So what has happened in the long term?

Public land sold off. Promises of development with high proportion of affordable units. Then Barratts make sure that all comes to nothing.


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> Sandhurst court on Acre lane has an entirely enclosed private garden.  Can't even see it exists from the outside. Built in the early 1900s I think.


And here's what it looks like:







Not quite the same as this though, is it?


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 22, 2013)

And?  They are two different buildings. They look a bit different.  Mine looks a bit different. My friend's council estate in Kennington where you have to go through 3 locked communal doors and past a concierge to get to her front door looks a bit different too. Add security bollards into the mix if you're going there by car.  It's a gate. That's all.



teuchter said:


> Two thousand posts in and people are still rattling on about "gated communities", based on the pathetically simplistic premise that because this development has a _gate_, it is therefore a _gated community_ and subject to the criticisms (quite reasonably) aimed at the kind of communities that that term refers to in common parlance when discussing urban development and design.
> 
> The kind of gated communities that operate as enclaves designed to isolate their residents from their surroundings, that are studied as indicators of massive wealth disparity, the privatisation of urban space and so on, are not blocks of flats with a modestly sized residents-only communal area. A block of flats with a modestly sized communal area only accessible to its residents is a long-established and common arrangement in cities across the planet, and certainly not unusual in any way in London. It's an arrangement that is common in many types of housing from social housing through to private developments and through many different eras.
> 
> ...



Also want to say I'm another who agrees 100% with this. Especially the bolded part.  20 likes.  Many more likes than Story's post which got a place in BrixtonBuzz.  I might pass this on to be considered for publication.

It has a gate.  Maybe stop detracting from the real issues with this development with pages and pages about a poxy fucking gate.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 22, 2013)

teuchter said:


> This, in fact, is the great insight that this thread has brought to the world. The existence of a gate demonstrates the existence of a gate.



The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I dunno, perhaps it's a personal thing then. I just don't see it that way at all.



When I was a Civil Servant my work involved visiting HM Prisons.  I saw enough secure architecture to get to know the look and feeling well.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 22, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You don't say.


This kind of patronising reply probably explains why so much time has been spent on the gate......


quimcunx said:


> Maybe stop detracting from the real issues with this development with pages and pages about a poxy fucking gate.


Ok lets focus on the garden, we've established it's communal, a quick look in most dictionaries tells us this is because it is for the use of a community......
so we have a community with a gate, or a gated community, but dont take my word for it here is someone who should know what he is on about writing on the matter
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/jan/30/urbandesign.architecture1
this bit specifically sounds familiar......





> After having lived in the East Village in New York where shops, restaurants and dry cleaners were only minute from my apartment I was determined to avoid dreary and featureless streets.
> The fruit and veg shops that stay open late in Holloway - and the kebab eateries - were a good reason for moving in.


so no rolling manicured lawns and the need to step outside still exists, but he keeps referring to a "gated community" despite telling us the community spirit leaves a bit to be desired.
heres another piece talking about the pro's and cons of gated communities
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/3360550/Secure-developments-Time-to-close-the-gates.html
this bit in particular again from someone who should know shows why the gate is relevant to discussing more important issues


> Gated communities sprang up in the Eighties, says Yolande Barnes, Savills' head of residential research. They were a way to protect "pioneers" venturing into newly gentrified areas.
> "The middle classes weren't going to populate the badlands of Docklands unless they were behind gates," she explains.
> "You could take the gates off now in places like Battersea that have become far smarter. With the price of scrap metal these days, it's not a bad idea."


....with all the new development about to start that part of Brixton maybe the gate won't be there forever.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Absolute nonsense; in the last few pages I've written a couple of quite lengthy posts trying to explain clearly my point of view, one explaining why I don't think BS comes under the definition of a "gated community" and one trying to explain why it is probably necessary for BS to have a gated rather than a glazed entrance, and neither of these posts resorted to flimsy links from external sources.



Your posts expressed your opinions perfectly, unsupported by even the flimsiest of links.



> Which is why it's a little irritating for Editor to come back with his petulant remarks about "sticklers for accuracy" and suchlike instead of actually trying to reply to the various points I have made. Of course, that is entirely business as usual as is your post above. And weren't you going to come back to us with some more details on these studies you talked about, which looked at the effects of gated communities? I believe you had been asked if you could explain what definition of "gated communities" had been assumed in these studies. Apologies if you replied to that and I missed it.



Apology accepted.  I gave (IIRC) Rushy a composite definition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

Manter said:


> I just love the fact that at Brockwell gate they have big spiky gates, half of which have to stay open for access t the park.  There's a logic fail in there somewhere



The "big spikey gates" under the apartments do, however, isolate the parking areas for the apartments nicely.
The street-access gates through to the park were, IIRC, a planning condition that wasn't part of the developers' original intention.


----------



## Manter (Nov 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The "big spikey gates" under the apartments do, however, isolate the parking areas for the apartments nicely.
> The street-access gates through to the park were, IIRC, a planning condition that wasn't part of the developers' original intention.


I know someone who used to live in there and it was designed and built without gates. The resident's committee wanted gates put in because of concerns about crime ( concerns mind you, not actual crime- and there was a small but vocal group of residents strongly opposed as they had all the reservations about gated communities expressed here). Anyway, gates were then put in, but because of rights of way had to include access to the park.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> We used to have a car gate that anyone could duck under.  Now we have a big steel gate.  20 years in brixton without struggling with the 'more lurid aspects of it that used to be flung around' but I have to say I prefer not lying in my bed at 2am listening to prostitutes and punters as used to happen.
> 
> Say it loud, say it proud. My name is quimcunx and I live in a 'gated development'.  As do many people in period blocks of flats and in council blocks.
> 
> I might start calling it a mews.



The council "gated" a couple of parts of my estate: the underground parking (or the "cockpit"as it was known back in the '90s to the yout' because of the large volume of local prostitutes who serviced their clients there), and the community hall, which because it had a lot of glazing, was easy for vandals, wastrels and scumbags to smash up - fitting a wall, fence and gate around it made that harder.


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Brixton square has sold out. Some flats are empty as people are still moving in, and a small percentage are BTL.


The amount of apartments already offered for rent would suggest that it may be a bigger percentage than you might like to think.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

Manter said:


> I know someone who used to live in there and it was designed and built without gates. The resident's committee wanted gates put in because of concerns about crime ( concerns mind you, not actual crime- and there was a small but vocal group of residents strongly opposed as they had all the reservations about gated communities expressed here). Anyway, gates were then put in, but because of rights of way had to include access to the park.



Hmm, Greebo and I watched it being built/thrown up, and the fences (i.e. the "feature" wrought iron fencing, not builder's mesh and fence rods) were up before the place was finished, especially at the back, and it's certainly the case that they stuck in the street-access and park access gates pretty late in the day - in the case of the parkside gate they had to pretty much chop out a lump of their fence and then "sculpt" the slip into the park - and I think the Friends of Brockwell Park newsletter had something about a felling licence having to be granted to remove a tree that was in the way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> Sandhurst court on Acre lane has an entirely enclosed private garden.  Can't even see it exists from the outside. Built in the early 1900s I think.



So did Thornton Gardens (built by the GLC/its' predeccessor) in the '30s, IIRC).  The "private garden" was originally allotments, but then (in the late '50s/early '60s, I think) the GLC removed the wall, leveled the allotments, and built a lowrise block of maisonettes there (overlooking the tennis club).


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Apology accepted.  I gave (IIRC) Rushy a composite definition.


Is it possible for you to point me to the relevant post?


----------



## Winot (Nov 22, 2013)

Gategate is getting dull.


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2013)

Winot said:


> Gategate is getting dull.


And some. But I think I can offer a summary: some people (both on and off these boards) are of the opinion that BS is indeed a gated community, while others think it is not.

Is that about right?


----------



## Winot (Nov 22, 2013)

editor said:


> And some. But I think I can offer a summary: some people (both on and off these boards) are of the opinion that BS is indeed a gated community, while others think it is not.
> 
> Is that about right?


 
I guess that pretty much sums it up.  Cf. Champagne and Fromage.

As someone once said, the world is divided into people who divide everything into two groups, and those who don't.


----------



## Manter (Nov 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm, Greebo and I watched it being built/thrown up, and the fences (i.e. the "feature" wrought iron fencing, not builder's mesh and fence rods) were up before the place was finished, especially at the back, and it's certainly the case that they stuck in the street-access and park access gates pretty late in the day - in the case of the parkside gate they had to pretty much chop out a lump of their fence and then "sculpt" the slip into the park - and I think the Friends of Brockwell Park newsletter had something about a felling licence having to be granted to remove a tree that was in the way.


I'll ask my mate next time I see him (he moved to Edinburgh!)- I remember him being really angry at some of the conversations about what the residents of the Tulse Hill Estate might 'do'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Is it possible for you to point me to the relevant post?



It is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

Manter said:


> I'll ask my mate next time I see him (he moved to Edinburgh!)- I remember him being really angry at some of the conversations about what the residents of the Tulse Hill Estate might 'do'



Those sorts of conversations were going on before the estate had been finished, AFAICR, pooh-poohed by the developers, of course, but didn't stop the early arrivals from fretting that the council estate scum next door and over the road might be scoping their places out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

Winot said:


> Gategate is getting dull.



"Getting"?
What are you, some kind of pervert?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2013)

editor said:


> And some. But I think I can offer a summary: some people (both on and off these boards) are of the opinion that BS is indeed a gated community, while others think it is not.
> 
> Is that about right?


That's not really the issue. It doesn't fit the definition of what I consider a "gated community". For some, a gated community means anything with a gate on it. Whatever. We can disagree on the definition.

The point is, that the term "gated community" just by itself is being used as a criticism, and it's a loaded term. Defining it as a "gated community" because it's got a gate and condemming it on the basis of having that description, instead of actually criticising it on its own terms, and actually explaining the specifics of what they feel is wrong with this particular development.

Declaring it as a gated community, and then posting links to newspaper articles etc which contain critiques of gated communities which are not similar. Cuppa Tea's links above for example. Nearly all the examples given in the telegraph article are large compounds with private parking, and some with restaurants, gyms, etc. The one mentioned in the Guardian article, on the Holloway Rd is more similar to Brixton Square, but is larger and also has its own parking and it's own childrens' playground. The fact it has private parking is a significant difference in my opinion as I mentioned previously. On the other hand, its residents are likely to use local shops and so on, so it's not in the same league as the type of thing mentioned in the Telegraph article. The article also points out that it's not so disimilar to many council estates. Many council estates are gated. Is it to keep out the plebs and isolate their residents, or is it for other reasons and are those the same reasons that it's beeen decided to gate off the BS courtyard? Etc etc.

What's irritating is this blanket application of the term "gated community" and stupid arguments based seemingly on no more than whether or not a gate exists, instead of a proper discussion about the particular nature of the BS development, in its specific context.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It is.


And this response demonstrates how interested you really are in having a proper discussion about this.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 22, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> The gate is open half the time quite frankly.



Which begs the definitive question, when is a gate not a gate?










When it's a jar.

(I'll get my coat...)


----------



## Rushy (Nov 22, 2013)

Winot said:


> *Gategate *.


I love this. The thread should be renamed!


----------



## han (Nov 22, 2013)

Winot said:
			
		

> As someone once said, the world is divided into people who divide everything into two groups, and those who don't.



I wish there was a 'love' button. 


Ooh, that sounds faintly rude!


----------



## Rushy (Nov 22, 2013)

han said:


> I wish there was a 'love' button.


Winot is on fire today.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

teuchter said:


> And this response demonstrates how interested you really are in having a proper discussion about this.



No, what it demonstrates is that you should say/ask what you mean, not enquire about possibilities.

Page 58, post #1726, by the way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Which begs the definitive question, when is a gate not a gate?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your youngest child wants paying for you stealing their joke.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your youngest child wants paying for you stealing their joke.



Indeed. It blends into the thread seamlessly.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 22, 2013)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2013)

CH1 said:


> View attachment 43760



Say what you like about murderous Nazi shitcunts, they had low wit down to a fine art.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Say what you like about murderous Nazi shitcunts, they had low wit down to a fine art.



Simple statement of fact: you people work and set us Germans free to invade some more countries. 

The problem of course is that slave labour is inherently inefficient. 

In one of the few truthful statements in his memoir, Speer said forced workers were about a seventh as productive as those who are free.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Say what you like about murderous Nazi shitcunts, they had low wit down to a fine art.


I just got diverted by the slogan. I feel sorry for those in BS who "just managed to get on the property ladder" and will be spending most of their life paying back their huge mortgages presumably. And for those paying ludicrous rents to buy-to-let landlords in there.
In a way the residents of BS are as trapped as everyone else - they have now got an investment in wage slavery.
Arbeit Macht Frei indeed!


----------



## leanderman (Nov 22, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I just got diverted by the slogan. I feel sorry for those in BS who "just managed to get on the property ladder" and will be spending most of their life paying back their huge mortgages presumably. And for those paying ludicrous rents to buy-to-let landlords in there.
> In a way the residents of BS are as trapped as everyone else - they have now got an investment in wage slavery.
> Arbeit Macht Frei indeed!




Yes. This is it. In some ways, younger people are unlucky.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 22, 2013)

editor said:


> The amount of apartments already offered for rent would suggest that it may be a bigger percentage than you might like to think.



There are more than 150 flats in BS. I counted less than 20 being offered for rent.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Yes. This is it. In some ways, younger people are unlucky.


Young people in London are screwed. No jobs, no housing, and soon no benefits as a safety net.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 22, 2013)

FT picked up on this on Tuesday with a story about recent, even well- paid graduates 'hutching up' in cramped housing because of bonkers costs.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> FT picked up on this on Tuesday with a story about recent, even well- paid graduates 'hutching up' in cramped housing because of bonkers costs.


Yup, I mean I'm thirty and my boyfriend and I always joke that if only we were born 10 years earlier we would have a 3 bedroom period flat in islington - but the generation after us, goodness it doesn't even bear thinking about what it will be like for them if things keep going this way.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 22, 2013)

Manter said:


> I'll ask my mate next time I see him (he moved to Edinburgh!)- I remember him being really angry at some of the conversations about what the residents of the Tulse Hill Estate might 'do'


 
 Had they been watching "Clockwork Orange" ?


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> There are more than 150 flats in BS. I counted less than 20 being offered for rent.


Yes, that's only what's _currently on offer_. Many more may have already been rented out or may go on the market shortly. Even 20 out of 150 seems a pretty high ratio.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Nov 22, 2013)

editor said:


> Yes, that's only what's _currently on offer_. Many more may have already been rented out or may go on the market shortly. Even 20 out of 150 seems a pretty high ratio.


That's true actually, there were more with the earlier phase, but even if it were say 40-50 total out of 155, that's still not the majority. I reckon it's about 25%


----------



## leanderman (Nov 22, 2013)

Exactly. It's a joke. Needs massive action - but none will be taken.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 22, 2013)

It seems one must not sit down on the wall of the new planted areas outside these flats... A security person informed me earlier as i briefly sat on the wall just rolling up a smoke.... Only i was in a hurry i would have made more of an issue of 'public space' and that their workers like to sit across the road on a similar wall on their breaks....


----------



## Winot (Nov 22, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> What is forgotten on this thread is that most of the land that Barratts built on was originally publicly owned land.


 
Well I suppose if you go back far enough, all land was once publically owned (or at least not privately owned).  When was this land 'privatised'?

I am not just being facetious - I am dead against the appropriation of public land into private hands, but I am not sure to what extent present private owners of land can be attacked for the fact the land is in their hands if in fact they bought it in good faith from another private owner.

The same question occurs to me with the Southbank Centre and the issue of the skaters' undercroft.  I have also got annoyed about private security guards moving on beggars on SBC land.  Initially I thought I could complain that the land is public, but apparently it is not.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 22, 2013)

Winot said:


> Well I suppose if you go back far enough, all land was once publically owned (or at least not privately owned).  When was this land 'privatised'?
> 
> I am not just being facetious - I am dead against the appropriation of public land into private hands, but I am not sure to what extent present private owners of land can be attacked for the fact the land is in their hands if in fact they bought it in good faith from another private owner.



Was I attacking Barratts for owning the land? No. 

The demise of building social housing and the increasing use of the "free market" to supply housing has failed. There will not be a chance of good quality affordable housing if its left to developers and buy to let merchants. Its not in there interest. 

This hasn’t stopped this government giving them a helping hand with its new "Build To Rent" scheme. See here. 

I don’t know when it was sold off.  

On the Somerleyton road site the Council has taken the decision to retain ownership of the freehold. Belatedly (some) politicians have realized that selling off land is not a good idea.

Forms of land ownership change over time. Technically land in this country is held by the Crown. Homeowners are "Freeholders" not absolute owners.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 22, 2013)

AKA pseudonym said:


> It seems one must not sit down on the wall of the new planted areas outside these flats... A security person informed me earlier as i briefly sat on the wall just rolling up a smoke.... Only i was in a hurry i would have made more of an issue of 'public space' and that their workers like to sit across the road on a similar wall on their breaks....



Knowing what private building firms are like the workers are probably banned from sitting on the walls they built to take a break.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 22, 2013)

Winot said:


> The same question occurs to me with the Southbank Centre and the issue of the skaters' undercroft.  I have also got annoyed about private security guards moving on beggars on SBC land.  Initially I thought I could complain that the land is public, but apparently it is not.



Its a grey area what powers private security guards have in law. 

I was taking some photos of a building in the City a while back from the public street and had a security guard try and stop me. According to him I could not just go around photographing buildings in the City without permission. I told him where to go. They try it on sometimes.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 22, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I just got diverted by the slogan. I feel sorry for those in BS who "just managed to get on the property ladder" and will be spending most of their life paying back their huge mortgages presumably. And for those paying ludicrous rents to buy-to-let landlords in there.
> In a way the residents of BS are as trapped as everyone else - they have now got an investment in wage slavery.
> Arbeit Macht Frei indeed!



I have started to look at David Harvey work to get out of the impasse here about gated communities.

Its not easy but he does say debt bondage is no accident. He says in traditional marxism the "rentier" class has been overlooked. It has become more important now. I think it has something to do with the declining rate of profit. In Capitalism this is inherent. So ever new ways are found to make a profit. Capitalism is unstable and goes through periodic crises. You do not have to be a marxist to see that Capitalism is unstable system. Keynes tried to regulate it. So does the present Chinese government. Harvey comes from a background in urban geography. He also does work on the idea of "The Right to the City" and what he calls in general terms the "commons" rather than ever increasing private ownership. Started reading this article about his work.



> *As Harvey noted long ago in The Limits to Capital (1982), class power is increasingly articulated through rental payments, and his work here helps us understand the material basis of the ‘rentier economy’*. Economic rent, as Michael Hudson emphasises, can take the form of licensing fees, interest on savings, dividends from stock, or capital gain from selling a property or land, but is primarily drawn from housing and property. This is the profit one earns simply by owning something; an ‘unearned increment’, which to the financier or capitalist is, ‘earned in their sleep’.21 As Hudson argues, rental incomes are an unproductive ‘free lunch’ stolen from the economy at large, forcing an ever-higher proportion of income to be spent on rent and basic social subsistence. Writing presciently of the US in 2006, Hudson saw a ‘new road to serfdom’ in an empire of debt: ‘In the odd logic of the real estate bubble, debt has come to equal wealth’.22* Just as the rich, he says, require an abundant supply of the poor, so does the rentier class require an abundant supply of debtors. But this dynamic is fictitious, and inherently unstable, in the sense that the parasitic financial system destroys the host’s ability to pay the debt.*


----------



## simonSW2 (Nov 23, 2013)

**Kevin off of Grand Designs Voice**

Note the sublime post-modern irony the architect has employed by choosing to use this particular gate as a feature, the style and materials all carefully chosen to make reference to the local heritage landmark; Brixton Prison.

The architect has applied the same post-modern scheme to the design of the building by naming the blocks "Windrush", "Academy", "Ritzy", "Brady" and "Village".

If the idea is to provide people with an imagined, sanitised and un-lived connection to the locality, I have to say it rather works.

I'll come back in three years and see how they got on.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I have started to look at David Harvey work to get out of the impasse here about gated communities.
> 
> Its not easy but he does say debt bondage is no accident. He says in traditional marxism the "rentier" class has been overlooked. It has become more important now. I think it has something to do with the declining rate of profit. In Capitalism this is inherent. So ever new ways are found to make a profit. Capitalism is unstable and goes through periodic crises. You do not have to be a marxist to see that Capitalism is unstable system. Keynes tried to regulate it. So does the present Chinese government. Harvey comes from a background in urban geography. He also does work on the idea of "The Right to the City" and what he calls in general terms the "commons" rather than ever increasing private ownership. Started reading this article about his work.


This looks promising - though I haven't studied it in depth in my present late night state. I am a devotee of Professor Steve Keen - whose preoccupation is Debt Deflation. If amounts to a similar thing really. SK is saying that the banking system requires citizens to take on ever increasing amounts of debt in order to provide banking profits. Therefore they have also moved into student loans etc as well as the present ludicrous super-large mortgages supported by Osborne's first time buyer schemes.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Was I attacking Barratts for owning the land? No.
> 
> The demise of building social housing and the increasing use of the "free market" to supply housing has failed. There will not be a chance of good quality affordable housing if its left to developers and buy to let merchants. Its not in there interest.
> 
> ...



Is that true, even technically?

At its height, after the still-felt Conquest, I thought Crown land was about 70 per cent or so

And now they own only the Crown Estate and some sea beds etc. 

Technically Buck House is ours. 

Let's get it back!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Its a grey area what powers private security guards have in law.
> 
> I was taking some photos of a building in the City a while back from the public street and had a security guard try and stop me. According to him I could not just go around photographing buildings in the City without permission. I told him where to go. They try it on sometimes.


I observed the unfortunate spectacle of a security guard from the place where I work harassing a photographer who was trying to take some pictures of people against the facade of the building - while subject and photographer were standing in public places, of course. I'm afraid to say that I just walked past and went back in to my desk. It's supposedly a "creative" sort of company that encourages artists, too.


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 23, 2013)

I was at an event on the right to the city  the other week Gramsci , you might have liked but it didn't occur to me to let you know about it. 


simonSW2 said:


> **Kevin off of Grand Designs Voice**
> 
> Note the sublime post-modern irony the architect has employed by choosing to use this particular gate as a feature, the style and materials all carefully chosen to make reference to the local heritage landmark; Brixton Prison.
> 
> ...



Brixton prison doesn't have a gate.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 23, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> Brixton prison doesn't have a gate.


Of course not..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Is that true, even technically?
> 
> At its height, after the still-felt Conquest, I thought Crown land was about 70 per cent or so
> 
> ...



In law all land in the UK (whether owned by the Duke of Westminster, the Anglican Church or Farmer Palmer) is (if I recall the phrase properly) "held for the Crown". Freehold belongs to the holder as long as the Crown wishes it to, and that in terms of freeholds, more than 4/5ths of that land is owned by about 200 families (whether in a straight manner or through various trust mechanisms).
Freehold, however, is (as is leasehold) a tenure, not "superior ownership", which is what the Crown holds

same old same old, basically.  Cahill's "Who Owns Britain" was a very informative book on these matters. Odd that it never got reprinted after the 1st edition, given how quickly it sold out....

The Crown also owns swathes of the Commonwealth through "superior ownership", too.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In law all land in the UK (whether owned by the Duke of Westminster, the Anglican Church or Farmer Palmer) is (if I recall the phrase properly) "held for the Crown". Freehold belongs to the holder as long as the Crown wishes it to, and that in terms of freeholds, more than 4/5ths of that land is owned by about 200 families (whether in a straight manner or through various trust mechanisms).
> Freehold, however, is (as is leasehold) a tenure, not "superior ownership", which is what the Crown holds
> 
> same old same old, basically.  Cahill's "Who Owns Britain" was a very informative book on these matters. Odd that it never got reprinted after the 1st edition, given how quickly it sold out....
> ...



Good stuff. 

They are our monarchs as long as it pleases us. 

Crown owns Canada but again it is theoretical. 

I really don't think it means anything. 

However, the Norman Conquest is an event I lament daily.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 23, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Good stuff.
> 
> They are our monarchs as long as it pleases us.
> 
> ...



It does still mean something in the sense that the aristocracy still own large amounts of land. Like the Duke of Westminster and Prince of Wales. 

ViolentPanda mentions of Cahill. This article shows that land ownership is factor in lack of housing. Also shows that periodically who owns land and who controls it has been political issue. Such as the right to roam. There is not much of a public debate about it at present. Surprisingly given the housing crisis. None of the three main parties question it. Only the Green party make it an issue. 



> The control of land needs to be wrestled away from the land-owning elite and land made available for houses, to resurrect the environment and to enable access for all. The principles of Winstanley and the Diggers still hold true today: ‘Therefore we require and resolve to take both the common lands and the common woods to be a livelihood for us, and look upon you as equal with us, not above us, knowing very well that England, the land or our nativity, is to be common treasury of livelihood to all, without respects of persons’


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Good stuff.
> 
> They are our monarchs as long as it pleases us.



Unfortunately, unless we liquidate them, history tells us that when they no longer "please" *us*, some other _schmucks_ with an agenda will still back them to retain their figurehead status.



> Crown owns Canada but again it is theoretical.



No, it really *isn't* theoretical.  The Crown owns *all* that land, and in addition holds the freehold for about 16% of the actual *territories* of the Commonwealth, so they're not only the final owner, but the *beneficial owner* of a significant minority of the land, too.



> I really don't think it means anything.
> 
> However, the Norman Conquest is an event I lament daily.



It's the rabbits that REALLY piss me off.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 24, 2013)

I can see some 'tests' of what is public space near Brixton Square coming soon....


----------



## Bandit78 (Dec 2, 2013)

I am pretty worried about the huge 4 bedroom flats that they have reserved for the council at BS.These are large 4 bed properties which are on the ground floor and incorporate the basement on a split level.I can see huge families going into these and it only takes one to spoil the whole complex for everyone.Im sure those who have already purchased or are about to don't know the full extent of the properties that have been reserved for the council.It was never mentioned at any time that these 4 bedroom apartments of which there are a considerable number on the ground floor would be going to the council.Its funny that the rest of the block has been completed and these have been left till last,too late for all those people have completed on their apartments and taken on huge mortgages.Im seriously having second thoughts now about living here now,I can see trouble ahead!


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 2, 2013)

Lol.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I am pretty worried about the huge 4 bedroom flats that they have reserved for the council at BS.These are large 4 bed properties which are on the ground floor and incorporate the basement on a split level.I can see huge families going into these and it only takes one to spoil the whole complex for everyone.Im sure those who have already purchased or are about to don't know the full extent of the properties that have been reserved for the council.It was never mentioned at any time that these 4 bedroom apartments of which there are a considerable number on the ground floor would be going to the council.Its funny that the rest of the block has been completed and these have been left till last,too late for all those people have completed on their apartments and taken on huge mortgages.Im seriously having second thoughts now about living here now,I can see trouble ahead!


cunt


----------



## Dan U (Dec 2, 2013)

X2


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2013)

Troll. Surely


----------



## peterkro (Dec 2, 2013)

X eleventy!!!!!


----------



## JAC2013 (Dec 2, 2013)

An awful attempt there by one of the anti-BS brigade there to stir up a bit more dislike.


The sales office had a clear site plan of all the blocks with the private, shared ownership and affordable rent marked on it, so when you had a look at the various flats you knew the breakdown of each block exactly.  A ridiculous comment.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Dec 2, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> An awful attempt there by one of the anti-BS brigade there to stir up a bit more dislike.
> 
> 
> The sales office had a clear site plan of all the blocks with the private, shared ownership and affordable rent marked on it, so when you had a look at the various flats you knew the breakdown of each block exactly.  A ridiculous comment.



Exactly. That person is either a troll...or not too bright.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I am pretty worried about the huge 4 bedroom flats that they have reserved for the council at BS.These are large 4 bed properties which are on the ground floor and incorporate the basement on a split level.I can see huge families going into these and it only takes one to spoil the whole complex for everyone.Im sure those who have already purchased or are about to don't know the full extent of the properties that have been reserved for the council.It was never mentioned at any time that these 4 bedroom apartments of which there are a considerable number on the ground floor would be going to the council.Its funny that the rest of the block has been completed and these have been left till last,too late for all those people have completed on their apartments and taken on huge mortgages.Im seriously having second thoughts now about living here now,I can see trouble ahead!



If you click back a few pages you will see that I pointed out although there should have been more affordable units, the units that are there are at least very nice - with balconies and a stairway leading to a lower ground terrace. So unfortunately, it seems that YOU are the ONLY one who bought a flat with out reading through all of the info, as the rest of us looked through the drawings and plans. 

*shrugs*


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> An awful attempt there by one of the anti-BS brigade there to stir up a bit more dislike.


The _what '_brigade'?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 2, 2013)

There aren't even any council flats in BS are there? They're 'affordable.'

Shit troll anyway.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 2, 2013)

Imagine moving to Brixton and discovering you might have to share the neighbourhood with people in social housing..


----------



## Bandit78 (Dec 2, 2013)

I looked at the plans,but it was never made clear that the biggest apartments that were in BS were going to be Affordable rent Accommodation.I do know what I'm talking about and you will see when all the huge families start moving in with loads of children and the whole place starts going down the pan,maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee!!


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I looked at the plans,but it was never made clear that the biggest apartments that were in BS were going to be Affordable rent Accommodation.I do know what I'm talking about and you will see when all the huge families start moving in with loads of children and the whole place starts going down the pan,maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee!!


----------



## Strangerdanger (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I looked at the plans,but it was never made clear that the biggest apartments that were in BS were going to be Affordable rent Accommodation.I do know what I'm talking about and you will see when all the huge families start moving in with loads of children and the whole place starts going down the pan,maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee!!



I dont want to be rude here, but was made clear to anyone who could read. 

What exactly is your issue with large families living here? It doesn't matter where you live in London, there will always be large families around. I suggest you build a bridge and get over it, because quite frankly YOU sound like more of a problem neighbour than the large families...


----------



## peterkro (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I looked at the plans,but it was never made clear that the biggest apartments that were in BS were going to be Affordable rent Accommodation.I do know what I'm talking about and you will see when all the huge families start moving in with loads of children and the whole place starts going down the pan,maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee!!


I suggest anybody that uses the phrase "you should wake up and smell the coffee" is a cunt of the highest order.


----------



## Bandit78 (Dec 2, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> I dont want to be rude here, but was made clear to anyone who could read.
> 
> What exactly is your issue with large families living here? It doesn't matter where you live in London, there will always be large families around. I suggest you build a bridge and get over it, because quite frankly YOU sound like more of a problem neighbour than the large families...




Do you live there then?? I can read perfectly well,I wasn't made aware at any stage via the hub team that 4 Bedroom properties were being given to affordable rent.I was fully aware there were going to be affordable rent accommodation but nobody was made aware of the size of these properties that were being allocated for this purpose.I don't think that BS suits large families With loads of children and teenagers.Its highly likely that they will be bringing  all their friends in too.It will ruin this as a nice place to live especially after how much these places cost.Next summer in the courtyard should prove very interesting!


----------



## Belushi (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Do you live there then?? I can read perfectly well,I wasn't made aware at any stage via the hub team that 4 Bedroom properties were being given to affordable rent.I was fully aware there were going to be affordable rent accommodation but nobody was made aware of the size of these properties that were being allocated for this purpose.I don't think that BS suits large families With loads of children and teenagers.Its highly likely that they will be bringing  all their friends in too.It will ruin this as a nice place to live especially after how much these places cost.Next summer in the courtyard should prove very interesting!


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Next summer in the courtyard should prove very interesting!


Rip down the gates and let the community in!


----------



## leanderman (Dec 2, 2013)

I'm going to put the Bandit in touch with the Leander Rd Grinch (an opponent of street parties, play streets). They'll get along very well.


----------



## aurora green (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Do you live there then?? I can read perfectly well,I wasn't made aware at any stage via the hub team that 4 Bedroom properties were being given to affordable rent.I was fully aware there were going to be affordable rent accommodation but nobody was made aware of the size of these properties that were being allocated for this purpose.I don't think that BS suits large families With loads of children and teenagers.Its highly likely that they will be bringing  all their friends in too.It will ruin this as a nice place to live especially after how much these places cost.Next summer in the courtyard should prove very interesting!


please tell me why you moved to the area then, if you cant stand local people?


----------



## peterkro (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Do you live there then?? I can read perfectly well,I wasn't made aware at any stage via the hub team that 4 Bedroom properties were being given to affordable rent.I was fully aware there were going to be affordable rent accommodation but nobody was made aware of the size of these properties that were being allocated for this purpose.I don't think that BS suits large families With loads of children and teenagers.Its highly likely that they will be bringing  all their friends in too.It will ruin this as a nice place to live especially after how much these places cost.Next summer in the courtyard should prove very interesting!


I was going to reply to this post but I can see it might be interpreted as a threat. Just be careful out there folks.


----------



## fogbat (Dec 2, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I'm going to put the Bandit in touch with the Leander Rd Grinch (an opponent of street parties, play streets). They'll get along very well.



Put them in touch with Dignitas.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 2, 2013)

aurora green said:


> please tell me why you moved to the area then, if you cant stand local people?



I think it's people, especially people who have children, rather than local people.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Do you live there then?? I can read perfectly well,I wasn't made aware at any stage via the hub team that 4 Bedroom properties were being given to affordable rent.I was fully aware there were going to be affordable rent accommodation but nobody was made aware of the size of these properties that were being allocated for this purpose.I don't think that BS suits large families With loads of children and teenagers.Its highly likely that they will be bringing  all their friends in too.It will ruin this as a nice place to live especially after how much these places cost.Next summer in the courtyard should prove very interesting!





Bandit78 said:


> Do you live there then?? I can read perfectly well,I wasn't made aware at any stage via the hub team that 4 Bedroom properties were being given to affordable rent.I was fully aware there were going to be affordable rent accommodation but nobody was made aware of the size of these properties that were being allocated for this purpose.I don't think that BS suits large families With loads of children and teenagers.Its highly likely that they will be bringing  all their friends in too.It will ruin this as a nice place to live especially after how much these places cost.Next summer in the courtyard should prove very interesting!



Yes I do live there, which is why I can categorically say that the plans were clearly marked - but would you really have based your decision of buying a flat on the size of the affordable accommodation? 

Furthermore, do you know any of these "huge families" moving in loads of kids and teenagers? You sound a just a little ridiculous. You sound like a religious Daily Mail reader. 

The courtyard consists of a pathway and some trees - is it not a bit silly to get your panties in a bunch over future fictional families and what they may get up to?


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 2, 2013)

This one is really special.  Can we keep it?


----------



## peterkro (Dec 2, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> This one is really special.  Can we keep it?


It's mine I saw him first.


----------



## han (Dec 2, 2013)

This fella cannot be for real, surely.


----------



## JAC2013 (Dec 2, 2013)

Rereading the comments it seems it’s the children of said flats that is the problem? Do you think all the owners of the new 2/3 bed flats on the upper floors have been vetted so that no children are allowed in them? Of course there will be children, just like every other blo*dy street and development in the area and wider London! I honestly hope this is someone just trolling the link as yet again one idiot (who alleges to be in the development) gets every other resident tarnished with the same brush. And also of note when you tarnish the affordable rented element with your comments, I note you’ve gone through the HUB which is the shared ownership element and essentially a subsidised aspect of the overall ‘affordable’ (or not) housing package for the scheme. Those in glass houses……….


----------



## Strangerdanger (Dec 2, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> Rereading the comments it seems it’s the children of said flats that is the problem? Do you think all the owners of the new 2/3 bed flats on the upper floors have been vetted so that no children are allowed in them? Of course there will be children, just like every other blo*dy street and development in the area and wider London! I honestly hope this is someone just trolling the link as yet again one idiot (who alleges to be in the development) gets every other resident tarnished with the same brush. And also of note when you tarnish the affordable rented element with your comments, I note you’ve gone through the HUB which is the shared ownership element and essentially a subsidised aspect of the overall ‘affordable’ (or not) housing package for the scheme. Those in glass houses……….



Oh my I was thinking the SAME exact thing. This person simply cannot be serious. Where can you possibly find a flat development, or even street in London where there are no kids allowed? I noticed the hub aspect as well, but didn't want to speculate. I actually feel sorry for the families having to live next to a neighbour like that...


----------



## aurora green (Dec 2, 2013)

If this person is real, then I dont think its people with children they're against at all...its people in social housing with children. Big difference.
No war but the class war


----------



## Cloo (Dec 2, 2013)

God, this reminds me of the letter my dad got when he was a local councillor, with a local complaining about council housing being built on his street because 'some households on this road have two BMWs'. I think my dad's response was to reply saying this was the most risible letter he'd seen in nearly two decades on the council.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I am pretty worried about the huge 4 bedroom flats that they have reserved for the council at BS.These are large 4 bed properties which are on the ground floor and incorporate the basement on a split level.I can see huge families going into these and it only takes one to spoil the whole complex for everyone.Im sure those who have already purchased or are about to don't know the full extent of the properties that have been reserved for the council.It was never mentioned at any time that these 4 bedroom apartments of which there are a considerable number on the ground floor would be going to the council.Its funny that the rest of the block has been completed and these have been left till last,too late for all those people have completed on their apartments and taken on huge mortgages.Im seriously having second thoughts now about living here now,I can see trouble ahead!



With social fears like yours, I pity any poor bastard who ends up living next door to you, you dog-fucking Pooterish arsewipe.


----------



## Bandit78 (Dec 2, 2013)

It's obvious that people such as stranger Danger who already live in BS have no idea of what goes on in the real world and think the world is nice and rosey,I have lived in Brixton all my life and know far more about the area and what happens in it than 90% of the deluded left wing do gooders on here.Rip down the gates and let the community in just about sums up the calibre of people on this site!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I looked at the plans,but it was never made clear that the biggest apartments that were in BS were going to be Affordable rent Accommodation.I do know what I'm talking about and you will see when all the huge families start moving in with loads of children and the whole place starts going down the pan,maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee!!



It was made perfectly clear early enough that people on this site knew there'd be an "affordable" element even before Barratts did the groundwork and footings for the site, you muppet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> It's obvious that people such as stranger Danger who already live in BS have no idea of what goes on in the real world and think the world is nice and rosey,I have lived in Brixton all my life and know far more about the area and what happens in it than 90% of the deluded left wing do gooders on here.Rip down the gates and let the community in just about sums up the calibre of people on this site!



Same old shit from a shitcunt, whining about do-gooder lefties rather than addressing the point, and implying that you live in "the real world", when you're actually living up your own arse.

As for the "I've lived in Brixton all my life" _schtick_, big fucking deal.  So have many of us, and your claim to know a lot about the area is meaningless - a lot measured against what?  The fact that you're a two-bob cunt?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> View attachment 44346



Why have you posted a picture of me in my "special" outfit, Dex?


----------



## Bandit78 (Dec 2, 2013)

Im not saying that am I you clown! I was aware of that already!  I wasn't aware that they were 4 bedroom apartments for big families!!Thats the whole point of what I was saying maybe you missed it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

aurora green said:


> please tell me why you moved to the area then, if you cant stand local people?



Hello, stranger!!! 

They reckon they *are* a local person, so this must be a case of self-hate going on!


----------



## Bandit78 (Dec 2, 2013)

Same old shit from a shitcunt! Just about sums up what a complete uneducated retard you are doesn't it!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Im not saying that am I you clown! I was aware of that already!  I wasn't aware that they were 4 bedroom apartments for big families!!Thats the whole point of what I was saying maybe you missed it



I'm saying that if you'd bothered to pull your head out of your arse, you'd have known exactly that the council and Barratts had agreed on the disposition of properties before the groundwork was done, and that even people who bought "off book" before the building started would either have been informed, or could have found out by enquiring.
As a local, did you attend Dick Shithead by any chance?  It'd explain your thinking difficulties.


----------



## buscador (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Im not saying that am I you clown! I was aware of that already!  I wasn't aware that they were 4 bedroom apartments* for big families*!!Thats the whole point of what I was saying maybe you missed it



And you would prefer what, exactly? Single people occupying 4-bedroomed flats? With the extra space for staff?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Same old shit from a shitcunt! Just about sums up what a complete uneducated retard you are doesn't it!



That's Mr. Educated non-Retard to you. My university would probably be a bit upset to think I'd got an undergraduate and a post-graduate degree, and still remained entirely uneducated.
So, not so much "uneducated" (nor "retarded"), as abusive of fuckwits such as yourself, wouldn't you say, Mr. Fuckwit?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I think it's people, especially people who have children, rather than local people.



Well, people who require "affordable" housing, anyway.
The icing on this cunt's cake is that given that "affordability" is entirely relative, the "sort of people" who'll be in those "affordable" units will be those who can afford 80% of market rates, rather than those that can afford social hosing rates.  In other words, their fears are very unlikely to be realised, and if they had half of a clue, they could have worked that out for themselves.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> It's obvious that people such as stranger Danger who already live in BS have no idea of what goes on in the real world and think the world is nice and rosey,I have lived in Brixton all my life and know far more about the area and what happens in it than 90% of the deluded left wing do gooders on here.Rip down the gates and let the community in just about sums up the calibre of people on this site!



Yeah I have NO clue what happens in the real world *rolls eyes*. I will say thanks though, because I do take the "lefty do gooder" label as a compliment, however I do think the deluded part applies to your more than anyone else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Yes I do live there, which is why I can categorically say that the plans were clearly marked - but would you really have based your decision of buying a flat on the size of the affordable accommodation?
> 
> Furthermore, do you know any of these "huge families" moving in loads of kids and teenagers? You sound a just a little ridiculous. You sound like a religious Daily Mail reader.
> 
> The courtyard consists of a pathway and some trees - is it not a bit silly to get your panties in a bunch over future fictional families and what they may get up to?



But surely it's obvious to you that these members of the lower orders will have caravans parked up in the courtyard within days of arrival, with "devil dogs" running around, and scrap metal piled up against the walls?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

Strangerdanger said:


> Yeah I have NO clue what happens in the real world *rolls eyes*. I will say thanks though, because I do take the "lefty do gooder" label as a compliment, however I do think the deluded part applies to your more than anyone else.



I think that Bandit78 may have a case of tertiary syphilis.

There's not a lot that can be done once it starts eating into the brain.  Delusion is unavoidable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

Cloo said:


> God, this reminds me of the letter my dad got when he was a local councillor, with a local complaining about council housing being built on his street because 'some households on this road have two BMWs'. I think my dad's response was to reply saying this was the most risible letter he'd seen in nearly two decades on the council.



2 Beemers? Pfft, that resident was holding themselves to a low standard!
Got to be north of the river!


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Do you live there then?? I can read perfectly well,I wasn't made aware at any stage via the hub team that 4 Bedroom properties were being given to affordable rent.I was fully aware there were going to be affordable rent accommodation but nobody was made aware of the size of these properties that were being allocated for this purpose.I don't think that BS suits large families With loads of children and teenagers.Its highly likely that they will be bringing  all their friends in too.It will ruin this as a nice place to live especially after how much these places cost.Next summer in the courtyard should prove very interesting!


Sell your flat then, you should make a decent return.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2013)

buscador said:


> And you would prefer what, exactly? Single people occupying 4-bedroomed flats? With the extra space for staff?



Well, kitchens so rarely contain a pantry nowadays, that there's nowhere for the butler to bed down anymore, don'cherknow?


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2013)

Cloo said:


> God, this reminds me of the letter my dad got when he was a local councillor, with a local complaining about council housing being built on his street because 'some households on this road have two BMWs'. I think my dad's response was to reply saying this was the most risible letter he'd seen in nearly two decades on the council.


Oh, that's special...!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 2, 2013)

peterkro said:


> I suggest anybody that uses the phrase "you should wake up and smell the coffee" is a cunt of the highest order.


 



Bandit78 said:


> It's obvious that people such as stranger Danger who already live in BS have *no idea of what goes on in the real world* and think the world is nice and rosey,I have lived in Brixton all my life and know far more about the area and what happens in it than 90% of the deluded left wing do gooders on here.Rip down the gates and let the community in just about sums up the calibre of people on this site!


 
House!


----------



## aurora green (Dec 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hello, stranger!!!


Hello  Nice to be remembered!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I wasn't aware that they were 4 bedroom apartments for big families!!


Who did you think 4 bed flats were for? Small families?!

Don't worry about it, you'll be fine. Keep your windows and doors locked, don't look anyone in the eye, wear a stab-proof vest at all times and keep your head down.


----------



## tendril (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Im not saying that am I you clown! I was aware of that already!  I wasn't aware that they were 4 bedroom apartments for big families!!Thats the whole point of what I was saying maybe you missed it


_*Caveat emptor*_


----------



## CH1 (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Im not saying that am I you clown! I was aware of that already!  I wasn't aware that they were 4 bedroom apartments for big families!!Thats the whole point of what I was saying maybe you missed it


There's a shortage of family accommodation in the social housing sector due to Lambeth Council selling their street properties for conversion to one bed/two bed flats. As a long term Brixton resident surely you noticed this?


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm, Greebo and I watched it being built/thrown up, and the fences (i.e. the "feature" wrought iron fencing, not builder's mesh and fence rods) were up before the place was finished, especially at the back, and it's certainly the case that they stuck in the street-access and park access gates pretty late in the day - in the case of the parkside gate they had to pretty much chop out a lump of their fence and then "sculpt" the slip into the park - and I think the Friends of Brockwell Park newsletter had something about a felling licence having to be granted to remove a tree that was in the way.


I've spoken to him and apparently it always had a fence and walls but the access for cars and pedestrians wasn't gated.- you could wander in and out.


----------



## Bandit78 (Dec 2, 2013)

Violent panda,university degree? You sound like a complete uneducated loser,I raised a valid point which has been lost with all the brain dead morons of this site,well wait and see what happens when all these huge families with their kids start moving in.The whole point of the conversation in the first place was I WAS NEVER TOLD THAT THESE HUGE 4 BED FLATS WERE GOING TO SOCIAL HOUSING!!! is that plain enough for you,violent retard??


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> The whole point of the conversation in the first place was I WAS NEVER TOLD THAT THESE HUGE 4 BED FLATS WERE GOING TO SOCIAL HOUSING!!!


Ok, so now you know.

What's the problem then?


----------



## Pppenguin (Dec 2, 2013)

I do believe that Bandit 78 has a valid point,we could risk these apartments  even going to ghastly Bulgarians...?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 2, 2013)

lol


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 2, 2013)

Pppenguin said:


> I do believe that Bandit 78 has a valid point,we could risk these apartments  even going to ghastly Bulgarians...?


Nah, they won't be going to Bulgarians - they've already been earmarked for load of Muslim lesbians with 15 kids. Who will probably give you cancer and rob you.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 2, 2013)

Pppenguin said:


> I do believe that Bandit 78 has a valid point,we could risk these apartments  even going to ghastly Bulgarians...?



They could have a room for each of their sock puppets.


----------



## Pppenguin (Dec 2, 2013)

Goody are we going to have another posh BBQ to welcome them all into the square when they arrive,it would be rude not to


----------



## Bandit78 (Dec 2, 2013)

Lets hope they all move in beside stranger Danger and go round to borrow his sugar!


----------



## buscador (Dec 2, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Ok, so now you know.
> 
> What's the problem then?



A large part of the problem appears to be Bandit78's illiteracy.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for strangerdanger.


----------



## peterkro (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> The whole point of the conversation in the first place was I WAS NEVER TOLD THAT THESE HUGE 4 BED FLATS WERE GOING TO SOCIAL HOUSING!!! is that plain enough for you,violent retard??



I'm afraid being stupid is no get out under contract law.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 Just out of interest, when did you first realise it was all going a bit wrong?


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I WAS NEVER TOLD THAT THESE HUGE 4 BED FLATS WERE GOING TO SOCIAL HOUSING!!! is that plain enough for you,violent retard??


Relax, it's not social, it's "affordable", which is still very much unaffordable to the people who need it, so if you're lucky they'll sit empty for ages anyway.

As for your prejudices against those who live in social housing, and people with learning disabilities, unfortunately there's no cure for being an intolerant cunt, other than prehaps fire.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 2, 2013)

FT was arguing at the weekend that any home that has a buyer is affordable. The case it highlighted was a £250million mansion on Carlton House Terrace.


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 2, 2013)

leanderman said:


> FT was arguing at the weekend that any home that has a buyer is affordable. The case it highlighted was a £250million mansion on Carlton House Terrace.


If the developers and council start using that logic then it won't be long before central London is completely and utterly screwed.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Do you live there then?? I can read perfectly well,I wasn't made aware at any stage via the hub team that 4 Bedroom properties were being given to affordable rent.I was fully aware there were going to be affordable rent accommodation but nobody was made aware of the size of these properties that were being allocated for this purpose.I don't think that BS suits large families With loads of children and teenagers.Its highly likely that they will be bringing  all their friends in too.It will ruin this as a nice place to live especially after how much these places cost.Next summer in the courtyard should prove very interesting!


The kids will be no problem,,Its the crackheads and street robbers you need to worry about.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 2, 2013)

leanderman said:


> FT was arguing at the weekend that any home that has a buyer is affordable. The case it highlighted was a £250million mansion on Carlton House Terrace.


The FT were saying that there is a market in "positional goods" such as Carlton House Terrace - or indeed Brixton Square. Bandit78 is being driven mad by Lambeth social tenants usurping the biggest (and best?) flats. That is just envy.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I am pretty worried about the huge 4 bedroom flats that they have reserved for the council at BS.These are large 4 bed properties which are on the ground floor and incorporate the basement on a split level.I can see huge families going into these and it only takes one to spoil the whole complex for everyone.Im sure those who have already purchased or are about to don't know the full extent of the properties that have been reserved for the council.It was never mentioned at any time that these 4 bedroom apartments of which there are a considerable number on the ground floor would be going to the council.Its funny that the rest of the block has been completed and these have been left till last,too late for all those people have completed on their apartments and taken on huge mortgages.Im seriously having second thoughts now about living here now,I can see trouble ahead!


Have you only just realised that estate agents lie to people? I would suggest you were sold a pack of lies and you bought it all If you are for real i hope you have a miserable stay in "edgy town".


----------



## teuchter (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Just about sums up what a complete uneducated retard you are doesn't it!





ViolentPanda said:


> I think that Bandit78 may have a case of tertiary syphilis.
> 
> There's not a lot that can be done once it starts eating into the brain.  Delusion is unavoidable.



On the one hand we have Bandit78 using "retard" as an insult, on the other we have ViolentPanda using implication of STDs to the same end.

Well done to everyone concerned.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Lets hope they all move in beside stranger Danger and go round to borrow his sugar!



HER sugar. I'm a her. Did it ever occur to you that I might welcome that? I quite like knowing my neighbours, regardless of their income. It's people like you who give newbies to Brixton like me a bad name. I actually pity you.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 2, 2013)

SarfLondoner said:


> Have you only just realised that estate agents lie to people? I would suggest you were sold a pack of lies and you bought it all If you are for real i hope you have a miserable stay in "edgy town".



Oh dear Bandit 78 you have alot of money to buy a flat - and expect all neighbours to have the same wealth / background as yourself? In Brixton?

You call others stupid, but don't realise that estate agents act on behalf of the sellers and that its your job to ask the questions and their job not to answer them unless legally obliged to do so.

As Tendril said 'buyer beware' (perhaps you and your solicitor don't understand latin)


----------



## leanderman (Dec 2, 2013)

I wish this street had affordable four-bedroom homes for families.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 2, 2013)

JAC2013 said:


> Rereading the comments it seems it’s the children of said flats that is the problem? Do you think all the owners of the new 2/3 bed flats on the upper floors have been vetted so that no children are allowed in them? Of course there will be children, just like every other blo*dy street and development in the area and wider London!



<Edit: comment about children being banned removed following legal notice>


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 2, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> It's obvious that people such as stranger Danger who already live in BS have no idea of what goes on in the real world and think the world is nice and rosey,I have lived in Brixton all my life and know far more about the area and what happens in it than 90% of the deluded left wing do gooders on here.Rip down the gates and let the community in just about sums up the calibre of people on this site!



You are not for real?

I cannot believe anyone other than a troll would post up your remarks.

You must be here to wind people up (typical troll behaviour).


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 2, 2013)

Two new members come on this site agreeing with each other. Really starting to think there is some trolling going on here.

editor


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Violent panda,university degree? You sound like a complete uneducated loser...



What I sound like is a typical southwest London working class male.
And btw, not *a* university degree. More than one, thanks all the same.



> I raised a valid point which has been lost with all the brain dead morons of this site...



No, the "point" you raised is entirely defined by your prejudice.  The reason you think your point has been lost is because you're unable to see past your prejudices.



> ...well wait and see what happens when all these huge families with their kids start moving in.The whole point of the conversation in the first place was I WAS NEVER TOLD THAT THESE HUGE 4 BED FLATS WERE GOING TO SOCIAL HOUSING!!!



They're not "social housing", they're affordable housing, with "affordable" defined as 80% of market rent rate.  As I explained earlier, that means that they're only "affordable" to couples of which each person is earning at least the regional median wage (that's about £28,000 each), and are beyond the remit of Housing Benefit.



> is that plain enough for you,violent retard??



Wow, you've got such a good argument that you need to call other people a "retard".
Still, it must be galling to a narrowminded person such as you, being surrounded by "retards" who're still twice the person you'll ever be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2013)

Pppenguin said:


> I do believe that Bandit 78 has a valid point,we could risk these apartments  even going to ghastly Bulgarians...?



There's no risk because they're "affordable housing", not "social housing".  

Word to the wise: Best to remain silent and have people think you're wise, than to open your cakehole and confirm to people that you're an idiot  bymouthing off about something you obviously don't even understand.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2013)

teuchter said:


> On the one hand we have Bandit78 using "retard" as an insult, on the other we have ViolentPanda using implication of STDs to the same end.
> 
> Well done to everyone concerned.



Stick your disapproval up your arse.  It can keep your brain company.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I wish this street had affordable four-bedroom homes for families.



Although "affordability" is a moveable feast, unfortunately.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> <Edit: comment about children being banned removed following legal notice>


Wankers - how is that even legal?


----------



## editor (Dec 3, 2013)

That can't possibly be legal, can it?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> <Edit: comment about children being banned removed following legal notice>





editor said:


> That can't possibly be legal, can it?



Astonishing. Can't be true. Even goes against human rights legislation (right to a family life)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 3, 2013)

It might not be legal but I wouldn't be amazed if it had happened.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Dec 3, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> <Edit: comment about children being banned removed following legal notice>



They are not allowed to.
Discrimination by private landlords;
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotl...tland.htm#discrimination_by_private_landlords


----------



## colacubes (Dec 3, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> They are not allowed to.
> Discrimination by private landlords;
> http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotl...tland.htm#discrimination_by_private_landlords



Of course they're not allowed to, but I imagine they find ways to make it really difficult for people.  See recent news stories about letting agents saying that flats are already let to ethnic minority people when they weren't.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24372509


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Dec 3, 2013)

colacubes said:


> Of course they're not allowed to, but I imagine they find ways to make it really difficult for people.  See recent news stories about letting agents saying that flats are already let to ethnic minority people when they weren't.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24372509



Indeed and one thing i am so grateful for is that i do not rent from a private landlord.


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Dec 4, 2013)

It was in a lease we looked at a few years back so it does happen even if it is illegal.


----------



## Manter (Dec 7, 2013)

porno thieving gypsy said:


> It was in a lease we looked at a few years back so it does happen even if it is illegal.


I think they are allowed to- I'm sure there was a news story a few years ago about a child free block of luxury flats and all these bankers etc were saying they couldn't deal with broken sleep so had bought in a block that was designed for them. I will go hunt

E2a quick search finds the Albany in Piccadilly which bans children below 14 years due to a historical covenant.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Dec 7, 2013)

Read something about a whole village like this somewhere.

e2a here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10476754


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 7, 2013)

Manter said:


> I think they are allowed to- I'm sure there was a news story a few years ago about a child free block of luxury flats and all these bankers etc were saying they couldn't deal with broken sleep so had bought in a block that was designed for them. I will go hunt


But what happens if residents get pregnant? Do they have to leave? 

Presumably even lady bankers can get accidentally pregnant and then decide it's quite a positive thing just the same as anyone else.


----------



## Manter (Dec 7, 2013)

Agent Sparrow said:


> But what happens if residents get pregnant? Do they have to leave?
> 
> Presumably even lady bankers can get accidentally pregnant and then decide it's quite a positive thing just the same as anyone else.


They can keep the flat but can't live there! 
Near my parents there are quite a few houses with agricultural ties too- and it works the same way... If you leave your job in a profession linked to agriculture, you have to leave the house too (though in this case they have to sell, they can't rent it out- it has to be owned and lived in by someone with ties to the land. The houses are a bastard to get mortgages on as a result...


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 7, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> Violent panda,university degree? You sound like a complete uneducated loser,I raised a valid point which has been lost with all the brain dead morons of this site,well wait and see what happens when all these huge families with their kids start moving in.The whole point of the conversation in the first place was I WAS NEVER TOLD THAT THESE HUGE 4 BED FLATS WERE GOING TO SOCIAL HOUSING!!! is that plain enough for you,violent retard??


Please do not use 'retard' as a pejorative on this forum. It is incredibly offensive to do so - and 'moron' isn't much better to be honest.

I pity anyone who has you as a neighbour. So what if some of the flats are going to be used as social housing - finally there is somewhere suitable for families. I suggest you move if you don't like this fact.

Also, if you don't find out things before you buy a property it's pretty much your own fault for not asking questions and doing the research in the first place.


----------



## mango5 (Dec 8, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Please do not use 'retard' as a pejorative on this forum. It is incredibly offensive to do so - and 'moron' isn't much better to be honest.


Yeah, this


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Please do not use 'retard' as a pejorative on this forum. It is incredibly offensive to do so - and 'moron' isn't much better to be honest.



We'll just turn a blind eye to the syphilis jokes, though, yeah?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2013)

teuchter said:


> We'll just turn a blind eye to the syphilis jokes, though, yeah?


 Why not just report me to the mods, you self-righteous snotrag?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why not just report me to the mods, you self-righteous snotrag?


What would that achieve, exactly?


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 9, 2013)

teuchter said:


> We'll just turn a blind eye to the syphilis jokes, though, yeah?


Well you turned a blind eye to the syphilis jokes AND the use of 'retard' as a pejorative so I'm not sure what moral high ground you think you're on. Yes you pointed out each was as bad as the other, but that's hardly the same thing, so why you're having a go at me I have no idea.

If you find what VP posts offensive then report him. Don't try to pull me in your disagreements with him.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2013)

Urban75, where people can casually exploit the prejudice and stigma around STDs in the name of a cheap joke. Let's not talk about it - just press the report button and offload the responsibility to the mods. It's not like it matters that much.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 9, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Urban75, where people can casually exploit the prejudice and stigma around STDs in the name of a cheap joke. Let's not talk about it - just press the report button and offload the responsibility to the mods. It's not like it matters that much.


Nobody's saying 'don't talk about it' - perhaps if this is an issue you wish to discuss you could consider starting a thread in H&S, rather than hijack a thread about a Brixton housing development.

Personally I find the use of 'retard' more abhorrent, something you chose not to comment upon.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2013)

teuchter said:


> What would that achieve, exactly?



If, as you've claimed many a time, some of the mods are biased against you, then nothing.  If you're wrong however, who knows?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Urban75, where people can casually exploit the prejudice and stigma around STDs in the name of a cheap joke. Let's not talk about it - just press the report button and offload the responsibility to the mods. It's not like it matters that much.




Do you ever post anything that *isn't* a whine?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Nobody's saying 'don't talk about it' - perhaps if this is an issue you wish to discuss you could consider starting a thread in H&S, rather than hijack a thread about a Brixton housing development.
> 
> Personally I find the use of 'retard' more abhorrent, something you chose not to comment upon.



I chose to comment on both in post 2396. I don't like the use of "retard" either. And I haven't "hijacked" the thread; I have been posting about the subject of the thread since the beginning. If the thread has been hijacked it's been by those who choose to sling insults at each other like 14 year olds.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 9, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I chose to comment on both in post 2396. I don't like the use of "retard" either. And I haven't "hijacked" the thread; I have been posting about the subject of the thread since the beginning. If the thread has been hijacked it's been by those who choose to sling insults at each other like 14 year olds.


Oh grow up. Please.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 9, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I chose to comment on both in post 2396. I don't like the use of "retard" either. And I haven't "hijacked" the thread; I have been posting about the subject of the thread since the beginning. If the thread has been hijacked it's been by those who choose to sling insults at each other like 14 year olds.


Your post wasn't exactly a condemnation of either to be honest -and complaining that no-one is talking about about the effects of STDs on a thread about a housing development is the very definition of hijack.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> and complaining that no-one is talking about about the effects of STDs



That is what I am complaining about, is it?


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 10, 2013)

teuchter said:


> That is what I am complaining about, is it?


Well that's what you said in your post earlier.

Anyway, start a thread about not joking about STDs or whatever, but I'd rather talk about the BS development.


----------



## mango5 (Dec 11, 2013)

If y'all are still keen to discuss BS, this 2400 post monster probably isn't the easiest place for that any more.  Bitching and moaning is also better spread more thinly rather than appearing in great dollops in this forum.  Any more of that on this thread and I'll lock it.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Dec 27, 2013)

Bandit78 said:


> I looked at the plans,but it was never made clear that the biggest apartments that were in BS were going to be Affordable rent Accommodation.I do know what I'm talking about and you will see when all the huge families start moving in with loads of children and the whole place starts going down the pan,maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee!!


I saws the families last week being shown the apartment, true their kitchen is larger than my front room and kitchen combined but hey ho,  I took a peep when the builders were in there and it's a great space for a family, in fact it's a bloody huge 4 bed apartment, the children I saw ranged from 1 to 7. I have a young son so looking forward to some playmates. Stop with the scaremongering, everyone deserved a home.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 28, 2013)

Nobody seems to have picked up on this here http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MWNR19BO67000
Too busy with trolls. Trolls eat children for breakfast don't they? Should be in for a tasty time!


----------



## leanderman (Dec 28, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Nobody seems to have picked up on this here http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MWNR19BO67000
> Too busy with trolls. Trolls eat children for breakfast don't they? Should be in for a tasty time!



What a strange project.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 28, 2013)

leanderman said:


> What a strange project.


Did you notice mention was made of education vouchers? Presumably they will be catering for Moorlands rather than the few children in the private flats.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Dec 29, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Did you notice mention was made of education vouchers? Presumably they will be catering for Moorlands rather than the few children in the private flats.





CH1 said:


> Did you notice mention was made of education vouchers? Presumably they will be catering for Moorlands rather than the few children in the private flats.


on second thoughts BAN ALL CHILDREN FROM BS it's like a voyeuristic dream here. All curtains open and all on view, better entertainment than Sky TV. Girl opposite doing her hoovering in her flimsys THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU .


----------



## CH1 (Dec 29, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> on second thoughts BAN ALL CHILDREN FROM BS it's like a voyeuristic dream here. All curtains open and all on view, better entertainment than Sky TV. Girl opposite doing her hoovering in her flimsys THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU .


You make it sound like Hedonism II. Think what it will be like in 30 years time if you're all still there!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Dec 30, 2013)

CH1 said:


> You make it sound like Hedonism II. Think what it will be like in 30 years time if you're all still there!


That's the time to close the blinds


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> on second thoughts BAN ALL CHILDREN FROM BS it's like a voyeuristic dream here. All curtains open and all on view, better entertainment than Sky TV. Girl opposite doing her hoovering in her flimsys THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU .


Are you really perving on a neighbour whilst she's doing her hoovering?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Dec 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Are you really perving on a neighbour whilst she's doing her hoovering?


Not perving, more of an extended glance


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Not perving, more of an extended glance


Sounds like perving to me


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Dec 30, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Sounds like perving to me


Yeah sounds like perving to me now, oh well


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 30, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yeah sounds like perving to me now, oh well


Guess you'd better stop it then.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 31, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Guess you'd better stop it then.



Agreed - especially as I always do the cleaning in my pants in full view of my neighbours.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Dec 31, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Guess you'd better stop it then.


Thanks for your concern, but I'm quite happy the way things are x


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Thanks for your concern, but I'm quite happy the way things are x



Funnily enough it's not you I'm concerned about.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Dec 31, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Funnily enough it's not you I'm concerned about.


You should be, it's me who's in shock


----------



## alfajobrob (Dec 31, 2013)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> You should be, it's me who's in shock



It maybe that she knows you are watching her vacuuming and is doing it deliberately British 70's porn style....she could be waiting for you to knock at the door in the guise of a Milkman\Plumber\Handyman.








If that doesn't go down too well with your new neighbour's, then you can offer to sell her\them some curtains, blinds or a dressing gown whilst explaining the purchase of your new telescope.....


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Dec 31, 2013)

alfajobrob said:


> It maybe that she knows you are watching her vacuuming and is doing it deliberately British 70's porn style....she could be waiting for you to knock at the door in the guise of a Milkman\Plumber\Handyman.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol, it's close enough that all I need is a pair of cheap bifocals, if I used that telescope she could walk on it and hopefully do my cleaning as well.


----------



## alfajobrob (Dec 31, 2013)

I hope you don't mind but as I have now decided to sell blind & curtaining solution's I'll be using this thread to show the local residents the problems with perverted neighbour's and help with my overpriced products as I target and leaflet Brixton Square.

Expect a sales knock as well....I'll give you a discount though.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Dec 31, 2013)

alfajobrob said:


> I hope you don't mind but as I have now decided to sell blind & curtaining solution's I'll be using this thread to show the local residents the problems with perverted neighbour's and help with my overpriced products as I target and leaflet Brixton Square.
> 
> Expect a sales knock as well....I'll give you a discount though.


Love a discount, but please don't knock between 4pm and 7pm as that's prime time viewing


----------



## shygirl (Jan 5, 2014)

Had a depressing conversation with a resident from BS yesterday in a local caff.  He said that local youth have been seen on cctv climbing over the gate, vandalising flowerbeds, bikes have gone missing, and some of the residents have been approached late at night in an intimidating way.  There have also been attempts to remove the heavy oak benches from within the square.  He commented that the people doing these things are jealous of them.   *Anyway, on to the depressing part* - residents at BS are now saying that they want the barrier block pulled down, as they're finding it's not so much fun living opposite a council estate in the most deprived ward in Lambeth.   According to this bloke, there are plans to sell off Southwyck House. Is there any truth in this?

We had a rather robust debate about gentrification, the kinds of new people coming in, their apparent lack of interest in the local community, and the impact on our community.   It was a challenge keeping calm, tho' when he talked about the crime being meted out on them by people from Somerleyton/Moorlands, I had to ask him why they moved to this area in the first place.  I also pointed out that some of these newcomers need to learn some manners, and that there are plenty of people locally who might offer some guidance on this.   Tho' he seemed like an ok bloke on some levels, what was really galling was his absolute sense of entitlement, matched only by a total lack of empathy for the people who will be displaced as a result of these changes.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> *Anyway, on to the depressing part* - residents at BS are now saying that they want the barrier block pulled down, as they're finding it's not so much fun living opposite a council estate in the most deprived ward in Lambeth.   According to this bloke, there are plans to sell off Southwyck House. Is there any truth in this?


None that I've heard of, and if Lambeth even _consider_ it, they'll have one fucking almighty battle on their hands. People like living there and I can't even begin to imagine the environmental/economic impact of trying to pull down such a solidly built block. 

As for the rest: if any self centred nu-Brixton twats in Brixton Square don't like looking at the block, then they should have moved elsewhere.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> Had a depressing conversation with a resident from BS yesterday in a local caff.  He said that local youth have been seen on cctv climbing over the gate, vandalising flowerbeds, bikes have gone missing, and some of the residents have been approached late at night in an intimidating way.  There have also been attempts to remove the heavy oak benches from within the square.  He commented that the people doing these things are jealous of them.   *Anyway, on to the depressing part* - residents at BS are now saying that they want the barrier block pulled down, as they're finding it's not so much fun living opposite a council estate in the most deprived ward in Lambeth.   According to this bloke, there are plans to sell off Southwyck House. Is there any truth in this?
> 
> We had a rather robust debate about gentrification, the kinds of new people coming in, their apparent lack of interest in the local community, and the impact on our community.   It was a challenge keeping calm, tho' when he talked about the crime being meted out on them by people from Somerleyton/Moorlands, I had to ask him why they moved to this area in the first place.  I also pointed out that some of these newcomers need to learn some manners, and that there are plenty of people locally who might offer some guidance on this.   Tho' he seemed like an ok bloke on some levels, what was really galling was his absolute sense of entitlement, matched only by a total lack of empathy for the people who will be displaced as a result of these changes.



Agreed: Young sharer types have very little notion of community. 

I bet I was the same though. The community sense often comes with age or children or something. 

Doh! I used the community word, twice.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> None that I've heard of, and if Lambeth even _consider_ it, they'll have one fucking almighty battle n their hands. People like living there and I can't even begin to imagine the environmental/economic impact of trying to pull down such a solidly built block.
> 
> As for the rest: if any self centred nu-Brixton twats in Brixton Square don't like looking at the block, then they should have moved elsewhere.



That's what I told him, more or less, not without a big fight.  However, someone from Barratts supposededly said they're pretty confident that it will be put up for sale by Lambeth.   We need to keep an eye on this.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> That's what I told him, more or less, not without a big fight.  However, someone from Barratts supposededly said they're pretty confident that it will be put up for sale by Lambeth.   We need to keep an eye on this.


Not sure why Barratts would be privy to such secret council plans, but even if Lambeth were dead set on it, it would take years to pout through given the immense opposition they'd be likely to face.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2014)

Mr Bim of Bar - you heard any of this?


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2014)




----------



## shygirl (Jan 5, 2014)

I certainly hope it isn't true, but I could believe anything of Lambeth and money-grabbing property developers.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> I certainly hope it isn't true, but I could believe anything of Lambeth and money-grabbing property developers.


If Lambeth are striking secret deals with Barratts to knock down council housing, that's one almighty headline story for the press, right there.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Mr Bim of Bar - you heard any of this?


Not heard a word about any of this, at the meet the neighbours soirée last week, everyone seemed to love living in Brixton, all the flower beds intact, all the benches Intact, and no mention of any stolen bikes, and certainly no intimidation by anyone.
As for the estate opposite, we all knew it was there and it's certainly not a problem, I think it's just a wind up. And as for us wanting it knocked down that's laughable, there are no politician living here, mostly professional young people with huge mortgages, who seem to get along with anyone.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> That's what I told him, more or less, not without a big fight.  However, someone from Barratts supposededly said they're pretty confident that it will be put up for sale by Lambeth.   We need to keep an eye on this.



That's the kind of thing I might make up were I a Barratts salesmen attempting to make a sale to someone nervously eyeing the big bad barrier block across the way


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> I also pointed out that some of these newcomers need to learn some manners





editor said:


> As for the rest: if any self centred nu-Brixton twats in Brixton Square don't like looking at the block, then they should have moved elsewhere.



Can either of you offer some specific detail on the bad manners/self centred twattery that the new residents of BS have been guilty of, or is this all based on the "bloke in the cafe" conversation?

Earlier in the thread it seemed to be quite heavily stressed that the objection was to Barrats and the design of the block, rather than the residents. Has something happened to change this?


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Earlier in the thread it seemed to be quite heavily stressed that the objection was to Barrats and the design of the block, rather than the residents. Has something happened to change this?


Given how much I'm out and about in Brixton I do find it rather remarkable that I've only ever met one resident from BS.

Funnily enough, he had a very similar viewpoint to the one shygirl described above.


teuchter said:


> Can either of you offer some specific detail on the bad manners/self centred twattery that the new residents of BS have been guilty of, or is this all based on the "bloke in the cafe" conversation?



Please reread my previous post and observe the use of the word "if."


----------



## shygirl (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Not heard a word about any of this, at the meet the neighbours soirée last week, everyone seemed to love living in Brixton, all the flower beds intact, all the benches Intact, and no mention of any stolen bikes, and certainly no intimidation by anyone.
> As for the estate opposite, we all knew it was there and it's certainly not a problem, I think it's just a wind up. And as for us wanting it knocked down that's laughable, there are no politician living here, mostly professional young people with huge mortgages, who seem to get along with anyone.



That's odd, but great news.  Perhaps its one disgruntled resident.  I have to say, the thing about youths pulling up flowers didn't ring true, just because, ime, the kids around here don't tend to do that kind of vandalism.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Given how much I'm out and about in Brixton I do find it rather remarkable that I've only ever met one resident from BS.
> 
> Funnily enough, he had a very similar viewpoint to the one shygirl described above.
> 
> ...



Perhaps we've both spoken to the same bloke, in a caff not far from you.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> That's odd, but great news.  Perhaps its one disgruntled resident.  I have to say, *the thing about youths pulling up flowers* didn't ring true, just because, ime, the kids around here don't tend to do that kind of vandalism.



It was probably foxes. I know they get blamed for so much and the ones where i live are usually really well behaved but recently they have been going berserk.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 5, 2014)

*teuchter said: ↑
Can either of you offer some specific detail on the bad manners/self centred twattery that the new residents of BS have been guilty of, or is this all based on the "bloke in the cafe" conversation?*

Its odd that you think it possible that one conversation with one person would form the basis of my views on this or any matter.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jan 5, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Can either of you offer some specific detail on the bad manners/self centred twattery that the new residents of BS have been guilty of, or is this all based on the "bloke in the cafe" conversation?
> 
> Earlier in the thread it seemed to be quite heavily stressed that the objection was to Barrats and the design of the block, rather than the residents. Has something happened to change this?


I would think there are a lot more people living there now as opposed to a couple of months back.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> That's odd, but great news.  Perhaps its one disgruntled resident.  I have to say, the thing about youths pulling up flowers didn't ring true, just because, ime, the kids around here don't tend to do that kind of vandalism.


I've never seen anyone clamber over those tall metal security gates, and I'm often walking around at all hours. I've never seen them left open either.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> Perhaps we've both spoken to the same bloke, in a caff not far from you.


I met him in the Dogstar one night. Mid 30s dark hair, City look. "Excitable."


----------



## shygirl (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> I met him in the Dogstar one night. Mid 30s dark hair, City look. "Excitable."



No, late 50's, balding, slightly nervy type.  So, that means that 2 people have reported similar concerns/gripes.


----------



## critical1 (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> If Lambeth are striking secret deals with Barratts to knock down council housing, that's one almighty headline story for the press, right there.



It is TRUE I have been handed some documents from inside Lambeth the c0-op Council??? will post later as have to verify them. Some very shady dealings, needs to be exposed in the public interest.


----------



## critical1 (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> *teuchter said: ↑
> Can either of you offer some specific detail on the bad manners/self centred twattery that the new residents of BS have been guilty of, or is this all based on the "bloke in the cafe" conversation?*
> 
> Its odd that you think it possible that one conversation with one person would form the basis of my views on this or any matter.


Errr one resident I believe refused to move out of the way of a elderly disabled person in an electric wheelchair!! said there was plenty of room for them to go around him and his partner, it was beyond belief!!! really, I was present and it looked like he was coming out of "BS" sq.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2014)

critical1 said:


> It is TRUE I have been handed some documents from inside Lambeth the c0-op Council??? will post later as have to verify them. Some very shady dealings, needs to be exposed in the public interest.


Please do because it's certainly never be mentioned at any residents' group meetings with the council (past the original speculation as part of the Future Brixton [pans which were swiftly forgotten).


----------



## critical1 (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Please do because it's certainly never be mentioned at any residents' group meetings with the council (past the original speculation as part of the Future Brixton [pans which were swiftly forgotten).


The ultimate plan, is to gentrify and dispatch council housing to Housing Associations this removes Lambeth from responsibility of social rents and moves to affordable rents.. maybe someone here more fluent on this can explain the difference as Lambeth now talks about affordable rents rather than SOCIAL!

Lambeth also seems to be desperate to sell off or do deals with anyone and everyone apart from locals who make up Co-Op Lambeth. co-op council should become corporate council. 
Elections are looming time for CHANGE, not platitudes.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 5, 2014)

critical1 said:


> The ultimate plan, is to gentrify and dispatch council housing to Housing Associations this removes Lambeth from responsibility of social rents and moves to affordable rents.. maybe someone here more fluent on this can explain the difference as Lambeth now talks about affordable rents rather than SOCIAL!
> 
> Lambeth also seems to be desperate to sell off or do deals with anyone and everyone apart from locals who make up Co-Op Lambeth. co-op council should become corporate council.
> Elections are looming time for CHANGE, not platitudes.



Social rents may be around 50 per cent or less of what private tenants would pay.

Affordable rents would be around 80 per cent of what private tenants would pay

Not sure what level housing associations go for


----------



## Strangerdanger (Jan 5, 2014)

Im sorry I find this story very hard to believe. First of all, how would anyone climb those gates without being noticed? Surely if attempted it would catch the attention of more than just the cctv? Secondly, as a resident of BS I have heard no cases of anything being stolen, and as someone stated up thread I was also at the christmas party and spoke to many people - none of whom mentioned any of this. None of whom had a single bad word to say about their new neighbourhood or development. Im pretty sure if there were people climbing over and stealing anything there would be notes from BRAM informing residents - just as there are signs about throwing cigarette butts off balconies. 

There is ONE area of ONE flower bed that has been dug up about 3 times or so since I moved in in October. It looks like the case of a fox and due to the location thats what I always thought it was. And seriously, what kind of idiot would actually think they could have an entire estate knocked down because theyre unhappy with it when it was there before they moved in? Im not saying there arent stupid people out there, but this sounds like someone was trying to troll quite frankly.

This makes me really angry, because I've come today to wish everyone a happy new year and ONCE AGAIN there's another story attempting to make the residents here come across as snobby and rude.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Mid 30s dark hair, City look. "Excitable."





shygirl said:


> late 50's, balding, slightly nervy type.


Same guy after a couple of months living in vibrant Brixton ?


----------



## shygirl (Jan 5, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> Im sorry I find this story very hard to believe. First of all, how would anyone climb those gates without being noticed? Surely if attempted it would catch the attention of more than just the cctv? Secondly, as a resident of BS I have heard no cases of anything being stolen, and as someone stated up thread I was also at the christmas party and spoke to many people - none of whom mentioned any of this. None of whom had a single bad word to say about their new neighbourhood or development. Im pretty sure if there were people climbing over and stealing anything there would be notes from BRAM informing residents - just as there are signs about throwing cigarette butts off balconies.
> 
> There is ONE area of ONE flower bed that has been dug up about 3 times or so since I moved in in October. It looks like the case of a fox and due to the location thats what I always thought it was. And seriously, what kind of idiot would actually think they could have an entire estate knocked down because theyre unhappy with it when it was there before they moved in? Im not saying there arent stupid people out there, but this sounds like someone was trying to troll quite frankly.
> 
> This makes me really angry, because I've come today to wish everyone a happy new year and ONCE AGAIN there's another story attempting to make the residents here come across as snobby and rude.



You could be right, this guy could be out to cause trouble.   He was adamant that it was kids pulling up flowers, etc, even tho' I said that's rare for kids to do that here. 
Hmmm, I'll do a little digging, pardon the pun.  Good to know that most people are happy in their new home.  happy new year to you too, strangerdanger.  BTW, when I mentioned bad manners, it wasn't in relation to BS, it was an observation of some of the behaviour of the well-heeled new-comers. Guess its me being a bit hatey and prejudiced.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 5, 2014)

critical1 said:


> It is TRUE I have been handed some documents from inside Lambeth the c0-op Council??? will post later as have to verify them. Some very shady dealings, needs to be exposed in the public interest.



Bloke in caff said that likely plan is to knock down Southwyck House but leave the Moorlands Estate as it is.  How very fucking considerate them...


----------



## Strangerdanger (Jan 5, 2014)

It just sounds so strange to me! I spoke to 5 or 6 people at the party and everyone had nothing but good things to say. I would like think if there were any issues of that sort though, they would let residents know. I would be well pissed off if there was intimidating behaviour and theft and management didnt let me know...especially as there are signs up for other things... AND I have loads of chats with Michael (the concierge) - surely something would come out?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Agreed: Young sharer types have very little notion of community.



If you're in a house-share, that's a living situation that is, by its' very nature, transient, so not surprising.



> I bet I was the same though. The community sense often comes with age or children or something.



Speak for yourself. IME most of the people I grew up with always thought in terms of our community.  perhaps it's a function of our environments.



> Doh! I used the community word, twice.



Carbolic and floorbrush are over yonder.  Knock yourself out!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> Bloke in caff said that likely plan is to knock down Southwyck House but leave the Moorlands Estate as it is.  How very fucking considerate them...



Isn't this the same shit Brad the Sad from Brixton Green was chatting last year - that he'd "heard" this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Not sure why Barratts would be privy to such secret council plans, but even if Lambeth were dead set on it, it would take years to pout through given the immense opposition they'd be likely to face.



They've probably been talking to Brad, or a couple of the local "there's too much social housing in my ward" councillors.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Not sure why Barratts would be privy to such secret council plans, but even if Lambeth were dead set on it, it would take years to *pout* through given the immense opposition they'd be likely to face.



BTW, totally Freudian spelling error there.  I too see them as pouting petulant types.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

shygirl said:


> *teuchter said: ↑
> Can either of you offer some specific detail on the bad manners/self centred twattery that the new residents of BS have been guilty of, or is this all based on the "bloke in the cafe" conversation?*
> 
> Its odd that you think it possible that one conversation with one person would form the basis of my views on this or any matter.



It's teuchter.  That sort of behaviour isn't odd at all.

For him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

editor said:


> I met him in the Dogstar one night. Mid 30s dark hair, City look. "*Excitable*."





shygirl said:


> No, late 50's, balding, *slightly nervy* type.  So, that means that 2 people have reported similar concerns/gripes.



Sounds like they might use the same coke dealer!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Social rents may be around 50 per cent or less of what private tenants would pay.
> 
> Affordable rents would be around 80 per cent of what private tenants would pay
> 
> Not sure what level housing associations go for



The latter, as although they're not (at least by charter) supposed to be "profit-making", what usually happens is that when they do make a profit, they roll it up and use it for buying new stock.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you're in a house-share, that's a living situation that is, by its' very nature, transient, so not surprising.
> 
> Speak for yourself. IME most of the people I grew up with always thought in terms of our community.  perhaps it's a function of our environments.
> 
> Carbolic and floorbrush are over yonder.  Knock yourself out!



I should have added young couples to young sharers.

Coming from a farm, I have no sense of community.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I should have added young couples to young sharers.
> 
> Coming from a farm, I have no sense of community.



Not even with the livestock?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not even with the livestock?



I preferred the cows to the sheep


----------



## shygirl (Jan 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't this the same shit Brad the Sad from Brixton Green was chatting last year - that he'd "heard" this?



I hope so.  Hope it was just a wind-up.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Social rents may be around 50 per cent or less of what private tenants would pay.
> 
> Affordable rents would be around 80 per cent of what private tenants would pay
> 
> Not sure what level housing associations go for



It depends on the Housing Association. The "affordable" rent is *up* to 80% of market rate of area. Its not obligatory on HAs to charge the full 80%.

Looks like Lambeth is trying to get HAs to use the % of market rate that are set for the "affordable" housing in Brixton Square. Which is around 60%.

I did hear that one HA who wanted to acquire some of Lambeths old street property insisted that they be allowed to let them at 80% market rent. Lambeth refused to go ahead with the deal.

What I am not clear on is when an HA relets a property. Will they use the new affordable category? I know that some HAs when they get an empty property to let are starting to use the new time limited tenancies. Again they are not obliged to.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2014)

Photo of Brixton Square and Barrier Block I took over Christmas.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Jan 9, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> It was probably foxes. I know they get blamed for so much and the ones where i live are usually really well behaved but recently they have been going berserk.


Hey GOLD STAR TO YOU DEXTER. About three weeks ago i witnessed a fox in the communal raised garden, and it had in fact dug up a large area of the garden. Gardener came in the following day and made good.
PROBLEM SOLVED AND IT DIDNT EVEN CROSS MY MIND.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Jan 9, 2014)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Hey GOLD STAR TO YOU DEXTER. About three weeks ago i witnessed a fox in the communal raised garden, and it had in fact dug up a large area of the garden. Gardener came in the following day and made good.
> PROBLEM SOLVED AND IT DIDNT EVEN CROSS MY MIND.


Yeah that was the spot I meant - I always thought it was a fox as its the same spot every time.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Jan 13, 2014)

Gramsci - sadly HAs are reletting at "affordable rent" and doing so with time-limited tenancies. George Osborne is pushing for all relets to be at the higher rent. It is causing terrilbe distress and a massive increase in the housing benefit bill. Yet this deplorable government pushes ahead regardless.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 13, 2014)

Not quite Brixton Square, but almost round the corner - yet another old people's home bites the dust.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Feb 26, 2014)

My fiancée emailed me the link below and I thought it would be of interest to the thread. Crazy. Cannot BELIEVE the price this is on the market for...surely this bubble is going to burst?

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-44862341.html


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Feb 26, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> My fiancée emailed me the link below and I thought it would be of interest to the thread. Crazy. Cannot BELIEVE the price this is on the market for...surely this bubble is going to burst?
> 
> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-44862341.html


I'm not surprised at all, I always had a figure of £600,000 in two years time.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Feb 26, 2014)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I'm not surprised at all, I always had a figure of £600,000 in two years time.



But this is mental! Prices everywhere are doing the same so it's not even like you can "trade up" if you sell? What were these 2 bed flats going for before, do you know?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Feb 26, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> But this is mental! Prices everywhere are doing the same so it's not even like you can "trade up" if you sell? What were these 2 bed flats going for before, do you know?


This is 586 square feet with no ensuite so these were going for £320,000 in the first phase and around £350,000 in the second phase. Ok if you want to trade down or move somewhere cheaper.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Feb 26, 2014)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> This is 586 square feet with no ensuite so these were going for £320,000 in the first phase and around £350,000 in the second phase. Ok if you want to trade down or move somewhere cheaper.



Yeah I could see of you wanted to move out of London, but trade down? These flats aren't exactly large. I'm afraid of what London will be like in say ten years time if this continues....


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Feb 26, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> Yeah I could see of you wanted to move out of London, but trade down? These flats aren't exactly large. I'm afraid of what London will be like in say ten years time if this continues....


When I say trade down, I mean you can buy a flat in streatham for £300,000


----------



## Strangerdanger (Feb 26, 2014)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> When I say trade down, I mean you can buy a flat in streatham for £300,000


I see yeah, I though you meant downsize.


----------



## leanderman (Feb 26, 2014)

I'm going to move to a Welsh mountainside


----------



## Manter (Feb 26, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> My fiancée emailed me the link below and I thought it would be of interest to the thread. Crazy. Cannot BELIEVE the price this is on the market for...surely this bubble is going to burst?
> 
> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-44862341.html


sorry, know we've done this before, but fuck that building is ugly


----------



## CH1 (Feb 26, 2014)

Manter said:


> sorry, know we've done this before, but fuck that building is ugly


Its standard Milton Keynesish. This is what has replaced Brutalism (see other thread). Barratts etc think that bland brick-built buildings with no ornamentation won't fighten the horses, the customers or the planners. It is the ITV of building!

Manter you must think positive thoughts. Accept the deed is done and move on...

How can we get Lambeth to make the best possible design for Somerleyton - particular talking aesthetics here. I haven't heard  Brixton Green or Lambeth ask how it should look - or whether Carlton Mansion should be turned from housing into workshop space come to that.

All these bloody consultants take the main decisions and then ask you stupid questions to justify a meeting and a consultancy fee.

"What colour straight-jacket would you like, sir?"

In some ways you have to say at least Barratts got on with it. Now we can blame them for crap aesthetic judgement.

With Lambeth "Co-op Council" they will say - we consulted, and this is what people wanted - the Lambeth Lie.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Feb 26, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I'm going to move to a Welsh mountainside


You can buy the whole mountain for that price


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 26, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> My fiancée emailed me the link below and I thought it would be of interest to the thread. Crazy. Cannot BELIEVE the price this is on the market for...surely this bubble is going to burst?
> 
> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-44862341.html



Vince Cable has said:



> "The big question now is whether and how recent growth and optimism can be translated into long term sustainable, balanced, recovery without repeating the mistakes of the past," he said.
> 
> "We cannot risk another property-linked boom-bust cycle which has done so much damage before, notably in the financial crash in 2008...
> 
> "If the recovery is to be sustained it will need to be balanced, geographically and sectorally, to correct the bias against traded activities and against investment - and to ensure we do not return to boom-bust cycles around property markets.



Hopefully it will burst and bring property prices down. Will not make all those "climbing the property ladder" at all happy. As a lot of them buy property believing it will increase in value above inflation.

Had a read of Evening Standards property page today. Always nauseating. Both worth seeing how the property market thinks. 

Everything rosy according to ES.

Managed to read this sick making piece about Estate Agents who have "climbed the property ladder". Thing is I do not see any Government rebalancing the economy. It would hit these kinds of people.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 26, 2014)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> You can buy the whole mountain for that price



I dont think the Welsh would take kindly to asset rich people from South East buying up there mountains. Have that problem in South West where I come from.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Feb 26, 2014)

It won't be long before interest rates start to rise and when they do they will keep going up.


----------



## alfajobrob (Feb 26, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> It won't be long before interest rates start to rise and when they do they will keep going up.



Wouldn't that be good eh...


----------



## Strangerdanger (Feb 26, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Vince Cable has said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Omg! I just read that feature in the Es and couldn't even finish it! None of these people are savvy or clever, they just happened to buy before properties spiraled. I can't even believe this rubbish was written up. Stop the presses, property value has increased massively since couple no. 2 first bought a flat in 1987! I rolled my eyes so hard they nearly fell out of my head.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Feb 26, 2014)

alfajobrob said:


> Wouldn't that be good eh....let me know when and I'll cash out.



2015. Just before the General Election i reckon, after the Election the brakes come off and rates rise steadily.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Feb 26, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Vince Cable has said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're very right. I was just saying this to my fiancée. I'm very torn having bought this flat. We bought not at all thinking of the value increasing, but because we were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and able to scrape together 5%, and because the rent at our previous place kept going up up up. We could see that we were going to have to move anyway and thought it was a great opportunity for security. But as much as it's scary having put all our savings into this place, I recognise that this market is totally unsustainable and I see the effects it's having on friends of mine. Friends who actually make decent money, want to start families but can't even afford to be a one bed flat. It's so scary.


----------



## leanderman (Feb 27, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> You're very right. I was just saying this to my fiancée. I'm very torn having bought this flat. We bought not at all thinking of the value increasing, but because we were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and able to scrape together 5%, and because the rent at our previous place kept going up up up. We could see that we were going to have to move anyway and thought it was a great opportunity for security. But as much as it's scary having put all our savings into this place, I recognise that this market is totally unsustainable and I see the effects it's having on friends of mine. Friends who actually make decent money, want to start families but can't even afford to be a one bed flat. It's so scary.



No one is winning.

In fact, we may all be losing - because money that should be directed toward productive investment or, dare I say it, consumption, is spent on bonkers mortgages


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> You're very right. I was just saying this to my fiancée. I'm very torn having bought this flat. We bought not at all thinking of the value increasing, but because we were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and able to scrape together 5%, and because the rent at our previous place kept going up up up. We could see that we were going to have to move anyway and thought it was a great opportunity for security. But as much as it's scary having put all our savings into this place, I recognise that this market is totally unsustainable and I see the effects it's having on friends of mine. Friends who actually make decent money, want to start families but can't even afford to be a one bed flat. It's so scary.



The purpose of government ( if one is going to have a state, that’s another discussion) should be to reduce risk for essentials like housing and health. Which means intervening in the market. 

ES property articles always have upbeat view. Was told some time ago that this was that they do not want to upset the advertisers. 

I am sure your situation is one that a lot of people have in London. 

It breeds a feeling of insecurity in people.


----------



## leanderman (Feb 27, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The purpose of government ( if one is going to have a state, that’s another discussion) should be to reduce risk for essentials like housing and health. Which means intervening in the market.
> 
> ES property articles always have upbeat view. Was told some time ago that this was that they do not want to upset the advertisers.
> 
> ...



Ownership levels are at a record low. 

There are 14.3million owner-occupying households,  four million privately-rented homes and 3.7 million that are socially rented.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Ownership levels are at a record low.
> 
> There are 14.3million owner-occupying households,  four million privately-rented homes and 3.7 million that are socially rented.



Looked this up and ownership has dropped over last decade. Though go back a hundred years and three quarters of people rented. 

This link has good understandable graphs.

The "reforms" of the 1980s reduced rent controls. Shifted the relation between private tenant and landlord in favour of landlord. 

1980s also saw RTB brought in. 





> The percentage of households renting increased in all English regions and in Wales in the decade to 2011. London had the highest percentage of renters, accounting for 50.4% of households in the region.


----------



## leanderman (Feb 27, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Looked this up and ownership has dropped over last decade. Though go back a hundred years and three quarters of people rented.
> 
> This link has good understandable graphs.
> 
> ...



Going to get worse. The new feudalism.


----------



## Strangerdanger (May 16, 2014)

Word on the street is the ground floor unit they're working on is to be an Aldi opening in a month.


----------



## editor (May 16, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> Word on the street is the ground floor unit they're working on is to be an Aldi opening in a month.


Have you checked that on Lambeth Planning?


----------



## Strangerdanger (May 16, 2014)

Nah, I asked the builder. We got a few letters from the council with proposed uses for the space - Aldi was not one of them. Maybe he was winding me up?


----------



## colacubes (May 16, 2014)

They probably wouldn't need planning permission if they already had permission for it to be an A1 unit as part of the original proposal.  If it were a supermarket though they'd need to apply for a license if they were going to sell booze (which you'd assume they would).


----------



## Strangerdanger (May 16, 2014)

I'd hope so, cheap wine is what I'm looking forward to most


----------



## colacubes (May 16, 2014)

Aldi cava is apparently great.  I am a fan of Lidl's and it is apparently better


----------



## Strangerdanger (May 16, 2014)

Yeah that's what I've heard! I've never been to either, though I keep meaning to pop into that Lidl down acre lane.
Very curious to see what it's like....


----------



## colacubes (May 16, 2014)

You should go.  It's ace and a lot cheaper than most of the supermarkets.


----------



## leanderman (May 16, 2014)

colacubes said:


> Aldi cava is apparently great.  I am a fan of Lidl's and it is apparently better



It's the Aldi Cremant de Jura you want. £7 or £8.


----------



## Strangerdanger (May 16, 2014)

Lovely thanks for the recommendation. I think I may take the time out to go to lidl today or tomorrow. After all I will at least get a stroll in the sunshine out of it


----------



## Strangerdanger (May 16, 2014)

Builder was having a laugh - it's going to be an education centre. There's a poster in the window now.


----------



## CH1 (May 16, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> Builder was having a laugh - it's going to be an education centre. There's a poster in the window now.


I knew there was a planning application in for an educational use.
The decision notice is here: http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00462127.pdf
the case details are here: http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MWNR19BO67000

Pity it isn't really going to be an Aldi - it would be most welcome to some of us, but Aldi would have wanted much more floor space and a sizeable car park.


----------



## editor (May 16, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Pity it isn't really going to be an Aldi - it would be most welcome to some of us, but Aldi would have wanted much more floor space and a sizeable car park.


Can't say I'd give much of a fuck either way.


----------



## CH1 (May 16, 2014)

editor said:


> Can't say I'd give much of a fuck either way.


Maybe - but the fact remains since Kwik Save closed there has been no supermarket in central Brixton.


----------



## Belushi (May 16, 2014)

You've got Iceland and a big Tesco?


----------



## CH1 (May 16, 2014)

Belushi said:


> You've got Iceland and a big Tesco?


Y're right about Iceland - but don't count Tesco. They started the Brixton Market decline in the 1980s - syphoning the shoppers off to Acre Lane.

The new Tesco at Loughborough Junction seems to be pricing itself competitively for a Tesco Express. But having a Tesco at Loughborough didn't go down well here did it?


----------



## SpamMisery (May 16, 2014)

Went into Lidl for the first time last week. No bags at the checkout, who knew? I looked a right plonker walking down Acre Lane arms full of bog roll and fish fingers


----------



## CH1 (May 16, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Went into Lidl for the first time last week. No bags at the checkout, who knew? I looked a right plonker walking down Acre Lane arms full of bog roll and fish fingers


You mean no FREE bags? They normally have loads at 5p or 10p.

Mind you the Acre Lane one had no milk at all just before Easter, so it could happen.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 17, 2014)

Ahh ok, maybe, but that day they had no bags at all and everyone else in the queue seemed to have brought a rucksack to cart things home so I assumed it was the norm.


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Ahh ok, maybe, but that day they had no bags at all and everyone else in the queue seemed to have brought a rucksack to cart things home so I assumed it was the norm.


Until about 5 years ago they didn't have shopping baskets.
Customers not using a trolley had to improvise using empty packaging cartons. It's gone upmarket now.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 17, 2014)

No shopping baskets? What on earth made them think that was going to work?


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> No shopping baskets? What on earth made them think that was going to work?


I think the rationale was they thought everyone would use the trolleys and buy more.


----------



## Strangerdanger (May 17, 2014)

Yeah I did see the planning app for an educational centre, but there was Also one for a yoga studio and illuminated sign shop, so I didn't really know what to think...can't say I'm not a little disappointed...


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> Yeah I did see the planning app for an educational centre, but there was Also one for a yoga studio and illuminated sign shop, so I didn't really know what to think...can't say I'm not a little disappointed...


I saw that too, but can't find it in the Lambeth planning website.
If it was for 372 it could still happen - I don't think the learning scheme is taking all the space. Do you have the reference number?


----------



## Rushy (May 17, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> Yeah I did see the planning app for an educational centre, but there was Also one for a yoga studio and illuminated sign shop, so I didn't really know what to think...can't say I'm not a little disappointed...


Although it is clearly the obvious location for an illuminated sign shop, was it not an application for an illuminated sign?


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Although it is clearly the obvious location for an illuminated sign shop, was it not an application for an illuminated sign?


I'm sure you're right about the sign rather than a sign shop - but I think there was an application floating about for a Yoga/Health centre type thing - except I thought it was at The Viaduct. Would have been several months ago - maybe withdrawn?
Can you help - you have a long memory for these things.


----------



## Rushy (May 17, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I'm sure you're right about the sign rather than a sign shop - but I think there was an application floating about for a Yoga/Health centre type thing - except I thought it was at The Viaduct. Would have been several months ago - maybe withdrawn?
> Can you help - you have a long memory for these things.


I don't remember anything like that and can't see anything online. Only thing I can recall at The Viaduct was a new business centre which was granted permission:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...CaseNumber=0037UOBOBU000&keyVal=MZ2W5XBO03F00


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 17, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I don't remember anything like that and can't see anything online. Only thing I can recall at The Viaduct was a new business centre which was granted permission:
> http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...CaseNumber=0037UOBOBU000&keyVal=MZ2W5XBO03F00


We received a letter telling us it's going to be a yogo centre


----------



## buscador (May 17, 2014)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> We received a letter telling us it's going to be a yogo centre



Take away yoghurt shop?


----------



## Rushy (May 17, 2014)

*UK house prices: a tale of two streets*
Carney Street v Carney Place, Yorkshire v Brixton, negative equity v a big bubble - the dilemma facing the Bank of England

http://www.theguardian.com/money/20...-streets-carney-yorkshire-london-bank-england


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2014)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> We received a letter telling us it's going to be a yogo centre


You mean you had a consultation letter from Lambeth Planning, or one from Barratts regarding one or more of their units at the front?


----------



## Winot (May 17, 2014)

Rushy said:


> *UK house prices: a tale of two streets*
> Carney Street v Carney Place, Yorkshire v Brixton, negative equity v a big bubble - the dilemma facing the Bank of England
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/money/20...-streets-carney-yorkshire-london-bank-england



I'm sure I recognise some of the agent quotes from an earlier article.


----------



## leanderman (May 17, 2014)

Winot said:


> I'm sure I recognise some of the agent quotes from an earlier article.



This seems to be the key line from the article:

_Burch says buyers usually have at least a 10% deposit – either equity from another property or, among first-time buyers, from the Bank of Mum and Dad. "We see parents saying: 'Have your inheritance early, here's £250,000, put it in property so you can get on the ladder'"._


----------



## editor (May 17, 2014)

From Oct 2012


> Permission was originally given to Places for People to build the ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing in 2005. Barratt Homes argue that the economic situation has changed so much it is now not possible to fulfill that promise


And from that article: 





> The flat KFH is selling for £449,000 was last sold just a year ago for £270,000.


Fucking disgusting.


----------



## leanderman (May 17, 2014)

And, in today's FT, news that one in eight new mortgages is now for 30+ years.


----------



## leanderman (May 17, 2014)

editor said:


> From Oct 2012
> And from that article: Fucking disgusting.



Presumably the incredible profit has gone to the first buyers, not slippery Barratts.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2014)

Such depressing reading. 





> Some 260 miles south, Carney Place in Brixton is at the heart of the property bubble. The development, which arrived in London at around the same time as the Bank's governor, is made up of four smart, concierge-served blocks of mainly one- and two-bedroom flats.
> 
> Set back from Coldharbour Lane, it is handy for the station and the bustling Brixton Village – the foodie end of the local market – but protected behind secure gates.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (May 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Presumably the incredible profit has gone to the first buyers, not slippery Barratts.


For sure, but it makes a mockery of Barratts loathsome bleating and slithering out of their already limited 'affordable' obligations because of the supposed 'economic situation.'


----------



## shifting gears (May 17, 2014)

editor said:


> For sure, but it makes a mockery of Barratts loathsome bleating and slithering out of their already limited 'affordable' obligations because of the supposed 'economic situation.'



Did anyone mention that BARRATT HOMES ARE SCUM yet?


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2014)

Strangerdanger said:


> Yeah I did see the planning app for an educational centre, but there was Also one for a yoga studio and illuminated sign shop, so I didn't really know what to think...can't say I'm not a little disappointed...





Rushy said:


> I don't remember anything like that and can't see anything online. Only thing I can recall at The Viaduct was a new business centre which was granted permission:
> http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...CaseNumber=0037UOBOBU000&keyVal=MZ2W5XBO03F00





Mr Bim of Bar said:


> We received a letter telling us it's going to be a yogo centre


It's here - and it is in the Barratts site. Rather a sketchy application, referring back to the original planning permission granted in 2007 to Barratts predecessor. Will it happen?
The address looks wrong to me - which is why I though it was next door.
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MYS2WSBO05W00


----------



## Rushy (May 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> And, in today's FT, news that one in eight new mortgages is now for 30+ years.


Extending a 25yr mortgage to 30yrs reduces your monthly repayment by 9.7% but you pay an extra 23% in interest over the term of the loan.


----------



## leanderman (May 17, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Extending a 25yr mortgage to 30yrs reduces your monthly repayment by 9.7% but you pay an extra 23% in interest over the term of the loan.



Yep. Life much cheaper for the wealthy.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 17, 2014)

Can't even get an overdraft. They call it debt credit. It's all about the accumulation of capital. That has to end in tears,


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 18, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Extending a 25yr mortgage to 30yrs reduces your monthly repayment by 9.7% but you pay an extra 23% in interest over the term of the loan.


We've got a 35 year one but am slightly kicking myself for that, given that we have relatively small monthly repayments, and certainly could have afforded larger ones over the last two years. Also could have overpaid, which again kicking myself for not organizing. Mind you, it does mean we'll be safer now our finances have changed/will continue to change, and it gives us a buffer for unexpected life stuff and/or interest rates going up. I think a lot of the people buying at the top of their limit are potentially going to have challenges ahead due to those reasons.


----------



## superfly101 (May 18, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Until about 5 years ago they didn't have shopping baskets.
> Customers not using a trolley had to improvise using empty packaging cartons. It's gone upmarket now.


They've just switched from metal baskets that spilled everything over the side at a slightest whimsy to actually quite useful high sided plastic ones 

It's gentrification gone mad


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 18, 2014)

Was chatting to one of my NCT friends, and they have a mortgage budget a little over what ours was two years ago, and they have no chance of getting a mortgage anywhere in the Brixton area. Or indeed the surrounding areas. I sometimes feel that we bought the last vaguely affordable house in Brixton two years ago  (affordable though, of course, being in the eye of the beholder).


----------



## leanderman (May 18, 2014)

Agent Sparrow said:


> We've got a 35 year one but am slightly kicking myself for that, given that we have relatively small monthly repayments, and certainly could have afforded larger ones over the last two years. Also could have overpaid, which again kicking myself for not organizing.



Yes. I think the article points out the importance of overpaying, where possible, on long-term mortgages.


----------



## leanderman (May 18, 2014)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Was chatting to one of my NCT friends, and they have a mortgage budget a little over what ours was two years ago, and they have no chance of getting a mortgage anywhere in the Brixton area. Or indeed the surrounding areas. I sometimes feel that we bought the last vaguely affordable house in Brixton two years ago  (affordable though, of course, being in the eye of the beholder).



I wonder if London has ever seen a price surge quite like that of the past two years.


----------



## CH1 (May 18, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I wonder if London has ever seen a price surge quite like that of the past two years.


In terms of "surge" surely the period 1981 - 1985 is comparable at least in Brixton.

A very extreme example I can think of was a house in Saltoun Road purchased around 1981 for £14,000 "in need of renovation". The purchaser got a £30,000 renovation grant (it was a Housing Action area where grants were available for improvements). By 1985 the owner had sold for £83,000.

If you strip out the grant the price still rose by a factor of 3 times - which I think was typical for those dates.
RPI inflation in the early 80s was 15-20% at its peak - so wages/salaries were rising (for those in work). That is the main difference from now I should think.


----------



## Rushy (May 18, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I wonder if London has ever seen a price surge quite like that of the past two years.


I paid 91K for my first flat in Feb 97 and it sold for 185K in Sep 99 - I did no more than give it a lick of paint and put flooring down. I remember friends saying how ridiculous prices had become and that they were going to wait for a crash before buying. The market really took off in late 96 - in between accepting my offer and exchanging contracts the vendor tried to increase the price to from 91 to 127 which was actually perfectly realistic.


----------



## leanderman (May 18, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I paid 91K for my first flat in Feb 97 and it sold for 185K in Sep 99 - I did no more than give it a lick of paint and put flooring down. I remember friends saying how ridiculous prices had become and that they were going to wait for a crash before buying. The market really took off in late 96 - in between accepting my offer and exchanging contracts the vendor tried to increase the price to from 91 to 127 which was actually perfectly realistic.



So, lightning double-ups may happen every ten to 15 years.


----------



## Ol Nick (May 21, 2014)

It's just supply and demand. We live in an era of high UK population growth. We live in an era of very high London population growth. We also limit supply for reasons of not concreting over the countryside. The madness will end when people stop coming to live in London or when we build all over Surrey. 

Within the UK a lot of effort has been spent trying to find ways to replicate London's (post-1980) success in other regions. As yet no-one has found the answer.


----------



## editor (May 21, 2014)

Ol Nick said:


> It's just supply and demand. We live in an era of high UK population growth. We live in an era of very high London population growth. We also limit supply for reasons of not concreting over the countryside. The madness will end when people stop coming to live in London or when we build all over Surrey.


Well that and the fact that there's woefully insufficient new social housing being built to replace the stuff that's been flogged off, thus leaving the field wide open to greedy cunty property owners/developers/buy to let-ers to cash in.


----------



## editor (May 21, 2014)

I notice that the commercial space on the ground floor of the Square is coming along. So happy that greedy, slippery, slimy Barratts failed in their moneygrabbing quest to convert those units into homes.


----------



## shifting gears (May 21, 2014)

Because no one pointed it out yet as far as I can see, I feel it my duty to confidently state

BARRATT HOMES ARE SCUM


----------



## leanderman (May 21, 2014)

editor said:


> Well that and the fact that there's woefully insufficient new social housing being built to replace the stuff that's been flogged off, thus leaving the field wide open to greedy cunty property owners/developers/buy to let-ers to cash in.



Agreed - but it is still a unit of housing whoever owns it. 

So the malign effects of the policy became transparent only when the population soared.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2014)

shifting gears said:


> Because no one pointed it out yet as far as I can see, I feel it my duty to confidently state
> 
> BARRATT HOMES ARE SCUM



At recent hustings I went to most of the candidates mentioned Barratts and lack of social housing. 

Shows that the joint campaign by U75/ Brixton Blog to make this an issue has had an effect.


----------



## shifting gears (May 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> At recent hustings I went to most of the candidates mentioned Barratts and lack of social housing.
> 
> Shows that the joint campaign by U75/ Brixton Blog to make this an issue has had an effect.



I still get extremely vexed when I remember the town hall planning committee meeting - I'll never forgive those treacherous 'co-operative' councillors for letting them wriggle out of their social housing obligations... In fact they're SCUM too


----------



## cuppa tee (May 23, 2014)

editor said:


> For sure, but it makes a mockery of Barratts loathsome bleating and slithering out of their already limited 'affordable' obligations because of the supposed 'economic situation.'





http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ocial-housing-firm-gazumped-them-9422909.html


----------



## SpamMisery (May 23, 2014)

That's pretty shit, some of those people sound totally fucked over. Although as the developer you'd be pissed at letting them go for well under market price


----------



## editor (May 23, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> That's pretty shit, some of those people sound totally fucked over. Although as the developer you'd be pissed at letting them go for well under market price


Aah, poor developer, eh?


----------



## Rushy (May 23, 2014)

It would be interesting to see how clear (or not, as it appears) the reservation agreement was.


----------



## editor (May 23, 2014)

Rushy said:


> It would be interesting to see how clear (or not, as it appears) the reservation agreement was.


Oh, I'm sure the cunty developers will have left enough wriggle space in there for themselves.

It's a fucking disgrace. Indefensible behaviour. Affordable, my arse.





> Agnieszka Tawrel, 38, who works in catering, agreed to buy a 35 per cent stake in a £245,000 flat at Streatham Hub when her mortgage was agreed last November. The price has now risen £110,000 to £355,000.
> 
> Price hike: The cost of flats in the development rocketed by up to 50 per cent Picture: Nigel Howard
> 
> ...


----------



## Rushy (May 23, 2014)

editor said:


> Oh, I'm sure the cunty developers will have left enough wriggle space in there for themselves.



They have obviously done that. Most of these reservation deposits are non-committal either way and deposits are refundable - they are little more than an expression of serious interest. The key thing is how _clear _the terms were to anyone buying. If buyers reasonably believed that putting down a deposit guaranteed them a flat at a particular price, and consequently stopped any other house hunting,  it is really out of order. This happened to me when I bought my first flat - we agreed on 90K which was at the very top of my limit. By the time we got to exchange they wanted 127K. It's not the loss of that particular unit which matters so much - it is the fact that similar units in the same area are also suddenly out of your reach.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 23, 2014)

Yes, poor developer, they have potentially lost a lot of money. But as I stated first, poor buyers, they have potentially lost a purchase. I don't think a small article in the Standard is enough to pass judgement either way


----------



## equationgirl (May 24, 2014)

Developer has backed down and agreed to honour the original prices by the way.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/23/london-homebuyers-gazumped-housing-association


----------



## Rushy (May 30, 2014)

Streatham / Wandle case being discussed on You and Yours at the moment.


----------



## editor (May 30, 2014)

Here's the Explore Learning unit on the ground floor.

Glad to see the space being used for something, unlike the mess that is the empty units at the adjacent Viaduct.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2014)

Did Barrats' application to turn the GF/basement into more housing units get refused? I can't remember now.


----------



## editor (May 30, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Did Barrats' application to turn the GF/basement into more housing units get refused? I can't remember now.


Yes. The council finally found a spine on that one.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/09/...lication-for-brixton-square-coldharbour-lane/


----------



## Manter (May 30, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Streatham / Wandle case being discussed on You and Yours at the moment.


Have you just outed yourself as a you and yours listener?


----------



## Rushy (May 30, 2014)

Manter said:


> Have you just outed yourself as a you and yours listener?


It just happened to be on in the next room **cough**


----------



## Manter (May 30, 2014)

Rushy said:


> It just happened to be on in the next room **cough**


Whatever you need to tell yourself....


----------



## Rushy (May 30, 2014)

Manter said:


> Whatever you need to tell yourself....









xx


----------



## Manter (May 30, 2014)

Rushy said:


> xx


Selfies belong on the ugly mug thread, surely?


----------



## Rushy (May 30, 2014)

Manter said:


> Selfies belong on the ugly mug thread, surely?


Mom lovs me.


----------



## Manter (May 30, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Mom lovs me.


You're American too? Horror upon horror....


----------



## Rushy (May 30, 2014)

Too? I had no idea that you are!


----------



## Manter (May 30, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Too? I had no idea that you are!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 31, 2014)




----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 31, 2014)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 54856


10 mins ago outside BRIXTON SQUARE but thank God there seems to be no serious injuries to all involved but chaos on Coldharbour  lane at the moment


----------



## editor (May 31, 2014)

Blimey. Who was hit?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 31, 2014)

editor said:


> Blimey. Who was hit?


Motorcyclist, his bike is a total wreck, ambulance has taken him away he appears to have a broken leg , but he's talking and seems ok


----------



## Rushy (May 31, 2014)

I just walked past that. Front fork totally snapped off the bike. Nasty.


----------



## editor (May 31, 2014)

Seems hard to fathom how you can get an accident that serious on that stretch of road, seeing as it's normally so slow moving.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Mom lovs me.



I don't know how to break it to you, but she loves anyone with enough brass in their pocket...


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't know how to break it to you, but she loves anyone with enough brass in their pocket...


Not funny enough to compensate for the inherent sexism, I'm afraid.


----------



## Rushy (May 31, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Not funny enough to compensate for the inherent sexism, I'm afraid.


Curse you teuchter. Kind of you to step in and defend my Mum but by replying you inadvertently reminded me that I have VP on ignore. And why.


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2014)

A one bedroom flat is selling for £400,000 and it's being targeted at Buy to Let landlords:



> Guide price £400, 000 - £420, 000 Landlords you are not dreaming; this beautiful apartment will make your tenants' commute a dream. This new development from 2013 will place you within walking distance from the excellent transport links at Brixton tube; and with Brixton Village with its' indoor and outdoor markets almost directly adjacent to the development; you will enjoy a multitude of dining, shopping, and entertainment options. A high quality finish throughout the apartment will satisfy the most demanding of tastes, and the luxury fitted kitchen and bathroom are the icing on the cake. Being an investor, you will benefit from a rental income of £1410 pcm, with the current tenancy agreement is due to expire on the 27/06/2015 (confirmation of this will need to be undertaken via your legal advisers).
> Read more at http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/34303660#DKxU4sXqqW7AZFri.99


----------



## Dan U (Oct 7, 2014)

When people ask me why I moved out of South London there's the answer.

Same rental as I pay for my 3 bed house just the other side of the m25

Crazy.


----------



## editor (Mar 25, 2015)

It's deceptively massive, and all the more shameful for having such a tiny. developer-reduced provision of "affordable" housing. Barratts must have made a fucking mint out of this development as did - no doubt - several Buy To Letters.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 25, 2015)

editor said:


> It's deceptively massive, and all the more shameful for having such a tiny. developer-reduced provision of "affordable" housing. Barratts must have made a fucking mint out of this development as did - no doubt - several Buy To Letters.
> View attachment 69222


I still hate the gates.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 18, 2015)




----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 75512


Looks like it's been a nice little earner for some then.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 18, 2015)

£650K


----------



## Belushi (Aug 18, 2015)

looks like Mr Bim of Bar has made a killing


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2015)

AFAIK, I still haven't met anyone who lives there.


----------



## Manter (Aug 18, 2015)

I still think they're really ugly. Which I know isn't the point....


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 18, 2015)

Belushi said:


> looks like Mr Bim of Bar has made a killing


Same old story, you only make a killing if you sell, I met a guy who bought four of these apartments, he's raking in £1950 a month on each, he bought in phase one for £280,000 each, that's over a million quid profit in two years.
NOW THATS A KILLING.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Same old story, you only make a killing if you sell, I met a guy who bought four of these apartments, he's raking in £1950 a month on each, he bought in phase one for £280,000 each, that's over a million quid profit in two years.
> NOW THATS A KILLING.


It's obscene.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 18, 2015)

editor said:


> AFAIK, I still haven't met anyone who lives there.


Ha ha ha I've lived here 18 months and I haven't met anyone either, all young professionals, seem to keep themselves to themselves. A simple nod of the head is all you get, or a quick chat in the lift.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ha ha ha I've lived here 18 months and I haven't met anyone either, all young professionals, seem to keep themselves to themselves. A simple nod of the head is all you get, or a quick chat in the lift.


I find that really sad. One of the reasons I moved to Brixton was that it seemed to really welcome everyone and I found it easy to make a load of friends.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 18, 2015)

It can be hard if you're used to having close friendships with your neighbours and that all stops, but people's social networks will be a reflection of a number of factors. I don't think either is better or worse tbh, just different.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 18, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ha ha ha I've lived here 18 months and I haven't met anyone either, all young professionals, seem to keep themselves to themselves. A simple nod of the head is all you get, or a quick chat in the lift.



You won't even get a nod when the owner-occupiers start using their huge gains to buy new places while letting out their Barratt flats to short-term renters


----------



## leanderman (Aug 18, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> It can be hard if you're used to having close friendships with your neighbours and that all stops, but people's social networks will be a reflection of a number of factors. I don't think either is better or worse tbh, just different.



Some people relish the possibility of anonymity that London offers


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 18, 2015)

leanderman said:


> You won't even get a nod when the owner-occupiers start using their huge gains to buy new places while letting out their Barratt flats to short-term renters


Yep that's a fact, next door to me moved out a month ago and I only realised he had rented it out when the short-term renters knocked on my door to say hi, so may be the opposite in fact


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 18, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Some people relish the possibility of anonymity that London offers


To be honest it's quite nice not to have neighbours in your pocket, Ive been in the position where I was afraid to go into my garden for fear of being collared for an hour chit chat


----------



## Manter (Aug 18, 2015)

leanderman said:


> You won't even get a nod when the owner-occupiers start using their huge gains to buy new places while letting out their Barratt flats to short-term renters


Why not? My neighbours on both sides are renters, as are both houses diagonally opposite, and I am on nodding, chatting and even nipping round for coffee terms with all of them.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2015)

.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 18, 2015)

Manter said:


> Why not? My neighbours on both sides are renters, as are both houses diagonally opposite, and I am on nodding, chatting and even nipping round for coffee terms with all of them.



Excellent. But not my experience in this street.

ETA: I meant short-term renters, not longer-term ones


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 18, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yep that's a fact, next door to me moved out a month ago and I only realised he had rented it out when the short-term renters knocked on my door to say hi, so may be the opposite in fact



Sounds like an increasing number of flats are being kept as investments and rented out. Is that the case?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 18, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Sounds like an increasing number of flats are being kept as investments and rented out. Is that the case?


No still mainly owner occupiers by a long margin, but was shocked last week as I was talking to a couple who were hanging around in the gardens for ages with a suitcase, it transpires that they had rented an apartment for the weekend on AIR BnB and paid £200 a night


----------



## Greebo (Aug 19, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> <snip> they had rented an apartment for the weekend on AIR BnB and paid £200 a night


Done?  They certainly were.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 19, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Sounds like an increasing number of flats are being kept as investments and rented out. Is that the case?


Sounds to me that he is saying a number of people have used the extra equity caused by the price rise as a spring-board to acquire a better or just another property, meanwhile using the income from the rental to pay off (and more) the first mortgage.

When I moved to London in the 70s it was illegal to rent out property that was personally mortgaged. About time they brought back that restriction. Abolishing it was all part of Mrs Thatcher's right to buy syndrome.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2015)

What would be the point of that restriction? Why should outright owners be allowed to profit from their property but not mortgage holders? Doesn't it just stack the odds even more in favour of those at the top of the pile?

I'd prefer to have rent controls, which would apply to every landlord regardless of whether they held mortgages or not.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 19, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What would be the point of that restriction? Why should outright owners be allowed to profit from their property but not mortgage holders? Doesn't it just stack the odds even more in favour of those at the top of the pile?.



To be honest, that's exactly what George Osborne's latest budget has done. Letting property is about to become unaffordable to most people other than cash buyers, those who can afford to fund a negative cash flow in return for a potential capital gain and anyone buying properties through a limited company (which are not affected by the new rules).


----------



## CH1 (Aug 19, 2015)

Rushy said:


> To be honest, that's exactly what George Osborne's latest budget has done. Letting property is about to become unaffordable to most people other than cash buyers, those who can afford to fund a negative cash flow in return for a potential capital gain and anyone buying properties through a limited company (which are not affected by the new rules).


Can you explain this in more detail to an ex charity book-keeper?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Ha ha ha I've lived here 18 months and I haven't met anyone either, all young professionals, seem to keep themselves to themselves. A simple nod of the head is all you get, or a quick chat in the lift.



Has no one thought of setting up a residents group?

Was up at Waterloo delivering to a flat in a new upmarket tower block ( a lot of these around central area now) and saw they had residents group to deal with communal maintenance issues and social events.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 19, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What would be the point of that restriction? Why should outright owners be allowed to profit from their property but not mortgage holders? Doesn't it just stack the odds even more in favour of those at the top of the pile?
> 
> I'd prefer to have rent controls, which would apply to every landlord regardless of whether they held mortgages or not.


I agree rent controls would be very desirable.

The problem with buy-to-let is it is a cult reflected in BBC the programme "Homes under the Hammer" and similar Channel 4 shows.

Back in the 70s/80s, mortgage financed buyers got MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief at Source).
In those days mortgages were typically 10% interest rate and the subsidised rate was 7% for owner occupiers.

Buy to let (if they existed) would have to take a bank loan at 10%+

At the present time owner occupiers get no subsidy, but buy-to-let landlords have accountancy schemes to allow them to offset all costs of letting, including the mortgage, against tax on profits.

I would say then that buy to let landlords have much better tax rights than owner occupiers. In a way this is similar to the right to buy stocks on margin that led to the Wall Street Crash.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 20, 2015)

Osborne has taken some useful steps toward removing the buy-to-letters' tax advantages

But, as Rushy points out, the bigger players will be unaffected.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Can you explain this in more detail to an ex charity book-keeper?



This surprised me so looked it up. Here is Guardian take on it. And I am surprised Tory government has done this. I reckon they did not say they would do this at election time.




> When this column was the first to highlight the perils of buy-to-let – both social and economic – Gordon Brown was chancellor. When we first revealed the vast tax reliefs paid to landlords, Alistair Darling was about to assume the role. Why did it take a Tory chancellor – much to the shock of his voters – to take the first steps to clamp down on the excessive tax privileges enjoyed by landlords?





> We will hear heaps of tosh about how Osborne’s attack on landlords will hurt tenants most. The supply of rented property will dry up, they say, in the deluded belief that families today choose to rent rather than being forced to by high house prices. In any case, there are indications that the new tax regime will support institutional investment in rental property, which if it happens should lead to a saner, rather more German-style lettings market.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 20, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> This surprised me so looked it up. Here is Guardian take on it. And I am surprised Tory government has done this. I reckon they did not say they would do this at election time.



It has to be one of the most unexpected budget measures ever.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Aug 20, 2015)

I know several of our neighbours - all very pleasant people. We've become quite good friends with one couple in particular, but given the hours we seem to work these days it's very difficult to be social. So I guess maybe you could say we keep to ourselves - but when you've just worked a 60 hour week, all you want to do sometimes is sit on the sofa at the weekend and recover.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 20, 2015)

Strangerdanger said:


> I know several of our neighbours - all very pleasant people. We've become quite good friends with one couple in particular, but given the hours we seem to work these days it's very difficult to be social. So I guess maybe you could say we keep to ourselves - but when you've just worked a 60 hour week, all you want to do sometimes is sit on the sofa at the weekend and recover.


I'm sure that's right. People doing 60 hours a week are hardly in a position to go round organising events like Lynda Snell on the Archers.
I feel sorry for people chained to large mortgages - but then again I feel sorry for myself, unable to jet away to foreign parts because of no job.
Its all Yin and Yang I suppose.


----------



## Strangerdanger (Aug 20, 2015)

Yeah such is life. I'm not complaining, I love my job! Just trying to explain why  it may seem as some people are anti social.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 20, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Has no one thought of setting up a residents group?
> 
> Was up at Waterloo delivering to a flat in a new upmarket tower block ( a lot of these around central area now) and saw they had residents group to deal with communal maintenance issues and social events.


The block is run really efficiently by BARRATTS, always clean and tidy and communal maintenance is also very good, with gardeners, cleaners, painters, on site frequently, so currently we dont have any problems, one quick call to the concierge seems to solve any issues.
As for social events we have a raised garden platform which would be ideal for a social gathering.
You've tempted me to put something up on the notice board.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> The block is run really efficiently by BARRATTS, always clean and tidy and communal maintenance is also very good, with gardeners, cleaners, painters, on site frequently, so currently we dont have any problems, one quick call to the concierge seems to solve any issues.
> As for social events we have a raised garden platform which would be ideal for a social gathering.
> You've tempted me to put something up on the notice board.


They can probably afford that after they managed to get their already-minimal commitment to 'affordable' housing further reduced by those obliging folks at Lambeth Council.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 20, 2015)

editor said:


> They can probably afford that after they managed to get their already-minimal commitment to 'affordable' housing further reduced by those obliging folks at Lambeth Council.


Yep £2500 a year service charge, it's steep but at least you can see your money being spent


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I agree rent controls would be very desirable.
> 
> The problem with buy-to-let is it is a cult reflected in BBC the programme "Homes under the Hammer" and similar Channel 4 shows.
> 
> ...


The developers at the CEASARS night club in Streatham hill have already started to canvas buy to let landlords. The devopment is due to be finished in July 2017, but you can buy off plan in four weeks times.
A two bed will be around £550,000 you can secure now at this price and purchase in 2017.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Aug 20, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> The developers at the CEASARS night club in Streatham hill have already started to canvas buy to let landlords. The devopment is due to be finished in July 2017, but you can buy off plan in four weeks times.
> A two bed will be around £550,000 you can secure now at this price and purchase in 2017.


We're all fucked.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 20, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> The developers at the CEASARS night club in Streatham hill have already started to canvas buy to let landlords. The devopment is due to be finished in July 2017, but you can buy off plan in four weeks times.
> A two bed will be around £550,000 you can secure now at this price and purchase in 2017.


Why do you put the names of businesses ("Barratts", "Caesars") in block capitals?


----------



## Winot (Aug 20, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> Why do you put the names of businesses ("Barratts", "Caesars") in block capitals?



Mr Bim of Bar Bot


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yep £2500 a year service charge, it's steep but at least you can see your money being spent



ffs thats a lot. Do they do a breakdown for you how its spent?

I would not be surprised if Barrats make a small profit out of this service charge.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 20, 2015)

Winot said:


> Mr Bim of Bar Bot


MR BIM OF BAR BOT


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 20, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> Why do you put the names of businesses ("Barratts", "Caesars") in block capitals?





Gramsci said:


> ffs thats a lot. Do they do a breakdown for you how its spent?
> 
> I would not be surprised if Barrats make a small profit out of this service charge.


Yes complete breakdown every six month


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes complete breakdown every six month



And you believe the breakdown?

Barrrats whole raison d'etre is to make money out of people.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 21, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> The developers at the CEASARS night club in Streatham hill have already started to canvas buy to let landlords. The devopment is due to be finished in July 2017, but you can buy off plan in four weeks times.
> A two bed will be around £550,000 you can secure now at this price and purchase in 2017.


Doesn't this remind you of Spain 10 years ago? God help these people if the market does actually come off the boil.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 21, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> And you believe the breakdown?
> 
> Barrrats whole raison d'etre is to make money out of people.





Gramsci said:


> And you believe the breakdown?
> 
> Barrrats whole raison d'etre is to make money out of people.


no reason to disbelieve it, it all looks fair and reasonable


CH1 said:


> Doesn't this remind you of Spain 10 years ago? God help these people if the market does actually come off the boil.


It's harder to get a mortgage than ever before, the lenders have a very strict lending criteria, most of these properties are being bought by people with a huge salary, at these prices they would need £55,000-£80,000 in the bank just for the deposit. As for buy to let, if the market dips the rent certainly don't.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Aug 21, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> A two bed will be around £550,000 you can secure now at this price and purchase in 2017.



That's nuts, it's not Herne Hill, it's Streatham High Rd, hardly a desirable place to live unless you like counting buses.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 21, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> That's nuts, it's not Herne Hill, it's Streatham High Rd, hardly a desirable place to live unless you like counting buses.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2015)

"London Square"

Sounds like a name designed to appeal to overseas investors.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 21, 2015)

teuchter said:


> "London Square"
> 
> Sounds like a name designed to appeal to overseas investors.


Not really, I think that is the name of the developers, think UK investors are getting first option on this development as invites have just been sent out for a champagne and canapés pre launch pre viewing for selected guests to be held in a top London hotel for next week.


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2015)

Everything is a fucking square or a village these days.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 21, 2015)

editor said:


> Everything is a fucking square or a village these days.



My estate is a "village" : D


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 21, 2015)

Belushi said:


> My estate is a "village" : D




It is very villagey.  You can see trees from the balcony.   Round Old Street it's all about the Quarters.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 21, 2015)

quimcunx said:


> It is very villagey.  You can see trees from the balcony.   Round Old Street it's all about the Quarters.





editor said:


> Everything is a fucking square or a village these days.





quimcunx said:


> It is very villagey.  You can see trees from the balcony.   Round Old Street it's all about the Quarters.


yeah, don't forget just around the corner we have OVAL QUARTERS


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> yeah, don't forget just around the corner we have OVAL QUARTERS


Oh yes. Quarters. You've got to have some of them too.


----------



## T & P (Aug 21, 2015)

teuchter said:


> "London Square"
> 
> Sounds like a name designed to appeal to overseas investors.


Or a place that wishes it was in London but knows it isn't. Which is weird, because Streatham is in London after all.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 21, 2015)

LOWER Tulse Hill, and proud of it


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2015)

They should call it "Ceasar's Heights" and have the gilded horse/chariot thing over the gates.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 21, 2015)

teuchter said:


> They should call it "Ceasar's Heights" and have the gilded horse/chariot thing over the gates.


Reminiscent of the Second Crusade.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> And you believe the breakdown?
> 
> Barrrats whole raison d'etre is to make money out of people.



I've rarely given credence to service charge spend breakdowns, too many intangibles ("miscellaneous items") and not enough tendering IME.


----------



## T & P (Aug 21, 2015)

I'm amazed how much service charges can be. £200 a month sounds like a lot in my book, and a significant percentage of the rent/ mortgage residents would have to pay, even at London prices.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 21, 2015)

T & P said:


> I'm amazed how much service charges can be. £200 a month sounds like a lot in my book, and a significant percentage of the rent/ mortgage residents would have to pay, even at London prices.



Does seem a lot.

But I suspect Bim would realise if he was being ripped off.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 21, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Does seem a lot.
> 
> But I suspect Bim would realise if he was being ripped off.


There's a lot of outgoings here. We have two full time concierges, who do a shift 8am till 8pm seven days a week, there are gardeners and cleaners here practically every week, also painters keeping the communal areas spotless, insurance, lighting, plus underfloor heating is included service charge, lift maintenance etc etc etc it all adds up, I think we are getting a fair deal here


----------



## Manter (Aug 21, 2015)

I don't think it's unusual in the world of serviced blocks. You need to think of all the management and maintenance required, plus building up a fund... I have heard similar numbers before. 

And I lived in the U.S. Where ten times that is not unusual....


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 21, 2015)

Manter said:


> I don't think it's unusual in the world of serviced blocks. You need to think of all the management and maintenance required, plus building up a fund... I have heard similar numbers before.
> 
> And I lived in the U.S. Where ten times that is not unusual....


Friend of mine lives in a mansion block in Streatham hill and major works were needed to upgrade the block, there was very little in the reserve fund, so they are all now paying £5000 a year that's twice what we pay.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 22, 2015)

I have experience of this from the VvA system in the Netherlands. 

£200 a month is expensive but about right to keep the properties maintained to a high standard I would think. Like it or not everybody who buys now has one eye on investment and to protect that investment, especially in a new build of several flats, you have to be all over the maintenance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

T & P said:


> I'm amazed how much service charges can be. £200 a month sounds like a lot in my book, and a significant percentage of the rent/ mortgage residents would have to pay, even at London prices.



IMO £200 a month is okay *IF* you have a full concierge service, and maintenance/rubbish collection/cleansing is prompt, but given how many people are bushwhacked for that sort of money for very little actual"service", it's often a gyp, and a main reason why groups of leaseholders collaborate to buy the freehold and set up their own services management companies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Friend of mine lives in a mansion block in Streatham hill and major works were needed to upgrade the block, there was very little in the reserve fund, so they are all now paying £5000 a year that's twice what we pay.



Happened to a friend with a flat in The High on Streatham High Rd back in the '90s. The roofs were rotten. Turned out the facilities managers gave the work to friends, getting "mate's rates" along with an invoice for the supposed actual cost, then ripping off the leaseholders. Bill of £14,000 per property which suddenly went down by 60% when the managers got rumbled (and sacked). If they'd got away with it, they'd have banked about a million quid from the scam.
*Always* worth pestering for a full breakdown of costs, and don't let agents put you off - you have a legal right to see the costings and accounts.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 22, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Happened to a friend with a flat in The High on Streatham High Rd back in the '90s. The roofs were rotten. Turned out the facilities managers gave the work to friends, getting "mate's rates" along with an invoice for the supposed actual cost, then ripping off the leaseholders. Bill of £14,000 per property which suddenly went down by 60% when the managers got rumbled (and sacked). If they'd got away with it, they'd have banked about a million quid from the scam.
> *Always* worth pestering for a full breakdown of costs, and don't let agents put you off - you have a legal right to see the costings and accounts.


Who owned it then then? Used to be Freshwaters - who didn't do much maintenance at all.

Theirs was a long term investment policy 1950s style: buy largely tenanted blocks, wait for the tenants to die and sell off leases.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Who owned it then then? Used to be Freshwaters - who didn't do much maintenance at all.
> 
> Theirs was a long term investment policy 1950s style: buy largely tenanted blocks, wait for the tenants to die and sell off leases.



May still have been Freshwaters. The roof maintenance was unavoidable, apparently. They'd been patching it with tar and roofing felt since the '70s, but the entire substructure had rotted due to water ingress. They had to put a canopy over the roofs in order to cut everything back to the fabric and replace. "For the want of a nail..." and all that.

E2A. IIRC the freehold is now owned by the leaseholders.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 22, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I agree rent controls would be very desirable.
> 
> The problem with buy-to-let is it is a cult reflected in BBC the programme "Homes under the Hammer" and similar Channel 4 shows.
> 
> ...


Only the mortgage interest can be offset against profits.  Also certain costs such as insurance, wear and tear and maintenance can legally be offset as well.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 22, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Only the mortgage interest can be offset against profits.  Also certain costs such as insurance, wear and tear and maintenance can legally be offset as well.


Yes be interesting to find out how many BTL landlords actually declare their income


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Aug 22, 2015)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Yes be interesting to find out how many BTL landlords actually declare their income


Oh my God it's rocking tonight behind these gates, parties galore, really loud but I kinda love the vibe


----------



## CH1 (Aug 23, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Only the mortgage interest can be offset against profits.  Also certain costs such as insurance, wear and tear and maintenance can legally be offset as well.


That is the point. Mortgage interest is allowable against tax for people who buy-to-let, but not for people who  buy a flat to live in. Scandalous!


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 10, 2016)

CH1 said:


> That is the point. Mortgage interest is allowable against tax for people who buy-to-let, but not for people who  buy a flat to live in. Scandalous!



700 square feet


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 10, 2016)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> 700 square feet





Mr Bim of Bar said:


> 700 square feet





Mr Bim of Bar said:


> 700 square feet


Sorry won't let me post photo, 700 Square feet apartment in Brixton Square just went on market for £725,000


----------



## editor (May 10, 2016)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Sorry won't let me post photo, 700 Square feet apartment in Brixton Square just went on market for £725,000


Sickening.


----------



## CH1 (May 11, 2016)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Sorry won't let me post photo, 700 Square feet apartment in Brixton Square just went on market for £725,000


I hope these people making near 100% profit on a subsidised buy to let investment are properly reporting their profits for capital gains tax.
If they don't I very much doubt that the Inland Revenue is was is up to the job of extracting the required tax.


----------

