# Professionals send Brixton property prices surging by 15%



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Fantastic news, dahlings!



> Brixton Market has helped fuel a surge in house and rental prices in the area, experts said today.
> 
> The recent “gentrification” of Brixton and the growing popularity of the revamped Granville Arcade, also known as Brixton Village market, is making it a destination for young professionals and graduates, pushing prices up by as much as 15 per cent.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...-property-price-surge-in-brixton-7636474.html


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Naturally, the Standard's racist readers don't disappoint in the comments section: 


> some people in the jamaican community could stay on at school , get an education, learn to speak and dress properly ,thereby impressing a potential employer and then be able to afford to live in their own 'hood . or am i missing the point completely that they quite simply dont want to live alongside hardworking white people who dont dress and speak like gangsta chavs ?
> pulls them out of their comfort zone ?





> Some people from the Jamaican community feel displaced by it but don’t necessarily feel they have a voice". The British people who were displace 50-60 years ago were none too happy either.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> Naturally, the Standard's racist readers don't disappoint in the comments section:


 
WTF!!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 11, 2012)

It's just an estate agent talking the market up, I seriously doubt if the village put 15% on a house price


----------



## Dan U (Apr 11, 2012)

So many facepalms, so little time

 Eta 
That was at the comments btw


----------



## Belushi (Apr 11, 2012)

That will teach you for being on the tube.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 11, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's just an estate agent talking the market up, I seriously doubt if the village put 15% on a house price



There has also been talk on here about a reduction in conversions, that would also impact the supply side. 

Still, areas get trendy and expensive is hardly new


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

repost from the other thread:





www.timothybird.co.uk


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 11, 2012)

Dan U said:


> There has also been talk on here about a reduction in conversions, that would also impact the supply side.
> 
> Still, areas get trendy and expensive is hardly new


 
Brixton being trendy and expensive is hardly new either - I thought it'd moved on to camberwell


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

> The *recent* “gentrification” of Brixton...


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

> Miss Ryder, an associate campaign executive for Diffusion PR, said: “I’ve just got back from Thailand and Brixton Market really reminds me of it.
> 
> “I’m sure everyone wants to live in Sloane Square, but this is the real London.”


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

brixton will be a dormitory 'village' for soho media companies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Brixton being trendy and expensive is hardly new either - I thought it'd moved on to camberwell


and then up the walworth road


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Here's her wacky workmates from Diffusion PR, who work for the Tories.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> Naturally, the Standard's racist readers don't disappoint in the comments section:


 
Give me 5 mins with these fuckers 

I've been priced out of living in Brixton and it breaks my heart


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

> Miss Ryder, an associate campaign executive for Diffusion PR, said: “I’ve just got back from Thailand and Brixton Market really reminds me of it.


What....full of students with cameras?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> Here's her wacky workmates from Diffusion PR, who work for the Tories.


yes, it's a stable now. but once they've done it up it will be a mews apartment.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> What....full of students with cameras?


Cheap holiday in other people's misery.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

out of curiosity what is 'an associate campaign executive'?


----------



## ddraig (Apr 11, 2012)

a propa CAHNT!


----------



## weepiper (Apr 11, 2012)




----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

ddraig said:


> a propa CAHNT!


i was looking for a more prosaic definition, but that'll do for a working understanding


----------



## ajdown (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity what is 'an associate campaign executive'?


 
Overpaid, usually.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

ajdown said:


> Overpaid, usually.


what are they supposed to do?


----------



## tarannau (Apr 11, 2012)

One of those web jobs I suspect, probably one specialising in putting together online advertising campaigns for clients. He's could be one of those advertising minions _maximising revenue _for Facebook for all we know.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Pretty sure an associate campaign executive would be providing in-line solutions to take your business to the next level of success and deliver cross-platform value and emotional bandwidth to your bottom line.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

I'm vexed.  

There has not been a 15% surge in my flat's value.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I'm vexed.
> 
> There has not been a 15% surge in my flat's value.


they're making your flat an affordable home


----------



## Kanda (Apr 11, 2012)

Mine just sold for 20% more than when I bought it 2 yrs ago


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I'm vexed.
> 
> There has not been a 15% surge in my flat's value.


 
Maybe because it's next to a grubby little housing estate


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity what is 'an associate campaign executive'?


an entry level PR job. I'm surprised she earns enough to live in Brixton tbh


----------



## se5 (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> an entry level PR job. I'm surprised she earns enough to live in Brixton tbh


 
Thats what I thought: Admin Assistant in the real world.

As for earnings/rents: you cant put a price on the vibrancy and diversity of the area (!)(and daddy is subsidising, although he is probably concerned for her 'edgy' choice)


----------



## thriller (Apr 11, 2012)

this is old news. I've known this for a few years now. Brixton has seen more and more city workers and the wealthy moving in, causing property prices to rise. I've known this. Dont need anyone to telling me. old news to me. knew it for a good while.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

thriller said:


> this is old news. I've known this for a few years now. Brixton has seen more and more city workers and the wealthy moving in, causing property prices to rise. I've known this. Dont need anyone to telling me. old news to me. knew it for a good while.


 
You could have told us that weren't in the know


----------



## Kanda (Apr 11, 2012)

I'm amazed that this is a surprise to people. 

A) what did they think was going to happen when Brixton market started getting newer, trendier units in?

B) with the increase in house prices in adjoining post codes, it's bound to happen.

Did people really think that the markets were going to be a little hidden gem no fucker found out about???


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

I don't think it's a surprise to anyone who's lived here for any length of time.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 11, 2012)

a) 15% since when?
b) rental prices have gone up everywhere


----------



## Kanda (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I don't think it's a surprise to anyone who's lived here for any length of time.



Doesn't seem like that


----------



## Belushi (Apr 11, 2012)

We used to have this thread all the bloody time when I first joined here.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Doesn't seem like that


Who's expressing "surprise" here?


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

Belushi said:


> We used to have this thread all the bloody time when I first joined here.


 
You're trying to claim you caused a brixton house price surge.  Bit full of yourself, aintcha?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Belushi said:


> We used to have this thread all the bloody time when I first joined here.


 
The fields were much greener then


----------



## Winot (Apr 11, 2012)

Ms T said:


> a) 15% since when?
> b) rental prices have gone up everywhere



Exactly - need to compare with the market in general for it to mean anything  Our Brixton house increased in value by a factor of 3.8 between 1996 and 2006, and that was when it was Granville Arcade and all yams and plaintain.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

Kanda said:


> I'm amazed that this is a surprise to people.
> 
> A) what did they think was going to happen when Brixton market started getting newer, trendier units in?
> 
> ...


you cant put it all down to the market - this process has been going on for years. Brixton is one of the few places in south London with a tube station and very close to central London, so people want to live here. There's been a huge population surge - I'd say a rough guesstimate of an extra 10,000 homes built in the last 15 years, not to mention all the old houses converted in to flats.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

Ms T said:


> a) 15% since when?
> b) rental prices have gone up everywhere


According to the article "A two-bedroom flat that would have sold 18 months ago for £270,000 is now coming on to the market for at least £300,000."


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> you cant put it all down to the market - this process has been going on for years. Brixton is one of the few places in south London with a tube station and very close to central London, so people want to live here. There's been a huge population surge - I'd say a rough guesstimate of an extra 10,000 homes built in the last 15 years, not to mention all the old houses converted in to flats.


 
Wish they'd all fuck off North of the River where there's loads of tube stations


----------



## zenie (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and then up the walworth road


 
never gonna happen  Walworth road has got WORSE lately lots of empty shops


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

zenie said:


> never gonna happen  Walworth road has got WORSE lately lots of empty shops


 
Lots of empty units to open up twee little shops then?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

zenie said:


> never gonna happen  Walworth road has got WORSE lately lots of empty shops


until they knock down the Heygate and rebuild it....


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> until they knock down the Heygate and rebuild it....


 
What's happening with that anyway?  Is it *ever *going to happen?


----------



## zenie (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> until they knock down the Heygate and rebuild it....


 
mmm I dunno, other estates still line either side of Walworth Road, and the shopping centre is just being refurbed now, so what effect it'll have on the high street is debatable. 

I can't imagine many large high st names will want to invest in the empty retail units.


----------



## Kanda (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> Who's expressing "surprise" here?



I guess I don't mean just in this thread... But it was inevitable, even back when everyone was overjoyed at the rejuvenation of the market etc


----------



## 19sixtysix (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Wish they'd all fuck off North of the River where there's loads of tube stations


 
I can't see the attraction of a tube station. Just means small cramped and overcrowded trains. Give me my proper train from Gipsy Hill any day over the tube.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Kanda said:


> I guess I don't mean just in this thread... But it was inevitable, even back when everyone was overjoyed at the rejuvenation of the market etc


"Everyone was _overjoyed_"?!

Have you been on the hyperbole juice tonight or something?


----------



## Belushi (Apr 11, 2012)

19sixtysix said:


> I can't see the attraction of a tube station. Just means small cramped and overcrowded trains. Give me my proper train from Gipsy Hill any day over the tube.


 
They're much quicker and there's loads more of them. I really miss living on a tube line.


----------



## Kanda (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> "Everyone was _overjoyed_"?!
> 
> Have you been on the hyperbole juice tonight or something?



Not at all. I think I'll just ignore you right now though. I'm bored of your efforts to try and argue with me.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Not at all. I think I'll just ignore you right now though. I'm bored of your efforts to try and argue with me.


Or, you could just stop wildly exaggerating.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Apr 11, 2012)

Belushi said:


> They're much quicker and there's loads more of them. I really miss living on a tube line.


 
Every 15 minutes is frequent enough to me given I don't have to travel bent over crushed in a door with my nose up someones arm pit to get into work.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What's happening with that anyway? Is it *ever *going to happen?


It's getting closer....I went up about a year ago and there were about 20 people left in the flats. A few months later it was about 10. My mum went up there to chat to an old resident recently and she reckoned she was almost the only one left. Claydon (the big block nearest to the top of Walworth Road where I was born) is now completely closed off and works have begun in the old gardens next door. An exhibition was held a few weeks ago showing the plans for the new development....which none of the residents appeared to be that impressed by. It's coming soon.....


----------



## Kanda (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> Or, you could just stop wildly exaggerating.



Whatever, great chat.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 11, 2012)

19sixtysix said:


> Every 15 minutes is frequent enough to me given I don't have to travel bent over crushed in a door with my nose up someones arm pit to get into work.


 
Never have that problem in Brixton.

If I get the train from Streatham I do though.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

19sixtysix said:


> Every 15 minutes is frequent enough to me given I don't have to travel bent over crushed in a door with my nose up someones arm pit to get into work.


of course, the other benefit of Brixton is that it's easy cycling distance into town - a mere three or four miles.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It's getting closer....I went up about a year ago and there were about 20 people left in the flats. A few months later it was about 10. My mum went up there to chat to an old resident recently and she reckoned she was almost the only one left. Claydon (the big block nearest to the top of Walworth Road where I was born) is now completely closed off and works have begun in the old gardens next door. An exhibition was held a few weeks ago showing the plans for the new development....which none of the residents appeared to be that impressed by. It's coming soon.....


 
Must have been weird being one of the few residents left on the estate

Wonder how the new Elephant will affect traffic in that area?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Wish they'd all fuck off North of the River where there's loads of tube stations


i think you misjudge the sentiment north of the river if you think yuppies are welcome anywhere


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> of course, the other benefit of Brixton is that it's easy cycling distance into town - a mere three or four miles.


less, surely. what, a mile to kennington and a mile from there into central london? (from, say, brixton library)


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you misjudge the sentiment north of the river if you think yuppies are welcome anywhere


 
I reckon places like Islington are full of them.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> less, surely. what, a mile to kennington and a mile from there into central london? (from, say, brixton library)


 
No it's not. I used to walk it (although that was from Whitehall to Brixton Hill)

I just put in Trafalgar Square to Brixton Hill into google maps and it reckons 4.2 miles


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I reckon places like Islington are full of them.


full, perhaps, but are they welcome among what remains of the indigenous population? i doubt it.


----------



## Winot (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> less, surely. what, a mile to kennington and a mile from there into central london? (from, say, brixton library)



5 miles by bike to Chancery Lane.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> No it's not. I used to walk it (although that was from Whitehall to Brixton Hill)


alright, how far is it then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Winot said:


> 5 miles by bike to Chancery Lane.


fuck knows how you're cycling it, via stanmore or something.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> alright, how far is it then?


 
See previous post.  (That's going over Lambeth Bridge btw, not Westminster)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

My current cycle journey from near the Jamm to Victoria is 3 miles exactly. I'd say Brixton tube to Oxford circus is about 4.5 miles.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> My current cycle journey from near the Jamm to Victoria is 3 miles exactly. I'd say Brixton tube to Oxford circus is about 4.5 miles.




i make it 4 miles from brixton tube to centrepoint


----------



## Ms T (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> According to the article "A two-bedroom flat that would have sold 18 months ago for £270,000 is now coming on to the market for at least £300,000."


 
I'm not sure that's confined to Brixton though - the whole of London is experiencing rises.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

online mapping for people wanting to have a pop

http://www.charlesclosesociety.org/OSMap


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> According to the article "A two-bedroom flat that would have sold 18 months ago for £270,000 is now coming on to the market for at least £300,000."


frankly that's not too far off the inflation rate (albeit c.7.5% rather than 5)


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i make it 4 miles from brixton tube to centrepoint


 
hah


----------



## colacubes (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> My current cycle journey from near the Jamm to Victoria is 3 miles exactly. I'd say Brixton tube to Oxford circus is about 4.5 miles.


 
Sounds about right.  My cycle in is pretty much bang on 4 miles from centre of Brixton to Tower Bridge.


----------



## Yelkcub (Apr 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> According to the article "A two-bedroom flat that would have sold 18 months ago for £270,000 is now coming on to the market for at least £300,000."


Potential bullshit detector says who says 'sold' and 'coming on to the market' are separate measures.....


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

The hipsters do quite a bit of cycling on their bright green fixies....maybe that's why they're all moving to Brickers


----------



## Matey (Apr 11, 2012)

Hi everybody. 

I've recently bought a house in Brixton which I'm converting from two flats back into one house (as it was before). I bought in Brixton primarily because a: it's a nicer house than I could afford to get elsewhere and b: it's on the tube so I can go to work. 

I have been reading through this forum after seeing the Evening Standard article tonight. I see lots of posts bemoaning the gentrification of Brixton and perhaps I haven't read the right ones, but I can't really see any explaining why people object so much?

My crude understanding of Brixton is that it was for at least 2/3rds of its existence an affluent Victorian suburb.

Acknowledging that it would be a real shame if the pendulum swung too far the other way (which I can't see happening for a long time, if ever) what's wrong with Brixton improving its lot a bit?

Apologies if I'm treading on a lot of sensibilities here but I'd love to why a bit of 'gentrification' (which I don't think is really the right word in Brixton’s case) is such a 'bad' thing?


----------



## Belushi (Apr 11, 2012)

Ace


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Matey said:


> Hi everybody.
> 
> I've recently bought a house in Brixton which I'm converting from two flats back into one house (as it was before). I bought in Brixton primarily because a: it's a nicer house than I could afford to get elsewhere and b: it's on the tube so I can go to work.
> 
> ...


so, you've reduced the capacity of the dwelling from two households to one and you can't see the problem with that?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 11, 2012)

Matey said:


> I have been reading through this forum after seeing the Evening Standard article tonight. I see lots of posts bemoaning the gentrification of Brixton and perhaps I haven't read the right ones, but I can't really see any explaining why people object so much?


Quite a few of my friends have been priced out of Brixton, including families who have lived here all their lives. It's a huge change in the community. We were talking earlier about the Heygate estate at the Elephant - another really close community which has been torn apart by closure and future redevelopment.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Matey said:


> Hi everybody.
> 
> I've recently bought a house in Brixton which I'm converting from two flats back into one house (as it was before). I bought in Brixton primarily because a: it's a nicer house than I could afford to get elsewhere and b: it's on the tube so I can go to work.
> 
> ...


 
Is this a wind-up?


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Matey said:


> My crude understanding of Brixton is that it was for at least 2/3rds of its existence an affluent Victorian suburb.


Might be worth you reading up on the history of the place: http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/history.html


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

define ''improving it's lot''. 

Welcome to urban btw.


----------



## Matey (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so, you've reduced the capacity of the dwelling from two households to one and you can't see the problem with that?


 
There are now two more people living in the house than there were before.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Matey said:


> There are now two more people living in the house than there were before.


if you have converted the house from two flats into one house, then unless you've done some jiggerypokery there are no longer two households in the property. so, you've reduced the capacity of the house from two households to one and you don't see the problem with that?

if you want the house to be in keeping with the majority of brixton's history then you should rip it down and turn it into a field.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> if you have converted the house from two flats into one house, then unless you've done some jiggerypokery there are no longer two households in the property. so, you've reduced the capacity of the house from two households to one and you don't see the problem with that?


 
Matey might be planning on having half a dozen kids though


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Matey said:


> Hi everybody.
> 
> I've recently bought a house in Brixton which I'm converting from two flats back into one house (as it was before). I bought in Brixton primarily because a: it's a nicer house than I could afford to get elsewhere and b: it's on the tube so I can go to work.


The things that many newcomers are moving into Brixton _for_ are very often the exact same things that are being pushed out as a result of their arrival.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Matey might be planning on having half a dozen kids though


i don't care how many children matey wants as long as his/her partner wants about six fewer.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Matey might be planning on having half a dozen kids though


Or maybe opening a boutique restaurant in his house.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

at least it's not buy to let. i hope.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> at least it's not buy to let. i hope.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> if you have converted the house from two flats into one house, then unless you've done some jiggerypokery there are no longer two households in the property. so, you've reduced the capacity of the house from two households to one and you don't see the problem with that?


 
Lambeth are restricting the conversion of family houses into flats in Brixton.




editor said:


> The things that many newcomers are moving into Brixton _for_ are very often the exact same things that are being pushed out as a result of their arrival.


 

But you could say the same to me and you on that front. We're just older newcomers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Lambeth are restricting the conversion of family houses to flats in Brixton.


but this seems to be the other way round, flats to family house.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> But you could say the same to me and you on that front. We're just older newcomers.


Pretty sure my arrival didn't push up property prices. Probably took them down, if anything.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> but this seems to be the other way round, flats to family house.


 
He's in line with Lambeth policy.  I'm not sure what the issue is.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> Pretty sure my arrival didn't push up property prices. Probably took them down, if anything.


 
The flats in my block doubled in value within 6 months of my arrival. Now I'm not saying correlation is causation, but...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

> But you could say the same to me and you on that front. We're just older newcomers.


 
I moved here because my sister moved here first and probably for no other reason than our grandparents lived in Herne Hill and owned a garage in Coldharbour Lane so it was familiar. Absolutely nothing to do with what the area was like, property prices or how many coffee shops there were


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> He's in line with Lambeth policy. I'm not sure what the issue is.


you're saying, as i understand it, that lb lambeth are restricting the division of family houses into flats. i am talking about the reverse process, of flats being undivided into houses. could you link to the policy?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> The flats in my block doubled in value within 6 months of my arrival. Now I'm not saying correlation is causation, but...


 
yeah, but...



quimcunx said:


> I'm vexed.
> 
> There has not been a 15% surge in my flat's value.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you're saying, as i understand it, that lb lambeth are restricting the division of family houses into flats. i am talking about the reverse process, of flats being undivided into houses. could you link to the policy?


 
It was on a thread on here somewhere, I forget where and the whys.   I know he's converting flats back into a single unit.  The council aren't forcing converted houses to become houses again but they are putting a halt to more conversions in some areas/roads.  I'll have a look.


----------



## colacubes (Apr 11, 2012)

In the last 12-18 months there's been a massive change in the demographics of the area.  A big influx of largely young, professional and reasonably affluent people have moved into the area.  Which means that people who have lived here for a long time are being priced out of the market.  Same for some longstanding local businesses. Of course places evolve over time, but when change happens to communities so quickly it causes some resentment and massive changes to the area.  Doesn't always necessarily mean it's a bad thing per se, but it does have repercussions for housing, business, schools and other infrastructure. 

Communities can become transient.  Many (not all) of the people moving to the area will move out to buy a place, start a family or just because they want a quieter life.  Some of those are reasons for people moving in too from more affluent areas.  Nothing necessarily wrong with any of those choices, but when you have a massive influx of this sort of thing over a short period of time it inevitably unsettles areas for good and/or bad reasons.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> yeah, but...


 
Shut it you.   Obviously newcomers (spit) have brought them down.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...bour-lane-brixton.289869/page-2#post-10974009


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> The flats in my block doubled in value within 6 months of my arrival. Now I'm not saying correlation is causation, but...


Mine eventually turned into one of London's biggest crack dens.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> Mine eventually turned into one of London's biggest crack dens.


 
Perhaps you should be evicted from Brixton then?  Hmm.  You're obviously a bad influence, Ed.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 11, 2012)

It's a fucker of a situation that isn't going to be resolved until we end a housing system that encourages people to take on ludicrous amounts of debt to put a roof over their heads.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Perhaps you should be evicted from Brixton then? Hmm. You're obviously a bad influence, Ed.


 
I reckon he's partly responsible.  When people google various places in Brixton, they probably come across his articles and see there's the Lido and Brockwell Park and think to themselves that it sounds like a jolly nice area to move to


----------



## Winot (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck knows how you're cycling it, via stanmore or something.


----------



## Matey (Apr 11, 2012)

nipsla said:


> In the last 12-18 months there's been a massive change in the demographics of the area. A big influx of largely young, professional and reasonably affluent people have moved into the area. Which means that people who have lived here for a long time are being priced out of the market. Same for some longstanding local businesses. Of course places evolve over time, but when change happens to communities so quickly it causes some resentment and massive changes to the area. Doesn't always necessarily mean it's a bad thing per se, but it does have repercussions for housing, business, schools and other infrastructure.
> 
> Communities can become transient. Many (not all) of the people moving to the area will move out to buy a place, start a family or just because they want a quieter life. Some of those are reasons for people moving in too from more affluent areas. Nothing necessarily wrong with any of those choices, but when you have a massive influx of this sort of thing over a short period of time it inevitably unsettles areas for good and/or bad reasons.


 
Thanks Nipsla. That was exactly what I was after.

I'm sure that the speed of change has a lot to do with it. I've read a number of different accounts of Brixton's history and from what I can tell Brixton's had quite a few rapid and substantial changes to its make-up since it was built?


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

Belushi said:


> It's a fucker of a situation that isn't going to be resolved until we end a housing system that encourages people to take on ludicrous amounts of debt to put a roof over their heads.


 
Quite.  That's no more matey's fault than anyone else's.  AFAWK...  



Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I reckon he's partly responsible. When people google various places in Brixton, they probably come across his articles and see there's the Lido and Brockwell Park and think to themselves that it sounds like a jolly nice area to move to


 
A good point, well made, minnie.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Matey said:


> Thanks Nipsla. That was exactly what I was after.
> 
> I'm sure that the speed of change has a lot to do with it. I've read a number of different accounts of Brixton's history and from what I can tell Brixton's had quite a few rapid and substantial changes to its make-up since it was built?


 
You didn't see many yuppies wanting to move here in the early 80s though. I wonder why

However, I do realise that there's a lot more yuppies now than there were in the 80s


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You didn't see many yuppies wanting to move here in the early 80s though. I wonder why


 
There were other problems then though, presumably.  Would you want them back?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> There were other problems then though, presumably. Would you want them back?


 
Yeah, but if they wanted cheap houses, then that was the prime time to come wasn't it?!


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yeah, but if they wanted cheap houses, then that was the prime time to come wasn't it?!


 
Yes, but I was still at school, minnie.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Winot said:


> View attachment 18136


at the risk of missing the obvious, why do you bugger about going east then north when the orange road forming the hypotenuse of the little triangle at the start of your route would appear to be at least as fast? plus going up the a23 and then east on the orange road would appear a shorter distance than you're currently taking. and i do hope that it doesn't take you 1h41m to cycle that, you may as well leave your bike at home and walk, it'd be quicker.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Yes, but I was still at school, minnie.


 
You should have got your parents to buy you a flat and hold on to it for when you were old enough


----------



## colacubes (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yeah, but if they wanted cheap houses, then that was the prime time to come wasn't it?!



Tbf many of the people moving in now weren't born then 

I don't know, I'm massively conflicted about this whole thing.  Whilst, I'm really pleased that money's coming into the area, and some parts of the market etc. are doing well, I'm so irritated by feeling like I live in the middle of Thorpe Park with people wandering around at the weekends with their massive cameras getting excited about how "edgy" and "vibrant it it is.  And some of the traders who have been here for years are going to the wall due to rent rises and stuff, plus friends looking like they'll have to move away as they just can't afford it any more. So jury's out really


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You should have got your parents to buy you a flat and hold on to it for when you were old enough


 
If only my mum had gone with my plan of giving my child benefit directly to me.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I reckon he's partly responsible. When people google various places in Brixton, they probably come across his articles and see there's the Lido and Brockwell Park and think to themselves that it sounds like a jolly nice area to move to


I've had emails from people moaning that my photos don't show off Brixton in a 'nice enough light.'


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> at the risk of missing the obvious, why do you bugger about going east then north when the orange road forming the hypotenuse of the little triangle at the start of your route would appear to be at least as fast? plus going up the a23 and then east on the orange road would appear a shorter distance than you're currently taking. and i do hope that it doesn't take you 1h41m to cycle that, you may as well leave your bike at home and walk, it'd be quicker.


 
I can't see exactly where he's going in the City, but there's no way it could takethat long to cycle it if I can walk from Westminster to Brixton in 1 hour and 20 minutes


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> If only my mum had gone with my plan of giving my child benefit directly to me.


 
She probably had to spend it converting her house to enable little people to live there comfortably


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> I've had emails from people moaning that my photos don't show off Brixton in a 'nice enough light.'


 
FFS 

You obviously need more features on cupcake shops etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> I've had emails from people moaning that my photos don't show off Brixton in a 'nice enough light.'


more soft focus


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

nipsla said:


> Tbf many of the people moving in now weren't born then
> 
> I don't know, I'm massively conflicted about this whole thing. Whilst, I'm really pleased that money's coming into the area, and some parts of the market etc. are doing well, I'm so irritated by feeling like I live in the middle of Thorpe Park with people wandering around at the weekends with their massive cameras getting excited about how "edgy" and "vibrant it it is. And some of the traders who have been here for years are going to the wall due to rent rises and stuff, plus friends looking like they'll have to move away as they just can't afford it any more. So jury's out really


 
Yes, I realise that, but I meant yuppies in the 80s, which I followed up with the comment that there weren't nearly as many 

And as any of us know from Only Fools and Horses, yuppies drank in wine bars in the 80s and I don't think Brixton had any of them


----------



## Kanda (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You didn't see many yuppies wanting to move here in the early 80s though. I wonder why



Cos it was a dangerous shithole? It's been 'up and coming for years' it's still dangerous in parts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I can't see exactly where he's going in the City, but there's no way it could takethat long to cycle it if I can walk from Westminster to Brixton in 1 hour and 20 minutes


chancery lane


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Cos it was a dangerous shithole? It's been 'up and coming for years' it's still dangerous in parts.


good


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> more soft focus


 
More graffiti 

(Never thought I'd hear myself say that!)


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> And as any of us know from Only Fools and Horses, yuppies drank in wine bars in the 80s and I don't think Brixton had any of them


The Dogstar tried to be one in the early 90s. Got burnt down for its troubles.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> chancery lane


 
Oh, I worked there for a long while and don't remember the walk back ever taking that long, although admittedly it was a very rare occasion that I walked, but thinking about it, I can believe that the walk would be 1hr 40, but not a cycle ride


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> The Dogstar tried to be one in the early 90s. Got burnt down for its troubles.


 
Yeah, but it only *tried*


----------



## ash (Apr 11, 2012)

nipsla said:


> Tbf many of the people moving in now weren't born then
> 
> I don't know, I'm massively conflicted about this whole thing.  Whilst, I'm really pleased that money's coming into the area, and some parts of the market etc. are doing well, I'm so irritated by feeling like I live in the middle of Thorpe Park with people wandering around at the weekends with their massive cameras getting excited about how "edgy" and "vibrant it it is.  And some of the traders who have been here for years are going to the wall due to rent rises and stuff, plus friends looking like they'll have to move away as they just can't afford it any more. So jury's out really


 
Well the quote in the E'S said that Brixton market was just like Thailand presumably this is exactly due to the number of tourists with cameras and backpacks rather then the masses of Thais roaming around!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Cos it was a dangerous shithole? It's been 'up and coming for years' it's still dangerous in parts.


 
I wouldn't say it was any more dangerous in 1985 when I moved here than it is now.  In fact, I feel more worried now, although that may be more to do with I'm not as young and bold nowadays


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yeah, but it only *tried*


imagine what would have happened to it if it had succeeded


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2012)

All is not lost. Here's the top Google image search results for Brixton (that's my Vodafone protest pic at the top)


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> All is not lost. Here's the top Google image search results for Brixton (that's my Vodafone protest pic at the top)
> 
> View attachment 18137


i think you've got the light about right.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

ash said:


> Well the quote in the E'S said that Brixton market was just like Thailand presumably this is exactly due to the number of tourists with cameras and backpacks rather then the masses of Thais roaming around!


 
Why Thailand and not Morocco or anywhere else in the world eh, other than Thailand's probably the most popular place for gap yearers/backpackers etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Why Thailand and not Morocco or anywhere else in the world eh, other than Thailand's probably the most popular place for gap yearers/backpackers etc.


and pretty popular with sex tourists, apparently


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

I think this year might be my 20th anniversary of living in Brickers.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

editor said:


> All is not lost. Here's the top Google image search results for Brixton (that's my Vodafone protest pic at the top)
> 
> View attachment 18137


 
I don't like that last one.  It makes it look very welcoming


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

I have a brill photo from one of the riots.  I must scan it one of these days.


----------



## Winot (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> at the risk of missing the obvious, why do you bugger about going east then north when the orange road forming the hypotenuse of the little triangle at the start of your route would appear to be at least as fast? plus going up the a23 and then east on the orange road would appear a shorter distance than you're currently taking. and i do hope that it doesn't take you 1h41m to cycle that, you may as well leave your bike at home and walk, it'd be quicker.



That's not my actual route - it's the Google maps walking route (hence the timing). Laziest way to get rough indication of shortest route.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I have a brill photo from one of the riots. I must scan it one of these days.


 
One of the mini riots in the 90s?


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 11, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> One of the mini riots in the 90s?


 
yes, one of the mini riots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> yes, one of the mini riots.


compared to 1981 or 2011 most riots are mini riots.


----------



## oryx (Apr 11, 2012)

I'm surprised that anyone's surprised that Brixton is gentrifying. Me, I'm only surprised that it hasn't happened sooner. It follows the classic gentrification model of lots of Victorian houses close to good transport, and the stereotypical 'artists as vanguard' thing.

Not that it is a good thing. I know how it feels to be priced out of an area one moved to twenty years before when it was very different. (Not Brixton).

The centre of London is pushing outwards.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> yes, one of the mini riots.


 

I was locked in the George IV when one of those went off.  New landlords were a bit scared so pulled the shutters down and locked us all in


----------



## Kanda (Apr 11, 2012)

oryx said:


> I'm surprised that anyone's surprised that Brixton is gentrifying. Me, I'm only surprised that it hasn't happened sooner. It follows the classic gentrification model of lots of Victorian houses close to good transport, and the stereotypical 'artists as vanguard' thing.
> 
> Not that it is a good thing. I know how it feels to be priced out of an area one moved to twenty years before when it was very different. (Not Brixton).
> 
> The centre of London is pushing outwards.



Yup.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> compared to 1981 or 2011 most riots are mini riots.


 
True, but 85 was a bigger one than the 90s ones, but obviously nowhere near the same scale as 1981.  Even my grandfather was worried then and he'd been in Coldharbour Lane since the 30s


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2012)

oryx said:


> I'm surprised that anyone's surprised that Brixton is gentrifying. Me, I'm only surprised that it hasn't happened sooner. It follows the classic gentrification model of lots of Victorian houses close to good transport, and the stereotypical 'artists as vanguard' thing.
> 
> Not that it is a good thing. I know how it feels to be priced out of an area one moved to twenty years before when it was very different. (Not Brixton).
> 
> The centre of London is pushing outwards.


no it isn't. yups are moving into inner london, it's been an ongoing trend since the 1960s when deborah glass (iirc) coined the term. it's not like the west end or city are expanding, it's simply that the middle classes are colonising previously working class areas and displacing their inhabitants to the outskirts.


----------



## Kanda (Apr 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> no it isn't. yups are moving into inner london, it's been an ongoing trend since the 1960s when deborah glass (iirc) coined the term. it's not like the west end or city are expanding, it's simply that the middle classes are colonising previously working class areas and displacing their inhabitants to the outskirts.



Clapham and such are out of room.... If I moved my flat to clapham, it would be worth over 100k more... Hence the spread... As well as the market gentrification etc....


----------



## Dowie (Apr 12, 2012)

> I’m sure everyone wants to live in Sloane Square, but this is the real London.


 
FFS...

The paper was on my train seat on the way home... saw the article - that line just stuck in my head... gobsmacked... can't even parody shit like that.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 12, 2012)

What Brixton needs is more violent crime, that should get these nu-yups to fuck off !!!


----------



## Kanda (Apr 12, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> What Brixton needs is more violent crime, that should get these nu-yups to fuck off !!!


 
Violent crime is edgy and trendy these days dude...


----------



## oryx (Apr 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> no it isn't. yups are moving into inner london, it's been an ongoing trend since the 1960s when deborah glass (iirc) coined the term. it's not like the west end or city are expanding, it's simply that the middle classes are colonising previously working class areas and displacing their inhabitants to the outskirts.


 
You mean the same thing as I do, Pickman's. Maybe I haven't put it that well. It's social as well as economic and geographical.

E.g. when I moved to London, getting on for 30 years ago , Clapham was somewhere waaaay down the Northern line. You had to be brave and anti-racist as fuck to live in Brixton. When I talk about my experience I am talking about people who moved to London as opposed to people who'd been there all their lives and had a different take.

Such as my partner - born and brought up in Deptford, got moved to Forest Hill for clearance. He says Forest Hill was almost like the countryside in the 1960s! It was really sleepy - and now it has the tube and local people blathering on about how the local coffee shop gets mentioned in the Evening Standard.

Coupled with housing benefit cuts, this is what I mean by the wealthy centre pushing outwards. I do realise that in the 60s people moved outwards and areas like Islington were seized on by gentrifiers - I am talking more about the 80s on.


----------



## Kanda (Apr 12, 2012)

oryx said:


> I do realise that in the 60s people moved outwards and areas like Islington were seized on by gentrifiers - I am talking more about the 80s on.


 
I was kicked out of Islington in 76 ish.. London overspill to Milton Keynes.. oh the joy!


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 12, 2012)

I can't wait til they try to gentrify New Addington


----------



## oryx (Apr 12, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> I can't wait til they try to gentrify New Addington


 
2025.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 12, 2012)

oryx said:


> 2025.


 
Oh so that's when Hell's freezing over...


----------



## Kanda (Apr 12, 2012)

I can't wait for them to try gentrify (properly) Milton Keynes... it's a hell hole of London overspill, where everyone thinks things are great but it's actually really fucking shit....


----------



## Belushi (Apr 12, 2012)

I spent my teen years in another New Town, Peterborough, I still have nightmares about all the red brick..


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> I can't wait for them to try gentrify (properly) Milton Keynes... it's a hell hole of London overspill, where everyone thinks things are great but it's actually really fucking shit....


 
I know someone who was born in Brixton and moved Milton Keynes years ago.  She's still there.  Don't think she'd ever be able to afford to move back to Brixton


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

oryx said:


> I'm surprised that anyone's surprised that Brixton is gentrifying.


I'm surprised that people keep on saying that people are surprised, because I don't think anyone is surprised.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 12, 2012)

I'm not shocked that people are surprised that people keep on saying that people are surprised, because I don't think anyone is surprised... or shocked for that matter.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> I'm not shocked that people are surprised that people keep on saying that people are surprised, because I don't think anyone is surprised... or shocked for that matter.


I'm too knackered to think of a clever answer, so I'll just say 'surprised' several times in a row: surprised, surprised, surprised, surprised, surprised, surprised, surprised, surprised.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 12, 2012)

I'm not shocked at your reply tbh editor


----------



## Mapped (Apr 12, 2012)

Bugger Brixton, E17 is where it's at 

Affordable property, real ale and interesting spaces. Not much in the way of late night entertainment mind


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

N1 Buoy said:


> Bugger Brixton, E17 is where it's at
> 
> Affordable property, real ale and interesting spaces. Not much in the way of late night entertainment mind


I've lived there. Never again.


----------



## Mapped (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> I've lived there. Never again.


 
Why? It's not so bad. I've got a 3 bed terrace with a garden for what I was paying in rent on a 1 bed flat in Islington


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

N1 Buoy said:


> Why? It's not so bad. I've got a 3 bed terrace with a garden for what I was paying in rent on a 1 bed flat in Islington


Because there is _fuck all_ going on there.


----------



## oryx (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> I'm surprised that people keep on saying that people are surprised, because I don't think anyone is surprised.


 
Sod the surprise factor, you're right really - the gentrification of Brixton was all too predictable and there were some really interesting threads on here about that when I joined back in 2003.

Where I live these days, a lot of people on local websites are absolutely orgasmic about the area (Brockley/Honor Oak Park/Crofton Park) gentrifying. The downside is that there are some really horrible snobbish comments about, for example, old traditional pubs that have been there for years. Which you don't get on here, thankfully.

Whichever area you live in, there is definitely a balance to be had between respecting old businesses and encouraging new ones.


----------



## Mapped (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> Because there is _fuck all_ going on there.


 
That doesn't mean that things can't start happening. We're an Olympic borough dontchaknow


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

N1 Buoy said:


> That doesn't mean that things can't start happening. We're an Olympic borough dontchaknow


I just found it a bit of a depressing place to live and there's still bugger all going on compared to Brixton. Even if they have renamed it Walthamstow 'Village'  

http://walthamstowvillageguide.com/events.html


----------



## Mapped (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> I just found it a bit of a depressing place to live and there's still bugger all going on compared to Brixton. Even if they have renamed it Walthamstow 'Village'
> 
> http://walthamstowvillageguide.com/events.html


 
Yeah. I don't live in the 'Village' I'm in Lloyd park, where thing's aren't (too) overpriced. There's a few urbs around here


----------



## Kanda (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> I just found it a bit of a depressing place to live and there's still bugger all going on compared to Brixton. Even if they have renamed it Walthamstow 'Village'
> 
> http://walthamstowvillageguide.com/events.html


 
But now there's loads going on in Brixton... some call what is going on gentrification, admitedly, there's always been stuff going on in Brixton but it's more widespread in media now... what would you like to happen to Brixton now?


----------



## Mapped (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> http://walthamstowvillageguide.com/events.html


 
Also, the estate agents renamed it 'The Village' over a decade ago. Out of the things on the front page I've been to the comedy club and it was great. Saw Rich Herring for a fiver in a nice atmosphere. E17's not so bad!


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> But now there's loads going on in Brixton... some call what is going on gentrification, admitedly, there's always been stuff going on in Brixton but it's more widespread in media now... what would you like to happen to Brixton now?


 
Not just widespread in the media, Brixton's always had loads going on and loads of attention, it's just that the audience for what's happening is changing dramatically. The eviction of many squats has led to whole communities being pretty well wiped out. Working class families forced out too and replaced by twats that would never have dreamed of setting foot here before. Part of the spirit and culture should remain I think, but sanitized for the new crowd and tourists.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

N1 Buoy said:


> Saw Rich Herring for a fiver in a nice atmosphere. E17's not so bad!


Could have seen him at Brixton Offline.

For free.

Twice


----------



## Mapped (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> Could have seen him at Brixton Offline.
> 
> For free.
> 
> Twice


 
Yeah, should have moved to Brix, but there's something about the North of the River for me


----------



## Kanda (Apr 12, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Not just widespread in the media, Brixton's always had loads going on and loads of attention, it's just that the audience for what's happening is changing dramatically. The eviction of many squats has led to whole communities being pretty well wiped out. Working class families forced out too and replaced by twats that would never have dreamed of setting foot here before. Part of the spirit and culture should remain I think, but sanitized for the new crowd and tourists.


 
Completely agree mate. My Mum (and me and Bro) was forced out of London in the 70's, possibly similar to what is happening today in London with shitty fucking cuts and policy. Had no choice.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> But now there's loads going on in Brixton... some call what is going on gentrification, admitedly, there's always been stuff going on in Brixton but it's more widespread in media now... what would you like to happen to Brixton now?


I'm not that bothered about the new groovy places opening up, so long as the old-school, less _fashionable_ places can survive, and to that end I've put a lot of work into Brixton Buzz which makes a point of promoting lesser venues that rarely get mentioned in the press (Hand In Hand, Albert, Elm Park Tavern etc).


----------



## newbie (Apr 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Completely agree mate. My Mum (and me and Bro) was forced out of London in the 70's, possibly similar to what is happening today in London with shitty fucking cuts and policy. Had no choice.


forced out?  In Brixton in the mid 70s people queued for the opportunity to get out. 

FWIW my take is that the great GLC hard to let giveaway in the mid 80s was the gamechanger that reversed the longterm trend to depopulation. For many years prior to that few moved into Brixton (or most of deprived inner London) except to squat or as transients.  Enabling willing young people to settle and regenerate their (pretty grotty) new homes was the start of the change in perception of innercity living.  It's been gathering pace ever since.


----------



## newbie (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> I'm not that bothered about the new groovy places opening up, so long as the old-school, less _fashionable_ places can survive, and to that end I've put a lot of work into Brixton Buzz which makes a point of promoting lesser venues that rarely get mentioned in the press (Hand In Hand, Albert, Elm Park Tavern etc).


in the Great Gentrification Arguments we used to have on here before some of the key participants were purged (waves  ) the role of Urban75 in promoting Brixton as the place to be was identified and questioned. It's been going on ever since and, at least in my eyes, has been a significant contributory factor in Brixton becoming the must-go-to suburb of choice, because there's so obviously so much going on.  That's not intended as a criticism, but I suspect that if your blog and these boards were based in, say, Peckham, some at least of the changes we've seen would have played out differently.

Personally i don't care about pubs, but I'd suggest that the more you promote these places the more you'll change them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2012)

In that case could we see more promotion of the albert please?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2012)

N1 Buoy said:


> Yeah, should have moved to Brix, but there's something about the North of the River for me


yes, civilization


----------



## numbercruncher (Apr 12, 2012)

The “gentrification” of Brixton from the opening of the Brixton Village and the likes of Starbucks or Costa Coffee opening up on the high street reduces the likelihood of an area becoming rundown/derelict with boarded up empty shops that attract anti-social behavior. Instead it encourages  businesses (some local in origin) that generate some form of employment and wealth in the area. 

If the Government or Local Authority were to impose restrictions on economic development to protect people’s feelings (such as those in the Standard’s article who felt displaced) it would not only attract a wave of critisicm for promoting a nanny-state but would be harmful financially. Business Rates are collected from business properties and form the bulk of local authority funding when it is redistributed out to pay for General Fund services such as Infrastructure maintenance, Street Lights, Trading Standards etc. The proposed reforms to this in future could mean that whatever is collected locally from a borough would be retained by the borough, this means that in order for local authorities to maintain their core funding they would be looking for ways to encourage economic development in their boundaries e.g. Westfield-like developments or business hubs.


----------



## Kanda (Apr 12, 2012)

newbie said:


> forced out? In Brixton in the mid 70s people queued for the opportunity to get out.


 
I didn't say Brixton did I... I said London (Islington to be specific)


----------



## boohoo (Apr 12, 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> The “gentrification” of Brixton from the opening of the Brixton Village and the likes of Starbucks or Costa Coffee opening up on the high street reduces the likelihood of an area becoming rundown/derelict with boarded up empty shops that attract anti-social behavior. Instead it encourages businesses (some local in origin) that generate some form of employment and wealth in the area.


 
Not necessarily. There were some good high street brands here before the 1981 riots.


----------



## timothysutton1 (Apr 12, 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> ...Business Rates are collected from business properties and form the bulk of local authority funding when it is redistributed out to pay for General Fund services such as Infrastructure maintenance, Street Lights, Trading Standards etc...


 
Due to the decline of businesses in Lambeth, and the change of use of much business space into private and social housing, the borough now gets far more back from Central Government than it gives in business rates. However that is all about to change leaving the Town Hall with a huge shortfall to fund its services. Apparently they are considering charging higher rates in successful areas (possibly killing off any future growth) and it is also rumoured that they might relocate Brixton Prison and turn it into a Business Park. Desperate days indeed.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> I've had emails from people moaning that my photos don't show off Brixton in a 'nice enough light.'


Sounds like you need a better flash 



RaverDrew said:


> What Brixton needs is more violent crime, that should get these nu-yups to fuck off !!!


Better get cracking then!

What we are seeing here are the symptoms of a re-growing city. London's population peaked in 1950 and then went into decline. Now it's on the rebound (since the mid 90s), the supply of "derelict yet trendy" neighbourhoods is shrinking. It will be Nine Elms/Vauxhall next. The redevelopment round there is about to be _massive._


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

newbie said:


> in the Great Gentrification Arguments we used to have on here before some of the key participants were purged (waves  ) the role of Urban75 in promoting Brixton as the place to be was identified and questioned. It's been going on ever since and, at least in my eyes, has been a significant contributory factor in Brixton becoming the must-go-to suburb of choice, because there's so obviously so much going on. That's not intended as a criticism, but I suspect that if your blog and these boards were based in, say, Peckham, some at least of the changes we've seen would have played out differently.
> 
> Personally i don't care about pubs, but I'd suggest that the more you promote these places the more you'll change them.


I'm flattered that you think the site is so influential, but I'm pretty sure that the difference is negligible. The stuff that has really brought in fresh waves of visitors is all nu-Brixton: the Village, the restaurants, Franca Manco, Starbucks, H&M, the goovy boutiques and pop up shops, driven by trendy Tweeters and relentless Time Out coverage.

I doubt if me enthusing about drunken nights at the Albert, Windmill, Elm Park Tavern etc has really set fleets of single speed bikes heading in their direction.


----------



## Libertad (Apr 12, 2012)

N1 Buoy said:


> Bugger Brixton, E17 is where it's at


 
Yep, great band.


----------



## mao (Apr 12, 2012)

And what is next? West Norwood? Soon the only and affordable place to live in London will be Orpington and beyond...

http://createslondon.tumblr.com/

http://spacemakers.org.uk/projects/west-norwood-feast/


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 12, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Sounds like you need a better flash
> 
> 
> Better get cracking then!
> ...


 
But would anyone want to move somewhere that's going to be full of Americans


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

Interesting related piece here about Harlem (and the possible parallels with Brixton):
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...m-and-possible-parallels-with-brixton.291766/


----------



## Mapped (Apr 12, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Yep, great band.


 
Great place 

http://www.walthamstowtourism.co.uk/post.html


----------



## Libertad (Apr 12, 2012)

N1 Buoy said:


> Great place
> 
> http://www.walthamstowtourism.co.uk/post.html


 
5t3lla's manor innit?


----------



## gabi (Apr 12, 2012)

personally i hate what the 'village' has done for brixton. im getting a lot more 'oh i hear brixton's a lot better these days' from oxbridge cunts named the likes of Dickie and Jonno at work..

 i usually think these things wont last, the Dickies leg it at the first sign of danger but this lot looks to have settled in for the long haul. i live in brixton to avoid these types, i get my fill of ironic chinos and difficult glasses at work thanks.


----------



## Mapped (Apr 12, 2012)

Libertad said:


> 5t3lla's manor innit?


 
Is it? I was chatting to her yesterday and she didn't mention it


----------



## T & P (Apr 12, 2012)

N1 Buoy said:


> Great place
> 
> http://www.walthamstowtourism.co.uk/post.html


 I like the 'celebrities that look like matresses' link on that website 

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.318718888189184.73745.186803391380735&type=1


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

Belushi said:


> We used to have this thread all the bloody time when I first joined here.


 
Every even-numbered thread was about gentrification. The odd-numbered threads were about Hatboy's marginal friends.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

T & P said:


> I like the 'celebrities that look like matresses' link on that website
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.318718888189184.73745.186803391380735&type=1


That's a work of art.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> But now there's loads going on in Brixton... some call what is going on gentrification, admitedly, there's always been stuff going on in Brixton but it's more widespread in media now... what would you like to happen to Brixton now?


I'd like to see protection for the long-term traders in the market, investment in genuinely affordable/social housing so families and local young people can afford to stay and live here, help for pubs and other community businesses so they can stay trading and not lose their premises to property speculators, investment in education & youth services etc etc.....but I'm realistic and I can't see much of this happening. I think the council are probably quite happy at the changing demographic because it will mean less pressure on services, both now and in the long term...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

Matey said:


> Hi everybody.
> 
> I've recently bought a house in Brixton which I'm converting from two flats back into one house (as it was before). I bought in Brixton primarily because a: it's a nicer house than I could afford to get elsewhere and b: it's on the tube so I can go to work.
> 
> ...




Twas only an "affluent Victorian suburb" during the early part of the Victorian era. By the end of the Victorian era there were terraced houses aplenty, because obviously the tradespeople who serviced the needs of the people in the old Victorian mansions needed somewhere to live. 
By the late '20s, much of the layout of Brixton (_sans_ GLC and council estates) was as it is now.



> Acknowledging that it would be a real shame if the pendulum swung too far the other way (which I can't see happening for a long time, if ever) what's wrong with Brixton improving its lot a bit?




You're assuming that Brixton's "lot" needs to be improved.  here's a few things to ponder:
1) Brixton's image is likely to suffer (and has done previously) from any ratcheting up of property values, because of the wiening of the visible gap between haves and have-nots. This in turn is usually reflected in certain parts of the local population (generally council house scum such as myself and my ilk) getting an undeserved label as "anti-social" because we don't fit in with the perceptions of new arrivals as to what Brixton should be about.
2) "Gentrification" has a powerful effect against community cohesion, not least because of the churn rate on residents that the "young professionals" demographic is prey to.
3) What is "improvement"? Is "improvement" the opening of a Costa Coffee, is it a shifting demographic, or does the term have a more meaningful composition, say involving infrastructural improvements?

Another sore point with locals is that "gentrification" puts pressure on the private rental sector that can mean that "Brixton natives" can no longer afford to live here, as well as helping to further residualising what little social housing there is in the borough.



> Apologies if I'm treading on a lot of sensibilities here but I'd love to why a bit of 'gentrification' (which I don't think is really the right word in Brixton’s case) is such a 'bad' thing?


 
See above.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Quite a few of my friends have been priced out of Brixton, including families who have lived here all their lives. It's a huge change in the community. We were talking earlier about the Heygate estate at the Elephant - another really close community which has been torn apart by closure and future redevelopment.


 
I've watched this happen throughout south London and parts of north London over the last 40+ years. It's hard to miss when you see your friends and relatives moving away to areas (and eventually cities) with cheaper housing.
What we've got with London, and is especially visible in areas like Brixton, Battersea and Wandsworth etc that were once suburbs, is a re-colonisation by the middle classes. The people who fled to the suburbs two and three generations ago to get away from the working classes, now see their descendants re-colonising the areas that they fled from, with scant regard for the effects that re-colonisation has on those who've spent their lives here. It's a similar story with the Heygate (my parents lived in a bedsit on one of streets cleared to make way for it, incidentally!  ). It's not being demolished because of sub-standard housing, it's being demolished in order to provide capital for the borough, to provide for-sale housing to "a better class" of resident, and to provide a sop of affordable housing to the communities that have been displaced.
It's pretty nakedly class war, but of course, I've noticed that that term only really applies when it's *us* seeking our rights from them, not when it's *them* appropriating what is ours.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

Matey said:


> There are now two more people living in the house than there were before.


 
What you need to bear in mind is that although your (and many other) property(s) may have originally been single-household residences, often for most of their lives they've been multi-household properties, so each reinstatement of original use removes a household property (or more, in the cases of the larger "villa" and "mansion"-type houses) from availability. Because of this the number of households in many London boroughs hasn't increased at the ssame rate as population, which loads further pressures onto the private rental and social housing sectors.
I'm not saying "bad person, you've effectively done someone out of a home", I'm saying bear in mind that the consequence of your action is one less property available to another household.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You didn't see many yuppies wanting to move here in the early 80s though. I wonder why.


 
Because they were busy colonising the less difficult areas.



> However, I do realise that there's a lot more yuppies now than there were in the 80s


 
I don't reckon there are many more yuppies, just more people born into the middle classes who have a sense of entitlement.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 12, 2012)

Can someone tell me how long you have to be resident in Brixton to have become so much a part of its fabric that you are able to feel appalled and disgusted by any new form of weave binding itself with a previous knit?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 12, 2012)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Can someone tell me how long you have to be resident in Brixton to have become so much a part of its fabric that you are able to feel appalled and disgusted by any new form of weave binding itself with a previous knit?


I think 10 years is long enough for the amount of change to become big enough to feel like a big jump if you visualise 10 years ago as yesterday.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

N1 Buoy said:


> Yeah, should have moved to Brix, but there's something about the North of the River for me


 
That'll be the "North of the River is twat territory" vibe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, civilization


 
And culture.

A bacterial culture festering on the north bank of the Thames.


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 12, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> FFS
> 
> You obviously need more features on cupcake shops etc.


...and polkadot dress shops


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> The “gentrification” of Brixton from the opening of the Brixton Village and the likes of Starbucks or Costa Coffee opening up on the high street reduces the likelihood of an area becoming rundown/derelict with boarded up empty shops that attract anti-social behavior. Instead it encourages businesses (some local in origin) that generate some form of employment and wealth in the area.




Simplistic reductionist horse-piss. Unsurprising, given that you've put the cart before the horse. Brands like Costa come as a result of a changing demographic, not because the brands are some kind of vanguard bestowing "fashionability". It's called "following the money", and rarely generates employment or wealth beyond what it displaces.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

mao said:


> And what is next? West Norwood? Soon the only and affordable place to live in London will be Orpington and beyond...
> 
> http://createslondon.tumblr.com/
> 
> http://spacemakers.org.uk/projects/west-norwood-feast/


 
I'd rather go out in a hail of blood and bullets than live in Orpington!


----------



## mao (Apr 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd rather go out in a hail of blood and bullets than live in Orpington!


 
I'm with you there Panda. Give us a shout when ready. We'll need plenty of ammo...


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 12, 2012)

Crispy said:


> I think 10 years is long enough for the amount of change to become big enough to feel like a big jump if you visualise 10 years ago as yesterday.


 
Ok. I've been here for 20 years. Things have changed. Is it a better or worse place? It's different, but not that different.

Do I like it less? Not really.

Do I love it more? not really.

I've raised/raising a kid/young man here, gone from bedding down in a squat to having my own place, gone from unemployed to finding and succeeding at a career.

I've grown and changed. Brixton's grown and changed.

I don't want it to be the place I arrived in, and if it was I'd have to leave, because it would have stopped offering what I needed and wanted.

I was 20 when I first came here. I'm 41 in 2 weeks.

A 21 year old Nanker wouldn't like the 2012 41 years old Nanker, much as 2012 Nanker wouldn't be much in awe of early 90s Brixton (or maybe he would, but it might kill him!!!!!)

There were always tourists here. Half the Brixton based people on this site are incomers and not born and bred. Many of the born and bred are gone, much as they have from the east end where I was born. London is transient. It will never be the same for any great amount of time. Constant shift is inevitable.

In the next ten years another bunch of urbans will be moaning about the next level of change (or lack of), be it backwards, forwards, or something dull and static that feels less.

For me personally Brixton has been a place that has allowed me to grow and change and develop as an individual. It's been a place that allowed freedom and space and individuality. It's been blunt, and fun, honest and dangerous, friendly and chaotic. it's been shit and sunshine.

Much like life.

Tomorrow it may be different than it is today, but then it always was.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

I've been here getting on 20 years too, and can't say I'd relish the prospect of revising the streets of Brixton circa 1992.

I'd like Cooltan back though.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> I've been here getting on 20 years too, and can't say I'd relish the prospect of revising the streets of Brixton circa 1992.
> 
> I'd like Cooltan back though.


 
Cooltan was cool.....I probably wouldn't go today though. Much like I lived in the Albert for a bout two years and have gone on rare occasions for the last 18.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Cooltan was cool.....I probably wouldn't go today though. Much like I lived in the Albert for a bout two years and have gone on rare occasions for the last 18.


I would. In fact, I'd move Offline there in a jiffy - or Brady's.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 12, 2012)

I met my Son's mum in Brady's. A Dangerous place full of dangerous women.......and sexy men!


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

I think the Albert, the Queen's Head and Railway, Tulse Hill are the only boozers that come close to Brady's these days.

Whether you think that's a good thing or not is very much up to you


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> I think the Albert, the Queen's Head and Railway, Tulse Hill are the only boozers that come close to Brady's these days.
> 
> Whether you think that's a good thing or not is very much up to you


 
I like the Railway. Not fussed about the albert anymore. The Queens head has always been alright.


----------



## gabi (Apr 12, 2012)

The queen's head? nah.. the other two are ok on their day but ive never seen the point of the queens head. its just meh.. was better as the far side.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 12, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> ...and polkadot dress shops


 
There's such a thing?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't reckon there are many more yuppies, just more people born into the middle classes who have a sense of entitlement.


 
Yeah, probably more that than anything


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

gabi said:


> The queen's head? nah.. the other two are ok on their day but ive never seen the point of the queens head. its just meh.. was better as the far side.


I don't really like the Queens Head much.


----------



## boohoo (Apr 12, 2012)

I remember the early 90s (when editor and Nanker Phelge arrived) being a time of Brixton going through a phase of being trendy. My sister's friends who were going to art college in Camberwell wanted to live in Brixton as it was the cool place to be - what with the squatting scene in Brixton and cooltan which made an idea of that lifestyle accessible to anyone who didn't want to do it full time. Plus second hand was very fashionable and Brixton had a market delivering that. And I'm sure that is just the tip of the iceberg about what was great about early 90s Brixton!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 12, 2012)

I can't believe we haven't mentioned Jay Rayner yet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> I don't really like the Queens Head much.


 
It's the false teeth, or so I've heard.


----------



## Ol Nick (Apr 12, 2012)

The Professionals send Brixton property prices surging by 15%


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I can't believe we haven't mentioned Jay Rayner yet.


He's a one man gentrifyin' machine. 

He posted here for a while (as jayrayner) but I think IntoStella scared him off.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I can't believe we haven't mentioned Jay Rayner yet.


The entire staff of the Guardian seem to live down here


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 12, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> The entire staff of the Guardian seem to live down here


 
There's some who write for The Standard as well


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 12, 2012)

editor said:


> He's a one man gentrifyin' machine.
> 
> He posted here for a while (as jayrayner) but I think IntoStella scared him off.


I remember well...he'd only made a few posts and all hell broke loose!


----------



## newbie (Apr 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> I didn't say Brixton did I... I said London (Islington to be specific)


yes I know, I was _contrasting_ that with what I saw. 

How were they forced out?


----------



## Kanda (Apr 12, 2012)

newbie said:


> yes I know, I was _contrasting_ that with what I saw.
> 
> How were they forced out?



We were living at my nan's. A 2 bed with us 3, my nan and an uncle. No choice of housing in London, told to move to MK or get nothing.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> We were living at my nan's. A 2 bed with us 3, my nan and an uncle. No choice of housing in London, told to move to MK or get nothing.


 


and the Council couldn't offer you anything?


----------



## zenie (Apr 12, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> and the Council couldn't offer you anything?


 
In 1976? A flat with a shared bathroom in a tenement maybe!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 12, 2012)

zenie said:


> In 1976? A flat with a shared bathroom in a tenement maybe!


 
Shared bathrooms in 1976?


----------



## zenie (Apr 12, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Shared bathrooms in 1976?


 
Have a look at the old peabodys, it was pretty grim (for some) back then.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 12, 2012)

zenie said:


> Have a look at the old peabodys, it was pretty grim (for some) back then.


 


What years did they start installing individual loos then?


----------



## Kanda (Apr 12, 2012)

Yup, it was 76. Only choice was relocation to a tin house in Milton Keynes...


----------



## zenie (Apr 12, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What years did they start installing individual loos then?


 
I don't know, my old dear and sisters lived in one in SW1 in the 70s and it was like this, (shared bathroom, kitchenette in a flat with a tiny sink) that's all I know.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 12, 2012)

zenie said:


> I don't know, my old dear and sisters lived in one in SW1 in the 70s and it was like this that's all I know.


 
Aren't they Peabody (or is it Guinness Trust) ones in Coldharbour Lane that look right tatty on the outside?


----------



## leanderman (Apr 13, 2012)

Matey said:


> Hi everybody.
> 
> I've recently bought a house in Brixton which I'm converting from two flats back into one house (as it was before) ... I'd love to why a bit of 'gentrification' (which I don't think is really the right word in Brixton’s case) is such a 'bad' thing?



Matey - it sounds suspiciously like you bought the house 50 yards up the road from me!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 13, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Matey - it sounds suspiciously like you bought the house 50 yards up the road from me!


 
how lovely 

He can join your quiz


----------



## leanderman (Apr 13, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> how lovely
> 
> He can join your quiz



ha! exactly.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 13, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Shared bathrooms in 1976?


Shared bathroom and loo (without handbasin) into the 1990s in some of the privately let tenements over the shops along Streatham High Rd.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 13, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Shared bathroom and loo (without handbasin) into the 1990s in some of the privately let tenements over the shops along Streatham High Rd.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 13, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


>


It was pretty gruesome - VP's spartan studio flat was the most expensive in the tenement because it had its own bathroom (the landlord had lived there before he expanded in every sense of the word and became stinking rich, or one of his caretakers had).  As for the fire escape...


----------



## leanderman (Apr 13, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> how lovely
> 
> He can join your quiz



Could also tell him that most of the many muggings in our street happen outside his new house!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 13, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Could also tell him that most of the many muggings in our street happen outside his new house!


 
Tell him you have mini riots in that street regularly as well


----------



## fortyplus (Apr 13, 2012)

only just had a chance to join this thread. Been running one of those gentrifying businesses. 
Yes, that article in the Standard annoyed me. "Cleaning up the area" is a pretty unpleasant euphemism. 

But as Nanker says, Brixton has always been changing, in the 20-odd years I've been here and before that. As Boohoo says, it's had its little waves of trendy glory in the past.  Sometimes, when I tell people  I live in Brixton, the reaction is "bit rough isn't it"; at other times, it's "cool!".  

In the late 80s, we were an early wave of "gentrifiers" - we could afford to buy a proper house in Brixton (which we've always kept full of people) or a poky flat in Clapham.  We had a lot of choice of properties being sold by retiring Windrush generation Jamaicans, going back to the islands with a nest-egg and a steady pension. (That's another story; it didn't turn out too well for them).  We'd always fancied Brixton, but the day we moved in we fell in love.  In the years we'd rented in Clapham, we'd barely been acknowledged by our neighbours.  Our new neighbours were instantly friendly - if a little chauvinistic in a lovely way: elderly gentlemen wouldn't let my young, healthy but female partner carry the heavy furniture from the van. Children invited themselves into our house ("We can come in?") and stayed until their Mum, whose name we didn't know, knocked on the door because it was time for their tea. It's changed loads since those innocent days, and we are a part of that change. In the 1980s, it was almost monoculturally Jamaican; but it's not just us middle-class white folk who've changed the mix. 

And now I work on the front line of gentrification in Brixton Village, where I'm trying to make a business and create work locally.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 13, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> only just had a chance to join this thread. Been running one of those gentrifying businesses.
> Yes, that article in the Standard annoyed me. "Cleaning up the area" is a pretty unpleasant euphemism.
> 
> But as Nanker says, Brixton has always been changing, in the 20-odd years I've been here and before that. As Boohoo says, it's had its little waves of trendy glory in the past. Sometimes, when I tell people I live in Brixton, the reaction is "bit rough isn't it"; at other times, it's "cool!".
> ...


 
You were the advance party eh?


----------



## qwertyjjj (Apr 14, 2012)

Problem is that Brixton village feels far removed sometimes from the rest of Brixton. Yes, it's cool and I'm glad it's independent shops but it definitely feels out of place somehow.
On the other side, people are always going to move to cool and slightly edgy areas and as long as Brixton retains the independent feel of shops and bars then I don;t think there's an issue. However, if it goes down the route of every other British highstreet and starts installing Oneills pubs, Wakkabouts and all that other rubbish then Game Over. There's a double edged sword here in that the more prices move up due to "gentrification" (or fashion wannabeeism  ) then the harder those independent shops have to work to survive due to business rents and then in move the ones that can afford it...Walkabouts.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2012)

Granville Aracade was unbearable on Saturday afternoon.


----------



## qwertyjjj (Apr 15, 2012)

editor said:


> Granville Aracade was unbearable on Saturday afternoon.


 
In what way? Full of yummy mummies eating cake and drinking coffee and mulling over the latest Daily mail scare phenomenon?


----------



## fortyplus (Apr 15, 2012)

editor said:


> Granville Aracade was unbearable on Saturday afternoon.


Time was when you could walk the length of Second Avenue on a Saturday afternoon and not see a soul.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Time was when you could walk the length of Second Avenue on a Saturday afternoon and not see a soul.


when was that then?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 15, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Time was when you could walk the length of Second Avenue on a Saturday afternoon and not see a soul.


 
Well that's a slight exaggeration, 'cos you'd see the shopkeepers


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well that's a slight exaggeration, 'cos you'd see the shopkeepers


Not necessarily. Unless you looked through their windows.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2012)

Here's how it looked in 2003. http://www.urban75.org/vista/granville.html

Not exactly 'vibrant'.


----------



## gabi (Apr 15, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> And now I work on the front line of gentrification in Brixton Village, where I'm trying to make a business and create work locally.


 
fuck off. please. I hope that's not too rude. Take your cupcakes and, erm... oh... fuck off.

The 'frontline'? do u have any idea how loaded that phrase is in brixton? you sell cupcakes and/or funny hats. fuck off.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 15, 2012)

editor said:


> Not necessarily. Unless you looked through their windows.


 
True 

but I was trying to back fortyplus up


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Time was when you could walk the length of Second Avenue on a Saturday afternoon and not see a soul.


bloody when was that then?


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> bloody when was that then?


As the near total absence of people in my panorama suggests: around 2003.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2012)

editor said:


> As the near total absence of people in my panorama suggests: around 2003.


your photo doesn't work for me.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> your photo doesn't work for me.


You'll have to take my word for it or look at it with a more capable machine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2012)

editor said:


> You'll have to take my word for it or look at it with a more capable machine.


i've got a capable machine, your picture's not working for me. though i can see the nice writing 'granville shopping arcade, brixton london'


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Apr 18, 2012)

Thoughtful piece about gentrification over on Brixtonblog.

I can relate to Miss South's comment: "Brixton absorbed my instability and uncertainty and didn’t judge me like Clapham or Balham might. It allowed me to pick up the pieces again and I feel I should repay it."  think that's probably quite true of a lot of people who've moved here in the past.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> your photo doesn't work for me.


Nor for me.


----------



## soupdragon (Apr 20, 2012)

Good article by Owen Jones in today's independent:



> One in six households now have private landlords. And it is no longer largely the preserve of students and young people. Indeed, the number of families with children forced to privately rent has nearly doubled in just five years to more than a million. They face the prospect of having to repeatedly move, disrupting the education and overall wellbeing of their kids.
> 
> 
> Greedy landlords are fully aware that most cannot afford to pay their extortionate rents. But they also know that the taxpayer will step in and subsidise them with housing benefits. According to the Homes for London campaign, to get a two-bed place in Camden, you need an average monthly household income of £5,324; in Tower Hamlets – one of the poorest boroughs in Britain – it's £4,333, way over double Britain's median household income. It's the state that tops up the difference. Back in 2002, 100,000 private renters in London were claiming housing benefit; it soared to 250,000 by the time New Labour was booted out.
> ...


 
Housing benefit cap discussed in thread here


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Nor for me.


You need java installed.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 20, 2012)

I have....and automatic updates.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I have....and automatic updates.


Well it definitely does work on most machines because those pages get loads of traffic, so it could be down to any kind of issue on your machine.

But, just for you, here's the image itself:


----------



## fortyplus (Apr 20, 2012)

I think it went on getting even more moribund until about 2008/9, when the Spacemakers project started trying to revive it and it got listed. Before then LAP were only interested in running it down for redevelopment. 1st Avenue was a bit busier, particularly by the Wig Bazaar. Dagons had what is now Mama Lan's as another fish shop, and where Wagfree is used to be a halal butcher.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2012)

Here's another view for the Java-deprived:


----------



## leanderman (Apr 20, 2012)

soupdragon said:


> Good article by Owen Jones in today's independent:
> 
> 
> 
> Housing benefit cap discussed in thread here


 
Probably said this before, but many of the fellow parents I know at Sudbourne primary school let out properties in Brixton.

At least two have five or six buy-to-lets.


----------



## qwertyjjj (Apr 21, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> And now I work on the front line of gentrification in Brixton Village, where I'm trying to make a business and create work locally.


 


gabi said:


> fuck off. please. I hope that's not too rude. Take your cupcakes and, erm... oh... fuck off.
> 
> The 'frontline'? do u have any idea how loaded that phrase is in brixton? you sell cupcakes and/or funny hats. fuck off.


lol, I'm glad someone picked up on how pretentious that sounded 
"The frontline of gentrification"


----------



## fortyplus (Apr 21, 2012)

qwertyjjj said:


> lol, I'm glad someone picked up on how pretentious that sounded
> "The frontline of gentrification"


whatever. I was, however, fully aware of the significance of the word "frontline", and used it deliberately.  Perhaps I should have used <irony> tags.


----------



## qwertyjjj (Apr 21, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> whatever. I was, however, fully aware of the significance of the word "frontline", and used it deliberately. Perhaps I should have used <irony> tags.


as long as you're not out there exterminating tramps.


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 21, 2012)

I was back in Brixton for the first time in about 2 years for Patricks Day in the Canterbury. Apart from Granville Arcade which I missed because I didn't know about it's new foodieness, the only change i noticed was they have eventually finished the fucking station and there is a Starbucks. 

There are more Payday Loan type parasites around to cancel out the Starbucks in the drive to gentrification though

The Canterbury remains very much un-gentrified


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 21, 2012)

Mr Retro said:


> The Canterbury remains very much un-gentrified


Well, they've done up the Ladies, I haven't been in the Gents.


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 21, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, they've done up the Ladies, I haven't been in the Gents.


The gents remains un gentrified


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 21, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, they've done up the Ladies, I haven't been in the Gents.


 
I don't know about the Canterbury but the gents in the Albert seems quite ungentrified. The door may have moved moved but the piss lake remains well in place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> whatever. I was, however, fully aware of the significance of the word "frontline", and used it deliberately. Perhaps I should have used <irony> tags.


 
Which would have been fine if the supposed irony had worked for anyone except you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2012)

qwertyjjj said:


> as long as you're not out there exterminating tramps.


 
Fortyplus, Brixton's own gentrifying "American Psycho" wannabe!!


----------



## newbie (Apr 22, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which would have been fine if the supposed irony had worked for anyone except you.


It worked for me.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 22, 2012)

to be fair - I got it too!


----------



## soupdragon (Apr 22, 2012)

I did too - though fortyplus, get your story round the right way - 


> when the Spacemakers project started trying to revive it and it got listed.


The landlords worked with spacemakers after it was listed - it was because it got listed by Paul Bakelite, FBM etc that the landlords redevelopment plans ended, and they were then up for working with spacemakers via the council. Spacemakers didn't know Brixton existed when it was being listed.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 22, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I don't know about the Canterbury but the gents in the Albert seems quite ungentrified. The door may have moved moved but the piss lake remains well in place.


It was lovely (I had a sneaky peek) and then blocked on the re-opening day....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2012)

soupdragon said:


> I did too - though fortyplus, get your story round the right way -
> 
> The landlords worked with spacemakers after it was listed - it was because it got listed by Paul Bakelite, FBM etc that the landlords redevelopment plans ended, and they were then up for working with spacemakers via the council. Spacemakers didn't know Brixton existed when it was being listed.


 
Bak*a*lite. He's not made of a phenolic thermoplastic.


----------



## soupdragon (Apr 22, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bak*a*lite. He's not made of a phenolic thermoplastic.


  No indeed - flesh and blood


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2012)

soupdragon said:


> No indeed - flesh and blood


 
Except for the hat, like.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 27, 2012)

So are we blaming Hatboy for the gentrification of Brixton now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 27, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> So are we blaming Hatboy for the gentrification of Brixton now?


 
As I recall, someone (might have been ern or AK) tried to, saying that if it wasn't for middle-class do-gooders (  ) like him settling somewhere because of the "edgy" "marginals" that lived there, Brixton wouldn't have been on the gentrifier map.
Perfect bollocks, of course. Brixton was sunk the same time as the rest of south London as far as gentrification was concerned. It's just taken longer to get here and afflict us with it's _bourgeois_ stench, that's all.

Hatboy, IIRC, felt quite insulted.


----------



## oryx (Apr 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I recall, someone (might have been ern or AK) tried to, saying that if it wasn't for middle-class do-gooders (  ) like him settling somewhere because of the "edgy" "marginals" that lived there, Brixton wouldn't have been on the gentrifier map.
> Perfect bollocks, of course. Brixton was sunk the same time as the rest of south London as far as gentrification was concerned. It's just taken longer to get here and afflict us with it's _bourgeois_ stench, that's all.


 
Really interesting post. My initial gut reaction was to disagree about the so-called bohemians, artists, artisans, WTFever being the vanguard of gentrification - looking at areas like Chelsea, Notting Hill, Camden and (more recently) Shoreditch. A similar thing is happening is Brockley.

You're right though - I lived through 23 years of gentrification in Battersea (traditionally a working class area) and it's about as edgy as a conservative party charity event. It never had that artist/bohemian thing going on, and I would say it gentrified as a result of its proximity to Chelsea. Ditto Fulham.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 27, 2012)

oryx said:


> Really interesting post. My initial gut reaction was to disagree about the so-called bohemians, artists, artisans, WTFever being the vanguard of gentrification - looking at areas like Chelsea, Notting Hill, Camden and (more recently) Shoreditch. A similar thing is happening is Brockley.
> 
> You're right though - I lived through 23 years of gentrification in Battersea (traditionally a working class area) and it's about as edgy as a conservative party charity event. It never had that artist/bohemian thing going on, and I would say it gentrified as a result of its proximity to Chelsea. Ditto Fulham.


 
Lived in Battersea between 1970 and 1979, and from '83-'86. Went to school at SWSJ on Battersea High St, and saw the GLC block behind tthe school (entrance on Vicarage Crescent) get cleared of tenants and squatters, then poshed up and sold to well-to-do Chelsea-ites and people who wanted to be well-to-do Chelsea-ites. I'd say that *bits* of Battersea were a bit Bohemian (there were quite a few artist's studios, rehearsal studios etc on the mews off of Battersea High St, for example), but they were mostly gone by the mid-eighties, that's for sure.
A mate said a couple of years back, that you knew, around the mid to late '70s, that Battersea was eventually going to be colonised from the other side of the river, because a lot of the interest in the old Morgan Crucible site (remember that?) came from developers who were specifically interested in catering to people who wanted to live in or be near Chelsea.

Brockley is a bit odd, though. Although (IIRC) it was mostly a "working class suburb" in the same way Watford was (i.e. built around a trade), it was never slummy in the way that bits of Battersea, Brixton etc were, so perhaps the reason it's happening now is because there was actually less availability of the sort of cheap "doer-uppers" that the more inner-city parts of south London had, and that's helped places like Brockley to preserve their identity for longer?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> bloody when was that then?


 
Quite a few years ago.  I remember it being practically deserted


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 27, 2012)

Can't' afford to live in Chelsea, live in Battersea, can't afford to live in Battersea, live in Clapham Junction, can't afford to live in Clapham  junction live in Clapham/Balham, can't afford to live in Clapham/Balham live in Brixton, can't afford to live in Brixton live in Streatham....


----------



## oryx (Apr 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lived in Battersea between 1970 and 1979, and from '83-'86. Went to school at SWSJ on Battersea High St, and saw the GLC block behind tthe school (entrance on Vicarage Crescent) get cleared of tenants and squatters, then poshed up and sold to well-to-do Chelsea-ites and people who wanted to be well-to-do Chelsea-ites. I'd say that *bits* of Battersea were a bit Bohemian (there were quite a few artist's studios, rehearsal studios etc on the mews off of Battersea High St, for example), but they were mostly gone by the mid-eighties, that's for sure.
> A mate said a couple of years back, that you knew, around the mid to late '70s, that Battersea was eventually going to be colonised from the other side of the river, because a lot of the interest in the old Morgan Crucible site (remember that?) came from developers who were specifically interested in catering to people who wanted to live in or be near Chelsea.
> 
> Brockley is a bit odd, though. Although (IIRC) it was mostly a "working class suburb" in the same way Watford was (i.e. built around a trade), it was never slummy in the way that bits of Battersea, Brixton etc were, so perhaps the reason it's happening now is because there was actually less availability of the sort of cheap "doer-uppers" that the more inner-city parts of south London had, and that's helped places like Brockley to preserve their identity for longer?


 
I lived in Battersea from 1984 (when me and some mates got a shared house on a fair rent and people spoke of the area as 'up and coming' to 2007 when I could finally afford to buy a place, but not there - by then I'd been pretty much priced out of the area. 

I think you know the opposite end of Battersea from me - I lived near to Clapham & Vauxhall, just off Wandsworth Rd. I remember from my early days there lots of graffitti about the closure of Decca Records, but not Morgan Crucible - what's there now?

Re. Brockley - interested to know what trade it was built around. It's a mix of Victorian terraces - some huge, and many now divided into flats - and Thirties houses (like ours). There is a lot of snobbery IMHO about the conservation area. The gentrifying middle class are very, very keen on their Victoriana.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 27, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Can't' afford to live in Chelsea, live in Battersea, can't afford to live in Battersea, live in Clapham Junction, can't afford to live in Clapham junction live in Clapham/Balham, can't afford to live in Clapham/Balham live in Brixton, can't afford to live in Brixton live in Streatham....


Penge beckons.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 27, 2012)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2012)

oryx said:


> I lived in Battersea from 1984 (when me and some mates got a shared house on a fair rent and people spoke of the area as 'up and coming' to 2007 when I could finally afford to buy a place, but not there - by then I'd been pretty much priced out of the area.
> 
> I think you know the opposite end of Battersea from me - I lived near to Clapham & Vauxhall, just off Wandsworth Rd.


 
I tended to stay away from that area in my teens, as there was "beef" between some of my mates and some lads from Larkhall and Union Grove. 



> I remember from my early days there lots of graffitti about the closure of Decca Records, but not Morgan Crucible - what's there now?


 
Expensive private flats, as predicted more than 35 years ago. 
I suspect that most of the residents don't even realise that they're living on top of what was once called "some of the most toxic land in London". 120 years (yep, that long!) of continuous "specialist" steel-making took it's toll.



> Re. Brockley - interested to know what trade it was built around. It's a mix of Victorian terraces - some huge, and many now divided into flats - and Thirties houses (like ours). There is a lot of snobbery IMHO about the conservation area. The gentrifying middle class are very, very keen on their Victoriana.


 
Light engineering, from what I recall. Lots of "piece-workers" in sheds, huts and railway arches making widgets for the defence industries. Of course, WW2 put paid to a lot of that.
Brockley was also famous for cabbages, my nan used to say. Best market gardens this side of the Thames!


----------



## Dan U (Apr 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Light engineering, from what I recall. Lots of "piece-workers" in sheds, huts and railway arches making widgets for the defence industries. Of course, WW2 put paid to a lot of that.
> Brockley was also famous for cabbages, my nan used to say. Best market gardens this side of the Thames!


 
my brother is looking to buy a small house in Brockley - for the reasons given by quimcunx above - i shall be sure to tell him his chosen location was famous for cabbages 

(he rents on Battersea Rise atm above one of the shops on a cracking deal, no chance of ever buying round there though)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2012)

Dan U said:


> my brother is looking to buy a small house in Brockley - for the reasons given by quimcunx above - i shall be sure to tell him his chosen location was famous for cabbages


 
Rhubarb too! 



> (he rents on Battersea Rise atm above one of the shops on a cracking deal, no chance of ever buying round there though)


 
Tell me about it. Anywhere on or off Northcote Rd is unaffordable unless you're in the top 10% of earners.
I can remember when people used to look at you sympathetically if you said you lived round there, unless you lived on Bolingbroke Grove.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rhubarb too!
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about it. Anywhere on or off Northcote Rd is unaffordable unless you're in the top 10% of earners.



and the rest. top 10% band of earners starts at around 40k. houses there cost 20x that.


----------



## oryx (Apr 29, 2012)

I actually prefer Brockley to Battersea.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rhubarb too!


Although that is really a Brixton thing that spread (Mr Myatt and his Physick pies). It was in fact Brixton, and Mr Myatt's cultivars (which are still grown today)that started the UK off on rhubarb. I know this because I have got a book about it all, such a good book that I bought an extra copy and gave it to my favourite Brixton Market fruiterer. I'm buggered if I can remember the sodding title and author though


----------



## felixgolightly (May 3, 2012)

I have to say, you all sound a bit like inverted snobs to me.  Brixton is getting ruined by prosperity!!  Really?  What is the history of Brixton? (and for that matter Brockley, or any of the victorian suburbs). The history of Electric Avenue, Morleys, Bon Marche??  My great aunt and uncle used to live in Dumbarton Court, bought a flat there after the war.  That was well posh in those days - very yuppy - like all the 30's blocks of flats up the top of the hill.

Now there's a bit of regeneration and you're complaining that it's 'not Brixton'.

Stop moaning and enjoy Mrs Cupcakes' cupcakes and Federation Coffees' coffee and Franco Manca pizzas and Lab G ice-creams and stop being so bloody grumpy.

Oh, and the rhubarb in Brockley was grown in London's 'nightsoil' (apparently).


----------



## colacubes (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> I have to say, you all sound a bit like inverted snobs to me. Brixton is getting ruined by prosperity!! Really? What is the history of Brixton? (and for that matter Brockley, or any of the victorian suburbs). The history of Electric Avenue, Morleys, Bon Marche?? My great aunt and uncle used to live in Dumbarton Court, bought a flat there after the war. That was well posh in those days - very yuppy - like all the 30's blocks of flats up the top of the hill.
> 
> Now there's a bit of regeneration and you're complaining that it's 'not Brixton'.
> 
> ...


 
Can I just applaud you for posting that with your tagline   Genius


----------



## felixgolightly (May 3, 2012)

Think of it in terms of being 'manic depressive'


----------



## oryx (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> Stop moaning and enjoy Mrs Cupcakes' cupcakes and Federation Coffees' coffee and Franco Manca pizzas and Lab G ice-creams and stop being so bloody grumpy.


 
Unless you're trolling, your naivety is astounding.


----------



## felixgolightly (May 3, 2012)

Whats your point Oryx?


----------



## oryx (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> Whats your point Oryx?


 
l'd have thought that a simple reading of this thread would convince anyone that the fruits of gentrification are far from universally received.

Can't afford to live in Brixton any more? Never mind, have a nice cupcake as you contemplate your imminent move to somewhere you don't really want to live.


----------



## felixgolightly (May 3, 2012)

oryx said:


> l'd have thought that a simple reading of this thread would convince anyone that the fruits of gentrification are far from universally received.
> 
> Can't afford to live in Brixton any more? Never mind, have a nice cupcake as you contemplate your imminent move to somewhere you don't really want to live.


 
I'd have thought that a simple study of recent history would convince anyone that home ownership is far from universally received!  

The issue is a wider lack of housing stock, and has been since the 80's.  And while that situation continues prices will rise everywhere (and lets remember, you are a home-owner, contributing to and benefiting from this social injustice).

When I lived in Brockley in the early 80's people were complaining about 'gentrification' - people moving in from outside for the nice housing stock, and pushing prices up, and forcing locals out.  And you _own_ a house there.  You were not born or bred there, you've just gentrified it!  How dare you!  Please report to the headmaster and explain yourself immediately!

I presume that now you _own_ a house in Brockley that you will despair every time a nice or interesting local businesses opens?

Don't tell me my home-town should be a shithole while you sit there 'gentrifying' Brockley.


----------



## editor (May 3, 2012)

A place can be devoid of cupcake emporia and not be a 'shithole.'


----------



## oryx (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> Don't tell me my home-town should be a shithole while you sit there 'gentrifying' Brockley.


 
  I'm not at all sure how you've arrived at the conclusion that I'm suggesting such a thing.

Are you insinuating that before the recent wave of cupcakes shops etc. Brixon was a shithole?


----------



## leanderman (May 3, 2012)

oryx said:


> I'm not at all sure how you've arrived at the conclusion that I'm suggesting such a thing.
> 
> Are you insinuating that before the recent wave of cupcakes shops etc. Brixon was a shithole?


 
Whether you like this gentrification depends, to an extent, on your circumstances.

Owner-occupiers might like higher house prices and more eating options, although some fear 'Claphamisation'.

Landlords (the 1%) are loving it and are cashing in.

Their tenants, and other renters being priced out, certainly don't.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> Stop moaning and enjoy Mrs Cupcakes' cupcakes and Federation Coffees' coffee and Franco Manca pizzas and Lab G ice-creams and stop being so bloody grumpy.


That's all well and good if you have the disposable income. I live on an estate and our rent is to a certain extent pegged to local housing prices so it's bad news. Our rent has gone up loads in the last few years. Our income has stayed static. We've been able to absorb it (less takeaways, cheaper food etc) but I've got neighbours who are struggling to feed their families and sitting in the dark because they can't spend any more on their leccy key that month.


----------



## fortyplus (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> That's all well and good if you have the disposable income. I live on an estate and our rent is to a certain extent pegged to local housing prices so it's bad news. Our rent has gone up loads in the last few years. Our income has stayed static. We've been able to absorb it (less takeaways, cheaper food etc) but I've got neighbours who are struggling to feed their families and sitting in the dark because they can't spend any more on their leccy key that month.


Most people have been going through something like this - wages and pensions haven't gone up much, if at all, while food and fuel prices, and in London as a whole rents, have been rising faster than inflation. The squeeze hurts the less well off more, because there was less to be squeezed to begin with. Meanwhile the 1% keep looting. This is the problem everywhere, and in Brixton gentrification exacerbates its effects, but on the other hand, it's a feature of a thriving local economy. Most of the new enterprises in the Granville Arcade are run by local people, working hard for the promise of something decent at the end.

If the rest of the national - European - global economy were doing half as well as Brixton seems to be doing at the moment, we wouldn't have a problem here. We should be a little wary, though, of moaning too much about our own little bubble of successful economic activity.


----------



## bluestreak (May 3, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> What Brixton needs is more violent crime, that should get these nu-yups to fuck off !!!


i think we should form an Old Brixton Preservation Society and violently mug yuppies.


----------



## felixgolightly (May 3, 2012)

oryx said:


> I'm not at all sure how you've arrived at the conclusion that I'm suggesting such a thing.
> 
> Are you insinuating that before the recent wave of cupcakes shops etc. Brixon was a shithole?


No I didn't.  I wouldn't have chosen to live here if I did.  I made a note about the origins of Brixton - and that's the point I'm trying to make.  It was created as a relatively affluent Victorian suburb - and then it declined.  Look at Notting Hill - those massive grand homes - they were squats in the sixties.  The really nice massive Georgian houses at the top of Camberwell Grove - they were squats in the eighties.  Affluence comes and goes, some benefit, some lose.  It's cyclic and it wont stop.  My great aunt watched Brixton grow poorer around her in the post war years until she moved out, as a pensioner, too scared of the crime around her, in the mid eighties.  She lost out as Brixton grew poorer.  And there are some that will lose out as Brixton now grows more affluent again.  What you gonna do about it?  I for one would rather see Brixton on the up than in decline.  (And for the record I rent, and I am being priced out, and it does piss me off, but that's a different issue to whether it's pleasant to have a few nice shops around).  It just feels that some of the comment on this topic had more to do with dislike for people called Jemima and Tarquin than the lack of affordable housing.

It felt like people would prefer to keep Brixton down so they could continue to afford to live here - and I question whether that is selfish.


----------



## bluestreak (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Shared bathroom and loo (without handbasin) into the 1990s in some of the privately let tenements over the shops along Streatham High Rd.


 
and there's someone who posts here who lived in one until recently and i can tell you this, nothing had changed since then.  worst condition properties i have ever seen.


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> i think we should form an Old Brixton Preservation Society and violently mug yuppies.


But that's far too efficient - this is Lambeth!


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> and there's someone who posts here who lived in one until recently and i can tell you this, nothing had changed since then. worst condition properties i have ever seen.


 Landlord's surname began with S and ended with N?  If so, I can hardly believe he's still alive.


----------



## bluestreak (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> I have to say, you all sound a bit like inverted snobs to me. Brixton is getting ruined by prosperity!! Really? What is the history of Brixton? (and for that matter Brockley, or any of the victorian suburbs). The history of Electric Avenue, Morleys, Bon Marche?? My great aunt and uncle used to live in Dumbarton Court, bought a flat there after the war. That was well posh in those days - very yuppy - like all the 30's blocks of flats up the top of the hill.
> 
> Now there's a bit of regeneration and you're complaining that it's 'not Brixton'.
> 
> ...


 
fuck off you rent raising yuppie shitpipe.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> No I didn't. I wouldn't have chosen to live here if I did. I made a note about the origins of Brixton - and that's the point I'm trying to make. It was created as a relatively affluent Victorian suburb - and then it declined.


You don't know your history. Read the notes that go with Booth's Poverty Map. There were big rich houses but there were always poor areas and those poor people serviced the rich, as they do now. The difference is that rich people are more prepared to live in previously poor dwellings (bijou!) and the poor are getting priced out of the area. Social housing has massively declined and it's not the poor who are living in those houses now.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> No I didn't. I wouldn't have chosen to live here if I did. I made a note about the origins of Brixton - and that's the point I'm trying to make. It was created as a relatively affluent Victorian suburb - and then it declined. Look at Notting Hill - those massive grand homes - they were squats in the sixties. The really nice massive Georgian houses at the top of Camberwell Grove - they were squats in the eighties. Affluence comes and goes, some benefit, some lose. It's cyclic and it wont stop. My great aunt watched Brixton grow poorer around her in the post war years until she moved out, as a pensioner, too scared of the crime around her, in the mid eighties. She lost out as Brixton grew poorer. And there are some that will lose out as Brixton now grows more affluent again. What you gonna do about it? I for one would rather see Brixton on the up than in decline. (And for the record I rent, and I am being priced out, and it does piss me off, but that's a different issue to whether it's pleasant to have a few nice shops around). It just feels that some of the comment on this topic had more to do with dislike for people called Jemima and Tarquin than the lack of affordable housing.
> 
> It felt like people would prefer to keep Brixton down so they could continue to afford to live here - and I question whether that is selfish.


 
I don't know a single person called Jemima and Tarquin and I dislike them already

Why's it selfish for poorer people to want to be able to afford to buy where they've lived for decades and/or were born but are unable to because yuppies who are willing to pay over the odds to live somewhere trendy/vibey/edgy etc. decided to move here?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> But that's far too efficient - this is Lambeth!


 
We'll need to embezzle/mismanage the proceeds of our crimes


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> We'll need to embezzle/mismanage the proceeds of our crimes


Three letters EPT


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Landlord's surname began with S and ended with N? If so, I can hardly believe he's still alive.


 
You sure it didn't end in an M (middle letters being L and U?)


----------



## RaverDrew (May 3, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> and there's someone who posts here who lived in one until recently and i can tell you this, nothing had changed since then. worst condition properties i have ever seen.


 
<remembers the shared bathroom with pigeons>


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You sure it didn't end in an M (middle letters being L and U?)


No. And (given that I'm not exactly sylphlike, and neither is Him Indoors) I hate to be sizeist but in my arrogant opinion, having seen him twice (while I was helping VP to move out), the landlord was a stinking fat bastard.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> No. And (given that I'm not exactly sylphlike, and neither is Him Indoors) I hate to be sizeist but in my arrogant opinion, having seen him twice (while helping VP move out), the landlord was a stinking fat bastard.


 
Probably too much sitting on his arse counting his money


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> <remembers the shared bathroom with pigeons>


----------



## Plumdaff (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> You don't know your history. Read the notes that go with Booth's Poverty Map. There were big rich houses but there were always poor areas and those poor people serviced the rich, as they do now. The difference is that rich people are more prepared to live in previously poor dwellings (bijou!) and the poor are getting priced out of the area. Social housing has massively declined and it's not the poor who are living in those houses now.


 
Exactly. There have always been extremely wealthy people in the conservation areas of Stockwell near where I live. What has changed in the last year or so is that the ex social housing is also being gentrified so rather than the mix that has characterised the area is being homogenised. I think it will be a real loss if central London becomes like Manhattan - it isn't the appearance of the cupcakes and the coffee that I lament as much as the disappearance of everything else.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> it isn't the appearance of the cupcakes and the coffee that I lament as much as the disappearance of everything else.


Exactly. I don't begrudge anyone their vegan cupcakes (luridly sickly-sweet though they look) as long as I can still buy my cheap potatoes and big bags of onions.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

Also something feligolightly has also failed to learn from history is that a house that now contains a couple, maybe with one child, housed more and bigger families so what is now a family home often housed three large families. Look at the censuses from then. They're all online. There have even been accessible TV programmes featuring this kind of information.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> You don't know your history. Read the notes that go with Booth's Poverty Map. There were big rich houses but there were always poor areas and those poor people serviced the rich, as they do now. The difference is that rich people are more prepared to live in previously poor dwellings (bijou!) and the poor are getting priced out of the area. Social housing has massively declined and it's not the poor who are living in those houses now.


 
The rich moved to the poorer areas to make it easier for the poor to wipe the arses of the rich.  Not as much transport then


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> I have to say, you all sound a bit like inverted snobs to me. Brixton is getting ruined by prosperity!! Really? What is the history of Brixton? (and for that matter Brockley, or any of the victorian suburbs). The history of Electric Avenue, Morleys, Bon Marche?? My great aunt and uncle used to live in Dumbarton Court, bought a flat there after the war. That was well posh in those days - very yuppy - like all the 30's blocks of flats up the top of the hill.
> 
> Now there's a bit of regeneration and you're complaining that it's 'not Brixton'.


 
I think that there's something of a difference between the gradual evolution most _locales_ goes through, with cycles of popularity with different social groupings, and the forced evolution of gentrification ("regeneration" implies a revivification of an area for the uses of current residents. This hasn't happened on anything approaching a noticable scale).



> Stop moaning and enjoy Mrs Cupcakes' cupcakes and Federation Coffees' coffee and Franco Manca pizzas and Lab G ice-creams and stop being so bloody grumpy.


 
Go give yourself a cupcake suppository, you bossy arse!



> Oh, and the rhubarb in Brockley was grown in London's 'nightsoil' (apparently).


 
That's the case with most of the market garden suburbs (in London as elsewhere). The Lea Valley got most of the shite from north of the Thames, and places like Brockley and Carshalton got the southern turds.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

Brixton is getting turds from all over the place now 
A lot of us are getting them from a great height


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

oryx said:


> l'd have thought that a simple reading of this thread would convince anyone that the fruits of gentrification are far from universally received.
> 
> Can't afford to live in Brixton any more? Never mind, have a nice cupcake as you contemplate your imminent move to somewhere you don't really want to live.


 
The poster appears to believe that "regeneration" and "gentrification" are synonymous, which is enough to indicate that they either have an agenda or are a bit simple.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

or just selfish


----------



## bluestreak (May 3, 2012)

the poster is a massive bellend.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> the poster is a massive bellend.


Unusual restraint from you, all of a sudden.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Brixton is getting turds from all over the place now
> A lot of us are getting them from a great height


 
It's all those penthouses


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> It just feels that some of the comment on this topic had more to do with dislike for people called Jemima and Tarquin than the lack of affordable housing.


 
So you don't see the two as being linked?



> It felt like people would prefer to keep Brixton down so they could continue to afford to live here - and I question whether that is selfish.


 
Me, I'd just prefer if government policy over the last 30 years hadn't meant that the people of the communities I grew up in had to scatter to the four corners of the UK to find housing and employment, because gentrification alongside the removal of a fair rent system meant that there would always be someone with a bigger wedge making sure they couldn't stay put.


----------



## quimcunx (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> It just feels that some of the comment on this topic had more to do with dislike for people called Jemima and Tarquin than the lack of affordable housing.
> 
> It felt like people would prefer to keep Brixton down so they could continue to afford to live here - and I question whether that is selfish.


 
I  don't hate Jemima and Tarquin for their names (well maybe a little bit, I mean come on) I hate them for the downside of 'gentrification' they symbolise.

It's possible to welcome the new additions while hating the social inequality that goes hand in hand with it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> We don't hate Jemima and Tarquin for their names (well maybe a little bit, I mean come on) we hate them for the downside of 'gentrification' they symbolise.


 
Speak for yourself

I think anyone named Jemima or Tarquin deserves to be stoned with stale £2.50 cupcakes


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

What about pasties?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> You don't know your history. Read the notes that go with Booth's Poverty Map. There were big rich houses but there were always poor areas and those poor people serviced the rich, as they do now. The difference is that rich people are more prepared to live in previously poor dwellings (bijou!) and the poor are getting priced out of the area. Social housing has massively declined and it's not the poor who are living in those houses now.


 
My nan, her parents, two sisters and 3 brothers lived for a couple of years when she was a teenage girl in the ground floor of a terrace on Mayall Rd. Another family (of 7) lived on the top floor. Having been in the same house some 65 years after my nan lived there, I could barely get my head around a family of 8 living in the house, let alone a single floor of it.  
You're spot-on about why they were there, too. My great-grandad was a master tailor, and my great-grannie a seamstress (with the kids all doing bits of piecework such as stitching linings etc). They also did the usual odd-jobbing that was common for working class folk, and my nan used to tell us stories about being a _Shabbas Goy_ for wealthy Jewish households in Brixton (of which there were a fair few in the '20s and '30s). She thought it was a great joke that they didn't know that they were employing a non-observant Jew rather than a _Goy_.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> What about pasties?


 
Alright, pasties first, followed by cupcakes.  Don't want them going too hungry


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> We'll need to embezzle/mismanage the proceeds of our crimes


 
Just hire Capita to manage the proceeds, then!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> No. And (given that I'm not exactly sylphlike, and neither is Him Indoors) I hate to be sizeist but in my arrogant opinion, having seen him twice (while I was helping VP to move out), the landlord was a stinking fat bastard.


 
He certainly was a gouty peglegged old cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Also something feligolightly has also failed to learn from history is that a house that now contains a couple, maybe with one child, housed more and bigger families so what is now a family home often housed three large families. Look at the censuses from then. They're all online. There have even been accessible TV programmes featuring this kind of information.


 
Yup. As I said on another thread recently (or maybe it was this one, these gentrificationy threads all blur together after a while!), and replacement housing hasn't been forthcoming in anything like the necessary quantity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> The rich moved to the poorer areas to make it easier for the poor to wipe the arses of the rich. Not as much transport then


 
Look at the development of any new "suburb" from the Regency onward, and ther have always been mews and terraces to house the necessary labour (i.e. the necessary service sector rather than the "live-ins"). Of course, mews houses and "worker's terraces" are nowadays actually "must have" accommodation for some trendy try-hards, like "lofts" (pah!) were 10 and 20 years ago.


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He certainly was a gouty peglegged old cunt.


Had he enjoyed perfect health IMHO S would have been equally grasping, exploitative, and obnoxious.  


ViolentPanda said:


> Just hire Capita to manage the proceeds, then!


I don't doubt Crapita's ability to make money disappear, but surely there's a more enjoyable way to achieve the same end?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Brixton is getting turds from all over the place now
> A lot of us are getting them from a great height


 
Which is why I regularly thank fuck for our little council tenement. At least our rent is somewhat more stable than if our landlord was an HA, whatever else happens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Had he enjoyed perfect health IMHO S would have been equally grasping, exploitative, and obnoxious.


 
True. Cuntitude will out. 



> I don't doubt Crapita's ability to make money disappear, but surely there's a more enjoyable way to achieve the same end?


 
Well, could always spend some on drugs, some on loose living, and then waste the rest, I suppose!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Look at the development of any new "suburb" from the Regency onward, and ther have always been mews and terraces to house the necessary labour (i.e. the necessary service sector rather than the "live-ins"). Of course, mews houses and "worker's terraces" are nowadays actually "must have" accommodation for some trendy try-hards, like "lofts" (pah!) were 10 and 20 years ago.


 

and do you see any poor people living in mews nowadays? They're only for the rich rich now. Yuppies probably aspire to live in a mews, but can't quite manage it so go for the warehouse/pub conversions etc.

Warehouses are preferable though as it makes them think they're living in trendy New York


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> or just selfish


 
I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sentimental like that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> the poster is a massive bellend.


 
As opposed to the poster *having* a massive bellend, obviously.


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is why I regularly thank fuck for our little council tenement. At least our rent is somewhat more stable than if our landlord was an HA, whatever else happens.


Oi, Panda, this isn't a fucking tenement!  It's a flat.

Tenement flats don't have their own front door (ie with a letter box).


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Oi, Panda, this isn't a fucking tenement! It's a flat.
> 
> Tenement flats don't have their own front door (ie with a letter box).


 
I've never heard anyone call estates tenements (except in Scotland I think)


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is why I regularly thank fuck for our little council tenement. At least our rent is somewhat more stable than if our landlord was an HA, whatever else happens.


We gave up a council tenement for a HA place so we could have a guide dog. The rent has really shot up over the last 10 years.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've never heard anyone call estates tenements (except in Scotland I think)


It's catching


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> What about pasties?


 
Those things that Gypsy Rose Lee wore over her nips?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

You can't have a council flat *and *a guide dog?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

No, the Greggs kind


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> It's catching


 
I noticed


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You can't have a council flat *and *a guide dog?


Th GDBA said it wasn't good enough for the dog so we waited 5 years on the emergency housing list (would have been a lot quicker but for Lambeth being shite on a stick).


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've never heard anyone call estates tenements (except in Scotland I think)


FWIW the bits over the shops on Streatham High Rd are tenements in the proper sense of the word.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Th GDBA said it wasn't good enough for the dog so we waited 5 years on the emergency housing list (would have been a lot quicker but for Lambeth being shite on a stick).


 
Yeah, i think they offered me a flat well over a year after I applied.  I turned it down


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

We got an offer before this place, but it didn't fulfil the GDBAs criteria and we also would have had to decant all the children into a single boxroom.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 3, 2012)

Lambeth didn't fulfil my criteria of no estates or tower blocks


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> and do you see any poor people living in mews nowadays? They're only for the rich rich now.


 
That's kind of my point - that the working class have been pushed out of their traditional _locales_, and not by the usual currents of social change, but by a current that has pretty much been inflated and kept alive through 30-odd years of (negative for the majority of people) housing policy.



> Yuppies probably aspire to live in a mews, but can't quite manage it so go for the warehouse/pub conversions etc.
> 
> Warehouses are preferable though as it makes them think they're living in trendy New York


 
Why someone would want to delude themselves that they were living in a giant rubbish dump cum former swamp is beyond me.[/quote][/quote]


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Oi, Panda, this isn't a fucking tenement! It's a flat.
> 
> Tenement flats don't have their own front door (ie with a letter box).


 
Bloody pedant!


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bloody pedant!


And look where my pedantry has got you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> And look where my pedantry has got you.


 
On my knees and in the wrong, usually.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Oi, Panda, this isn't a fucking tenement! It's a flat.
> 
> Tenement flats don't have their own front door (ie with a letter box).




i've seen tenement places round the elephant that do.


----------



## tufty79 (May 3, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i've seen tenement places round the elephant that do.


are you thinking pullens buildings (off walworth road)?







e2a except that's having no front door for the communal entrance, and i guess letterboxes for each flat. @self


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> are you thinking pullens buildings (off walworth road)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeh those look right, round amelia street i think. they were described to me as tenements when i first visited them.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2012)

Mansion flats (eg Rushcroft Road) are the same but with doors.


----------



## quimcunx (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> FWIW the bits over the shops on Streatham High Rd are tenements in the proper sense of the word.


 
What's the proper sense of the word?  All tenements I've been in have had their own front door same as any flat.


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> What's the proper sense of the word?  All tenements I've been in have had their own front door same as any flat.


Independant front door with letter box and bell or knocker on it, not just a lock.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> What's the proper sense of the word?  All tenements I've been in have had their own front door same as any flat.


you've only been in the glasgow ones though


----------



## quimcunx (May 3, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you've only been in the glasgow ones though


 
And Edinburgh ones and Dundee ones and ones on Streatham High Road. They've all had communal doors and private doors to each flat.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> And Edinburgh ones and Dundee ones and ones on Streatham High Road. They've all had communal doors and private doors to each flat.


yes but it seems none of those were proper tenements.


----------



## quimcunx (May 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Independant front door with letter box and bell or knocker on it, not just a lock.


 
All the ones I've been in have had that.


----------



## quimcunx (May 3, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yes but it seems none of those were proper tenements.


 

A lot of people have been living under a misapprehension all this time. 

I'm fairly sure in the past I've seen some in Scotland that don't have a communal door, just a passage way to the stairs and the 'close' at the back, but I don't think any are like that now.


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2012)

I just like to say, that if anyone's trying to say that Glasgow tenements aren't proper tenements, then I've got something to say about that.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> A lot of people have been living under a misapprehension all this time.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2012)

teuchter said:


> I just like to say, that if anyone's trying to say that Glasgow tenements aren't proper tenements, then I've got something to say about that.


you've got a damn sight too much to say on many subjects


----------



## tufty79 (May 3, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> A lot of people have been living under a misapprehension all this time.


i'm made up, i've just found out i used to live in a mansion flat (it sounds so grand!)


----------



## oryx (May 3, 2012)

felixgolightly said:


> It felt like people would prefer to keep Brixton down so they could continue to afford to live here - and I question whether that is selfish.


 
I think your point's already been addressed by those who live there (which I don't).


----------



## quimcunx (May 3, 2012)

Tenements I have lived in. 

http://g.co/maps/566ey

http://g.co/maps/cxdf6


----------



## quimcunx (May 3, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> i'm made up, i've just found out i used to live in a mansion flat (it sounds so grand!)


 
I once directed someone to mine by saying it was next to the mansion block.  She got lost because she was looking for a mansion house.


----------



## gaijingirl (May 4, 2012)

someone once posted a link on here where you typed in your surname and it told you your likely social status based on it.  Mine, memorably, included a phrase along the lines of "likely to live in property with a shared staircase" (ie a tenement flat - or similar) - which at the time I was living in (on St Matthew's Road).  My husband's was something like "likely to own extensive land and have tenants" or similar.  Obv he doesn't but our backgrounds are _very _different... wish I could find that link again.  It was amusing to see how I've dragged his family down/done very well for myself (as one of his friends commented) - depending on how you look at it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 4, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Tenements I have lived in.
> 
> http://g.co/maps/566ey
> 
> http://g.co/maps/cxdf6


 

That top one's right posh quimmy!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 4, 2012)

gaijingirl said:


> someone once posted a link on here where you typed in your surname and it told you your likely social status based on it. Mine, memorably, included a phrase along the lines of "likely to live in property with a shared staircase" (ie a tenement flat - or similar) - which at the time I was living in (on St Matthew's Road). My husband's was something like "likely to own extensive land and have tenants" or similar. Obv he doesn't but our backgrounds are _very _different... wish I could find that link again. It was amusing to see how I've dragged his family down/done very well for myself (as one of his friends commented) - depending on how you look at it.


 
This?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5047982.stm


----------



## gaijingirl (May 4, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> This?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5047982.stm


 
It was like that - maybe even the same one - but the social categorisation isn't there... that shows ethnicity etc but not details like I posted.  It might not exist any more.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 4, 2012)

gaijingirl said:


> It was like that - maybe even the same one - but the social categorisation isn't there... that shows ethnicity etc but not details like I posted. It might not exist any more.


 
Yeah, I clicked all the links and found the stories in other papers but it looks like the relevant link is not online now


----------



## quimcunx (May 5, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> That top one's right posh quimmy!


 
It was actually this one: 

http://g.co/maps/s2k6y

With the open white double front doors.  For some reason it had its own entrance onto the street as well as through the communal door to the left.  It was massive. could easily have been 2 bed, especially if you got rid of the fancy front door with big lobby and stained glass and that. I couldn't really afford it on my own though so had to move.


----------



## quimcunx (May 5, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> This?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5047982.stm


 
My surname has a weird spread, most are in cornwall or aberdeenshire.... maybe there is a long history of us hating each other and running as far away as possible.

actually it looks like there was a split before 1881, it's not a scottish name so some from Bournemouth area maybe moved up to scotland.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 5, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> My surname has a weird spread, most are in cornwall or aberdeenshire.... maybe there is a long history of us hating each other and running as far away as possible.
> 
> actually it looks like there was a split before 1881, it's not a scottish name so some from Bournemouth area maybe moved up to scotland.


 
I'm anywhere the Portuguese have gone


----------



## Davo84 (Aug 23, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> More graffiti
> 
> (Never thought I'd hear myself say that!)


Careful with that, you want to help turning brixton in a new hoxton?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

Interesting, thread, thought i'd sign up.

What people are moaning about is the housing market - simple market forces. What's happened in Brixton is just how the housing market works. Some areas become desirable, others become less so.

How many people on this forum are born and raised Brixton?

Anyway, the  middle classes will do what the white working classes did (very few white working class left in inner london). They will move out to the suburbs. For all their love of its edgyness, Berkshire and Surrey will become suddenly attractive to them when their kids are of secondary school age.

People knocking Penge on here...

Education, extortionate house prices, deprivation, crime, the fear of letting teenage kids out at night, poor housing, transient yuppies, are all reasons why I would rather live in Penge - a town that has a good a mix of people, affordable housing, where the schools have a good mix of people, a town that has not changed much for years (just like how you wish Brixton hadn't changed for years) - than Brixton.

AS for the heygate, i know many people who grew up in South East London, on council estates, throughout the eighties and nineties and they couldn't wait to get out to Kent and Essex. Were literally queuing up to get out. People who used to be known as "cockneys". Whilst living in crime ridden hell holes, they had yuppies all around them using the local housing stock and housing market as some sort of edgy play thing.

If you look closely at london, it's just a transient mess, and everyone is largely either on the bottom or on the top - with the gap growing all the time. I have grown fonder and fonder of the suburbs. People talk about "culture" - they can be fuck all real culture without community, and real communities are getting less and less in inner london.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

get the sense reading this that what people are complaining about are people exactly like themselves.

all a bit prolier-than-thou.

bit of a joke really.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> get the sense reading this that what people are complaining about are people exactly like themselves.<snip>


Wrong. FYI my husband was born in the next borough over, and has spent most of his life either there or in Lambeth. He's as non-gentrifying as they come, and only got this council flat because he needed to be rehoused (health reasons). Moving here was Hobson's choice. While it's true that I moved into London, would you prefer that I hadn't moved in with him?


MillwallShoes said:


> <snip>all a bit prolier-than-thou.<snip>


Not at all. Why don't you be quiet for a while and give your arse a rest?


MillwallShoes said:


> bit of a joke really.


No joke.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 27, 2012)

tenement flats don't have a separate door with a letterbox?  *looks at front door with letterbox* *head explodes*


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Wrong. FYI my husband was born in the next borough over, and hasspent most of his life either there or in Lambeth. He's as non-gentrifying as they come, and only got this council flat because he needed to be rehoused (health reasons). Moving here was Hobson's choice. While it's true that I moved into London, would you prefer that I hadn't moved in with him?
> 
> Not at all. Why don't you be quiet for a while and give your arse a rest?
> 
> No joke.


if you read what i wrote, it's not me who really has a problem with money moving into brixton, but the people on the thread clearly do. my point is that to complain when it is just the housing market doing its thing is a bit futile (unless people want to smash the whole system, man?), ESPECIALLY considering that my bet is that they moved into brixton for the same reasons as many of the people they despise do. pot kettle black.

people have always been priced out of areas that they want to live in.

it's almost a conservative type of thinking to expect one small town in london to remain the same, with the same "locals", the same property prices. not going to happen, is it.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> if you read what i wrote, it's not me who really has a problem with money moving into brixton, but the people on the thread clearly do. my point is that to complain when it is just the housing market doing its thing is a bit futile (unless people want to smash the whole system, man?), ESPECIALLY considering that my bet is that they moved into brixton for the same reasons as many of the people they despise do. pot kettle black.


Why do you think people moved to Brixton in the past?


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 27, 2012)

Well it's urban so we do want to smash the whole system, man.  The system is shit. 

You make some salient points, but none that haven't been made here many times before. 

*waits for banned returner to be banned again*


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 27, 2012)

I was born in London if that's any help.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> AS for the heygate, i know many people who grew up in South East London, on council estates, throughout the eighties and nineties and they couldn't wait to get out to Kent and Essex. Were literally queuing up to get out.


That's not universally true at all. A lot of people fought to stay there: Heygate Estate residents fight compulsory purchase order


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

the biggest tragedy, and the biggest sickener for me, if you really want to pin something on the middle class urban, is education. where i live in west norwood, we have palace up the road and cafes stock full every morning of yummy mummies and their posh prams.

their kids are almost entirely absent from the secondary schools round here though. there's a real class and race issue right there, the way these people wouldn't dream of sending their kids to london state schools.

believe me, they scarper sharpish when that kid is beyond primary years...

the devide in london education is far more important than house prices in brixton and cupcakes.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> That's not universally true at all. A lot of people fought to stay there: Heygate Estate residents fight compulsory purchase order


 
no, of course not. but amongst people i know, they wanted out. eltham welling etc first of all, then moving further out to the medway towns.

white flight.

still happens today, but it's the middle class whites now fleeing.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

Here's how many people were "literally queuing to get out" of the Heygate: 


> Appendix F of the Social Background Report says '80.3% of residients did not want to move off the estate.'
> http://heygate.herokuapp.com/monthly-roundup/1998-allot-and-max-survey.html


And here's the real disgrace of the Heygate:


> When shiny brochures with the motto "new homes for Heygate residents" were circulated to tenants and leaseholders in 2004, "a total of 50% affordable housing was proposed", said Mr Glasspool.
> 
> But despite the council saying there is a "contractual minimum to provide 25% affordable housing", the latest planning application has no affordable housing guaranteed.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19371334


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Why do you think people moved to Brixton in the past?


 
because they could afford to and they liked the place?


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> no, of course not. but amongst people i know, they wanted out. eltham welling etc first of all, then moving further out to the medway towns.


So you now admit your point about the Heygate was ill-informed tosh?





MillwallShoes said:


> white flight.


What's race got to do with this?


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> because they could afford to and they liked the place?


Do you think Brixton is affordable now, then? How does 265k for a one  bedroom Barratts Home sound?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> So you now admit your point about the Heygate was ill-informed tosh?What's race got to do with this?


 
where did i say about heygate specifically. i know plenty of people from okr, walworth, peckham, new cross, who moved because they didn't like the area anymore, and because of house prices.

see, it's that wretched hosuing market again. but it's the way it works. it's simple economics and shouting and screaming about cup cakes and single speed bikes is missing hte point. areas change.

and it was a form of white flight when the mass white working class deserted innner london for the home counties. if i can't call it white flight, then god help us


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Do you think Brixton is affordable now, then? How does 265k for a one bedroom Barratts Home sound?


to many people, clearly. what can we do about it?


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 27, 2012)

Anyway, it's no use blaming the free flow of capital in the housing market - the root of the problem is that successive governments have engineered a huge gap between rich and poor. Rich and poor used to be able to live cheek by jowl, now they can't. Thatcher started it, Blair and Cameron have continued it. Westminster Council followed their lead, and now Lambeth Council is doing the same. Perhaps John Major would have put the brakes on, but he didn't get a chance to do anything much. Except the National Lottery, which bought us lots of Olympic medals and Bradley Wiggins. Thatcher, Blair and Cameron chose to restructure society into a sort of America-lite: more enterprising, but more greedy and divided.  And we are on the front line. The young professional army is advancing. They've conquered Acre Lane and Brixton Hill, now they're gobbling up Coldharbour.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

i'm a millwall fan and our core support used to come from inner city south east london. now they come from say eltham and beyond. why is that? i don't put it down to immigration. more the housing market in full force. people move out of their elephant council house, want some more space, can't afford elephant, so they go to erith or orpington, etc.

just the way it works. the same is happening in bricky now


----------



## weepiper (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> i'm a millwall fan


 
that explains a lot


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> and it was a form of white flight when the mass white working class deserted innner london for the home counties. if i can't call it white flight, then god help us


Why is it "white flight" as opposed to "working class flight"? Could you explain, please?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

weepiper said:


> that explains a lot


like what?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Why is it "white flight" as opposed to "working class flight"? Could you explain, please?


because it was a mainly whites who left?


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> because it was a mainly whites who left?


To be replaced by....?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

people like you. urbanites who think they're edgy living in brixton, driving up the house prices


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

maybe you should retrain as a postman or dustman, then you can be REALLY working class


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> because it was a mainly whites who left?


Either you're an idiot racist or you don't actually understand what "white flight" means. Here. Read and learn.


> White flight is a term that originated in the United States, starting in the mid-20th century, and applied to the large-scale migration of whites of various European ancestries from racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban or exurban regions, originating from fear and anxiety about increasing minority populations


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> people like you. urbanites who think they're edgy living in brixton, driving up the house prices


This is the bit where you realy lose the argument, isn't it?


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Anyway, it's no use blaming the free flow of capital in the housing market - the root of the problem is that successive governments have engineered a huge gap between rich and poor. Rich and poor used to be able to live cheek by jowl, now they can't.


 
this is what bugs me. One of the things that used to be amazing about London (and still is, but to a lesser extent) is that there weren't any rich ghettos- Everywhere was mixed to some extent. It is, as you say becoming less like that, which is really, really sad. London is losing one of its defining characteristics.



Frumious B. said:


> The young professional army is advancing. They've conquered Acre Lane and Brixton Hill, now they're gobbling up Coldharbour.


 that is only a problem because of the above- and then people become the enemy, as opposed to just other people who happen to live there. Sure lots of the (not so young) professionals buying up Brixton are perfectly decent people, its the policies that are to blame not the people


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

there's no argument, all i am doing is explaining how the housing market works. and it'll will always work like that - sad but true. unless you dismantle the whole thing, brixton this year, PENGE the next.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> there's no argument, all i am doing is explaining how the housing market works. and it'll will always work like that - sad but true. unless you dismantle the whole thing, brixton this year, PENGE the next.


And the "white flight" bit? Are you going to explain that?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> this is what bugs me. One of the things that used to be amazing about London (and still is, but to a lesser extend) is that there weren't any rich ghettos- Everywhere was mixed to some extent. It is, as you say becoming less like that, which is really, really sad. London is losing one of its defining characteristics.
> that is only a problem because of the above- and then people become the enemy, as opposed to just other people who happen to live there. Sure lots of the (not so young) professionals buying up Brixton are perfectly decent people, its the policies that are to blame not the people


 
THIS ^ and it's the future, too


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

If there ever was white flight in London and the SE that's over a long time ago. This website has a great overview of current ethnic settlement patterns in London http://www.londonprofiler.org/ - click on "Multicultural atlas of London".


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

Tbf a lot of what MillwallShoes says is totally correct, there was massive amounts working class "white flight" from inner city South London in the 80's and 90's.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> there's no argument, all i am doing is explaining how the housing market works. and it'll will always work like that - sad but true. unless you dismantle the whole thing, brixton this year, PENGE the next.


it isn't white flight.  Race has very little to do with it, and people only mention it in relation to Brixton because its traditionally 'vibrant' or whatever the current euphemism is.  it is, IMHO, money, and our increasing obsession with the stuff


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> And the "white flight" bit? Are you going to explain that?


well, in the future, it'll be everyone fleeing. simply because they can't afford to live here. as has been said, the centre pushes out. but yes, working class people, who happened to be white, have deserted inner london. there are some still left, bermondsey still has a large white working class, but other areas less so.

are suppose they're all racists though?


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Tbf a lot of what MillwallShoes says is totally correct, there was massive amounts working class "white flight" from inner city South London in the 80's and 90's.


and black flight from parts of N london, and asian flight, and jewish flight etc- there have always been waves moving through, but they used (I think) to be mixed income waves, rather than money forcing its way out of the centre


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> and it was a form of white flight when the mass white working class deserted innner london for the home counties. if i can't call it white flight, then god help us


..but it isn't white flight at all. I actually know far more black people who have left Brixton and now live in places like Bellingham, Mitcham, Bromley. All my white working class rellies are still here (Camberwell and Walworth, they didn't live in Brixton) except for my ex-Mother-In-Law who went to Leysdown.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> well, in the future, it'll be everyone fleeing. simply because they can't afford to live here. as has been said, the centre pushes out. but yes, working class people, who happened to be white, have deserted inner london. there are some still left, bermondsey still has a large white working class, but other areas less so.
> 
> are suppose they're all racists though?


So you actually don't understand what 'white flight' means then, although your continuing use of the inflammatory phrase hints that perhaps you're one of those unreconstructed Millwall fans that the club wishes it was long shot of.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 27, 2012)

Although I think the 'hostile response to newcomers' rep that urban has is overstated a lot of the time this is shaping up to be a classic example. Don't engage with the points, pick on where it looks 'wrong' and distort the argument. Claims of 'pwnage' no doubt to follow.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> So you actually don't understand what 'white flight' means then, although your continuing use of the inflammatory phrase hints that perhaps you're one of those unreconstructed Millwall fans that the club wishes it was long shot of.


I don't get what's inflammatory about the phrase, it's a pretty conventional term in demographics and sociology.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Tbf a lot of what MillwallShoes says is totally correct, there was massive amounts working class "white flight" from inner city South London in the 80's and 90's.


So what minorities were they fleeing from? And he says it's *still* happening, so perhaps you could expand on that too?


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

@ the typical liberal denial


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2012)

I'm a young professional and so's my wife. We moved to Brixton 7 years ago because it was affordable and loads of our friends lived here. Now we've put down roots and bought a house here, and our kids will go to the local schools, primary and secondary. Prejudice can fuck off. Good parenting > "right" schools.


MillwallShoes said:


> there's no argument, all i am doing is explaining how the housing market works. and it'll will always work like that - sad but true. unless you dismantle the whole thing, brixton this year, PENGE the next.


You are exactly right. Ignore the snippy arguments around the edge of your argument, it's correct at the core. And we are all playing our parts in the process you describe. I am fully aware of the history of the house I now live in (council house, right to buy, sold on at a massive profit), but what can I do?


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> So what minorities were they fleeing from? And he says it's *still* happening, so perhaps you could expand on that too?


Who says they were fleeing from minorities?


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Although I think the 'hostile response to newcomers' rep that urban has is overstated a lot of the time this is shaping up to be a classic example. Don't engage with the points, pick on where it looks 'wrong' and distort the argument. Claims of 'pwnage' no doubt to follow.


No, you're totally wrong. He started of throwing around lazy generalisations and has rightly been picked up on what seems a rather dodgy claim about white flight - but all of the debate thus far has been polite.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I don't get what's inflammatory about the phrase, it's a pretty conventional term in demographics and sociology.


Except it's about white people leaving because black people move in. What's actually closer to the truth is black people selling their nice victorian terrace ex-council places and richer white people moving in.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Who says they were fleeing from minorities?


Because that's what "white flight" is.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I don't get what's inflammatory about the phrase, it's a pretty conventional term in demographics and sociology.


white flight is, I believe, white people running away from minorities, not people who happen to be white leaving an area they can't afford.  Tho as Mrs Magpie says, flight round here isn't white so it is a bit off track anyway.

I really do think its economic not racial at the moment


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> So what minorities were they fleeing from? And he says it's *still* happening, so perhaps you could expand on that too?


fucking hell, talk about a problem that exists entirely in your heard.


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 27, 2012)

One of the most destructive individual policies was the relaxation of rules on buy to let mortgages. Landlords with 1 or 2 properties were given a vast torrent of cheap loans enabling them to buy ten or twenty, or one hundred or two hundred. This policy was presented as a way to increase the amount of affordable private rented housing. And at first that's what it did. But after a few years we've ended up with a new class of uber-rich grasping landlords - as if the Duke of Westminster and Peter Rachman have been put out to stud in a state sponsored breeding programme.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Except it's about white people leaving because black people move in. What's actually closer to the truth is black people selling their nice victorian terrace ex-council places and richer white people moving in.


Indeed. He's got it totally wrong.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Except it's about white people leaving because black people move in. What's actually closer to the truth is black people selling their nice victorian terrace ex-council places and richer white people moving in.


 
Sure, but I was making a point about the phrase itself, which IMO doesn't condone, it merely labels. The second sentence is of course correct.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 27, 2012)

Penge, Eltham and Welling are shitholes
stay there and enjoy it


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> One of the most destructive individual policies was the relaxation of rules on buy to let mortgages. Landlords with 1 or 2 properties were given a vast torrent of cheap loans enabling them to buy ten or twenty, or one hundred or two hundred. This policy was presented as a way to increase the amount of affordable private rented housing. And at first that's what it did. But after a few years we've ended up with a new class of uber-rich grasping landlords - as if the Duke of Westminster and Peter Rachman have been put out to stud in a state sponsored breeding programme.


is that an issue in Brixton?  Barratt Ghetto square may bring it to Brixton, but not personally seen much buy to let round here- what private letting I have seen is yps like me and crispy letting out a flat when they move in with their other half.  Tho may be wrong


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> One of the most destructive individual policies was the relaxation of rules on buy to let mortgages. Landlords with 1 or 2 properties were given a vast torrent of cheap loans enabling them to buy ten or twenty, or one hundred or two hundred. This policy was presented as a way to increase the amount of affordable private rented housing. And at first that's what it did. But after a few years we've ended up with a new class of uber-rich grasping landlords - as if the Duke of Westminster and Peter Rachman have been put out to stud in a state sponsored breeding programme.


The right to buy council houses was also a killer blow. Some people were quick to turn a sharp profit and sell them on to property developers who then set prices soaring.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

ddraig said:


> Penge, Eltham and Welling are shitholes
> stay there and enjoy it


enjoy your cupcake, but make sure you single speed bike is locked up


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> The right to buy council houses was also a killer blow. Some people were quick to turn a sharp profit and sell them on to property developers who then set prices soaring.


all of those we looked at, the families lived in them for 20 odd years and are selling now- the Brixton ex council terraces. So they weren't greedy/profiteering, they have made good decisions for their families. Policy may be wrong, but don't think the people who bought should be condemned

E2A- condemn too strong a word... you know what I mean


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> enjoy your cupcake, but make sure you single speed bike is locked up


What the fuck are you going on about?


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> all of those we looked at, the families lived in them for 20 odd years and are selling now- the Brixton ex council terraces. So they weren't greedy/profiteering, they have made good decisions for their families. Policy may be wrong, but don't think the people who bought should be condemned


I don't blame families for buying cheap council property and then selling it on for a profit. I blame the government that allowed the social housing system to be dismantled in such a mannner.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

as i say son, close down your urban website (drives house prices up), retrain as a post man, live on teh angel, and then you'll be the real deal


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> So what minorities were they fleeing from? And he says it's *still* happening, so perhaps you could expand on that too?


 
I've seen it in my lifetime, the demographics of estates in South London changing hugely and rapidly at times. It's not always a case of people or families fleeing from minorities, there's often other economic reasons, but I've lost count of the amount of friends and families, some of which have lived in the same area for generations, shifted and relocated further and further out of London.

It's not just "white flight" either, bme communities are being forced out too nowadays, there's plenty who have left Brixton to places like Thornton Heath.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> as i say son, close down your urban website (drives house prices up), retrain as a postal working, live on teh angel, and then you'll be the real deal


And here ends all hope of an intelligent debate.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> I've seen it in my lifetime, the demographics of estates in South London changing hugely and rapidly at times. It's not always a case of people or families fleeing from minorities, there's often other economic reasons, but I've lost count of the amount of friends and families, some of which have lived in the same area for generations, shifted and relocated further and further out of London.
> 
> It's not just "white flight" either, bme communities are being forced out too nowadays, there's plenty who have left Brixton to places like Thornton Heath.


Thornton Heath 

yeah- that's what I mean- there is a financial cleansing of all the tube lines, basically.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> I've seen it in my lifetime, the demographics of estates in South London changing hugely and rapidly at times. It's not always a case of people or families fleeing from minorities, there's often other economic reasons, but I've lost count of the amount of friends and families, some of which have lived in the same area for generations, shifted and relocated further and further out of London.


Yes, demographics have been changing and will continue to change, mainly for economic reasons. But 'white flight' is something _entirely_ different.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> I don't blame families for buying cheap council property and then selling it on for a profit. I blame the government that allowed the social housing system to be dismantled in such a mannner.


Not just dismantled. Not replaced with anything....  if there was an alternative for people on low incomes I would be more relaxed, but as it is....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

btw, the thread title is now a bit out of date. Brixton prices have gone up over 17% now. Which isn't as much as my rent has gone up over the last 10 years.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> btw, the thread title is now a bit out of date. Brixton prices have gone up over 17% now. Which isn't as much as my rent has gone up over the last 10 years.


My rent's gone down, I must be one of the few to have had that happen.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

TruXta said:


> My rent's gone down, I must be one of the few to have had that happen.


It's your Scandanavian charm. Or the landlord is scared of Vikings.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> It's your Scandanavian charm. Or the landlord is scared of Vikings.


is he one of the vikings that beat me to it?  When I was 'lost'?


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> btw, the thread title is now a bit out of date. Brixton prices have gone up over 17% now. Which isn't as much as my rent has gone up over the last 10 years.


that's a hell of a lot compared to the RPI and inflation....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> that's a hell of a lot compared to the RPI and inflation....


Technically it's linked to inflation but 'service charges' don't come under that.


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> But 'white flight' is something _entirely_ different.


 
Many would disagree with you, including Trevor Phillips, former head of the Commission for Racial Equality. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/race...-for-more-segregation-in-schools-7186007.html


> Mr Phillips said the phenomenon of "white flight" from racially mixed areas was behind the problem.
> 
> "To put it crudely, white parents, particularly, are unhappy about putting children in schools where they think their children are going to be in a minority.
> 
> "And that creates a dynamic of white flight from those schools and, therefore, those residential areas."


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Technically it's linked to inflation but 'service charges' don't come under that.


god, there are endless get out clauses so they can screw people over.  This is making me grumpy


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> It's your Scandanavian charm. Or the landlord is scared of Vikings.


The landlady and I have never met - she lives in France. We got her to ditch the property "managers" and she took what she would've paid those feckless bastards off the rent.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Many would disagree with you, including Trevor Phillips, former head of the Commission for Racial Equality. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/race...-for-more-segregation-in-schools-7186007.html


and what he is talking about is the real sickener. schooling along racial lines. there's where the real racism is at.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Many would disagree with you, including Trevor Phillips, former head of the Commission for Racial Equality. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/race...-for-more-segregation-in-schools-7186007.html


How's that different? Basically that's about white parents not wanting to send their kids to schools they don't think are white enough, and moving, which boils down to the same thing, doesn't it?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> enjoy your cupcake, but make sure you single speed bike is locked up


I live in Cardiff and happy here
have worked and lived in South London and i reiterate that Eltham and Welling are shitholes, Penge a bit less so
my mate moved his family from penge to hayes so they could get a house instead of a flat and a garden


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> and what he is talking about is the real sickener. schooling along racial lines. there's where the real racism is at.


 
Indeed, it only serves to perpetuate the problem.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Many would disagree with you, including Trevor Phillips, former head of the Commission for Racial Equality. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/race...-for-more-segregation-in-schools-7186007.html


I think that is East London, and out of date.  White flight is typically white people moving away to get away from a new, usually poor, minority community that scares/threatens them (such as happened in Bradford, parts of leeds & birmingham etc) that then results in loss of established businesses, boarded up shops, more immigration of the same community, ghettoisation, collapse in property values, less economic opportunity, soaring crime etc etc- it is the ultimate result of fucked up immigration policies.  It may have applied to windrush brixton, but really not now- as I say, I think he is talking about a different time, in a different part of london, and using hyperbole


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Many would disagree with you, including Trevor Phillips, former head of the Commission for Racial Equality. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/race...-for-more-segregation-in-schools-7186007.html


What?? That old article is about parents trying to move their kids into different schools. It's got nothing to do with the claims of "white flight" supposedly going on in south London.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

and before i get misinterpreted again, my little un will be going to a secondary school where it's 30% white. i don't want to be applauded, just not accused of racism because i happen to have mentioned the word "white flight"


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

ddraig said:


> I live in Cardiff and happy here
> have worked and lived in South London and i reiterate that Eltham and Welling are shitholes, Penge a bit less so
> my mate moved his family from penge to hayes so they could get a house instead of a flat and a garden


At least in Penge you're only minutes away from more interesting places.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Either you're an idiot racist or you don't actually understand what "white flight" means. Here. Read and learn.


 
You know that exact same page you're using the very first sentence only of in order to call a new poster an idiot racist includes a more detailed section on the ethnic changes within London in a way that fits in fairly well with what he's saying?





> For centuries, London was the destination for refugees and immigrants from Europe. Although all the immigrants were European, neighborhoods showed ethnic succession over time, as older residents moved out (in some cases, ethnic British) and new immigrants moved in – often both movements at once. Although the majority of London's population was still ethnic English and British. This was similar to what is now described as "white flight" following arrival of non-white ethnicities. For instance, in the 17th and 18th century, the East End had many French Huguenot (Protestant) refugees, who managed the silk-weaving industry. At its peak in the mid-18th century, 12,000 silk weavers were employed in the Spitalfields area.[56] In 1742 they built a church, _La Neuve Eglise_. Later it became used as a Methodist chapel to serve mostly poor East Enders from around England. Although in the 17th century, the East End also had Sephardic Jewish immigrants, it was not until the concentration of 19th-century Ashkenazi Jewish immigration from eastern Europe, that the Methodist chapel was adapted as the _Machzikei HaDath_, or Spitalfields Great Synagogue; it was consecrated in 1898. By the 1870s, thousands of unskilled Jewish immigrants were garment workers in sweatshops.[57] Descendants of Jewish immigrants became educated, took better jobs, and gradually moved on to other parts of London and its suburbs, and new immigrants settled in the area. Since 1976, the synagogue was converted to the _Jamme Masjid_ mosque, which serves the local ethnic Bangladeshi population, who are Muslim.[58]
> In the 2001 Census, the London boroughs of Newham and Brent were the first areas to have non-white majorities.[59] All major British cities have white-majority populations.[60] Although not all were of ethnic British origin (English, Scots and Welsh). It has also been forecast that places like Birmingham and Leicester will have non-white majority populations in time.[61]
> A 2005 report stated that white migration within the UK is mainly from areas of high ethnic minority population to those with predominantly white populations. White British families have moved out of London as many immigrants have settled in the capital. The report's writers expressed concern about British social cohesion and stated that different ethnic groups were living "parallel lives"; they were concerned that lack of contact between the groups could result in fear more readily exploited by extremists. The London School of Economics in a study found similar results.[62]
> A 2006 BBC article states that Trevor Phillips, head of the UK Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, and Mike Poulsen, an Australian academic, have argued that White Britons and non-white Britons are becoming more ethnically segregated.[63] But, researchers Ceri Peach, Danny Dorling and Ludi Simpson have argued that segregation in the UK is either stable or declining.[64] Simpson says that the growth of ethnic minorities in Britain is due mostly to natural population growth (births outnumber deaths) rather than immigration. Both white and non-white Britons who can do so economically are equally likely to leave mixed-race inner-city areas. In his opinion, these trends indicate counter urbanisation rather than white flight.[65]


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

it's not


Manter said:


> I think that is East London, and out of date. White flight is typically white people moving away to get away from a new, usually poor, minority community that scares/threatens them (such as happened in Bradford, parts of leeds & birmingham etc) that then results in loss of established businesses, boarded up shops, more immigration of the same community, ghettoisation, collapse in property values, less economic opportunity, soaring crime etc etc- it is the ultimate result of fucked up immigration policies. It may have applied to windrush brixton, but really not now- as I say, I think he is talking about a different time, in a different part of london, and using hyperbole[/quote
> 
> it's not hyperbole! the white middle classes more often than not do send their kids to inner city london secondary schools!


 
it's not hyperbole! the white middle classes more often than not do not send their kids to inner city london secondary schools!


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> and before i get misinterpreted again, my little un will be going to a secondary school where it's 30% white. i don't want to be applauded, just not accused of racism because i happen to have mentioned the word "white flight"


Now that the meaning of the word has been carefully explained to you, perhaps you could give some examples of where this "white flight" is supposedly still taking place in south London, and detail the minorities that are driving the whites out?


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> You know that exact same page you're using the very first sentence only of in order to call a new poster an idiot racist includes a more detailed section on the ethnic changes within London in a way that fits in fairly well with what he's saying?


Where does it mention 'white flight' currently taking place in south London?


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

It's definitely the case ime that middle class parents (of which I am one) avoid schools they don't see as being 'right' for their children, and partly being 'right' means a decent proportion of 'people like us'.

Our kids' school is about 5% white British (mainly black African/Afro-Carribean) and is shunned by the white middle class (and no, it wasn't our first choice but has turned out to be great).  But it might well also be shunned if it were full of white _working_ class.


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> How's that different? Basically that's about white parents not wanting to send their kids to schools they don't think are white enough, and moving, which boils down to the same thing, doesn't it?



Different to what ? Read the quote, it's one of the factors that leads to "white flight" from certain areas.



editor said:


> What?? That old article is about parents trying to move their kids into different schools. It's got nothing to do with the claims of "white flight" supposedly going on in south London.


 
It's anarticle from 6 years ago so isn't valid ? You're clutching at straws here I think. "White flight" is a term that is frequently used to describe what MillwallShoes was saying, there's nothing racist about it.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Now that the meaning of the word has been carefully explained to you, perhaps you could give some examples of where this "white flight" is supposedly still taking place in south London, and detail the minorities that are driving the whites out?


 
you're like a dog with a bone. white flight as i understand can be caused by many things. but you're not going to let up on your obsession with minorities, are you?


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> you're like a dog with a bone. white flight as i understand can be caused by many things. but you're not going to let up on your obsession with minorities, are you?


You're the one using a term referencing race, not me.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> it's not
> 
> 
> it's not hyperbole! the white middle classes more often than not do not send their kids to inner city london secondary schools!


you've missed my point.  In some parts of london, you have schools next to each other that are becoming racial segregated.  That is completely different to whites large scale giving up on areas and leaving lock stock and barrel to avoid minorities (when of course they wouldn't drive their kids back there every morning for school)- the former is racial segregation within a community, the latter is white flight from a community.  And in Brixton, middle class professionals, often white, are moving in.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Where does it mention 'white flight' currently taking place in south London?


 


I know better than to expect anything I say not to be aggressively misrepesented now so I'm out of this one.  You may proclaim pwnage.


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Where does it mention 'white flight' currently taking place in south London?


 
So you don't believe that it happens ?

I think you need to step out of the little "Brixton Bubble" for a bit and see what has been happening in other parts of South London for decades. Brixton is a far more mixed and tolerant place than any other part of South London.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Different to what ? Read the quote, it's one of the factors that leads to "white flight" from certain areas.


...maybe I've missed summat, I haven't read the entire thread, but what's happening in Brixton isn't white flight. It's richer largely white people moving in.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> So you don't believe that it happens ?
> 
> I think you need to step out of the little "Brixton Bubble" for a bit and see what has been happening in other parts of South London for decades. Brixton is a far more mixed and tolerant place than any other part of South London.


It is? Didn't really have much of a different experience when I was in Kennington.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

if you want me to say that many whtie working class left london because of ethnic minorities, then there is probably some truth in that. racist white working classes who don't like black people might have upsticks for them reasons. that's not the reason why most of my mates have moved out though. they moved out because they couldn't afford to buy a decent house there.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> if you want me to say that many whtie working class left london because of ethnic minorities, then there is probably some truth in that. racist white working classes who don't like black people might have upsticks for them reasons. that's not the reason why most of my mates have moved out though. they moved out because they couldn't afford to buy a decent house there.


so it isn't white flight!  its economic factors!

ergo, @editor's point- why bring race into it?


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...maybe I've missed summat, I haven't read the entire thread, but what's happening in Brixton isn't white flight. It's richer largely white people moving in.


 
I think there's crossed wires, because I wasn't denying that at all, if anything there's more "Black flight" happening in Brixton atm.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> You're clutching at straws here I think. "White flight" is a term that is frequently used to describe what MillwallShoes was saying, there's nothing racist about it.


So what minorities are currently driving out these whites? And where? 


> White flight:
> 
> The phenomenon of upper and middle class whites moving out of cities and into the suburbs is known as white flight. The opposite of white flight is gentrification, a process in which wealthy whites move back into an urban area, displacing the current residents and rapidly driving up the cost of living so that the previous residents are forced to move. Both practices have been extensively documented by students of demographics and urban development. White flight, in particular, has negative connotations, especially for those left behind in the suddenly impoverished neighborhood.
> 
> ...


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


>


She's right, bits of it sell fish and there are meat stalls and fruit and veg stalls - just like Thailand.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> So what minorities are currently driving out these whites? And where?


holy fuck, the comments are properly


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2012)

Jesus, can we just accept that he used the wrong word to describe the phenomenon, instead of dancing round in circles playing the semantics game?


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> I think you need to step out of the little "Brixton Bubble" for a bit and see what has been happening in other parts of South London for decades. Brixton is a far more mixed and tolerant place than any other part of South London.


So, once again, where is this 'white flight' happening now and what minorities are driving it?

Oh, and I've lived all over London, thanks.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> So what minorities are currently driving out these whites? And where?


slight derail- one of my black colleagues, who grew up here, now lives in Wandsworth, said he wouldn't live here, or even come and visit the villaaaage, because there 'are too many black people'


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> holy fuck, the comments are properly


 
Innit, I'm stunned but not that surprised. Don't people get done for posting stuff like that on twitter?


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> So what minorities are currently driving out these whites? And where?



Wtf has America got to do with "White Flight" in South London ? 

monkeygrinders has already pointed out the relevant quotes from the wikipedia article on white flight in the uk. Why are you choosing to ignore this ?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> so it isn't white flight! its economic factors!
> 
> ergo, @editor's point- why bring race into it?


because there was a massive moving out of london in the past twenty years of white people?


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Wtf has America got to do with "White Flight" in South London ?
> 
> monkeygrinders has already pointed out the relevant quotes from the wikipedia article on white flight in the uk. Why are you choosing to ignore this ?


the name developed in the US, like so much.  We borrowed it over here.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> because there was a massive moving out of london in the past twenty years of white people?


and a massive moving in of white people, just richer ones


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Jesus, can we just accept that he used the wrong word to describe the phenomenon, instead of dancing round in circles playing the semantics game?


It might be nice if he acknowledged that, because it is a very emotive phrase with all sorts of connotations. The fact that he's continuing to use the phrase despite its full meaning being explained several times does make me wonder.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Wtf has America got to do with "White Flight" in South London ?
> 
> monkeygrinders has already pointed out the relevant quotes from the wikipedia article on white flight in the uk. Why are you choosing to ignore this ?


 
because it's waaacccciisstt.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Wtf has America got to do with "White Flight" in South London ?


Why does it matter where the phrase originated? Its meaning is universal.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Innit, I'm stunned but not that surprised. Don't people get done for posting stuff like that on twitter?


good point- why does twitter (and facebook groups) get treated differently.

tho full enforcement may shut down the daily mail site, of course...

E2amend spelling


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> the biggest tragedy, and the biggest sickener for me, if you really want to pin something on the middle class urban, is education. where i live in west norwood, we have palace up the road and cafes stock full every morning of yummy mummies and their posh prams.
> 
> their kids are almost entirely absent from the secondary schools round here though. there's a real class and race issue right there, the way these people wouldn't dream of sending their kids to london state schools.
> 
> ...


 
Agree - but this is going to get _worse_, if huge areas of inner London become unaffordable to the kind of young professionals (like Crispy) who _would_ send their children to London state schools - and are only affordable to the really rich middle classes who would always go private anyway (or move out to Berkshire or Surrey like you say).

Brixton Square - starter flats for a quarter of a million pounds - I don't think the people buying those are going to be adding to the social mix in London state secondary schools in 15 years time.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> because there was a massive moving out of london in the past twenty years of white people?


You said that it's still going on too. So where is that happening?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> because there was a massive moving out of london in the past twenty years of white people?


Can't say I've noticed that at all. I've lived in Brixton for over 30 years and that's not at all what I've seen.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

i've already given the dog his bone and agreed that some (racist) white people moved out because of immigration.

one strand in the term "white flight". which is just one indicator of how london changes over time largely because of the housing market


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> You said that it's still going on too. So where is that happening?


proper weird.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Can't say I've noticed that at all. I've lived in Brixton for over 30 years and that's not at all what I've seen.


There must be census data out there to help clear this up. Let me see what I can find.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Can't say I've noticed that at all. I've lived in Brixton for over 30 years and that's not at all what I've seen.


elephant, okr, deptford, new cross, they've nearly all moved out.


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> It might be nice if he acknowledged that, because it is a very emotive phrase with all sorts of connotations. The fact that he's continuing to use the phrase despite its full meaning being explained several times does make me wonder.


 
So the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality uses it to describe white Londoners fleeing inner city communities, but that's not good enough for you ? 

I give up.


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Can't say I've noticed that at all. I've lived in Brixton for over 30 years and that's not at all what I've seen.


 
tbf much of the white flight from Brixton happened more than 30 years ago, so you've been witnessing the reversal almost.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Agree - but this is going to get _worse_, if huge areas of inner London become unaffordable to the kind of young professionals (like Crispy) who _would_ send their children to London state schools - and are only affordable to the really rich middle classes who would always go private anyway (or move out to Berkshire or Surrey like you say).
> 
> Brixton Square - starter flats for a quarter of a million pounds - I don't think the people buying those are going to be adding to the social mix in London state secondary schools in 15 years time.


 
Dunno- think all the goalposts have changed.  When and where I grew up (Berkshire, Surrey, Hampshire in the 80s and 90s) a professional couple could afford to privately educate 2 children, many on one professional income- and many did. Now private schooling has increased exponentially in price, so middle class people with two full professional incomes can't afford it.  

Those new buyers may well be doing very well in the great scheme of things, but they are unlikely to be able to opt out of the state system, as that has become the preserve, increasingly, of the super rich.  But for some reason that isn't driving a 'we're all in this together' (sorry, couldn't resist) behaviour, it is pushing infighting... and we are all ignoring the super rich who are pulling further away, paying less tax, insulating themselves from reality even further....


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> You said that it's still going on too. So where is that happening?


Lots of racists from London in Milton Keynes. Don't think there is one part of London they are from but there is definitely a largely white and largely racist element there these days. Even the Mr (who is from there) says that culturally it's very racist, to the point where listening to reggae is frowned upon by a lot of people and so on. 

For example: http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/elections/displayarticle.asp?ID=63046



Clearly most of them moved there some time ago though.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

Interestingly, there is more internal migration out of London than into it.
http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/migration-indicators

@Crispy


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

over the past few years, i have come to the sad conclusion that london is fucked. something has changed, someone has said. there's something going and it's to do with money.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> tbf much of the white flight from Brixton happened more than 30 years ago, so you've been witnessing the reversal almost.


And this thread is about the current situation.


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> So the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality uses it to describe white Londoners fleeing inner city communities, but that's not good enough for you ?


 
Yeah but he also has some dodgy views about multiculturism iirc.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> Yeah but he also has some dodgy views about multiculturism iirc.


And some!


----------



## zenie (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> over the past few years, i have come to the sad conclusion that london is fucked. something has changed, someone has said. there's something going and it's to do with money.


 
You're not wrong there. Housing costs mainly.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Interestingly, there is more internal migration out of London than into it.
> http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/migration-indicators
> 
> @Crispy


Well, my family bears that out. I'm the only one left in London, but my sisters married men who weren't Londoners so it's often hard to pick apart the reasons why people move out.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Agree - but this is going to get _worse_, if huge areas of inner London become unaffordable to the kind of young professionals (like Crispy) who _would_ send their children to London state schools - and are only affordable to the really rich middle classes who would always go private anyway (or move out to Berkshire or Surrey like you say).
> 
> Brixton Square - starter flats for a quarter of a million pounds - I don't think the people buying those are going to be adding to the social mix in London state secondary schools in 15 years time.


frightening. really.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Agree - but this is going to get _worse_, if huge areas of inner London become unaffordable to the kind of young professionals (like Crispy) who _would_ send their children to London state schools - and are only affordable to the really rich middle classes who would always go private anyway (or move out to Berkshire or Surrey like you say).
> 
> Brixton Square - starter flats for a quarter of a million pounds - I don't think the people buying those are going to be adding to the social mix in London state secondary schools in 15 years time.


i honestly thought that i was the only one seeing this.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2012)

Crispy said:


> There must be census data out there to help clear this up. Let me see what I can find.


Ok, I'm drowning here. There's masses of data, but no easy way of digging it out in a useful way and interpreting it. I'm not a full-time demographer and we need one of those to do this!


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Ok, I'm drowning here. There's masses of data, but no easy way of digging it out in a useful way and interpreting it. I'm not a full-time demographer and we need one of those to do this!


@kabbes is the closest we have


----------



## zenie (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> i honestly thought that i was the only one seeing this.


 
you're not, but it's a very different thing to white flight 

I've met quite a few people who come to London to get the money, but when the time comes to settle down and do the kids thing they move out to the home counties...consequence of this is that they never add much to the community. London has always been a transient place, the difference now is people (not just white people, all poor or w/c people) are forced to leave areas which were previously affordable, because the young professionals have moved to the cheap places and pushed rents up.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> tbf much of the white flight from Brixton happened more than 30 years ago, so you've been witnessing the reversal almost.


yes, this ^^^^- gentrification


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

i'm a new parent. is all this "moving to be near a better school" a new thing? certainly wasn't when i was young (it seemed). did people do that ten, twenty, thirty years ago??


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

i'm talking in general, not just london. seems to be the norm. something wrong with it.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> i'm a new parent. is all this "moving to be near a better school" a new thing? certainly wasn't when i was young (it seemed). did people do that ten, twenty, thirty years ago??


When I was growing up the choices were simple: 
1. You went to the nearest comprehensive or 
2. You were posh and paid for your kid to go to a school where they wore smart blazers


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, my family bears that out. I'm the only one left in London, but my sisters married men who weren't Londoners so it's often hard to pick apart the reasons why people move out.


I guess I am the other end of the same equation- I'm not a born and bred londoner, neither are most of my friends, but we all moved to London after university because work etc made it essential- and many of us can't leave even if we wanted to, because of work (tho I don't want to!).  So yes, we have all moved into different bits of london looking for our 'home'- some have moved to one of the dormitory counties, but not many.... we are the ones popping up in Tulse Hill, Herne Hill, Brixton, Streatham etc


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 27, 2012)

You used to be able to send your kids across town to school. Now you can't.

Saying that, the nearest comp to me was all the way across town.


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

zenie said:


> London has always been a transient place, the difference now is people (not just white people, all poor or w/c people) are forced to leave areas which were previously affordable, because the young professionals have moved to the cheap places and pushed rents up.


 
Not sure how new or different this is - I rented in West Hampstead when I first got to London (1993).  When my gf was making the move in 1994 the rents had gone up to the extent that she couldn't afford to live there.

We ended up in Brixton as a result


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

Also, it's often more helpful to regard London as a landlocked country with different 'counties' because there isn't really a city like it anywhere else in the world. We were the first mega-city, but it's never been one homogenous mass, imo.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Also, it's often more helpful to regard London as a landlocked country with different 'counties' because there isn't really a city like it anywhere else in the world. We were the first mega-city, but it's never been one homogenous mass, imo.


the 'villagey' nature of london is one of the nicest things about it


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> i honestly thought that i was the only one seeing this.


 
But this kind of thing is exactly why some of us are worried about property prices surging as dramatically as they are (not just in Brixton, surrounding areas too) - going back to your first post in this thread, it's not just a 'prolier than thou' thing or preserving our little playground in aspic.


----------



## Kanda (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> When I was growing up the choices were simple:
> 1. You went to the nearest comprehensive or
> 2. You were posh and paid for your kid to go to a school where they wore smart blazers


 
I think this is made more difficult these days with faith schools etc


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> What?? That old article is about parents trying to move their kids into different schools. It's got nothing to do with the claims of "white flight" supposedly going on in south London.


 
What point are you trying to make? WF never happened in London? It did but it doesn't now? We should call it something else?


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

Kanda said:


> I think this is made more difficult these days with faith schools etc


 
And Academies/Free Schools etc.  All divisive.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2012)

Kanda said:


> faith schools


A fucking crime against society


----------



## girasol (Nov 27, 2012)

On the subject of schools, can't find the post to quote now...  There are plenty of good state schools in London, full of middle class kids (Wandsworth is full of them for starters).  I think people sometimes forget how good the education system still is in comparison to the rest of the world.  A lot of professional middle class parents send their kids to state school.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> When I was growing up the choices were simple:
> 1. You went to the nearest comprehensive or
> 2. You were posh and paid for your kid to go to a school where they wore smart blazers


You forgot about the 11-plus. Secondary Modern/Grammar. Comprehensives weren't universal until much later.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 27, 2012)

girasol said:


> On the subject of schools, can't find the post to quote now... There are plenty of good state schools in London, full of middle class kids (Wandsworth is full of them for starters). I think people sometimes forget how good the education system still is in comparison to the rest of the world. A lot of professional middle class parents send their kids to state school.


 
london has the best state schools in teh country, i read somewhere.


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

Lambeth average results at primary level is higher than national average. And Lambeth is low in London terms.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> When I was growing up the choices were simple:
> 1. You went to the nearest comprehensive or
> 2. You were posh and paid for your kid to go to a school where they wore smart blazers


 
You also could descend into recusancy and go to a Catholic comprehensive (which was supposed to be better) where I grew up.


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> When I was growing up the choices were simple:
> 1. You went to the nearest comprehensive or
> 2. You were posh and paid for your kid to go to a school where they wore smart blazers



I'm guessing that where you grew up didn't have the same population density as central London.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

girasol said:


> I think people sometimes forget how good the education system still is in comparison to the rest of the world.


Yes, a fair few immigrants I know have given up their middle-class professions overseas and worked as cleaners or whatever here so that their kids get a good education here. Their kids usually go on to University. Certainly from my experience working in schools I'd say the stroppy ones who think school is shit are more likely to be the kids born here whereas the kids born overseas tend to grasp every educational opportunity and do their very best.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> I'm guessing that where you grew up didn't have the same population density as central London.


Hardly anywhere in the UK is as dense as central London, but I did go to the second largest school in Europe!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> I think that is East London, and out of date. White flight is typically white people moving away to get away from a new, usually poor, minority community that scares/threatens them (such as happened in Bradford, parts of leeds & birmingham etc) that then results in loss of established businesses, boarded up shops, more immigration of the same community, ghettoisation, collapse in property values, less economic opportunity, soaring crime etc etc- it is the ultimate result of fucked up immigration policies. It may have applied to windrush brixton, but really not now- as I say, I think he is talking about a different time, in a different part of london, and using hyperbole


Well, I think the situation in the North is more because of the collapse of the manufacturing industries, which is probably at the centre of everything you mention above.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> When I was growing up the choices were simple:
> 1. You went to the nearest comprehensive or
> 2. You were posh and paid for your kid to go to a school where they wore smart blazers


 
Did comps not wear blazers? 

Must be a Welsh thing


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, I think the situation in the North is more because of the collapse of the manufacturing industries, which is probably at the centre of everything you mention above.


good point


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Did comps not wear blazers?
> 
> Must be a Welsh thing


We did but they weren't as smart as the rich kid blazers.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> We did but they weren't as smart as the rich kid blazers.


I went to a school (briefly) that had capes in winter, and straw hats in summer... we all had to be driven to school as we would never have survived on public transport....


----------



## zenie (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> Not sure how new or different this is - I rented in West Hampstead when I first got to London (1993). When my gf was making the move in 1994 the rents had gone up to the extent that she couldn't afford to live there.
> 
> We ended up in Brixton as a result


 
First they came for West Hampstead and I did not speak out etc...

Was West Hampstead a deprived area previous to '93? I have no idea as I was kid then! 

It seems that the gentrification and the prices of rents has gone up considerably in any well connected places within zone 2, except in recent years they have dared to come South!!!  

See also the price of renting in Oval/Vauxhall since the gays moved in and made it trendy.


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

zenie said:


> Was West Hampstead a deprived area previous to '93? I have no idea as I was kid then!


 
Not at all, but it was affordable (it's a bit of a misnomer really as the Finchley Rd separates it from Hampstead - really it's Cricklewood/Kilburn).


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

zenie said:


> Was West Hampstead a deprived area previous to '93? I have no idea as I was kid then!


I think it used to be considered Kilburn.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

When I was a kid Cricklewood middle-class, Kilburn not.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> Not at all, but it was affordable (it's a bit of a misnomer really as the Finchley Rd separates it from Hampstead - really it's Cricklewood/Kilburn).


Yeah, try telling people in W'Hamps that they're actually living in Cricklewood!  There'd be murder.


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> When I was a kid Cricklewood middle-class, Kilburn not.


 
Alan Coren's got a lot to answer for.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)




----------



## Rushy (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> Not sure how new or different this is - I rented in West Hampstead when I first got to London (1993). When my gf was making the move in 1994 the rents had gone up to the extent that she couldn't afford to live there.
> 
> We ended up in Brixton as a result


When I bought my first place in Brixton proper in '98 (I'd been off Landor Road prior to that) I bought it from an exceedingly posh bloke who wore a three piece pin stripe suit and a bowler hat every day. He moved to Hampstead because he was getting married (for the fifth time) to a German lady who would not live in Brixton.


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Hardly anywhere in the UK is as dense as central London, but I did go to the second largest school in Europe!


Hard Knocks Academy?


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Hard Knocks Academy?


School of Life, mate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> Interesting, thread, thought i'd sign up.
> 
> What people are moaning about is the housing market - simple market forces. What's happened in Brixton is just how the housing market works. Some areas become desirable, others become less so.
> 
> ...


 
At the end of the day it's still "Penge, arsehole of south London" though, isn't it? 



> AS for the heygate, i know many people who grew up in South East London, on council estates, throughout the eighties and nineties and they couldn't wait to get out to Kent and Essex. Were literally queuing up to get out. People who used to be known as "cockneys". Whilst living in crime ridden hell holes, they had yuppies all around them using the local housing stock and housing market as some sort of edgy play thing.


 
The problem being that prices are now such that even commuter-belt and beyond are unaffordable to people on the "average wage" or less. If a one bedroom flat is an absolute minimum of £150,000, then unless you get a mortgage broker who's prepared to give you 3 x salary or more without a 10-20% deposit, you're looking at needing to earn £60,000 or more, or more than twice the average wage.



> If you look closely at london, it's just a transient mess...


 
It's a capital city. It's kind of their purpose to be constantly in flux socially. I think that the point people are trying to make is that *of course* there's always been a movement from the inner to the outer city, and back again, of the monied classes. What's happening now though, doesn't appear to be for the familiar reasons of previous waves - necessity, transport infrastructure, access to existing culture - in Brixton's case the *current* wave of "gentrification" (perhaps from the early 2000s-on) through property purchase is about buying access to a local culture because of its' "genuineness", as if people are moving here to purchase a sense of validity and belonging (generally at the cost of the people who've created and nurtured that local culture).



> ...and everyone is largely either on the bottom or on the top - with the gap growing all the time. I have grown fonder and fonder of the suburbs. People talk about "culture" - they can be fuck all real culture without community, and real communities are getting less and less in inner london.


 
"Fewer and fewer", you barbarian!
And you're welcome to the 'burbs. Dead as fuck.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> it's almost a conservative type of thinking to expect one small town in london to remain the same, with the same "locals", the same property prices. not going to happen, is it.


 
No-one has asked for it to stay the same, they've expressed the desire not to have the area ripped away from them with quite the rapidity it is being ripped away at. We're not morons. We're perfectly aware that money talks, but that doesn't mean we're going to be meek and quiet about our communities being destroyed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> where did i say about heygate specifically. i know plenty of people from okr, walworth, peckham, new cross, who moved because they didn't like the area anymore, and because of house prices.
> 
> see, it's that wretched hosuing market again. but it's the way it works. it's simple economics and shouting and screaming about cup cakes and single speed bikes is missing hte point. areas change.
> 
> and it was a form of white flight when the mass white working class deserted innner london for the home counties. if i can't call it white flight, then god help us


 
Like Millwall FC, you seem to get things arse about face.
The "white flight" to the suburbs you talk about, both post-war waves, were for the same reason. Not desertion, but because under regional government funding schemes, a lot of the small to medium manufacturing business that frequented inner London railway arches were enticed onto industrial estates in the arse-end of Surrey, Herts etc. Workers followed their jobs - usually with a one-off moving payment funded by the same development agency that encouraged the employer to move.
It wasn't "white flight", it was business flight that stripped a section of the white working classes from the inner cities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> What the fuck are you going on about?


 
He's implying that if you live in Brixton you're a cupcake munchin' fixie-ridin' hipster.
Don't worry. It's a common failing of Millwall supporters, the difficulty in not speaking in cliché.


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's happening now though, doesn't appear to be for the familiar reasons of previous waves - necessity, transport infrastructure, access to existing culture - in Brixton's case the *current* wave of "gentrification" (perhaps from the early 2000s-on) through property purchase is about buying access to a local culture because of its' "genuineness", as if people are moving here to purchase a sense of validity and belonging (generally at the cost of the people who've created and nurtured that local culture).



Do you have any evidence for this?


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 27, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Did comps not wear blazers?
> 
> Must be a Welsh thing


Our school didn't have a uniform. This was back in the 80s early 90s. Just as I was leaving they reintroduced it.
Eta: plenty of other ordinary comps did and do have smart uniform policies. Esp now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> I've seen it in my lifetime, the demographics of estates in South London changing hugely and rapidly at times. It's not always a case of people or families fleeing from minorities, there's often other economic reasons, but I've lost count of the amount of friends and families, some of which have lived in the same area for generations, shifted and relocated further and further out of London.
> 
> It's not just "white flight" either, bme communities are being forced out too nowadays, there's plenty who have left Brixton to places like Thornton Heath.


 
Thing is drew, when I was a schoolkid in the '70s, most demographic change on estates was slow and voluntary - people moving with their job, because their family had outgrown the house, or because they'd "gone up in the world" and put a deposit down on a house of their own - people-centred, if you will.
Now, most of it is at the whim of "the markets" and the requirement of local authorities to let what stock they still have on a needs basis - market-centred, if you will.


----------



## zenie (Nov 27, 2012)

Build more council houses.

END OF THREAD


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> Do you have any evidence for this?


 
Beyond the fact that developments are being sold on such terms, and anecdotage? No, sorry, I don't have statistical breakdowns of purchaser preference!


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Beyond the fact that developments are being sold on such terms, and anecdotage? No, sorry, I don't have statistical breakdowns of purchaser preference!


 

I'm not surprised that you don't have evidence - discerning other people's motives is a tricky thing to do.  That being the case, I think you need to be careful when speculating - saying that




> _people are moving here to purchase a sense of validity and belonging (generally at the cost of the people who've created and nurtured that local culture)_




is a pretty divisive thing to say.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Many would disagree with you, including Trevor Phillips, former head of the Commission for Racial Equality. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/race...-for-more-segregation-in-schools-7186007.html


 
Drew, that actually supports what the ed has said about white flight being motivated by fears and worries.


----------



## zenie (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> I'm not surprised that you don't have evidence - discerning other people's motives is a tricky thing to do. That being the case, I think you need to be careful when speculating - saying that
> 
> 
> 
> is a pretty divisive thing to say.


 
divisive maybe. But who do people want to move to and/or live in Brixton?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> I'm not surprised that you don't have evidence - discerning other people's motives is a tricky thing to do. That being the case, I think you need to be careful when speculating - saying that
> 
> 
> 
> is a pretty divisive thing to say.


 
In case I hurt someones' feelings or even their (shock! horror!) house price?

It hasn't occurred to you that it''s meant to be divisive, to reflect how I have felt watching Brixton being sold by the pound for the last 10-15 years?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, for the record, I moved here because a)It was cheap, b)Urban75 (and the people therein), and c)The market. I've stayed for b) and c)


----------



## zenie (Nov 27, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Well, for the record, I moved here because a)It was cheap, b)Urban75 (and the people therein), and c)The market. I've stayed for b) and c)


 
So you agree with VP then?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2012)

zenie said:


> So you agree with VP then?


Not sure. I'll see what he says first


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> Yeah but he also has some dodgy views about multiculturism iirc.


 
I'd be happier with Sir Trevor if he could be consistent even when it isn't politically convenient for him.


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> In case I hurt someones' feelings or even their (shock! horror!) house price?
> 
> It hasn't occurred to you that it''s meant to be divisive, to reflect how I have felt watching Brixton being sold by the pound for the last 10-15 years?


 
I wasn't so much thinking of the people who slot into your neat pigeonhole as those who don't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

zenie said:


> You're not wrong there. Housing costs mainly.


 
Throughout the southeast and southwest of England, too. Unaffordable or only marginally-affordable for a significant minority of the population.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

editor said:


> I did go to the second largest school in Europe!


 
Do Reform Schools count?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> Alan Coren's got a lot to answer for.


 
Particularly Giles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

zenie said:


> divisive maybe. But who do people want to move to and/or live in Brixton?


 
I don't know about, and won't speak for, anyone else, but I'd like people who'd integrate with the wider community, not just form their own subculture built around Brixton's "trendiness" quotient.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Not sure. I'll see what he says first


 
Ever the diplomat!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> I wasn't so much thinking of the people who slot into your neat pigeonhole as those who don't.


 
How is it divisive to them? Will they rend their clothes and beat their chests because they're not included in my "neat pigeonhole"?

Hardly.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't know about, and won't speak for, anyone else, but I'd like people who'd integrate with the wider community, not just form their own subculture built around Brixton's "trendiness" quotient.


You did stress the transience of London earlier, so just on that score you're always gonna get lots of people who live here for 1-2-3 years and then up sticks - it's not that easy to integrate into the wider community for these.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

TruXta said:


> You did stress the transience of London earlier, so just on that score you're always gonna get lots of people who live here for 1-2-3 years and then up sticks - it's not that easy to integrate into the wider community for these.


 
Yeah, sure, but what I'd hope for is that people moving here were "settlers" rather than visitors. Vain hope, I'm well aware, particularly as developments like the Villaage are targeting BtLers.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah, sure, but what I'd hope for is that people moving here were "settlers" rather than visitors. Vain hope, I'm well aware, particularly as developments like the Villaage are targeting BtLers.


Some people need/want to move around, and for that reason alone you don't want them here? Seems a bit harsh.


----------



## tarannau (Nov 27, 2012)

To be fair, the Millwall type has a vague point. There are very few folks on here who were born and bred anywhere near Brixton - back in the distant days of the past I remember some _fruity_ arguments on here with InfoStella and others, slightly bemused that they showed such distaste for gentrifying incomers despite being drawn from much the same stock, albeit a few further years down the road. That's not say that I don't share some reservations about the rate of gentrification, but there's a slightly unhealthy belief from some that they're 'real Brixtons' - that the drawbridge should be pulled up after them/that the new types are generally feckless incomers with no taste or regard for the area's history. It all seems a bit artificial

On the whole I still don't think of most of the Urban 75ers on here as particularly typical of Brixton, a few long termers excepted. You could always spot the Urban gatherings sticking out like a bit of a sore thumb, rather than blending into the background of Brixton's locals and other venues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Some people need/want to move around, and for that reason alone you don't want them here? Seems a bit harsh.


 
I stated a preference, not a _diktat_, you church-burning devil-worshipper! 
As said earlier, a community made up of people with no investment in the community except as a place to shit, sleep, shower and shave isn't much of a community.


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't know about, and won't speak for, anyone else, but I'd like people who'd integrate with the wider community, not just form their own subculture built around Brixton's "trendiness" quotient.


 
Can I gently suggest then that one way to encourage people to do this is not to speculate on a local bulletin board that most people who've bought property here recently (perhaps from the early 2000s on) have done so to buy access to a local culture because of its "genuineness"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

tarannau said:


> To be fair, the Millwall type has a vague point. There are very few folks on here who were born and bred anywhere near Brixton - back in the distant days of the past I remember some _fruity_ arguments on here with InfoStella and others, slightly bemused that they showed such distaste for gentrifying incomers despite being drawn from much the same stock, albeit a few further years down the road. That's not say that I don't share some reservations about the rate of gentrification, but there's a slightly unhealthy belief from some that they're 'real Brixtons' - that the drawbridge should be pulled up after them/that the new types are generally feckless incomers with no taste or regard for the area's history. It all seems a bit artificial
> 
> On the whole I still don't think of most of the Urban 75ers on here as particularly typical of Brixton, a few long termers excepted. You could always spot the Urban gatherings sticking out like a bit of a sore thumb, rather than blending into the background of Brixton's locals and other venues.


 
I'm not "real Brixtons". I've lived here for only a third of my life, although the rest, bar a couple of years, have been within a 3k radius of the Town Hall, and I've visited Brixton (and Walworth and Camberwell) all my life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

Winot said:


> Can I gently suggest then that one way to encourage people to do this is not to speculate on a local bulletin board that most people who've bought property here recently (perhaps from the early 2000s on) have done so to buy access to a local culture because of its "genuineness"?


 
You can gently suggest whatever you like. It's not for me to stop you!


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

I sort of agree with vp. Even though I think that means I am volunteering to be driven out of Brixton by people with burning torches....

I chose Brixton because it seemed to have a life outside mine- it wasn't a commuter dormitory, but a proper community (and one in which I could afford to live, and where I was unlikely to stumble across (m)any of my colleagues, who I have quite enough of during the week). That is a sort of genuine-ness, and yes, that attracted me.  The Northerner moved here because I lived here. We have only just started thinking about community (er, six years... We may be a bit slow on the uptake) so yes, we may be those people who are e problem.

Expressing myself v badly here. Will try again later


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 27, 2012)

Someone way back said that they thought that BTL wasn't an issue in Brixton - it really is already, and is likely to get worse. Forget the Victorian terraces that always form so much of the discussion of the local housing market, who do you think has been and still is buying up the one to three bedroom flats, not just at 'Brixton Square'? The ones that used to form the bottom of the housing ladder but people now struggle to rent?

Another point, only anecdotally, but four families with children under 5 in my immediate social circle who live or lived in Lambeth have moved or are moving in the past two years, including us. At the root of that is housing, but it will have a huge knock on in education too, given we were all state school users or prospectives. I have loved this area and have always shared it with the very rich - I've lived in Stockwell and there have always been very well to do people just down the road. It was the mix that made the place, and it's that which is going. I'm very positive about my new start in a new city but I wil always have a soft spot for Stockwell and Brixton and I do wonder how much it will have changed when I come back for visits.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> I sort of agree with vp. Even though I think that means I am volunteering to be driven out of Brixton by people with burning torches....
> 
> I chose Brixton because it seemed to have a life outside mine- it wasn't a commuter dormitory, but a proper community (and one in which I could afford to live, and where I was unlikely to stumble across (m)any of my colleagues, who I have quite enough of during the week). That is a sort of genuine-ness, and yes, that attracted me. The Northerner moved here because I lived here. We have only just started thinking about community (er, six years... We may be a bit slow on the uptake) so yes, we may be those people who are e problem.
> 
> Expressing myself v badly here. Will try again later


Nah, I know exactly what you mean.


----------



## tarannau (Nov 27, 2012)

I know what you mean too, but that also doesn't exclude the possibility that these strangely-coiffed trendy newcomers give much the same reasons why they've chosen to move to Brixton now.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 27, 2012)

One positive, and perhaps under-appreciated, development in this debate is Lambeth's new restriction on the conversion of houses into flats.

Such conversions have wrecked many streets, including mine, by encouraging transience.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> is that an issue in Brixton? Barratt Ghetto square may bring it to Brixton, but not personally seen much buy to let round here- what private letting I have seen is yps like me and crispy letting out a flat when they move in with their other half. Tho may be wrong


 
That, technically, is buy-to-let! And is very common around here.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I am afraid that that, technically, is buy-to-let!


happen to own and let, surely?


----------



## tarannau (Nov 27, 2012)

Alternatively, playing Devil's avocado, that also helps to maintain high property prices and helps appeal to a different, more monied demographic. Not many bar the (very) wealthy can afford a full house now.

If anything, it was the transitory and slightly downtrodden nature of Brixton's housing stock that encouraged a bit of a community feel, from the squats to the need for folks to entertain on the street and the shebeens of the frontline. And it was the improvement of that housing stock that helped cause the first wave of caribbean migration out of Brixton - few of the original windrush generation settlers could afford to take on big refurbishment projects on victorian terraces and were increasingly drawn out to the suburbs, attracted by greener spaces and more modern housing.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> happen to own and let, surely?


 
True. That's why I re-edited, not to be rude - and hypocritical!


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

leanderman said:


> True. That's why I re-edited, not to be rude - and hypocritical!


we didn't in the end, because it seemed too much hassle. And you're right, probably more of a nightmare for people renting to have your home taken away when they break up/eventually decide to buy together and need the money


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

tarannau said:


> snip> few of the original windrush generation settlers could afford to take on big refurbishment projects on victorian terraces and were increasingly drawn out to the suburbs, attracted by greener spaces and more modern housing.


this is one of the reasons Brixton is SO attractive to people now- houses haven't been ruined by 'improvements'- they still have mouldings, fireplaces, stained glass, old doors- sure they have damp, rot, and more damage than you can shake a stick at, but the bones of them haven't been ruined by 70s and 80s 'improvements'.  Think this, as well as the village etc etc makes it attractive now. and there are a lot of houses that can be bought as full houses (as lots of the flat conversions have been, um, rudimentary at best).


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> At the end of the day it's still "Penge, arsehole of south London" though, isn't it?


I think you'll now find it's Penge (pronounounced Pong- gay) le trou du cul de Londres.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 27, 2012)

tarannau said:


> If anything, it was the transitory and slightly downtrodden nature of Brixton's housing stock that encouraged a bit of a community feel, from the squats to the need for folks to entertain on the street and the shebeens of the frontline. .


 
Not my experience in Leander Road.

Tediously, predictably, it is the wealthier, owner types who organise street events (not shebeens!).

And the Josephine Avenue people say the same thing.


----------



## tarannau (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> this is one of the reasons Brixton is SO attractive to people now- houses haven't been ruined by 'improvements'- they still have mouldings, fireplaces, stained glass, old doors- sure they have damp, rot, and more damage than you can shake a stick at, but the bones of them haven't been ruined by 70s and 80s 'improvements'. Think this, as well as the village etc etc makes it attractive now. and there are a lot of houses that can be bought as full houses (as lots of the flat conversions have been, um, rudimentary at best).


 
I suspect that was more true 10 or more years ago. There was far more scope for making profits by refurbishing property, plus a far wider range of housing stock in all conditions. Now the current consistently high and higher rental prices point to more maturity and uniformity in the market.


----------



## tarannau (Nov 27, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Not my experience in Leander Road.
> 
> Tediously, predictably, it is the wealthier, owner types who organise street events (not shebeens!).
> 
> And the Josephine Avenue people say the same thing.


 
Street events aren't really the mark of a community like Brixton's though, surely. There are/were numerous creative venues on the doorstep, plus impromptu mobile sound rigs once were the order of the day. Somehow all that jubilee party and street art stuff seems more forced than an expression of a vibrant community


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

leanderman said:


> That, technically, is buy-to-let! And is very common around here.


 
Where's me pitchfork and burning brand? I'm off round to Manter's place!


----------



## leanderman (Nov 27, 2012)

tarannau said:


> Street events aren't really the mark of a community like Brixton's though, surely. There are/were numerous creative venues on the doorstep, plus impromptu mobile sound rigs once were the order of the day. Somehow all that jubilee party and street art stuff seems more forced than an expression of a vibrant community


 
There is something in that.

But such events, however forced, have got neighbours talking who had never even said hello.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 27, 2012)

tarannau said:


> I suspect that was more true 10 or more years ago. There was far more scope for making profits by refurbishing property, plus a far wider range of housing stock in all conditions. Now the current consistently high and higher rental prices point to more maturity and uniformity in the market.


 
Absolutely. Not that many houses left in our road. Many three-flat conversions from 2005-2010.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Where's me pitchfork and burning brand? I'm off round to Manter's place!


I'll just open a bottle of wine.


----------



## zenie (Nov 27, 2012)

tarannau said:


> To be fair, the Millwall type has a vague point. There are very few folks on here who were born and bred anywhere near Brixton - back in the distant days of the past I remember some _fruity_ arguments on here with InfoStella and others, slightly bemused that they showed such distaste for gentrifying incomers despite being drawn from much the same stock, albeit a few further years down the road. That's not say that I don't share some reservations about the rate of gentrification, but there's a slightly unhealthy belief from some that they're 'real Brixtons' - that the drawbridge should be pulled up after them/that the new types are generally feckless incomers with no taste or regard for the area's history. It all seems a bit artificial
> 
> On the whole I still don't think of most of the Urban 75ers on here as particularly typical of Brixton, a few long termers excepted. You could always spot the Urban gatherings sticking out like a bit of a sore thumb, rather than blending into the background of Brixton's locals and other venues.


 
Yer....and I probably speak from an outsiders viewpoint, I've never lived in Brixton, nor really wanted to live anywhere other than Southwark, though I might soon, simply for convenience reasons.  <awaits flaming> 

I don't think there's anything wrong with moving somewhere because it's genuine, because it seems to have a community, it's whether that genuineness can be carried on, whether you integrate or look on in from outside, all the while feeling that you're part of it, when clearly you're not. 

Still, my earlier point still stands, if more social housing was built, and squatting residentials hadn't been made illegal (with new empties being 'protected by occupation' and needing 3 months wage slips and references to get a room as a 'property guardian') Brixton might, just might carry on being so diverse. Instead it seems like the 'normal' people have to get a bus down the hill from the cheaper areas to still enjoy it.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Absolutely. Not that many houses left in our road. Many three-flat conversions from 2005-2010.


We looked at two on your road when we were looking, and Arodene, Claverdale, Craignair, Hillworth, Mackie, Coldharbour- there were some over the other side of Brixton Hill and loads in Stockwell too, but can't remember them all.  We briefed the estate agents we wanted complete houses with orig features that needed love and a dab hand with a hammerdrill, and we were inundated.  There are surprising numbers still out there- some of the 'conversions' into flats are just showers put in unlikely places, in my experience (behind the kitchen door in one place) but the owners would happily sell as a whole house


----------



## tarannau (Nov 27, 2012)

leanderman said:


> There is something in that.
> 
> But such events, however forced, have got neighbours talking who had never even said hello.


 
Heh. In years past we had to pretend to be out to stop neighbours and assorted other acquaintances popping in, often suspiciously close to meal times. 

I guess I've been lucky with neighbours - I occasionally still bump into the same faces from decades past.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> I'll just open a bottle of wine.





Manter said:


> some of the 'conversions' into flats are just showers put in unlikely places, in my experience (behind the kitchen door in one place) but the owners would happily sell as a whole house


 
A friend bought one like earlier this year and has spent months tied up in the legal issues of it actually being two properties.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

leanderman said:


> A friend bought one like earlier this year that and has spent months tied up in the legal issues of it actually being two properties.


a good lawyer is worth their weight in gold...  Ours just sorted out a buy to let landlord who wanted to use our alleyway to access the back of his property so he could subdivide it further...

Hmmm.  Dull property chat.  I must be old


----------



## gaijingirl (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> I must be old


 
no.. you're very very young...


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

gaijingirl said:


> no.. you're very very young...


younger than you, and you're a spring chicken, so yes, v young


----------



## gaijingirl (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> younger than you, and you're a spring chicken, so yes, v young


 
exactly... glad we're clear on that.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

gaijingirl said:


> exactly... glad we're clear on that.


I've written it on my hand


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> I'll just open a bottle of wine.


 
Feel free to slip into something more...well, you know... 


flammable!!!


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Feel free to slip into something more...well, you know...
> 
> 
> flammable!!!




the log pile is by the french doors, and there is accelerant in the shed.

Hth


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> the log pile is by the french doors, and there is accelerant in the shed.
> 
> Hth


 
I was hoping for more of a viscose housecoat. They always burn well when I roast another victim burn a witch!


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I was hoping for more of a viscose housecoat. They always burn well when I roast another victim burn a witch!


um.  Sorry.  Don't have one of those.  I'm posh remember?  Cashmere and silk lounge wear only


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> um. Sorry. Don't have one of those. I'm posh remember? Cashmere and silk lounge wear only


 
Silk eh? Ding-dong! Tell me more (twiddles moustache in Leslie Philips manner)!


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Silk eh? Ding-dong! Tell me more (twiddles moustache in Leslie Philips manner)!


@greebo- come and take your fella in hand (fnarr fnarr etc) and stop him burning my house down with me in it


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> people have always been priced out of areas that they want to live in.
> 
> it's almost a conservative type of thinking to expect one small town in london to remain the same, with the same "locals", the same property prices. not going to happen, is it.


 
Its a conservative type of thinking that believes that people have always been priced out of areas as though thats just how the world works. Like a natural phenomena.

Areas do change. See East London. East European Jewish immigration then the Bangladeshis. But what is happening to East London now is that new communities will not be able to live there. Its becoming to expensive.

Brixton has changed over time. There are now people here from South America, Eritrea and Algeria. They were not here when I first came here.

The problem is that , like East London, only the well off will be able to live here. That is what causes resentment. I have no problem with new people. That is what London is about. I have recently got to know a mainland Chinese woman recently and met someone from Saudi Arabia today. Who I had a nice chat with. I also now have East European friends. I adapt. However I cannot adapt to being priced out of an area.

The traditional London white working class ( I am not a born and bred Londoner) moved to places like Bromley because they could not deal with immigrants.


----------



## newbie (Nov 27, 2012)

tarannau said:


> I suspect that was more true 10 or more years ago. There was far more scope for making profits by refurbishing property, plus a far wider range of housing stock in all conditions. Now the current consistently high and higher rental prices point to more maturity and uniformity in the market.


as is often the case, by and large I agree with your posts on this thread. but not, I think, with this one. There's still plenty of scope for profits. Over the period since the low point in the late 70s/early 80s a house in Clapham has appreciated in price approximately twice as much as a similar one in Brixton.

I'd suggest that while Clapham pretty much peaked and stabilised a few years back the main reason there's been so much churn in Brixton recently is that there's still widely thought to be profits to be made.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 27, 2012)

newbie said:


> as is often the case, by and large I agree with your posts on this thread. but not, I think, with this one. There's still plenty of scope for profits. Over the period since the low point in the late 70s/early 80s a house in Clapham has appreciated in price approximately twice as much as a similar one in Brixton.
> 
> I'd suggest that while Clapham pretty much peaked and stabilised a few years back the main reason there's been so much churn in Brixton recently is that there's still widely thought to be profits to be made.


 
Not sure the gap is being closed.

We came to Brixton in 2006 and have noted that properties we looked at in nearby areas have risen by much higher percentages.


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 27, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I
> The traditional London white working class ( I am not a born and bred Londoner) moved to places like Bromley because they could not deal with immigrants.


 
Some did. Some others moved for work, or like my step-mums family - because the council house they were offered in Carshalton had facilities and space they couldn't have dreamed of in Battersea.


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 27, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Our school didn't have a uniform. This was back in the 80s early 90s. Just as I was leaving they reintroduced it.
> Eta: plenty of other ordinary comps did and do have smart uniform policies. Esp now.


Keeps the riff-raff out, etc.


----------



## newbie (Nov 27, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Not sure the gap is being closed.
> 
> We came to Brixton in 2006 and have noted that properties we looked at in nearby areas have risen by much higher percentages.


hard luck.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 27, 2012)

Manter said:


> @greebo- come and take your fella in hand (fnarr fnarr etc) and stop him burning my house down with me in it


Cba.  With or without me there's no way he'd get as far as the main road, let alone your house.


----------



## Manter (Nov 27, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Cba.  With or without me there's no way he'd get as far as the main road, let alone your house.


I hesitate to say 'good', but.....


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> Some did. Some others moved for work, or like my step-mums family - because the council house they were offered in Carshalton had facilities and space they couldn't have dreamed of in Battersea.


 
fair point. I was a bit irritated at Millwalls post. 

New Towns like Milton Keynes offered good standard of housing for people from inner city London. So you are right that was a reason to move.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Nov 28, 2012)

leanderman said:


> One positive, and perhaps under-appreciated, development in this debate is Lambeth's new restriction on the conversion of houses into flats.
> 
> Such conversions have wrecked many streets, including mine, by encouraging transience.


 
I'm probably missing a huge point about why this a good idea - it may be in some respects - but surely only really quite rich people can afford to buy or rent a whole victorian terrace house just for one family to live in these days. So an area will be quite one-dimensional if that's all you end up with.

It does make sense for some of those houses to be split into flats for less wealthy families. Eg the Dalberg / Rattray Road area between Effra Rd & Railton Rd - which is just ordinary 2 storey terraces not huge victorian piles - seems to have a healthy mixture of flats & houses, & plenty of the flats do have families who have been there for years, children in local schools etc (ie not transient).

I'm less familiar with Leander Rd, you may well be right about the negative effects of conversions there.  I do recall looking round a newly converted flat off Josephine Avenue, & I couldn't believe how many poky flats they'd managed to squeeze into one house - and these were freshly painted, nice looking flats, just absolutely tiny.  If I'd had to move in there, I don't think I'd have stayed long.
The flats I'm thinking of, round Dalberg area - I think some are housing association, i.e. decently sized conversions.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2012)

The free market in action.

This thread is pathetic.  This website essentially paved the way and cheer lead every aspect and forerunner of BVM and then rails agains it more or less _exclusively_ because it drives up prices.

The area is in demand, partly because you made it so, and then that is a bad thing?  Why?  A bad, thing bringing in businesses and consequent employment?  A lot of this stuff seems to be about "real Brixton", which is total nonsense.  Why is this "area" any much more yours than theirs, especially when they have risked capital on that very fact?

I never lived in Brixton.  I lived in Loughbourough Junction, in an area most in Brixton wouldn't even consider going to, but the one thing that really hacked me off was the peeps who thought they were doing Brixton a favour by living in the general area.  That their colourful lives of quite frankly "typical" anti establishment harmlessness justified their general inability to grasp the most basic principles while still exhorting the most crude imitations of the very same.

Brixton is changing. *In the very greatest part for the better.*

Forget your past.

It's long gone.

In the largest part, for the better.


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2012)

Diamond said:


> The free market in action.
> 
> This thread is pathetic. This website essentially paved the way and cheer lead every aspect and forerunner of BVM and then rails agains it more or less _exclusively_ because it drives up prices..


I didn't cheer on £257,000 one-bedroom Barratt Homes developments on Coldharbour Lane, and I don't think there's much on this site that would have sent the buy-to-let brigade hurdling down SW9-way either. 


Diamond said:


> In the largest part, for the better.


Unless you're being priced out of your own home and community, of course. Ain't the free market grand?


----------



## paolo (Nov 28, 2012)

Best way of avoiding other people liking the area where you live, is to live somewhere unremittingly shit. Try Thamesmead. There's a place that won't be overrun by *anyone at all* any time soon.

Brixton's great. In fact it's so good it kicks the arse of supposedly 'better' neighbourhoods like Clapham. And hey, surprise surprise, people have realised that.

It would be convenient to think that times are changing solely because of parasitical BTL landlords, or a single bland and opportunistic Barratts development, but the reality is less contrived. Brixton has fuckloads of good stuff going for it, and people* are now finding out.


----------



## lighterthief (Nov 28, 2012)

editor said:


> I didn't cheer on £257,000 one-bedroom Barratt Homes developments on Coldharbour Lane, and I don't think there's much on this site that would have sent the buy-to-let brigade hurdling down SW9-way either.


Running a website that actively celebrates/discusses what is happening in Brixton is a (small) step in the overall process, though (not that I am blaming you for doing so), as is anyone supporting new cafes, shops, small retailers, markets etc (not that I am blaming them, either). The sharp end of gentrification is indeed ugly to see, but it doesn't appear one day out of thin air.


----------



## fortyplus (Nov 28, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> I'm probably missing a huge point about why this a good idea - it may be in some respects - but surely only really quite rich people can afford to buy or rent a whole victorian terrace house just for one family to live in these days. So an area will be quite one-dimensional if that's all you end up with.
> 
> It does make sense for some of those houses to be split into flats for less wealthy families. Eg the Dalberg / Rattray Road area between Effra Rd & Railton Rd - which is just ordinary 2 storey terraces not huge victorian piles - seems to have a healthy mixture of flats & houses, & plenty of the flats do have families who have been there for years, children in local schools etc (ie not transient).
> 
> ...


 
Big houses don't have to be lived in exclusively by families, they work very well as shared houses. The regulations on HMOs discourage this, but it is an efficient way of providing relatively affordable housing in the private sector and the best shared houses (ideally with a live-in landlord imo) create lasting friendships, and wide networks of friends who can be as supportive and enduring as any family.  Brixton had quite a number of these, particularly in the 1990s, because it had escaped the rash of conversions that  destroyed most of the large houses in Clapham and Wandsworth during the 80s property boom.


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 28, 2012)

Diamond said:


> The free market in action.
> 
> This thread is pathetic. This website essentially paved the way and cheer lead every aspect and forerunner of BVM and then rails agains it more or less _exclusively_ because it drives up prices.
> 
> ...


 
There's nothing hypocritical about promoting the area then complaining when you are forced out. What you are overlooking is the underlying problem, which is the gulf between rich and poor. Your argument is indistinguishable from the one US Republicans make when they argue for tax cuts for the rich: "if you can't afford a decent life, it's your fault." You need to realise that not everyone can be rich. Somebody always has to do the low paid jobs, or be unemployed or disabled or old. If we had a fair society, like many of the ones in Western Europe, the fans of Brixton Village would not have that sinking feeling about their rent becoming unaffordable just because all the hipsters are coming here for a burger on Saturdays.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 28, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> There's nothing hypocritical about promoting the area then complaining when you are forced out. What you are overlooking is the underlying problem, which is the gulf between rich and poor. Your argument is indistinguishable from the one US Republicans make when they argue for tax cuts for the rich: "if you can't afford a decent life, it's your fault." You need to realise that not everyone can be rich. Somebody always has to do the low paid jobs, or be unemployed or disabled or old. If we had a fair society, like many of the ones in Western Europe, the fans of Brixton Village would not have that sinking feeling about their rent becoming unaffordable just because all the hipsters are coming here for a burger on Saturdays.


 even with a fairer society, people would still be priced out of places that they want to live.


----------



## Kanda (Nov 28, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> New Towns like Milton Keynes offered good standard of housing for people from inner city London. So you are right that was a reason to move.


 
They offered boxes with rooms in. There was fuck all there back when they were forcing people from inner London to move there. They just built an initial 3 or 4 estates with a local shop and plonked various London overspill in them, that didn't go well...


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 28, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> even with a fairer society, people would still be priced out of places that they want to live.


 
Some would, in some areas. But what we're facing here in Brixton is most of the residents being forced out of a fairly humble area. This isn't exactly Knightsbridge or St Tropez. But it's fast becoming just as out of reach.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 28, 2012)

i do agree with violent panda's comments about people-centered flight instead of market centered flight. good point.


----------



## Manter (Nov 28, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> I'm probably missing a huge point about why this a good idea - it may be in some respects - but surely only really quite rich people can afford to buy or rent a whole victorian terrace house just for one family to live in these days. So an area will be quite one-dimensional if that's all you end up with.
> 
> It does make sense for some of those houses to be split into flats for less wealthy families. Eg the Dalberg / Rattray Road area between Effra Rd & Railton Rd - which is just ordinary 2 storey terraces not huge victorian piles - seems to have a healthy mixture of flats & houses, & plenty of the flats do have families who have been there for years, children in local schools etc (ie not transient).
> 
> ...


 the issue Lambeth were trying to address was that huge levels of subdivision means huge stress on infrastructure in the area- rather then one family, you squeeze three or four per house- you are potentially tripling demand on medical services, transport, roads etc.  To try and avoid gentrification taking the form of speculators buying housing stock cheap, splitting it as far as possible and then renting it out on short lets, they have tried to restrict some activity so there is a mixture, gentrification was slowed. that avoids (or mitigates the severity of) Brixton becoming Clapham Junction, and gives the local infrastructure a chance


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 28, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Big houses don't have to be lived in exclusively by families, they work very well as shared houses. The regulations on HMOs discourage this, but it is an efficient way of providing relatively affordable housing in the private sector and the best shared houses (ideally with a live-in landlord imo) create lasting friendships, and wide networks of friends who can be as supportive and enduring as any family. Brixton had quite a number of these, particularly in the 1990s, because it had escaped the rash of conversions that destroyed most of the large houses in Clapham and Wandsworth during the 80s property boom.


Well, there was a lot of this in social housing too in the 1980s under the GlC Mobility Scheme when hard-to-let flats were let to groups of young people. I was living in a tower block and very few flats above the fifth floor were occupied. It could be argued that gentrification happened when that scheme happened. I suddenly had one of a group of young actors knocking on the door asking if they could borrow a coffee filter.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 28, 2012)

Two of them went on to become quite famous.....


----------



## Ms T (Nov 28, 2012)

tarannau said:


> Street events aren't really the mark of a community like Brixton's though, surely. There are/were numerous creative venues on the doorstep, plus impromptu mobile sound rigs once were the order of the day. Somehow all that jubilee party and street art stuff seems more forced than an expression of a vibrant community


If you google my street, you will find a newspaper article from 1977 about our street parties. In recent years they have been revived by a guy who originally moved here from Tonga. He tried really hard to make it inclusive, but it was mostly te middle class types who got involved. He was really upset at a meeting to be accused of excluding the poorer elements of our street.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 28, 2012)

Manter said:


> the issue Lambeth were trying to address was that huge levels of subdivision means huge stress on infrastructure in the area- rather then one family, you squeeze three or four per house- you are potentially tripling demand on medical services, transport, roads etc. To try and avoid gentrification taking the form of speculators buying housing stock cheap, splitting it as far as possible and then renting it out on short lets, they have tried to restrict some activity so there is a mixture, gentrification was slowed. that avoids (or mitigates the severity of) Brixton becoming Clapham Junction, and gives the local infrastructure a chance


Where did you hear that? I don't think that's the reason for the streets under conversion stress strategy. The core strategy which that policy is part of can be found here. They have an obligation to provide a  number of extra homes every year. What they wanted to do was avoid doing so at the expense of family sized homes. I think the policy is a good one but a bit too late for a lot of areas. Families generally did not want to move to Brixton so there was not huge pressure on houses, but now they do and there are very few good sized houses available so the prices have rocketed over the past couple of years (Mervan Road, don't expect to pay under 750k for a place needing work - would have been 500k a couple of years ago). There used to be a policy that houses under 120sqm could not be converted into flats (still exists but has been increased to 150sqm and largely overtaken by the conversion stress policy). This was to protect family sized homes. This worked well in areas where there were a lot of small houses (e.g. Horsford Road) and as a result there are strong communities of families. But there are few areas like this.


----------



## zenie (Nov 28, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, there was a lot of this in social housing too in the 1980s under the GlC Mobility Scheme when hard-to-let flats were let to groups of young people. I was living in a tower block and very few flats above the fifth floor were occupied. It could be argued that gentrification happened when that scheme happened. I suddenly had one of a group of young actors knocking on the door *asking if they could borrow a coffee filter. *


 
Made me chuckle that bit 

This thread just gets more and more depressing.


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> Running a website that actively celebrates/discusses what is happening in Brixton is a (small) step in the overall process, though (not that I am blaming you for doing so), as is anyone supporting new cafes, shops, small retailers, markets etc (not that I am blaming them, either). The sharp end of gentrification is indeed ugly to see, but it doesn't appear one day out of thin air.


Funnily enough, I used to get emails from people complaining that my photos were showing Brixton off in a "bad light"! Not sure that's been an awful lot of "celebrating" nu-Brixton here, either. Much of the comment here is critical, not that I think this site has had much influence on encouraging the well heeled to move here anyway. I've certainly seen no mass increase in punters in the Phoenix Cafe, for example, and I've been praising that place for years.

I'd say that if any media resource has had any influence - and I don't think many have - it would be more likely to be the Brixton Blog who have overall been far more welcoming of Brixton's changes and, in particular, the Village. I stopped taking pictures of the place ages ago.


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2012)

paolo said:


> Best way of avoiding other people liking the area where you live, is to live somewhere unremittingly shit. Try Thamesmead. There's a place that won't be overrun by *anyone at all* any time soon.
> 
> Brixton's great. In fact it's so good it kicks the arse of supposedly 'better' neighbourhoods like Clapham. And hey, surprise surprise, people have realised that.
> 
> It would be convenient to think that times are changing solely because of parasitical BTL landlords, or a single bland and opportunistic Barratts development, but the reality is less contrived. Brixton has fuckloads of good stuff going for it, and people* are now finding out.


Yeah, that's true. Trouble is that people coming in to enjoy it are actively changing it for the worse as clubs and bars, not unsurprisingly, respond to the new opportunities.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 28, 2012)

zenie said:


> This thread just gets more and more depressing.


Well, some bits of gentrification haven't been awful. When I first came to Brixton there were so many empty plots or semi-derelict buildings surrounded by fences of corrugated iron. This general area of South London really copped it in the Blitz and you could actually trace areas where a line of bombs had fallen, leaving streets like a row of rotten old teeth with gaps.


----------



## Manter (Nov 28, 2012)

Rushy said:


> Where did you hear that? I don't think that's the reason for the streets under conversion stress strategy. The core strategy which that policy is part of can be found here. They have an obligation to provide a number of extra homes every year. What they wanted to do was avoid doing so at the expense of family sized homes. I think the policy is a good one but a bit too late for a lot of areas. Families generally did not want to move to Brixton so there was not huge pressure on houses, but now they do and there are very few good sized houses available so the prices have rocketed over the past couple of years (Mervan Road, don't expect to pay under 750k for a place needing work - would have been 500k a couple of years ago). There used to be a policy that houses under 120sqm could not be converted into flats (still exists but has been increased to 150sqm and largely overtaken by the conversion stress policy). This was to protect family sized homes. This worked well in areas where there were a lot of small houses (e.g. Horsford Road) and as a result there are strong communities of families. But there are few areas like this.


It was a council building officer- I had him round to look at a house we were thinking of buying that had some odd stuff going on with it- we wanted to know if they would object us reinstating it as a single house and what the building regs implications were of some interesting extensions at the back, that we suspected were illegal and wanted to knock down, but replace with the same footprint. Plus issues with a room with a 6ft ceiling. One ofthe local estate agents (Martin Barry I think, but don't quote me- the one that has all the old houses that are quietly falling down on their books) said something similar

Incidentally, we didn't get the house because a property developer gazumped us- he has done the absolute minimum and it is back on the market for 70k more 

E2A just looked on rightmove- it's sold.  even more speechless


----------



## Rushy (Nov 28, 2012)

Manter said:


> It was a council building officer- I had him round to look at a house we were thinking of buying that had some odd stuff going on with it- we wanted to know if they would object us reinstating it as a single house and what the building regs implications were of some interesting extensions at the back, that we suspected were illegal and wanted to knock down, but replace with the same footprint. Plus issues with a room with a 6ft ceiling. One ofthe local estate agents (Martin Barry I think, but don't quote me- the one that has all the old houses that are quietly falling down on their books) said something similar
> 
> Incidentally, we didn't get the house because a property developer gazumped us- he has done the absolute minimum and it is back on the market for 70k more
> 
> E2A just looked on rightmove- it's sold. even more speechless


Building control don't know anything about planning strategy. Nothing at all (to be fair, they don't need to).
And agents just pick up little tit bits here and there and confuse them. Some know more than others but it takes ages to find out who actually knows what they are talking about so it is best if you largely ignore them too.

[What road?]


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2012)

Diamond said:


> The free market in action.
> 
> This thread is pathetic. This website essentially paved the way and cheer lead every aspect and forerunner of BVM and then rails agains it more or less _exclusively_ because it drives up prices.
> 
> ...


 
Piss off, you daft "anarcho-capitalist" gobshite!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> There's nothing hypocritical about promoting the area then complaining when you are forced out. What you are overlooking is the underlying problem, which is the gulf between rich and poor. Your argument is indistinguishable from the one US Republicans make when they argue for tax cuts for the rich: "if you can't afford a decent life, it's your fault." You need to realise that not everyone can be rich. Somebody always has to do the low paid jobs, or be unemployed or disabled or old. If we had a fair society, like many of the ones in Western Europe, the fans of Brixton Village would not have that sinking feeling about their rent becoming unaffordable just because all the hipsters are coming here for a burger on Saturdays.


 
He doesn't give a fuck about the underlying problem. He's interested in wealth, not in wasting his energy on people who aren't like him, and don't want the same thing as him (money, lots of it, and no pesky morality tied to how you get it!).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Some would, in some areas. But what we're facing here in Brixton is most of the residents being forced out of a fairly humble area. This isn't exactly Knightsbridge or St Tropez. But it's fast becoming just as out of reach.


 
And they're being forced out because for the last 20-25 years, with the deliberate reduction in social housing stock through RtB and the non-replacement of sold-on stock, housing supply has not kept pace with housing demand in London (or many other cities and counties, frankly). While this has been a bad situation for people who want a roof over their heads, it's been a great time for developers, who've found that they can sell their plasterboard catboxes for silly money to people desperate to get their feet on the first rung of the housing ladder or, much worse, buy-to-letters who will sweat their asset through high rents.


----------



## Manter (Nov 28, 2012)

Rushy said:


> Building control don't know anything about planning strategy. Nothing at all (to be fair, they don't need to).
> And agents just pick up little tit bits here and there and confuse them. Some know more than others but it takes ages to find out who actually knows what they are talking about so it is best if you largely ignore them too.
> 
> [What road?]


Hayter road, between Bonham and Branksome.

Just got v distracted on rightmove- there are somelovely houses on there that need love- one on Leander, one on Arodene....  But VP's point about churn/not stayingto be part of the community is so true, two on there we looked at just over a year ago in an unrenovated state have been stripped and flipped-for huge markups in 12 months too.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 28, 2012)

I'd quite happily give them some love if someone would give me the money to buy them.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Nov 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He doesn't give a fuck about the underlying problem. He's interested in wealth, not in wasting his energy on people who aren't like him, and don't want the same thing as him (money, lots of it, and no pesky morality tied to how you get it!).


you know a lot about someone you've never met.


----------



## Manter (Nov 28, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> I'd quite happily give them some love if someone would give me the money to buy them.


you me both


----------



## TruXta (Nov 28, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> you talking about me, soppy bollocks?


No he isn't.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 28, 2012)

Manter said:


> you me both


 
But you've got a house in Brixton haven't you? Don't be greedy! 

We left because we couldn't afford either to buy or a lifetime of paying private rent.


----------



## Manter (Nov 28, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> But you've got a house in Brixton haven't you? Don't be greedy!
> 
> We left because we couldn't afford either to buy or a lifetime of paying private rent.


Tulse Hill end


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 28, 2012)

We eventually found a house at the Brum end.


----------



## Manter (Nov 28, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> We eventually found a house at the Brum end.


 
Not sure I could get to work from there....


----------



## Dan U (Nov 28, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> The problem is that , like East London, only the well off will be able to live here.


 
hhmm not sure that applies quite as much to East London to be honest, small pockets of it to be sure but venture in to Newham or Tower Hamlets or further afield and it is very much lots of social housing, council housing, over crowding and lots of deprivation - as evidenced by Govt Deprivation Indexes.

East London gets judged by Shoreditch and parts of Hackney as being 'trendy' but in the bulk of it there simply isn't the housing stock that appeals to the 'better off' to buy and its councils are facing some of the biggest cuts in the country so i can't see things getting much better any time soon.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 28, 2012)

Manter said:


> Hayter road, between Bonham and Branksome.
> 
> Just got v distracted on rightmove- there are somelovely houses on there that need love- one on Leander, one on Arodene.... But VP's point about churn/not stayingto be part of the community is so true, two on there we looked at just over a year ago in an unrenovated state have been stripped and flipped-for huge markups in 12 months too.


Can't find it. But all the flipping means is that there is demand from people who want finished properties. In fact, people buying finished properties are often paying a premium for it to be finished so they are not looking to sell quickly or make a quick profit. Around those roads it will be families wanting to be in the Sudbourne Road school catchment area. There is a really good community amongst the parents around there.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And they're being forced out because for the last 20-25 years, with the deliberate reduction in social housing stock through RtB and the non-replacement of sold-on stock, housing supply has not kept pace with housing demand in London (or many other cities and counties, frankly). While this has been a bad situation for people who want a roof over their heads, it's been a great time for developers, who've found that they can sell their plasterboard catboxes for silly money to people desperate to get their feet on the first rung of the housing ladder or, much worse, buy-to-letters who will sweat their asset through high rents.



why has housing demand risen?


----------



## leanderman (Nov 28, 2012)

Rushy said:


> Can't find it. But all the flipping means is that there is demand from people who want finished properties. In fact, people buying finished properties are often paying a premium for it to be finished so they are not looking to sell quickly or make a quick profit. Around those roads it will be families wanting to be in the Sudbourne Road school catchment area. There is a really good community amongst the parents around there.



Most know each other from Dulwich College!


----------



## Winot (Nov 28, 2012)

Manter said:


> Hayter road, between Bonham and Branksome.



We would have been neighbours...


----------



## Manter (Nov 28, 2012)

Winot said:


> We would have been neighbours...


 


And Truxta, apparently.

Still, what with developers and fucking insane sellers, its probably a good thing we didn't get it


----------



## Winot (Nov 28, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Most know each other from Dulwich College!



With some notable exceptions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> you know a lot about someone you've never met.


 
I do, don't I?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2012)

Manter said:


> Tulse Hill end


 
So you're already in the best bit of Brixton!


----------



## peterkro (Nov 28, 2012)

My house in Villa road will be up for auction probably in January. Last one sold went for £720k and that is only the beginning you'll need to budget £400k to bring it up to a reasonable standard.( I should be clear I've never owned property in my life,it's been a squat for forty years)


----------



## Manter (Nov 28, 2012)

peterkro said:


> My house in Villa road will be up for auction probably in January. Last one sold went for £720k and that is only the beginning you'll need to budget £400k to bring it up to a reasonable standard.( I should be clear I've never owned property in my life,it's been a squat for forty years)


 and I'm sure loads of people will bid....


----------



## Manter (Nov 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you're already in the best bit of Brixton!


slightly scary neighbours though.  pitchforks and all


----------



## peterkro (Nov 28, 2012)

Manter said:


> and I'm sure loads of people will bid....


I've seen some of the people who bid on the houses already sold,wouldn't ask them the time of day because they'd lie.Shits to a person.

(by the way they're well out of budget for HA's and Lambeth won't give them a discount,it's purely about raising cash and they don't care who buys them and for what reason)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2012)

leanderman said:


> why has housing demand risen?


 
Because the population has risen, and housing development of an affordable nature (or of any nature whatsoever, for that matter) hasn't kept pace.  Growing demand base, an additional supply that doesn't even "touch the sides" of existing demand and the upward pressure on rental and purchase pricing all play their part. The benefit caps will release *some* housing ("release" obviously being a euphemism for the clearance of renters into...who knows?), but that'll soon be filled, with the probable effect of raising rental and purchase prices again. Good news for the economy, bad news for people who need roofs over their heads.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2012)

Manter said:


> slightly scary neighbours though. pitchforks and all


 
Me, scary? I only *look* like an ogre. I don't *act* like one (beams winsome ogreish smile)!


----------



## Rushy (Nov 28, 2012)

peterkro said:


> I've seen some of the people who bid on the houses already sold,wouldn't ask them the time of day because they'd lie.Shits to a person.
> 
> (by the way they're well out of budget for HA's and Lambeth won't give them a discount,it's purely about raising cash and they don't care who buys them and for what reason)


Don't think Lambeth is allowed to discount. That was one of the issues with the Bradys sale.


----------



## Manter (Nov 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Me, scary? I only *look* like an ogre. I don't *act* like one (beams winsome ogreish smile)!


between you and your greebo- who I daren't '@' as she is apparently going to eat me- I am tempted to move to Clapham 

(for the avoidance of doubt, am really not)


----------



## peterkro (Nov 28, 2012)

^^They are for those middle class occupiers (squatters) who have the wherewithal to come up with finance.The majority of V road is HA bought in a deal with state money and operating very successfully.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Me, scary? I only look like an ogre. I don't act like one (beams winsome ogreish smile)!


Except when one of your nephews refuses to eat his tea - at which time it's claimed that you'll feed them their own fingers! Younger sisters can be so evil.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 28, 2012)

Dan U said:


> hhmm not sure that applies quite as much to East London to be honest, small pockets of it to be sure but venture in to Newham or Tower Hamlets or further afield and it is very much lots of social housing, council housing, over crowding and lots of deprivation - as evidenced by Govt Deprivation Indexes.
> 
> East London gets judged by Shoreditch and parts of Hackney as being 'trendy' but in the bulk of it there simply isn't the housing stock that appeals to the 'better off' to buy and its councils are facing some of the biggest cuts in the country so i can't see things getting much better any time soon.


 
I meant Shoreditch and Hackney. Also Dalston. I know two people who have been pushed out as there landlords raised the rent 30%. Due the landlords saying they can now get people in to pay that higher rent.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 28, 2012)

It's happening in Bethnal Green too.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 28, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I meant Shoreditch and Hackney. Also Dalston. I know two people who have been pushed out as there landlords raised the rent 30%. Due the landlords saying they can now get people in to pay that higher rent.


 
yeah in small pockets it is. i was probably being too pedantic tbh.


----------



## paolo (Nov 28, 2012)

Out of interest, what are "Professionals" ?

I've never properly understood that term. Well, not outside chasing around in a Capri with a shit haircut and shooting people.

If you mop up spilt crap in twatty Foxtons, are you a 'professional' ?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 28, 2012)

Dan U said:


> yeah in small pockets it is. i was probably being too pedantic tbh.


 
u made fair enough point. I wonder if in a few years time when the governments social housing and Housing Benefit  "reforms" kick in this process of pricing people out will extend further. This government clearly wants to end social housing as we know it. Also will do nothing to put a brake private landlords and buy to let merchants rent increases.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 28, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> u made fair enough point. I wonder if in a few years time when the governments social housing and Housing Benefit "reforms" kick in this process of pricing people out will extend further. This government clearly wants to end social housing as we know it. Also will do nothing to put a brake private landlords and buy to let merchants rent increases.


 
definitely. some of the first London Boroughs to think about 'farming out' people who were new referrals for emergency housing etc to the North were in East London. Newham notably, but not just them.

Even if you are on the second tier of priority in Council Housing - bearing in mind tier 1 is having a WW2 bomb being found under your house or something like that - the wait for anything other than a 1 bed in Boroughs like Tower Hamlets is in to the years. If you want a family home in an Inner London Borough, forget it essentially.


----------



## newbie (Nov 28, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, there was a lot of this in social housing too in the 1980s under the GlC Mobility Scheme when hard-to-let flats were let to groups of young people. I was living in a tower block and very few flats above the fifth floor were occupied. It could be argued that gentrification happened when that scheme happened. I suddenly had one of a group of young actors knocking on the door asking if they could borrow a coffee filter.


I've suggested many times on these (somewhat repetitious) threads that regeneration was propelled forward, if not actually started, by the GLC hard to let giveaway.

Not so sure that was gentrification.  Maybe the dividing line isn't so great, but for me a bunch of people taking on a tenancy of a place that's lain empty for ages (and had been rejected by anybody with a choice) is qualitatively different from what I've seen in this street over the last decade or so.  Which is people buying with the intention of selling, at a profit, in the not too distant future.  Possibly having added 'value', in the form of an en-suite or something, possibly not.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 28, 2012)

I think that's true too. I don't think it was a bad thing that empty flats were filled. I found being a single woman with a child surrounded by boarded up flats very grim, but people who wouldn't have considered living in certain areas of London discovered that it was a really brilliant place to live. So I think it was part of Brixton suddenly being seen as a good place to live.


----------



## newbie (Nov 28, 2012)

Indeed. It was, IMV, a political masterstroke which changed this area (and a lot of other parts of inner London) massively, and for the better.

That it took place more or less coincidentally with Thatchers council housing sell off simply emphasised the completely different vision.


----------



## Kanda (Nov 29, 2012)

leanderman said:


> why has housing demand risen?


 
Thatcher sold of all the stock. Right to buy is possibly the worst political decision ever. For right to buy to work, the profits should have been re-invested into housing, instead, it was used to bolster the economy. Councils didn't see that money.

Biggest fuck up EVER.

But the blame goes elsewhere... fucked up.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 29, 2012)

newbie said:


> Indeed. It was, IMV, a political masterstroke which changed this area (and a lot of other parts of inner London) massively, and for the better.


 Well, I felt safer and met some really lively interesting people, some of whom I'm still in touch with although they moved away, had families. I think about 15 different people went through 'the actor's flat'.



newbie said:


> That it took place more or less coincidentally with Thatchers council housing sell off simply emphasised the completely different vision.


Agreed. That policy was a disaster. I don't like to see people who bought their houses demonised though. What was the wrongest thing was that the housing stock never got replaced, and look at the disaster we've got now. Our housing crisis is, I think, uniquely British.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Piss off, you daft "anarcho-capitalist" gobshite!


 
A bit too close to the bone?


----------



## Diamond (Nov 29, 2012)

Housing demand has risen so out of proportion because we have, aside from France, one of the most highly centralised state's in Europe.

Simple as.

Who really wants to contemplate living in Birmingham ffs, even if that was on the cards?

Birmingham, really?

The snobbery in u75 lives next door to the gentrification of Brixton.  To deny otherwise is ludicrous.


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2012)

Diamond said:


> The snobbery in u75 lives next door to the gentrification of Brixton. To deny otherwise is ludicrous.


What the fuck are you on about? How is is 'snobbery' to not want to see your neighbours and friends being priced out of their own area by the buy-to-let brigade?


----------



## leanderman (Nov 29, 2012)

Why does right to buy increase demand for housing per se? Same people, same house.


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 29, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Why does right to buy increase demand for housing per se? Same people, same house.


 
I don't think the overall demand for housing goes up by way of right to buy but there is less stock available to those wanting social housing via the council. 

1. move areas, sell house rather than it going back to council hands
2. Die. Leave to relatives rather than it going back to council hands
3. Upsize or downsize. It is bought by private owner/landlord rather than going back to council hands.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 29, 2012)

True. But I can't get away from the idea that population growth matters. That, in the UK, London is the only show in town. And the city draws non-Brits too.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 29, 2012)

Diamond said:


> Housing demand has risen so out of proportion because we have, aside from France, one of the most highly centralised state's in Europe.
> 
> Simple as.
> 
> ...


 
Well, me, as I posted a few posts ago.

I live in Birmingham. It's a good place. Do you know it at all?

We can afford to pay a mortgage on a house despite my partner being a student nurse and me looking after my children. We have time for eachother, family, friends. The world outside London is full of people who've lived in London, even come from London, and can't afford to live there. We're not unusual.

One of the problems is that people who live in London think they're interesting by virtue of living in an interesting city. But people are much the same everywhere, a mix of interesting and ordinary. Boring but true.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 29, 2012)

Diamond said:


> Housing demand has risen so out of proportion because we have, aside from France, one of the most highly centralised state's in Europe.
> 
> Simple as.


 
Really. What about devolution to Wales and Scotland?


----------



## lighterthief (Nov 29, 2012)

I'd be curious to know how many posters on this thread were actually born and raised in Brixton.


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

leanderman said:


> True. But I can't get away from the idea that population growth matters. That, in the UK, London is the only show in town. And the city draws non-Brits too.


Yes, think this is critical. Even where they have tried to move stuff out of London, you end up with one thing in each place, which disincentivises people to move. If you go and work for a bank in Leeds, or a manufacturing firm outside Manchester or a design consultancy in Birmingham you are often working for the only one of its kind in the city, so if you hate it or lose your job, you are in trouble. Plus, the costs in London are so insane, once you've left, you struggle to come back. And if you do jobs like mine you just have to be in London, as I can't nip over to Zurich one day, Paris the next and Moscow the week after from anywhere else in the country. 

Maybe we should choose a second city and develop it as a complete entity, like they seem to have done on the continent. We do seem to be unique in venturing everything on London, so it has become a bit of a monster. A monster I love, but still...


----------



## Kanda (Nov 29, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Why does right to buy increase demand for housing per se? Same people, same house.


 
It certainly pushes prices up. 2nd generation housing was wiped out etc


----------



## Rushy (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know how many posters on this thread were actually born and raised in Brixton.


Or even in England.


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know how many posters on this thread were actually born and raised in Brixton.


I was born outside London, as was my other half. Of the friends I spend most of my time with who live in London, none were born here, and 5 of the 8 were born abroad


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 29, 2012)

Manter said:


> Yes, think this is critical. Even where they have tried to move stuff out of London, you end up with one thing in each place, which disincentivises people to move. If you go and work for a bank in Leeds, or a manufacturing firm outside Manchester or a design consultancy in Birmingham you are often working for the only one of its kind in the city, so if you hate it or lose your job, you are in trouble. Plus, the costs in London are so insane, once you've left, you struggle to come back. And if you do jobs like mine you just have to be in London, as I can't nip over to Zurich one day, Paris the next and Moscow the week after from anywhere else in the country.
> 
> Maybe we should choose a second city and develop it as a complete entity, like they seem to have done on the continent. We do seem to be unique in venturing everything on London, so it has become a bit of a monster. A monster I love, but still...


 
That's the dominance of the City in the economy. I mean, once upon a time, people made things in the UK. An awful lot of them were made in Birmingham.


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> That's the dominance of the City in the economy. I mean, once upon a time, people made things in the UK. An awful lot of them were made in Birmingham.


Don't think it's just the city- only one of my closest friends works in the city proper- it's everything 'professional. Arts, production design, pharmaceuticals, consulting, law, event management- they all revolve around London'. To just use one example, Travel abroad (to business hubs) is only really possible from London, so all the managerial jobs are here or nearby- most of my clients have huge manufacturing sites in the UK, which Senior management visit, but would never go and work at one long term, because how would they get to any other sites? So they stay in London.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 29, 2012)

Manter said:


> I was born outside London, as was my other half.


 As you keep reminding him...


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

Rushy said:


> As you keep reminding him...


Actually, he reminds me.... He is called the Northerner because he is a professional northerner. He admits that when he moved down he consciously decided to stay as northern as possible....

E2a- he kind of feels falling in love with me was a failure in his quest!


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 29, 2012)

Manter said:


> Don't think it's just the city- only one of my closest friends works in the city proper- it's everything 'professional. Arts, production design, pharmaceuticals, consulting, law, event management- they all revolve around London'. To just use one example, Travel abroad (to business hubs) is only really possible from London, so all the managerial jobs are here or nearby- most of my clients have huge manufacturing sites in the UK, which Senior management visit, but would never go and work at one long term, because how would they get to any other sites? So they stay in London.


 
I'm not talking about the number of individuals working in the city but the dependency of the rest of the economy on the finance sector as a result of deregulation in the 80s and the decline of manufacturing in the rest of the UK.


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> I'm not talking about the number of individuals working in the city but the dependency of the rest of the economy on the finance sector as a result of deregulation in the 80s and the decline of manufacturing in the rest of the UK.


But I am not sure that dependence on finance means we all have to be physically next to them, sort of standing over them.... There must be other factors at play


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know how many posters on this thread were actually born and raised in Brixton.


Would you also be curious to know how many people living in Brixton were actually born and raised here too? And why does it matter?


----------



## lighterthief (Nov 29, 2012)

editor said:


> Would you also be curious to know how many people living in Brixton were actually born and raised here too? And why does it matter?


If you have the figures handy, why not?  Don't you think there's an element of hypocrisy about incomers to Brixton complaining about other incomers to Brixton?


----------



## Rushy (Nov 29, 2012)

I guess the point being made is that many of those being so protectionist about Brixton are incomers themselves who brought their own 'ways' and economic impacts to the area. Whilst there are wider socio-political-economic arguments to be had, the generalisations and scaremongering about incomers is desperately ugly.


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> If you have the figures handy, why not? Don't you think there's an element of hypocrisy about incomers to Brixton complaining about other incomers to Brixton?


Why is it hypocritical to be concerned about long term residents being priced out of their own neighbourhoods, and local shops being forced out of business by trendy incomers?

How long do you suggest someone has to live in an area before they're entitled to give a fuck about these things?


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I guess the point being made is that many of those being so protectionist about Brixton are incomers themselves who brought their own 'ways' and economic impacts to the area. Whilst there are wider socio-political-economic arguments to be had, the generalisations and scaremongering about incomers is desperately ugly.


Could you give some examples of this 'desperately ugly scaremongering' here please?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know how many posters on this thread were actually born and raised in Brixton.


I was born at the Elephant so I'm an _outsider  _


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know how many posters on this thread were actually born and raised in Brixton.


Here we go again. How many more times do we have to demolish this argument? It's about as redundant as flat earth/Obama birther idiocy. Can't we just classify it as trolling and banworthy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> u made fair enough point. I wonder if in a few years time when the governments social housing and Housing Benefit "reforms" kick in this process of pricing people out will extend further. This government clearly wants to end social housing as we know it. Also will do nothing to put a brake private landlords and buy to let merchants rent increases.


 
I think both attitudes are destructive, and are likely to blow up in this government's faces if they're not careful. Next April is a milestone, and I expect civil unrest within 6 months, when HB claimants, working or not, find out the hard way just how limited local authority discretionary funds are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

Diamond said:


> A bit too close to the bone?


 
No, just lousy, biased opinion masquerading as analysis.


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Here we go again. How many more times do we have to demolish this argument? It's about as redundant as flat earth/Obama birther idiocy. Can't we just classify it as trolling and banworthy?


I think there _is_ potentially a point in there, albeit badly expressed.  

If the last wave of incomers just mutter into their beer about newbies, that is, indeed, hypocrisy.  

However, we have all (most) explained why the current situation is so much more worrying than 6,10, 20, whatever years ago- that this time it isn't just more new people adding to the general mix, it is an aggressive wave of money backed up with central government policy and local government lack of it that threatens to make this another homogenous dormitory suburb


----------



## lighterthief (Nov 29, 2012)

editor said:


> How long do you suggest someone has to live in an area before they're entitled to give a fuck about these things?


You are the one drawing distinctions about who is entitled to live somewhere, not me. Why don't you tell us?


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> You are the one drawing distinctions about who is entitled to live somewhere, not me. Why don't you tell us?


no, he really isn't- otherwise he'd be joining VP with the pitchforks.  He is making a point, an entirely valid one, about volume, engagement with the community and price rises


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

Diamond said:


> Housing demand has risen so out of proportion because we have, aside from France, one of the most highly centralised state's in Europe.
> 
> Simple as.


 
Simplistic bollocks of the usual order of your thinking.
The reason why demand is so far out of proportion with supply is a direct result of a set of policies put in place during the second Thatcher government, which have never been rescinded or re-legislated because of their political convenience and economic and financial benefits. The effects of those policies continue to play out.

1) The re-jigged "Right to Buy" legislation itself (the original Labour version only covering voids "in significant need of repair/modernisation".
2) The secondary legislation in 1984 that prevented local authorities from building replacement housing, and instead vested all development of social housing in Housing Associations, funded through the quango known as "The Housing Corporation", a move that has meant that in no year since 1984 has development of social housing matched need. In some years it didn't even match the year-on-year increase in need.
3) The legislating of disposal of local authority landholdings (aka "landbanks") to private developers at less-than-market prices. This move set in motion the preference for greenfield development over brownfield that is still playing itself out on green spaces around the country

All those policies have had direct knock-on effects on supply that have almost *nothing* to do with degree of centralisation (unless you're claiming that legislating on a national scale is "centralisation"), and *everything* to do with ongoing shoring-up of bubble pricing through limiting of supply. That's "the market", in all it's cartelised glory, working its' "magic", lining the same pockets as usual.



> Who really wants to contemplate living in Birmingham ffs, even if that was on the cards?
> 
> Birmingham, really?


 
WTF is wrong with Brum?



> The snobbery in u75 lives next door to the gentrification of Brixton. To deny otherwise is ludicrous.


 
The only snobbery I can see is yours.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

Manter said:


> no, he really isn't- otherwise he'd be joining VP with the pitchforks. He is making a point, an entirely valid one, about volume, engagement with the community and price rises


 
You've really fixated on the pitchfork thing, haven't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know how many posters on this thread were actually born and raised in Brixton.


 
Another fuckwit poster has already asked that, and been replied to, Johnny-come-lately.


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've really fixated on the pitchfork thing, haven't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I guess the point being made is that many of those being so protectionist about Brixton are incomers themselves who brought their own 'ways' and economic impacts to the area. Whilst there are wider socio-political-economic arguments to be had, the generalisations and scaremongering about incomers is desperately ugly.


Until about 20 years ago the impact was minimal, nudging on negligible, because most "incomers" were going into social housing of one sort or another, or squats. In my experience a large part of the difference in the last 20 years is that incomers have progressively been monied, and the shift in class demographic is rapidly shifting Brixton's social structure (including things as apparently everyday as what sort of shops are in the market) in a way that is disturbing for some of us who aren't incoming owner occupiers, or able to afford the sort of rents now being asked.
As I've said on another thread and this one, I don't mind anyone who comes here with the intention of settling - they become part of the community - or because Brixton is all they can afford and still not end up in the sticks, but I don't think it's "desperately ugly" to plainly state that those incomers who come here with purely instrumental concerns around using Brixton's primary schools and then selling on are desperately ugly themselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Here we go again. How many more times do we have to demolish this argument? It's about as redundant as flat earth/Obama birther idiocy. Can't we just classify it as trolling and banworthy?


 
lighterthief posts banal shite. You can't go round banning people just because they're an arsehole!


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> You are the one drawing distinctions about who is entitled to live somewhere, not me. Why don't you tell us?


Where have I done that, exactly?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

Manter said:


> I think there _is_ potentially a point in there, albeit badly expressed.
> 
> If the last wave of incomers just mutter into their beer about newbies, that is, indeed, hypocrisy.
> 
> However, we have all (most) explained why the current situation is so much more worrying than 6,10, 20, whatever years ago- that this time it isn't just more new people adding to the general mix, it is an aggressive wave of money backed up with central government policy and local government lack of it that threatens to make this another homogenous dormitory suburb


 
There's also the factor that dare not speak its' name: Class.


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Until about 20 years ago the impact was minimal, nudging on negligible, because most "incomers" were going into social housing of one sort or another, or squats. In my experience a large part of the difference in the last 20 years is that incomers have progressively been monied, and the shift in class demographic is rapidly shifting Brixton's social structure (including things as apparently everyday as what sort of shops are in the market) in a way that is disturbing for some of us who aren't incoming owner occupiers, or able to afford the sort of rents now being asked.
> As I've said on another thread and this one, I don't mind anyone who comes here with the intention of settling - they become part of the community - or because Brixton is all they can afford and still not end up in the sticks, but I don't think it's "desperately ugly" to plainly state that those incomers who come here with purely instrumental concerns around using Brixton's primary schools and then selling on are desperately ugly themselves.


Spot on.


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's also the factor that dare not speak its' name: Class.


 Which is a tough one as no one can really change what class they are, only how they behave.    So there are middle class people who have always lived here, and those that are new in and no issue, and some that are new in and profiteering.  And probably some that always lived here and are now profiteering... and the volume now is different.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 29, 2012)

Manter said:


> no one can really change what class they are


(nothing personal to you Manter, but oh god here we go again )


----------



## TruXta (Nov 29, 2012)

Crispy said:


> (nothing personal to you Manter, but oh god here we go again )


Let's do it shall we?


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

Crispy said:


> (nothing personal to you Manter, but oh god here we go again )


 someone can post a link to another thread, it'll be grand


----------



## Crispy (Nov 29, 2012)

Manter said:


> someone can post a link to another thread, it'll be grand


http://www.urban75.net/forums/categories/politics-protest-and-current-affairs.33/


----------



## Manter (Nov 29, 2012)

Crispy said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/categories/politics-protest-and-current-affairs.33/


 Marvellous, thread complete


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know how many posters on this thread were actually born and raised in Brixton.


 
Odd question - my daughter was born & raised in Brixton - I don't think that gives her some god-given right to be allowed to live here for the rest of her life.
Apart from anything else - Brixton has a history of absorbing transient populations & sometimes they add to the character of the place as much as people who are born & bred here.  People do move on, but come back to see friends, to use the market, even to go to the Rec, for years after they've left - that's partly why it's bigger as an entity / a community than it's physical size would suggest. This isn't unique to Brixton btw.

I can still be concerned about the pace & type of change that's going on here


----------



## Rushy (Nov 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Until about 20 years ago the impact was minimal, nudging on negligible, because most "incomers" were going into social housing of one sort or another, or squats. In my experience a large part of the difference in the last 20 years is that incomers have progressively been monied, and the shift in class demographic is rapidly shifting Brixton's social structure (including things as apparently everyday as what sort of shops are in the market) in a way that is disturbing for some of us who aren't incoming owner occupiers, or able to afford the sort of rents now being asked.
> As I've said on another thread and this one, I don't mind anyone who comes here with the intention of settling - they become part of the community - or because Brixton is all they can afford and still not end up in the sticks, but I don't think it's "desperately ugly" to plainly state that those incomers who come here with purely instrumental concerns around using Brixton's primary schools and then selling on are desperately ugly themselves.


 



editor said:


> Spot on.


 
I agree that many were moving into squats or social housing. But disagree that the impact was minimal. It was just different. The gradual flight of people with money and the influx of those both dependant on local council services and financially non-contributory (e.g. some did, but loads of squatters never paid council tax) had a massive impact on the area. Including everyday things such as your example of the type of shops available.

Whilst I understand (rather than agree with) the principle that everyone should be entitled to social housing, the reality is that there is not even enough for the genuinely vulnerable. People turning up here and joining the council house lists could have turned up elsewhere or, in some cases could have supported themselves. The reality is that their choice only really made it harder for local people in need and caused a greater strain on resources. I'm not criticising those who made that choice - I'm sure each one had their own reasons. The area suited their social and / or economic needs and they were as entitled as anyone to come here. But they had an impact. And I just can't bear listening to the blinkered carping of those who did so and then decide to (fairly viciously) bang on about how others are pushing people out, changing things and putting strain on local housing. These are also people acting on their own social and economic needs.

As for settling, you have no idea who will settle. When I arrived I'd never lived anywhere more than 3yrs. I didn't anticipate that I'd still be here 15 years later. My reasons? I had a job in London, I liked the vibe in Brixton and I could afford a home larger than a rabbit warren. My neighbours were renting from squatters who got adverse possession, remortgaged on a buy to let and then moved away to Wales. Some of my neighbours were welcoming. Some (quite a few) were blatantly not. But Brixton worked for me. Of my friends who moved in after me - some moved, some stayed. Some got jobs elsewhere. Some didn't like it here. Some simply slotted in. You can only generalise about any group in ignorance.


----------



## lighterthief (Nov 29, 2012)

editor said:


> Where have I done that, exactly?


 So "long term residents" and "trendy incomers" are all equally welcome in Brixton?


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> So "long term residents" and "trendy incomers" are all equally welcome in Brixton?


What's their welcome (or lack of it)  got to do your claim about people supposedly "drawing distinctions about who is_* entitled*_ to live somewhere"?
Maybe it's time to stop digging?


----------



## leanderman (Nov 29, 2012)

Rushy said:


> My neighbours were renting from squatters who got adverse possession, remortgaged on a buy to let and then moved away to Wales


 
That is hilarious.

I know someone who did that in Mervan Rd - they still buy-to-let that out and have bought in Dulwich!


----------



## leanderman (Nov 29, 2012)

I come from Devon. Please don't send me back.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 29, 2012)

Rushy said:


> And I just can't bear listening to the blinkered carping of those who did so and then decide to (fairly viciously) bang on about how others are pushing people out, changing things and putting strain on local housing. These are also people acting on their own social and economic needs.


 
As u quoted Violent Pandas post Do you mean VP as well?

I have always thought that VPs post are not aimed at individuals but are thought out and political. You can disagree with his politics but he is not carping.

People do not act out there social and economic needs in a vacuum. Social and economic needs are a result of politics.

I was talking to one of the shopkeepers about the increasing pressure on rents for shops. This affects sole traders in a way that multinationals like Starbucks can manage. Starbucks can run some stores at a loss if necessary. Also offset losses by shuffling there money around there corporate empire. They are acting for there own economic needs. Is that a moral failing of there's? No. Its the way the system is set up that lets them do it. Its politics.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 29, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I come from Devon. Please don't send me back.


 
I know how u feel.

Time to get my pitchfork out.

Thats Violent Panda on the horse.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 29, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Odd question - my daughter was born & raised in Brixton - I don't think that gives her some god-given right to be allowed to live here for the rest of her life.
> Apart from anything else - Brixton has a history of absorbing transient populations & sometimes they add to the character of the place as much as people who are born & bred here. People do move on, but come back to see friends, to use the market, even to go to the Rec, for years after they've left - that's partly why it's bigger as an entity / a community than it's physical size would suggest. This isn't unique to Brixton btw.
> 
> I can still be concerned about the pace & type of change that's going on here


 
Correct.

In that excellent TV series about London streets  Arnold Circus was an early example of social housing. First immigrant community was East European Jews. After that came the Bangladeshis. ( Who got the flats by squatting them). Then to the present day- Buy to Let has gradually meant the well off professionals are moving in. So no longer will that corner of London be a place that the next wave off migrants to London can move to. 

Central London in the future will have "transient" populations. But these will be from the global elites and professional who work in the City.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 29, 2012)

Manter said:


> Which is a tough one as no one can really change what class they are, only how they behave. So there are middle class people who have always lived here, and those that are new in and no issue, and some that are new in and profiteering. And probably some that always lived here and are now profiteering... and the volume now is different.


 
Class is not a subjective category. It is how a capitalist competitive market society like we live in is structured. 

Its also linked to an unequal distribution of wealth and resources in a society and globally. 

The fact that some profit and some lose out is an outcome of the above.


----------



## Manter (Nov 30, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I know how u feel.
> 
> Time to get my pitchfork out.
> 
> Thats Violent Panda on the horse.



Oh god, more pitchforks....


----------



## Manter (Nov 30, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Class is not a subjective category. It is how a capitalist competitive market society like we live in is structured.
> 
> Its also linked to an unequal distribution of wealth and resources in a society and globally.
> 
> The fact that some profit and some lose out is an outcome of the above.


I guess I am sensitive about it because I am part of the gentrification, and thus part of the problem. I can't help who I am (though quoted thread earlier says class is mutative over time so god knows where we'll all end up) but just by being here I and others like me are part of the distorting effect. I know the points you and VP make are not aimed at individuals, but this individual worries. 

The idea of being in a global elite made me hoot with laughter, though....


----------



## fortyplus (Nov 30, 2012)

We're seeing a whole range of things going on here.
The Brixton thing is a change in perceptions of the place, from a riot-torn hell-hole to a vibrant multicultural community, and it's mostly positive but it's bound to have an impact on property prices/rents. 
London-wide we're seeing the inner "circle of deprivation" (sorry for the poor choice of words) between the burbs and the centre largely evaporating as London reverts to a classic prosperity distribution with land prices and incomes falling off steadily with distance from the centre. Rising transport costs and fuel prices have a lot to do with this.
Nationally, there's both population growth and (more significant) household formation, which is higher than population growth mostly because of a growing number of older single people.
These are all affecting the social mix and affordability of housing in Brixton and increase the need for social housing. 

On the other hand the braying yahs and stocious underdressed young ladies who are making Coldharbour lane indistinguishable from Clapham High St on a Friday night might eventually have the effect of making Brixton uncool again. Even if it does bring prices down, they can fuck right off now.


----------



## Manter (Nov 30, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> snip>
> On the other hand the braying yahs and stocious underdressed young ladies who are making Coldharbour lane indistinguishable from Clapham High St on a Friday night might eventually have the effect of making Brixton uncool again. Even if it does bring prices down, they can fuck right off now.


 
Stocious is an underused word!

And good post


----------



## nagapie (Nov 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> who come here with purely instrumental concerns around using Brixton's primary schools and then selling on are desperately ugly themselves.


 
They only use about 3/4 of the local primaries, rest are not considered good enough. 

Visited friends today who have sold their house for a pretty house to people moving in from Pimlico!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I know how u feel.
> 
> Time to get my pitchfork out.
> 
> Thats Violent Panda on the horse.


 
The artist got my beard to a tee. He's made me look a bit slimmer, and changed my Shire horse for something more compact, too.


----------



## Manter (Nov 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The artist got my beard to a tee. He's made me look a bit slimmer, and changed my Shire horse for something more compact, too.


Your hand gestures are a bit effete. If you want to lead a revolution, you may want to work on that...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

Manter said:


> Your hand gestures are a bit effete. If you want to lead a revolution, you may want to work on that...


 
I'm not a vanguardist, I don't do "leading". I'm only on the horse because I'm one of yer actual cripples, like, and the comrades insisted that I ride the horse.
As for my hand gestures, all I'm doing is saying "there's Manter's gaff, lads! Should we stop off for a cuppa?"


----------



## TruXta (Nov 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not a vanguardist, I don't do "leading". I'm only on the horse because I'm one of yer actual cripples, like, and the comrades insisted that I ride the horse.
> As for my hand gestures, all I'm doing is saying "there's Manter's gaff, lads! Should we stop off for a cuppa?"


A cup of hot pitch?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

TruXta said:


> A cup of hot pitch?


 
Manter would be too much of a lady to greet us with anything except for a decent Broken Orange Pekoe, and you know it. Stop maligning her, you cad!


----------



## Manter (Nov 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Manter would be too much of a lady to greet us with anything except for a decent Broken Orange Pekoe, and you know it. Stop maligning her, you cad!


I am saving a decent Zinfandel. Please ask the mauruading hordes to take their shoes off at the door


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

Manter said:


> I am saving a decent Zinfandel. Please ask the mauruading hordes to take their shoes off at the door


 
The chaps say that if you leave a bowl of water out, they'll wash their feet before crossing your threshold, so as not to taint the air with the smell of sweaty feet.


----------



## Manter (Nov 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The chaps say that if you leave a bowl of water out, they'll wash their feet before crossing your threshold, so as not to taint the air with the smell of sweaty feet.


How well trained! Never knew violent revolutions could be so... Polite


----------



## TruXta (Nov 30, 2012)

After the revolution everyone will take their shoes off as they enter a house.


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 30, 2012)

No.


----------



## Manter (Nov 30, 2012)

I doubt that


----------



## TruXta (Nov 30, 2012)

Heathens.


----------



## Manter (Nov 30, 2012)

That's the problem with revolutions <<shrugs>>


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2012)

Manter said:


> The idea of being in a global elite made me hoot with laughter, though....


 
I didnt mean u. I meant the Russians for example who live in Chester Square ( renamed Red Square). Chester sq is conveniently near Sloane street shops. They use off shore front countries to buy houses/flats in London. Also Nigerians politicians so Ive been told by Nigerian in Brixton. Being a politician in Nigeria is a license to enrich oneself.

One Hyde Park flats is mostly owned by front companies.

It pushes up price of housing in central London.

Notting Hill is also area for Bankers and East European Oligarchs.

I also now see lots of Chinese in Bond street.

London a multicultural paradise for the rich.

As my Russian friend told me the Oligarchs are organised criminals/ businessmen. Even if they are  "straight"  now they have made there money.That is how they made their money. They like it here as the government does not bother them here. Unlike asylum seekers if ur wealthy u can come here no questions asked. Unlike Russia they do not need lots of bodyguards.

As I cycle around central London I see all this. Why it winds me up having to argue about social housing and the Rec. Plenty of wealth around in London. Its hardly hidden.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I didnt mean u. I meant the Russians for example who live in Chester Square ( renamed Red Square). Chester sq is conveniently near Sloane street shops. They use off shore front countries to buy houses/flats in London. Also Nigerians politicians so Ive been told by Nigerian in Brixton. Being a politician in Nigeria is a license to enrich oneself.


 
Although the focus has shifted in the last couple of years from national politicians to regional ones, who have more opportunities for pure graft than ministers etc do.



> One Hyde Park flats is mostly owned by front companies.
> 
> It pushes up price of housing in central London.
> 
> ...


 
I've said it before, and on risk of being accused of being a broken record, I'll say it again: The "working classes" (i.e. the non-professional and non-keyworker employees, plus the "economically-inactive") of London will slowly but surely be compressed into small ghettos reminiscent of the Dickensian rookeries and "worker dormitories".


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 30, 2012)

The neighbourhood's gone to shit since the yardies all fucked off to South Norwood instead


----------



## Winot (Nov 30, 2012)

nagapie said:


> They only use about 3/4 of the local primaries, rest are not considered good enough.


 
Not a bad stat though.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 30, 2012)

Is that 75% or 3-4 out of _n_


----------



## Winot (Nov 30, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Is that 75% or 3-4 out of _n_


 
Good point - I assumed 75% - Nags??


----------



## nagapie (Nov 30, 2012)

Winot said:


> Good point - I assumed 75% - Nags??


 
No, they only use about 3 or 4 of the choice primaries, that's why Lambeth's primaries are so racially and class segregated.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although the focus has shifted in the last couple of years from national politicians to regional ones, who have more opportunities for pure graft than ministers etc do.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before, and on risk of being accused of being a broken record, I'll say it again: The "working classes" (i.e. the non-professional and non-keyworker employees, plus the "economically-inactive") of London will slowly but surely be compressed into small ghettos reminiscent of the Dickensian rookeries and "worker dormitories".


 
You're talkin' about Edmonton right?


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2012)

Anecdotally, I have to say I'm hearing a growing chorus of resentment and unhappiness about the way that Brixton is changing, ad I'm hearing it from a _very_ wide spectrum of people - including some of the people who own businesses in the Villaaaage.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 30, 2012)

nagapie said:


> No, they only use about 3 or 4 of the choice primaries, that's why Lambeth's primaries are so racially and class segregated.


It's indicative of something when you look for information on schools in London generally that google throws up results from estate agents websites, is it acknowledged fact that property prices around schools that are sought after by  the middle classes tend to be higher than those that aren't ?


----------



## leanderman (Nov 30, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> It's indicative of something when you look for information on schools in London generally that google throws up results from estate agents websites, is it acknowledged fact that property prices around schools that are sought after by the middle classes tend to be higher than those that aren't ?


 

Of course. There are exceptions, but the link is pretty solid.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 30, 2012)

Manter said:


> I am saving a decent Zinfandel. Please ask the mauruading hordes to take their shoes off at the door


 
I demand champagne


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

Hollis said:


> You're talkin' about Edmonton right?


 
No, I'm saying that the whole of w/c London will be like Edmonton.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've said it before, and on risk of being accused of being a broken record, I'll say it again: The "working classes" (i.e. the non-professional and non-keyworker employees, plus the "economically-inactive") of London will slowly but surely be compressed into small ghettos reminiscent of the Dickensian rookeries and "worker dormitories".


The truth, actually I'd go further, the economically inactive won't even be so lucky


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> The truth, actually I'd go further, the economically inactive won't even be so lucky


 
I was trying not to depress myself too much, but you're right. Useless eaters like me will be shipped off northward and left to fend for ourselves in the cold rainy wastelands also known as Lancashire and Yorkshire.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Useless eaters like me will be shipped off northward and left to fend for ourselves in the cold rainy wastelands also known as Lancashire and Yorkshire.


Likewise..... unfortunately the local council up there, in league with the private sector care providers have had my dads house off him in return for my mums residential care so I cant even offer you a space on the sofa....when they get him out it'll make an excellent by to let opportunity like the rest of the street


----------



## oryx (Nov 30, 2012)

newbie said:


> Indeed. It was, IMV, a political masterstroke which changed this area (and a lot of other parts of inner London) massively, and for the better.


 
If the incomers to Brixton are anything like the ones near me in SE London, they're a different breed from the people who moved into areas like Brixton and Vauxhall in the 80s and 90s. (Vauxhall for a while in my case - never lived in Brixton though I have had dozens of mates there over the years).

It was the culture of the 80s/90s 'incomers' to enjoy and buy into local shops, pubs and other businesses and to appreciate them as they were. Not that people wanted things preserved in aspic - the vast majority of people accept the normal pace of change.

When I lived in Vauxhall, the (mainly middle class 'bohemian') squatters were happy to buy everything in the corner shop and keep it going. A lot of the sort of people who have moved near me now would be clamouring for a place like that - with its fridges of milk, rows of tinned food, cigs behind the counter, just a normal shop - to be turned into an artisan cheese shop or similar!!


----------



## newbie (Nov 30, 2012)

Manter said:


> If the last wave of incomers just mutter into their beer about newbies, that is, indeed, hypocrisy.


 
I wouldn't go that far, I just think it's mildly insensitive.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2012)

nagapie said:


> No, they only use about 3 or 4 of the choice primaries, that's why Lambeth's primaries are so racially and class segregated.


 
I did not know about this. Can u say more?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2012)

oryx said:


> If the incomers to Brixton are anything like the ones near me in SE London, they're a different breed from the people who moved into areas like Brixton and Vauxhall in the 80s and 90s. (Vauxhall for a while in my case - never lived in Brixton though I have had dozens of mates there over the years).
> 
> It was the culture of the 80s/90s 'incomers' to enjoy and buy into local shops, pubs and other businesses and to appreciate them as they were. Not that people wanted things preserved in aspic - the vast majority of people accept the normal pace of change.
> 
> When I lived in Vauxhall, the (mainly middle class 'bohemian') squatters were happy to buy everything in the corner shop and keep it going. A lot of the sort of people who have moved near me now would be clamouring for a place like that - with its fridges of milk, rows of tinned food, cigs behind the counter, just a normal shop - to be turned into an artisan cheese shop or similar!!


 
There was an exhibition about the 81 riots in the library a while back made from cuttings from newspapers of the time. The Guardian one looked at the who lived in Brixton. It said that professionals had moved in. These were left leaning social workers and other professionals in the public sector. So ur correct it was different.


----------



## oryx (Nov 30, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> There was an exhibition about the 81 riots in the library a while back made from cuttings from newspapers of the time. The Guardian one looked at the who lived in Brixton. It said that professionals had moved in. These were left leaning social workers and other professionals in the public sector. So ur correct it was different.


 
I suppose that is how I would sum it up - that the earlier wave of 'incomers' who were I suppose the vanguard of gentrification, had more of a social conscience.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 30, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I did not know about this. Can u say more?


I can. Schools in poorer areas have more kids who speak English as a second language, more parents on the breadline. Parents who can afford to, buy places in the catchment area of schools they like and they become predominantly middle class schools. Sudbourne School springs to mind. There's something else right-to-buy has affected. Lambeth didn't just own council estates. They bought up loads of houses all over Lambeth. I think 70% of council-owned property in Lambeth has been sold now, iirc. Can't remember where I read that, don't ask me for a source...it's probably more than 70% now anyway


----------



## fortyplus (Nov 30, 2012)

I have only two words to say. Notting Hill.


----------



## nagapie (Nov 30, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I did not know about this. Can u say more?


 
Like Mrs Magpie says, wealthier people have bought up the housing around the perceived better schools. This has radically affected the class and racial make-up of the primary schools in Lambeth. This also means that most of the special needs are concentrated in various schools creating impossibly high need. One primary near me has around 85% of its children on the school special needs register. What school could cope with that, my school has about 25% and we are inundated with need?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2012)

nagapie said:


> Like Mrs Magpie says, wealthier people have bought up the housing around the perceived better schools. This has radically affected the class and racial make-up of the primary schools in Lambeth. This also means that most of the special needs are concentrated in various schools creating impossibly high need. One primary near me has around 85% of its children on the school special needs register. What school could cope with that, my school has about 25% and we are inundated with need?


 
Thats appalling. Its not something I hear our Cllrs going on about. Keep quiet about that.

In Brighton they introduced a lottery for schools to try to stop this happening.


----------



## nagapie (Nov 30, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Thats appalling. Its not something I hear our Cllrs going on about. Keep quiet about that.


 
Well all politicians like to measure their schools by artificial standards so a lot may be ok on the surface in terms of results. But it doesn't change the fact that different classes and races are not going to the same schools. The education system is such that you can say you're doing well for children by providing a very narrow experience. That's not to slate the schools as teachers are usually working within a system they haven't had any say in and don't agree with.
There are so many issues when talking about inner city schools within the context of the education system, my remarks only scratch the surface of all that is wrong.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I'm saying that the whole of w/c London will be like Edmonton.


 
I went to Edmonton Green a while back. That is one seriously misleading place name.


----------



## oryx (Nov 30, 2012)

oryx said:


> When I lived in Vauxhall, the (mainly middle class 'bohemian') squatters were happy to buy everything in the corner shop and keep it going. A lot of the sort of people who have moved near me now would be clamouring for a place like that - with its fridges of milk, rows of tinned food, cigs behind the counter, just a normal shop - to be turned into an artisan cheese shop or similar!!


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/7847556/A-taste-of-Italy-in-Vauxhall.html

It happened anyway!!!  Sorry to quote self etc.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 1, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I did not know about this. Can u say more?


 
I can be more precise.

Free school meals is a proxy for 'poverty'.

These are the approximate free school meal ratios for four neighbouring Brixton schools:

Jubilee: 50%
King's Avenue: 50%
Sudbourne: 30%
Corpus Christi: 10%

Statistically, they should have quite similar percentages.

Sudbourne's lower rate is explained, in part, by the more expensive housing.

Corpus Christi's is explained by Roman Catholic selection policies.


----------



## boohoo (Dec 1, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I was born at the Elephant so I'm an _outsider  _


 
Where you born in Lambeth hospital?  It was at the Elephant!


----------



## boohoo (Dec 1, 2012)

I know the thread has move on a bit...

... but going back to the conversation about coming from an area.

My life in London has involved meeting lots of people from all parts of the UK and the world. They come into my life, become my friend and one day many of them say I need to move back to my home town - I've got family there - we don't see enough of each other - the old folk are getting on a bit. And so they return home and settle down. Brixton is where I grew up, it's my home town , it's where my parents live yet I can't afford the area and unlike my friends  I can't just go back to my hometown when I want to.


...anyway I've said my bit now.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 1, 2012)

Only one of my three grown-up kids is still in Brixton, and that's only because he's so under-employed and skint he moved back into my place.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I was trying not to depress myself too much, but you're right. Useless eaters like me will be shipped off northward and left to fend for ourselves in the cold rainy wastelands also known as Lancashire and Yorkshire.



tbf I do think you'll bring a whole newlease of life to Last of the Summer Wine ;-)


----------



## Greebo (Dec 1, 2012)

Belushi said:


> tbf I do think you'll bring a whole newlease of life to Last of the Summer Wine ;-)


As the mastermind who sits in bed, giving everyone else ideas.


----------



## Manter (Dec 1, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I demand champagne


I may go as far as sparkling wine.... But champagne? Pffff


----------



## paolo (Dec 1, 2012)

A week or so ago I was going through the tube just after rush hour. The freebie publication hand out made me laugh. I thought well - Brixton really *is* attracting a whole new focus...

...it was the Economist. 

(I bloody love the Economist. But fuck... in Brixton?  My landlady, been here for about 25 years, 'squatter made good', thought it was hilarious.)


----------



## nagapie (Dec 1, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I can be more precise.
> 
> Free school meals is a proxy for 'poverty'.
> 
> ...


 
Even free school meals are not a full indicator of need. Firstly, some families cannot get the paperwork to access them as they are illegal or semi-legal. Secondly, the government was planning a change  to free school meals (don't think it's happened yet) so that families with an income of £10, 000 or more will lose this entitlement. Can you imagine, that is nothing to live on with a family or without in London! And it means the government can then give less funding to needy schools.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Dec 1, 2012)

Apologies for diving into this thread when I've not posted here for awhile.

I think what is disturbing is that now this is less absorbable change, more demographic transplant. I was going to say that we shall be left with little islands of low-income people in social housing (Ladbroke Grove?) surrounded by obscene wealth. But since regeneration of estates relieves people of their low rents and secure tenancies, what we are heading for is a Parisan style rich ghetto of all of zones 1 and 2 (perhaps, am I wrong?) Searching for "Brixton Gentrification" these two articles stood out. The first one from 2005, is a bit resentful, but seems rather prescient now. The second really highlights a vanished Coldharbour Lane. Not many of us miss the pushiest of street dealers (now mostly not present on CHL), but it is the "atmosphere of acceptance" of disparate people that one of the articles mentions that is a sad loss. That atmosphere is also not perceiveable to the more wealthy as never required.

http://www.newint.org/columns/essays/2005/12/01/cultural-development/

http://londonmink.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/goodbye-electric-lane.html


----------



## newbie (Dec 1, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I can be more precise.
> 
> Free school meals is a proxy for 'poverty'.
> 
> ...


I have to say that all this stuff about how massively middle class and gentrified the area has become are belied by those figures. Ignore Corpus Christi because it's always set itself apart from the ordinaries. Best part of half of all children going to those local schools qualify for free school meals. Are there similar stats for primaries in SW9?

I've been wondering how to say this, but not every incomer is posh and rich- they're not all like manter. Just look around, yes there are Mercs parked up these days (not all with tinted windows) but there are also huge numbers of obviously quite poor people. Still.

Maybe Lambeth has sold off 70% of all its properties but there are still masses of Housing Association places around (& Lambeth rents back a fair few sold-off flats): social housing is still a major component of the local landscape, as is longterm private rental at somewhat less than extortionate rates.

This is still inner London, where the prosperous still live cheek by jowl with the poor, where bright young things arrive after university and where (minor blip since 2008 apart) they still clear off again when their kids approach secondary school age.

The bright young things have disposable income, they're being paid West End and City rates, but as the area has gained in popularity the more ordinary BYTs have to wait a few years until they've established themselves before they can afford Brixton with its easy commute. That wasn't the case some years back, when it was an entry level dormitory for BYTs. Of course, it's still entry level for posh lawyers, brokers and mandarins but not so much any longer for those starting out in the more normal jobs the West End and City has to offer. Even so, there are plenty of rentsharers doing what are, by West End standards, pretty ordinary jobs (they may look like glittering prizes for those outside London, but that's the nature of the national concentration of civil service, media, law and finance jobs in the middle of London) .

I don't think the detailed 2011 census has been published yet- it will make very interesting reading.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Dec 1, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I can be more precise.
> 
> Free school meals is a proxy for 'poverty'.
> 
> ...


 
If you want to look at this from the opposite direction - indicators of wealth - then it can be enlightening to look up a school's PTA on the Charities Commission website & see how much it raises in a year.
Primary schools that raise a few £100 from cake sales & raffles possibly don't even have to be listed - but ones where the PTA raises tens of £1000s often seem to be  .

Obviously it's great to raise loads of money for your school - and even 'favoured' primary schools are still quite mixed so the parents are raising funds for all the children, & very probably with the intention of benefiting the poorest - but the disparities do indicate something.


----------



## Manter (Dec 1, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I can be more precise.
> 
> Free school meals is a proxy for 'poverty'.
> 
> ...


Am I the only person who is completely fixated on that many kids living in poverty? 50% in 2 schools in one of the richest cities in the world? Bloody hell


----------



## Greebo (Dec 1, 2012)

Manter said:


> Am I the only person who is completely fixated on that many kids living in poverty? 50% in 2 schools in one of the richest cities in the world? Bloody hell


Tbh I just take it for granted that things like that happen (iniquitous as that level of inequality and poverty is). I'm shocked that you're shocked.


----------



## Manter (Dec 1, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Tbh I just take it for granted that things like that happen (iniquitous as that level of inequality and poverty is). I'm shocked that you're shocked.


I knew there was poverty, but not at that level. I am neither rich, nor posh (nor particularly new to Brixton) despite what i joke about, and for a variety of reasons have more of an idea about extreme poverty than many, but by being ordinary, middle class you are shielded, I think, from so much of reality. I genuinely had no idea there were so many people just or not quite getting by on a day to day basis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2012)

Manter said:


> Am I the only person who is completely fixated on that many kids living in poverty? 50% in 2 schools in one of the richest cities in the world? Bloody hell


 
Frankly, for me it's _plus ça change..._, as it pretty much reflects what I grew up with, and from what I've been told, it can sometimes be even worse out in the 'burbs. A mate on the London/Surrey border reckoned that his youngest's school had about 70% of pupils on free meals, and almost 50% were statemented, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2012)

Manter said:


> I knew there was poverty, but not at that level. I am neither rich, nor posh (nor particularly new to Brixton) despite what i joke about, and for a variety of reasons have more of an idea about extreme poverty than many, but by being ordinary, middle class you are shielded, I think, from so much of reality. I genuinely had no idea there were so many people just or not quite getting by on a day to day basis.


 
Back when I was a kid, free school meals were a lifesaver for some of my mates. They made the difference between malnourishment and contentment.
Of course, what helped back then is that school meals were designed to provide for the complete daily nutritional needs in terms of vitamins, minerals etc, as well as providing the correct proportion of carbs, protein etc to aid physical development (school meals often contained half the daily recommended calorie allowance too, on the grounds that schoolkids were physically-active). Thatcher's second government removed the requirement for balanced nutrition and shifted to a calories-based system. Result - kids with vitamin-deficiency issues at rates we haven't seen since the 1950s.


----------



## Manter (Dec 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Back when I was a kid, free school meals were a lifesaver for some of my mates. They made the difference between malnourishment and contentment.
> Of course, what helped back then is that school meals were designed to provide for the complete daily nutritional needs in terms of vitamins, minerals etc, as well as providing the correct proportion of carbs, protein etc to aid physical development (school meals often contained half the daily recommended calorie allowance too, on the grounds that schoolkids were physically-active). Thatcher's second government removed the requirement for balanced nutrition and shifted to a calories-based system. Result - kids with vitamin-deficiency issues at rates we haven't seen since the 1950s.


Mate of mine is an a&e doc and says he has started seeing scurvy. Fucking appalling.


----------



## newbie (Dec 1, 2012)

Manter said:


> I knew there was poverty, but not at that level. I am neither rich, nor posh (nor particularly new to Brixton) despite what i joke about, and for a variety of reasons have more of an idea about extreme poverty than many, but by being ordinary, middle class you are shielded, I think, from so much of reality. I genuinely had no idea there were so many people just or not quite getting by on a day to day basis.


 
you're going to have to forgive me, I'm not looking for a personal spat, but what!!?!

you're the one who wrote


Manter said:


> It was a council building officer- I had him round to look at a house we were thinking of buying that had some odd stuff going on with it- we wanted to know if they would object us reinstating it as a single house and what the building regs implications were of some interesting extensions at the back, that we suspected were illegal and wanted to knock down, but replace with the same footprint. Plus issues with a room with a 6ft ceiling. One ofthe local estate agents (Martin Barry I think, but don't quote me- the one that has all the old houses that are quietly falling down on their books) said something similar
> 
> Incidentally, we didn't get the house because a property developer gazumped us- he has done the absolute minimum and it is back on the market for 70k more
> 
> E2A just looked on rightmove- it's sold. even more speechless


 
On a thread about how people are being driven out of the area because they can't afford to live here, you're telling us that you wanted to buy (at least) two homes to turn into one for you and your partner.

You've admitted to being entirely blinkered about local poverty but I think you need to recalibrate your sense of "rich" to something closer to (even some of) the local norms. As for "posh", well that's a matter of perception, but the simple fact that you know posher people than you doesn't alter your own standing. I'll dig out some quotes that make that oh so obvious if you really want me to.

You are who you are, I'll not criticise you for that, but please don't think we can't read.


----------



## newbie (Dec 1, 2012)

btw that was on Hayter Road, well known locally because of Sudbourne school, subsequently identified on this thread as one of the most desirable and thus expensive areas around here.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 1, 2012)

> I've been wondering how to say this, but not every incomer is posh and rich- they're not all like manter.


 

Well I read it as a needless dig. Hard to see it as anything else, IMO.  Although I did do a 'heh' when I first read it.  I thought it was a jokey dig at first but I guess not.


----------



## Manter (Dec 1, 2012)

newbie said:


> you're going to have to forgive me, I'm not looking for a personal spat, but what!!?!
> 
> you're the one who wrote
> 
> ...


If you are so keen to make clear you can read, try reading posts in context and you'll see I was talking about a house that had been subdivided (as it happens illegally) not multiple homes being knocked through into some kind of palatial fuck palace. 

And if I admit ignorance about some parts of local policy and practice, that is because I am interested in learning. 

And interestingly, for someone who doesn't want to criticise me for who (you may have meant what) I am, you are the only person who has jumped to loads of conclusions and attacked me for it.


----------



## newbie (Dec 1, 2012)

that's right, a house that had been subdivided into more than one home.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 1, 2012)

newbie said:


> that's right, a house that had been subdivided into more than one home.


Without planning permission, she said. And as such made unavailable to most people because no bank will offer a substantial mortgage on them.


----------



## newbie (Dec 1, 2012)

Rushy said:


> Without planning permission, she said. And as such made unavailable to most people because no bank will offer a substantial mortgage on them.


are you implying only a cash purchaser would be interested?

whatever, a builder did a little work and upped the price by seventy thousand pounds more when selling it.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 1, 2012)

so what counts as 'rich' in your books, newbie?  

I can think of a number of ways they could afford that house without being my idea of rich.  There is a lot of middle ground between poor and rich. 

And none of it means you have to take a dig at individual posters because you know one vague aspect of their financial situation either way. you didn't need to include it at all for your general point so the pretence at handwringing was pretty disingenuous.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 1, 2012)

newbie said:


> are you implying only a cash purchaser would be interested?
> 
> whatever, a builder did a little work and upped the price by seventy thousand pounds more when selling it.


To buy the flats separately, yes - you would need cash. No one would offer a mortgage on them because the council could order the property be turned back into a single house. And even with cash, any half decent solicitor would advise you against purchasing them. You would also need a fairly specialist lender to get a mortgage to buy a house which had been subdivided without planning permission. They would look at the value of the property as a 'single dwelling' (which would usually be substantially less than the value of two flats) and then subtract the cost of returning it back to being a 'single dwelling' and then lend a percentage of the balance.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 1, 2012)

newbie said:


> you're going to have to forgive me, I'm not looking for a personal spat, but what!!?!
> 
> you're the one who wrote
> 
> ...


Rich and posh are liberally used all over the place on here (and out There) and tend to be used fairly pejoratively. They are imprecise and subjective and I doubt that your own perspective is any more accurate than Manter's. Owning your own home and being able to plan your investments for the future might might make you comparatively well off in a particular area but does not equate to being 'rich'. Nor posh.


Quite a good, if simplistic article on perspective: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15822595.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 1, 2012)

Manter said:


> If you are so keen to make clear you can read, try reading posts in context and you'll see I was talking about a house that had been subdivided (as it happens illegally) not multiple homes being knocked through into some kind of palatial fuck palace.


 
Just a minor technical point: converting a house into two flats without planning permission is not illegal. However, if the council finds out about your conversion and order you to turn it back, ignoring the enforcement notice _*is*_ illegal. Funnily enough, many of the houses split without planning permission and being sold in this way belong to... Lambeth!


----------



## newbie (Dec 1, 2012)

there is indeed a lot of middle ground, but there is also what might be called sensitivity, and the post I quoted comes over as rubbing peoples noses in it.  I've spent plenty of time in that area, in houses split into flats where friends have raised children who've now grown up and can't afford to live round here.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 1, 2012)

It was a response in a discussion in order to explain a previous post. Don't see any nose rubbing. People shouldn't have to apologise all the time because they are not facing the same hardships as others.

Elsewhere on urban posters recognise and point out that this govt/the powerful/the media are deploying techniques to divide and conquer, encouraging this group to hate that group and many efforts are made to understand where responsibility really lies and it's not with benefit claimants or people who work in the job centre, or in the public sector or the private sector etc. Those efforts are made in the brixton forum too but there's far too much falling into the trap of resenting and blaming people who can afford to stay here or move here. They are not the enemy. They're just people trying to do the best for themselves with the resources they have available to them in the system as it exists.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 1, 2012)

boohoo said:


> Where you born in Lambeth hospital? It was at the Elephant!


No, at home on the Heygate Estate....mum is/was a midwife, so insisted on a home birth!


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 1, 2012)

Did she catch you herself?


----------



## newbie (Dec 1, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> It was a response in a discussion in order to explain a previous post. Don't see any nose rubbing. People shouldn't have to apologise all the time because they are not facing the same hardships as others.


 
No, they shouldn't have to apologise, but consider the context- we were discussing that 50%-ish of primary school children qualify for free school meals and Manter was simultaneously saying that she didn't know there was poverty round here and that she's not rich. She's been picked up on what she posted, nothing else.



> Elsewhere on urban posters recognise and point out that this govt/the powerful/the media are deploying techniques to divide and conquer, encouraging this group to hate that group and many efforts are made to understand where responsibility really lies and it's not with benefit claimants or people who work in the job centre, or in the public sector or the private sector or hipsters etc. Those efforts are made in the brixton forum too but there's far too much falling into the trap of resenting and blaming people who can afford to stay here or move here. They are not the enemy. They're just people trying to do the best for themselves with the resources they have available to them in the system as it exists.


 
with all due respect, I've not made anyone out to be 'the enemy'. For sure, we're all pawns, living our lives doing the things that make sense to us. But the pretence that we're all in this together, and that the choices we make have no consequences for other people, can be seen to be paper thin on occasion.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 1, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Did she catch you herself?


No, but I think she would have done had the midwife not got there in time!


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 1, 2012)

newbie said:


> No, they shouldn't have to apologise, but consider the context- we were discussing that 50%-ish of primary school children qualify for free school meals and Manter was simultaneously saying that she didn't know there was poverty round here and that she's not rich. She's been picked up on what she posted, nothing else.


 
There was more than one discussion.  She did not say she did not know there was poverty, she was shocked at the extent.  

You were having a petty dig and were being picked up on it. 

The rest of my post was a general point about my experience of the brixton forum recently not aimed at you specifically.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 1, 2012)

newbie said:


> No, they shouldn't have to apologise, but consider the context- we were discussing that 50%-ish of primary school children qualify for free school meals and Manter was simultaneously saying that she didn't know there was poverty round here and that she's not rich. She's been picked up on what she posted, nothing else.


 
Erm, I think she was expressing surprise at the *extent* of poverty (50% of kids on free meals) rather than that it existed. 50% is three times the national average (16.9%). I'd certainly have expected it to be much higher here but even so 50% is surprisingly high IMO.


----------



## newbie (Dec 1, 2012)

57% at Richard Atkins these days.  That's where my son went.

The point I was trying to make is that all this talk of property prices and so on is distracting from just how poor a great deal of this area is.  Those who have dominate the narrative to such an extent that those who haven't are not even being noticed.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 1, 2012)

Rushy said:


> Erm, I think she was expressing surprise at the *extent* of poverty (50% of kids on free meals) rather than that it existed. 50% is three times the national average (16.9%). I'd certainly have expected it to be much higher here but even so 50% is surprisingly high IMO.


 
There are more deprived schools in Lambeth than Jubilee, it'll be higher at others.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2012)

Manter said:


> Mate of mine is an a&e doc and says he has started seeing scurvy. Fucking appalling.


 
Rickets too has made a comeback. Dire. Absolutely fucking dire. What next, developmental problems because kids aren't getting enough calcium for their bones to develop properly?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2012)

newbie said:


> 57% at Richard Atkins these days. That's where my son went.
> 
> The point I was trying to make is that all this talk of property prices and so on is distracting from just how poor a great deal of this area is. Those who have dominate the narrative to such an extent that those who haven't are not even being noticed.


 
The talk of property prices has always helped emphasise how poor a great deal of this area is, in my experience. It allows a significant resource gap to be demonstrated, both in terms of what is personally-affordable, and in terms of what your social capital can facillitate, without needing to mention "class" and thus allow the policymakers to tune the matter out.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 1, 2012)

Manter has always been honest about her position etc.

I doubt all of us have, including me!


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 1, 2012)

newbie said:


> No, they shouldn't have to apologise, but consider the context- we were discussing that 50%-ish of primary school children qualify for free school meals and Manter was simultaneously saying that she didn't know there was poverty round here and that she's not rich. She's been picked up on what she posted, nothing else.
> 
> with all due respect, I've not made anyone out to be 'the enemy'. For sure, we're all pawns, living our lives doing the things that make sense to us. But the pretence that we're all in this together, and that the choices we make have no consequences for other people, can be seen to be paper thin on occasion.


 
I can see your point Newbie and also that of Quimcunx that divide and rule is how those in power operate.

If there was a government in power that did attempt to radically redistribute wealth and power I do wonder how long the pretence ,as you put it, of being all in this together would last.

This is happening at the moment in Argentina. The Peronist leftist government of President Cristina is doing that. The middle classes have been out on the streets in Buenos Airies demonstrating against it. (I have an Argentinian Peronist friend in Argentina). And Cristina is not advocation communism but a more equal society.

Politics in this country revolve around the "centre ground". So inequality is not really on the agenda. In Argentina, like some other South American countries, politics is a lot more polarised. Also have higher turnouts at election time as well. As happened in recent Venezuela election. What u vote for really makes a difference.

Manter did say:



> , but by being ordinary, middle class you are shielded, I think, from so much of reality. I genuinely had no idea there were so many people just or not quite getting by on a day to day basis.


 
I would say that this is not personal to Manter but in general inequality is rendered invisible. This is not fault of Manter. I would rather use the word inequality to poverty. As this is what its really about. This is ideological. To follow on Quimcunx post sections of media and Tory/LD government do this.

If it is visible its seen as personal failing. Or what is needed is some kind of targetted help or that bussword "nudge" social policies to deal with it. Ian Duncan Smith is example of someone who thinks they know about poverty but doesnt really.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 1, 2012)

nagapie said:


> Well all politicians like to measure their schools by artificial standards so a lot may be ok on the surface in terms of results. But it doesn't change the fact that different classes and races are not going to the same schools. The education system is such that you can say you're doing well for children by providing a very narrow experience. That's not to slate the schools as teachers are usually working within a system they haven't had any say in and don't agree with.
> There are so many issues when talking about inner city schools within the context of the education system, my remarks only scratch the surface of all that is wrong.


 
This deserves a new thread. You are knowledgeable about this subject.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 2, 2012)

I've been keeping half an eye on this thread, but finally thought I'd post following a conversation I had the other day, at a party populated by some posh north London types, although the themes come up elsewhere. Certainly over the last 10 years conversations with middle class outsiders have gone from "oh, isn't it a bit dangerous", to "what a marvellous investment opportunity". And it's certainly things like the village and the perceived demographic change which is driving those views. Anyway, as the conversation went on I think my face reassembled that of grumpy cat and the conversation dried up. And in the future I think I'm going to start telling people I live in Tulse Hill! 

Which would go some way of explaining newbie's point a few posts back, that the middle class incoming component is no longer new graduates but more established ones. I moved to Brixton 10 years ago after getting a, pretty craply paid job in Clapham North, and basically I found all inclusive rent for under £350 in a house share of fairly like minded people, who were either public sector workers like me or SOAS students. There's no way on earth my 23 year old self or any of those housemates could have afforded to live here now. It also strikes me that now much rarer (if no longer existent) private sector rent is round about the £85pw housing benefit cap for single persons under a certain age (35?). 

I dunno, just a couple of random thoughts. Whilst it would be hypercritical to moan about incoming gentrifiers given I was one 10 years ago (and frankly, in this subject there's a big subjective component), there's just something deeply upsetting about people explicitly thinking of/using living in Brixton as a personal investment opportunity rather than a home for the long term.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 2, 2012)

And its not a problem that is specific to Brixton. See this informative website about the Elephant & Castle regeneration programme


----------



## nagapie (Dec 2, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> This deserves a new thread. You are knowledgeable about this subject.


 
Well it is my job. Don't know, primary schools in the area is a subject I try not to talk about too much. As the parent of a 3 year old, it raises anxiety in me. Not only about the state of the local primary schools (and I feel disloyal saying things about them as I know they will be full of dedicated staff trying to make a difference) but about the whole education system which, if I'm honest, I'd rather not put my child in at all...for at least another 3 years anyway. 

Someone else can start a thread and I'll comment


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 2, 2012)

Thought this was funny from the "Southwark Notes" website:



*WANNA BUY A FLAT IN THE ELEPHANT? OUR GUIDE TO THE ESTATE AGENT LINGO…*

Thinking of moving to the area? The more cynical wing of Southwark Notes has furnished us with this handy cut out ‘n’ keep translation of developer and estate agent brochure-speak.
*‘VILLAGE’* – _You’re surrounded by council estates on all sides. _
*‘NEW BUILD’* – _The walls are paper thin._
*‘BUZZY’* – _There’s three lanes of traffic below your windowsill._
*‘DIVERSE’* – _People who aren’t middle-class and white live there._



*CREATIVE* –_ The artists who attracted you to the area are about to be priced out – by you._
*‘EXCITING’* – _Someone’s gonna have your iPhone in five minutes._
*‘DYNAMIC*‘ –_ There’s a small nightclub and two Chicken Cottages._
*‘UNIQUE’* –_ It’s just like the other posh rabbit hutch over the road._



*‘CONTEMPORARY’* –_ A kid with some Lego could have designed it._
*‘REAL’* – _There’s a big white working-class population._
*‘VIBRANT’* – _There’s a big Carribean population._
*‘EXOTIC’* – _There’s a big African population._



*‘CULTURAL’* – _The Imperial War Museum is up the road._
*‘ICONIC’* – _The buidling is lop-sided or shaped like a vegetable._
*‘SUSTAINABLE’* – _The architect has some put some wood on the front._
*‘STUNNING’* – _Expensive._



*‘OASIS’* – _You’re living behind huge security gates. _
*‘URBAN’* – _It’s in London, duh!_
*‘EXCLUSIVE’* - _ You will drive to and from home so don’t have to interact locally._
*‘QUARTER*‘ – _Basically, you’re living in a yuppiedrome._
*-) As humourists we won’t be giving up our day jobs just quite yet. We do welcome contributions to our handy guide. Pass on ‘em.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 2, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> It was a response in a discussion in order to explain a previous post. Don't see any nose rubbing. People shouldn't have to apologise all the time because they are not facing the same hardships as others.
> 
> Elsewhere on urban posters recognise and point out that this govt/the powerful/the media are deploying techniques to divide and conquer, encouraging this group to hate that group and many efforts are made to understand where responsibility really lies and it's not with benefit claimants or people who work in the job centre, or in the public sector or the private sector etc. Those efforts are made in the brixton forum too but there's far too much falling into the trap of resenting and blaming people who can afford to stay here or move here. They are not the enemy. They're just people trying to do the best for themselves with the resources they have available to them in the system as it exists.


 
I don't disagree. However, I also think that it's to be expected that increasing inequality, which excludes so many from owning their own home or renting where they love living, is going to cause resentment. It's one of the things I don't miss about living in London, that feeling of resentment, being excluded, and feeling totally crap about myself because I hadn't been able to make certain decisions about a profession or buying a flat at earlier points in my life and not being able to do anything about it because things have changed so much. There isn't the possibility of recapturing, recouping. Once it's gone it's gone. 

I've lived in Birmingham for 3 years now and I'm more forgiving of myself there. It's a good city, laid back and friendly, enough to do. I still miss London, am here right now, the sun is shining, and I pine awfully from time to time. I feel more myself in London than anywhere else. I think I lead a healthier, better life in Birmingham, and I think I'd find moving back to Brixton actually very difficult now, but I still have regrets. Loss is painful isn't it?


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 2, 2012)

Red Cat, you've summed up my feelings exactly. I wish I didn't feel resentment, but I do! Let's hope that I'm able to be kinder to myself and others in my new, non London life.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 2, 2012)

Aye, it's a horrible feeling. Corrosive.

Where are you going?


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 2, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> Aye, it's a horrible feeling. Corrosive.
> 
> Where are you going?



Cardiff. Football wise, a hell hole, but otherwise a fantastic city where we have family and friends. It's going to be a good move for us.


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

the screengrabs didn't work, I'll repost in a few minutes


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

I've been poking around the census info.


The screengrabs of this ONS page illustrate the structural issue facing Lambeth and other innercity boroughs (Lambeth in blue, England in yellow; 2001 on the left, 2011 on the right). I can't link to the different views (grrr, flash)


People arrive in droves in their 20s, meet up, have lots of babies and then those with choices predictably leave before both primary and secondary school. That has been evident and identified and discussed for decades, but has become a bit more pronounced.

However there are now noticeably more in the 40-60 bracket than there were a decade ago, and that, I think, has been the major component of the changes over the past few years. When almost all the 20s had left by their mid-40s the home they vacated went to someone pretty much like they'd been 5 or 10 years previously. Simplistically, 25 year olds could afford a reasonable flatshare, a few years later they could get a local mortgage, then a sprog and away (clutching their "housing ladder" profits), with their younger brothers and sisters treading in their wake. Now that the middle aged are choosing to live here they're competing for, and using their economic strength to win, more of the available housing, pushing prices up. And, of course, the presence of the established middle aged makes the area more desirable- there is evidently a future here- drawing in those younger people who have better economic choices about where to live. There are at least as many 20s as there were back then, so they're obviously finding and affording somewhere to live, but they're paying significantly more- which might mean they have significantly better jobs or maybe have less disposable income after housing costs.

So rather than blame the incoming hipsters I'm suggesting that it's all the fault of the middleaged who are here past their sellby date  .

This says nothing about class, wealth or anything of the sort, just age. Nor does it tell us whether the 50s have been around for years or recently arrived. The next tranche of census info is due out on 11 December, "Key Statistics for local authorities in England and Wales" which may fill in a whole lot more.

fwiw this, rather clever, graphic shows where people have recently been coming from and going to (inland only, not abroad)..


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

sorry MO, it now looks as though you liked a full stop  .  Poxy ONS, why can't they produce a sensible webpage.  The data is really useful, the presentation leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 2, 2012)

newbie said:


> fwiw this, rather clever, graphic shows where people have recently been coming from and going to (inland only, not abroad)..


It says zero from Neath, Port Talbot. I know 5 people from Port Talbot in Brixton, never mind Lambeth.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 2, 2012)

Many women are also choosing to have their babies much later, thereby being already established in London and not necessarily wanting to move back to somewhere, if there is somewhere to move back to.


----------



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

newbie said:


> I'; 2001 on the left, 2011 on the right). I


 
Other way round, isn't it? 

That's a really interesting post. As you say there's a whole lot more data that would really be needed to analyse it thoroughly but you make a good point about how these things work that certainly hadn't occurred to me before.


----------



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

Mrs Magpie said:


> It says zero from Neath, Port Talbot. I know 5 people from Port Talbot in Brixton, never mind Lambeth.


 
It only shows people who have moved in the 12 months up to June 2011 I think.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 2, 2012)

Oh, OK, fair enough.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 2, 2012)

It may be indicative of people coupling up and/or having children later in life too, or not at all - more single households.  Interesting graph and interpretation.   Moving to the burbs for more space and garden for similar money to house a family has been around for a while.  It took me a minute to spot the stubby little yellow emigration line. 

I wonder if @kabbes @ymu have any thoughts on it.


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> It says zero from Neath, Port Talbot. I know 5 people from Port Talbot in Brixton, never mind Lambeth.


who moved in the year end June 11?  tell  ONS.


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Other way round, isn't it?
> 
> That's a really interesting post. As you say there's a whole lot more data that would really be needed to analyse it thoroughly but you make a good point about how these things work that certainly hadn't occurred to me before.


I'm sorry it previewed properly then didn't post the grabs, and by the time I'd sorted it out it was all wrong.  edited now.


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

nagapie said:


> Many women are also choosing to have their babies much later, thereby being already established in London and not necessarily wanting to move back to somewhere, if there is somewhere to move back to.


whatever the age of the mother, statistically the children move out with sharp steps at 5 and 10. err, I think, they've called for people who understand stats to review what I've written <trembles>


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> It may be indicative of people coupling up and/or having children later in life too, or not at all - more single households. Interesting graph and interpretation. Moving to the burbs for more space and garden for similar money to house a family has been around for a while. It took me a minute to spot the stubby little yellow emigration line.
> 
> I wonder if @kabbes @ymu have any thoughts on it.


more single households- good point, but this view doesn't tell us anything about that.  I'm not capable of mining the data properly but if anyone can find better tools for this I'm sure we could learn a lot.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 2, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> feeling of resentment, being excluded, and feeling totally crap about myself because I hadn't been able to make certain decisions about a profession or buying a flat at earlier points in my life and not being able to do anything about it because things have changed so much. There isn't the possibility of recapturing, recouping. Once it's gone it's gone. Loss is painful isn't it?



Yes. This just about sums up the luck, randomness and hopelessness of it all.


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2012)

nagapie said:


> Many women are also choosing to have their babies much later, thereby being already established in London and not necessarily wanting to move back to somewhere, if there is somewhere to move back to.


I think the 'if there is somewhere to move back to' thing is critical- how many people now have all their family in a nearby community that they feel part of?  most of us are making a community wherever we end up- which may be why (to @newbie's point) older people hang around.


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Frankly, for me it's _plus ça change..._, as it pretty much reflects what I grew up with, and from what I've been told, it can sometimes be even worse out in the 'burbs. A mate on the London/Surrey border reckoned that his youngest's school had about 70% of pupils on free meals, and almost 50% were statemented, too.


Sorry, massively behind on this thread and just catching up.... as lots of people have said for me, completely understand there is poverty, but the extent really did surprise me.  And I knew Lambeth was likely to be worse than elsewhere, but, again, the sheer numbers have blown me away.


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2012)

Rushy said:


> Just a minor technical point: converting a house into two flats without planning permission is not illegal. However, if the council finds out about your conversion and order you to turn it back, ignoring the enforcement notice _*is*_ illegal. Funnily enough, many of the houses split without planning permission and being sold in this way belong to... Lambeth!


Lambeth never cease to amaze me...  I didn't know that.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 2, 2012)

I have no idea what the criteria is for getting free meals.


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2012)

I am going to randomly answer a bunch of stuff in a variety of different posts...



Gramsci said:


> snip> divide and rule is how those in power operate.


 quite.  And by attacking or dismissing each other for being poor, or rich, or buying into the fallacy that all rich people are heartless arses or poor people are feckless benefits cheats, we let that divide and rule continue.  



Gramsci said:


> snip> in general inequality is rendered invisible. .


 yes.  this 



leanderman said:


> Manter has always been honest about her position etc.
> 
> I doubt all of us have, including me!





newbie said:


> there is indeed a lot of middle ground, but there is also what might be called sensitivity, and the post I quoted comes over as rubbing peoples noses in it. I've spent plenty of time in that area, in houses split into flats where friends have raised children who've now grown up and can't afford to live round here.


 
I certainly never meant to rub anyone's nose in anything.  I am pretty honest about parts of my situation, as I don't see the point in pretending to have experiences or perspectives I don't (and would probably get caught out anyway!).  There is lots I don't say or share, because frankly its no one's business, and I guess if that means some of what I say gets misinterpreted, I either have to share more or suck it up.  I do not come on here looking to offend- quite the opposite in fact. I first got involved on this board because I wanted to know more about the community I live in, and love.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 2, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> If there was a government in power that did attempt to radically redistribute wealth and power I do wonder how long the pretence ,as you put it, of being all in this together would last.


 
Probably not that long. I would probably describe my politics as broadly socialist. In theory a society (and world) where everyone has enough for their needs and equality is one I'd like to see. But that doesn't stop me fantasising about winning the lottery and having so much more than my actual need.

I am lucky at this point in time in that I am not being priced out of my neighbourhood. But I don't have power. I'm working class. I don't control the means of production. Lose my job and fail to get another at a similar level of pay and I'm in as precarious a position as the next person.

Anyway I would welcome a redistributive govt even if by my reckoning I personally might be a little worse off because it's not just about me and I recognise those less privileged than me are not less deserving than me. But I'm human. I would feel the same resentment* that others have referred to in their position in the current political climate, for instance. In a process of redistribution I would probably on a day to day basis see those people who will actively jostle for some advantage and feel that panic that I might lose out in the end and either join in with the self-protectionist jostling or allow myself to lose out while being resentful of the perceived advantages others are gaining.

In the selfish gene Dawkins makes an analogy of hawks and doves. The best society is all doves but if that ever happens some doves _will always _turn hawk. A wholly hawk society would be brutal and make society as a whole worse off. What you end up with is a continually adjusting balance of the two.

*re feeling resentment. It's perfectly understandable to me but when we express our argument for equity and social justice in terms of resentment it makes it all the easier for our overlords to dismiss it as the 'politics of envy'.  Hate that phrase so much.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 2, 2012)

Manter said:


> I do not come on here looking to offend- quite the opposite in fact. I first got involved on this board because I wanted to know more about the community I live in, and love.


 
Urban has been very educational for me over the last 5 years.  Political rhetoric that I only had vague unease about it 'not being right' without being able to understand or express quite why has become more concrete in my mind.


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I am lucky at this point in time in that I am not being priced out of my neighbourhood. But I don't have power. I'm working class. I don't control the means of production. Lose my job and fail to get another at a similar level of pay and I'm in as precarious a position as the next person.


 i think most of us are in the same position.  I was v ill last year, and the Northerner was this year.  Compared to many we have a lot, and we both have sick pay and insurance so survived it, but it was terrifying- brought home how close we all are to losing homes, safety, stability etc.  



quimcunx said:


> *re feeling resentment. It's perfectly understandable to me but when we express our argument for equity and social justice in terms of resentment it makes it all the easier for our overlords to dismiss it as the 'politics of envy'.  Hate that phrase so much.


  Yeah, I used that phrase in the post above but hate it so much I deleted it!


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Thought this was funny from the "Southwark Notes" website:


I've actually been slowly putting together a gentrification A-Z buzzword list for ages - I think I'll post it up later and let others add their own words


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 2, 2012)

Manter said:


> Lambeth never cease to amaze me... I didn't know that.


You'll be a real Brixtonite when Lambeth's general wrongness surprises you no more.


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> You'll be a real Brixtonite when Lambeth's general wrongness surprises you no more.


Ah, I need to go and read that citizenship thread. Tho if I fail I may be v upset


----------



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

quimcunx said:


> Urban has been very educational for me over the last 5 years. Political rhetoric that I only had vague unease about it 'not being right' without being able to understand or express quite why has become more concrete in my mind.


 
I was thinking about your earlier post about the difference you see in the Brixton forum and I wonder if maybe it's because the actual practical politics that people engage with elsewhere isn't really there with regard to gentrification and the like. I think most people here would agree with building more social housing but that seems a million miles off and is only a partial solution anyway IMO, and beyond that there isn't a lot that I can see.

I might be wrong of course but that's the impression I get from here.


ETA: 

This one: 


> Elsewhere on urban posters recognise and point out that this govt/the powerful/the media are deploying techniques to divide and conquer, encouraging this group to hate that group and many efforts are made to understand where responsibility really lies and it's not with benefit claimants or people who work in the job centre, or in the public sector or the private sector etc. Those efforts are made in the brixton forum too but there's far too much falling into the trap of resenting and blaming people who can afford to stay here or move here. They are not the enemy. They're just people trying to do the best for themselves with the resources they have available to them in the system as it exists.


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

Manter said:


> I am going to randomly answer a bunch of stuff in a variety of different posts...
> 
> quite. And by attacking or dismissing each other for being poor, or rich, or buying into the fallacy that all rich people are heartless arses or poor people are feckless benefits cheats, we let that divide and rule continue.
> 
> ...


hang on, slow down.  I've not attacked you, impugned your honesty, accused you of being heartless or anything else dreadful. I don't come here looking to offend either, nor do I think what I said was offensive.

I said you were rich, which I s'pose can be taken as faintly pejorative in the context but is hardly the greatest insult in the world, and explained why, contrasting what you'd posted with the large number of children on free school meals.

I'm sorry if you didn't like that, but we are what we post and, this being urban, must expect to be torn to shreds on it.  I'm gentle- try posting in p&p 

Like it or not pretty much none of the now-adults I've watched grow up round here can afford to live here now, except by staying with their parents.  Looked at with that prism in mind, and your new insight into fsm's, what word do you think appropriate?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 2, 2012)

Those who are in poverty, or who are above that but still objectively poor aside, I'm beginning to think that money is a bit like age. In a similar way to not feeling as old as you actually are as you advance in age, if you're comfortable you don't feel as wealthy as you probably are, demographically speaking. But then what becomes "rich" or "posh" is somewhat relative.

Tbf I did originally interpret someone being in a position to consider buying a (probably Victorian) house so big that had been made into two flats as "rich", but then I'm sure someone could say that about me for being able to buy a less desirable house in the general area, and _relatively_ speaking, from some people that would be correct. But then with the increase in cost of living (including silly rental or house prices), those who are relatively well off are finding their own disposable incomes stretched and probably don't feel rich. Um, if that makes sense. 

The relatively speaking thing probably goes the other way too, for example, an incomer thinking "well, _relatively _speaking I'm one of the good ones..."


----------



## ymu (Dec 2, 2012)

newbie said:


> more single households- good point, but this view doesn't tell us anything about that. I'm not capable of mining the data properly but if anyone can find better tools for this I'm sure we could learn a lot.


The ONS are a bit weird with data. There's quite a lot there, but most of it is buried in downloadable spreadsheets. I remember Paul Krugman throwing up his hands in horror when he tried to use the site for stuff he can get at the click of a button in the US.

I've not really caught up with this thread yet, but in terms of interpreting demographic and house price data I'd think that data on flat conversions and multiple-occupancy housing would be useful. High demand from singles and young couples tends to mean fewer larger family homes being available because they're getting split into flats/bedsits.


----------



## paolo (Dec 2, 2012)

newbie said:


> I've been poking around the census info.
> 
> 
> The screengrabs of this ONS page illustrate the structural issue facing Lambeth and other innercity boroughs (Lambeth in blue, England in yellow; 2001 on the left, 2011 on the right). I can't link to the different views (grrr, flash)
> ...


 
That's *far* too objective. You're meant to blame it on people based on their choice of jeans.


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Those who are in poverty, or who are above that but still objectively poor aside, I'm beginning to think that money is a bit like age. In a similar way to not feeling as old as you actually are as you advance in age, if you're comfortable you don't feel as wealthy as you probably are, demographically speaking. But then what becomes "rich" or "posh" is somewhat relative.
> 
> Tbf I did originally interpret someone being in a position to consider buying a (probably Victorian) house so big that had been made into two flats as "rich", but then I'm sure someone could say that about me for being able to buy a less desirable house in the general area, and _relatively_ speaking, from some people that would be correct. But then with the increase in cost of living (including silly rental or house prices), those who are relatively well off are finding their own disposable incomes stretched and probably don't feel rich. Um, if that makes sense.
> 
> The relatively speaking thing probably goes the other way too, for example, an incomer thinking "well, _relatively _speaking I'm one of the good ones..."


 
makes sense to me. Rushy posted a link to something similar earlier. 'Rich' is relative. Pretty much all of us know people financially both wealthier and less well off than ourselves, their experiences allow us to calibrate our own expectations of what 'rich' and 'poor' mean. That has to be tempered with reality though, all the people we don't know but rub shoulders with in the streets*, who we know about only as statistics, stories, stereotypes.

There are far too many overlapping communities to gain even the slightest inkling of what general 'local people' actually think. I guess none of us really knows just how far out of step we are.


What is it, 18 months since the riots?



* apologies, edit in 'and those who for one reason or another aren't ever seen on the streets'


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

ymu said:


> The ONS are a bit weird with data. There's quite a lot there, but most of it is buried in downloadable spreadsheets. I remember Paul Krugman throwing up his hands in horror when he tried to use the site for stuff he can get at the click of a button in the US.
> 
> I've not really caught up with this thread yet, but in terms of interpreting demographic and house price data I'd think that data on flat conversions and multiple-occupancy housing would be useful. High demand from singles and young couples tends to mean fewer larger family homes being available because they're getting split into flats/bedsits.


I've tried and despaired but I'm awareI don't know what I'm doing.  I do feel they could have made it much much more user friendly.


----------



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

paolo said:


> That's *far* too objective. You're meant to blame it on people based on their choice of jeans.


 
He just means it's people in Levi's and not in obscure Japanese jeans.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> He just means it's people in Levi's and not in obscure Japanese jeans.


 
Let's not turn this into a thread on Atomic Suplex's legwear, eh?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 2, 2012)

newbie said:


> makes sense to me. Rushy posted a link to something similar earlier. 'Rich' is relative. Pretty much all of us know people financially both wealthier and less well off than ourselves, their experiences allow us to calibrate our own expectations of what 'rich' and 'poor' mean. That has to be tempered with reality though, all the people we don't know but rub shoulders with in the streets*, who we know about only as statistics, stories, stereotypes.
> '


 
Maybe this is specific to me. But as I cycle around the West End and the City all day "Rich" is not relative to me. I have my nose rubbed in it every time I go done Bond street. 

The recession is not affecting these people. 

I get around a bit so see things a lot of people wouldn't see except in Stats. 

One image comes to mind. Cycling down Sloane street late one afternoon I saw a Roma trying to sell Big Issue to some East European woman dressed in the most expensive clothes u can buy. Just about sums it up really.


----------



## spacemonkey (Dec 2, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> Cardiff. Football wise, a hell hole, but otherwise a fantastic city where we have family and friends. It's going to be a good move for us.



I don't know whether to like or dislike! 

Cardiff is a fantastic city, might as well be a big village compared to London. When the great western line is electrified we'll probably end up as a commuter city for London though.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 2, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Probably not that long. I would probably describe my politics as broadly socialist. In theory a society (and world) where everyone has enough for their needs and equality is one I'd like to see. But that doesn't stop me fantasising about winning the lottery and having so much more than my actual need.
> 
> I am lucky at this point in time in that I am not being priced out of my neighbourhood. But I don't have power. I'm working class. I don't control the means of production. Lose my job and fail to get another at a similar level of pay and I'm in as precarious a position as the next person.
> 
> ...


 
Interesting post.

Im not having a go but the underlying emotion behind this post is not resentment but fear.

Id say the last 30 years of neo- liberalism have atomised society. Peoples lives are getting more precarious. Even the middle income earner if he/ she loses there job etc could go under. As Manter posted up. This makes people more fearful.

Do not agree with Dawkins analogy. A society where wealth is distributed more equally can be a brutal one run by Hawks. Could be the only way to get there in certain circumstances. Its also deceptive analogy. On the surface society might appear dovish and peaceful. But inequality is a form of social violence in itself imo. Though not seen as such normally.

Also we are not animals. At different times and in a different historical/ political event someone who is a Dove can turn into a Hawk. And change back again. Humans are more malleable than animals. That is what is a bit scary about Homo Sapiens.


----------



## fortyplus (Dec 2, 2012)

Today's Observer story about the planning minister's plans to build on loads of green space in the sticks is germane. We don't need housing in the sticks, well not that much, we need it here in the inner city because that's where people now want to live - hence rising property prices.  As land prices here continue rising, it's much cheaper to build on green space.  But it's a terrible idea not just because it trashes our green and pleasant countryside. If people want to live there, build houses there. But rural property prices aren't rising, they've been stagnant. The rural idyll to which our parents' generation aspired (I'm in my fifties) is souring; I know lots of people my age who are dealing with the problems of ageing parents stuck in the sticks or the 'burbs and becoming really isolated as disability stops them driving.  Fuel costs have the same effect on poor people in the sticks, there is no public transport to speak of. People who can't afford to live in inner London will have to move to the suburban closes  which were once considered desirable. 
Instead of building yet more of these slums of the future in the countryside, we need  to think creatively and imaginatively about how to live much more densely in cities; it will be more expensive in the short term to build new housing here but it's where it is needed.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 2, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Maybe this is specific to me. But as I cycle around the West End and the City all day "Rich" is not relative to me. I have my nose rubbed in it every time I go done Bond street.
> 
> The recession is not affecting these people.
> 
> ...


Well, I've always assumed that people who are quite obviously objectively rich are aware of it and do admit it, but maybe they are not/don't?

"Yah, £300k a year isn't _much_, not with my outgoings, we're still paying off the disco and tennis court in the basement..."


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 2, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Today's Observer story about the planning minister's plans to build on loads of green space in the sticks is germane. We don't need housing in the sticks, well not that much, we need it here in the inner city because that's where people now want to live - hence rising property prices. As land prices here continue rising, it's much cheaper to build on green space. But it's a terrible idea not just because it trashes our green and pleasant countryside. If people want to live there, build houses there. But rural property prices aren't rising, they've been stagnant. The rural idyll to which our parents' generation aspired (I'm in my fifties) is souring; I know lots of people my age who are dealing with the problems of ageing parents stuck in the sticks or the 'burbs and becoming really isolated as disability stops them driving. Fuel costs have the same effect on poor people in the sticks, there is no public transport to speak of. People who can't afford to live in inner London will have to move to the suburban closes which were once considered desirable.
> Instead of building yet more of these slums of the future in the countryside, we need to think creatively and imaginatively about how to live much more densely in cities; it will be more expensive in the short term to build new housing here but it's where it is needed.


We need to build houses on floating rocks, like in Avatar.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 2, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Interesting post.
> 
> Im not having a go but the underlying emotion behind this post is not resentment but fear.
> 
> Id say the last 30 years of neo- liberalism have atomised society. Peoples lives are getting more precarious. Even the middle income earner if he/ she loses there job etc could go under. As Manter posted up. This makes people more fearful.


 
I thought I'd used fear in my post but it was panic.   So I agree on the fear, but I was responding to thread talk of resentment.


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Today's Observer story about the planning minister's plans to build on loads of green space in the sticks is germane. We don't need housing in the sticks, well not that much, we need it here in the inner city because that's where people now want to live - hence rising property prices.  As land prices here continue rising, it's much cheaper to build on green space.  But it's a terrible idea not just because it trashes our green and pleasant countryside. If people want to live there, build houses there. But rural property prices aren't rising, they've been stagnant. The rural idyll to which our parents' generation aspired (I'm in my fifties) is souring; I know lots of people my age who are dealing with the problems of ageing parents stuck in the sticks or the 'burbs and becoming really isolated as disability stops them driving.  Fuel costs have the same effect on poor people in the sticks, there is no public transport to speak of. People who can't afford to live in inner London will have to move to the suburban closes  which were once considered desirable.
> Instead of building yet more of these slums of the future in the countryside, we need  to think creatively and imaginatively about how to live much more densely in cities; it will be more expensive in the short term to build new housing here but it's where it is needed.


Yes, ^^this.


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2012)

I 





Agent Sparrow said:


> Well, I've always assumed that people who are quite obviously objectively rich are aware of it and do admit it, but maybe they are not/don't?
> 
> "Yah, £300k a year isn't _much_, not with my outgoings, we're still paying off the disco and tennis court in the basement..."


I think the rich know they are rich- my boss has never said he is broke or underpaid in any way!- but there does seem to be a resentment about how much tax they pay and what they 'get' for that. 

@Gramsci's post about bond street is interesting, as I think that the 'rich' category is fragmenting- there are rich- people paid a lot for what they do; the idle- people living off income from investments trusts etc, and the global or super rich- the oligarchs, Arab royal families etc. they just live on their own planet, frankly.  

There, instant invention of unscientific categories


----------



## TruXta (Dec 2, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> We need to build houses on floating rocks, like in Avatar.


It'd be a bugger getting home from the pub if you lived on one of those.


----------



## boohoo (Dec 2, 2012)

Manter said:


> I
> I think the rich know they are rich- my boss has never said he is broke or underpaid in any way!- but there does seem to be a resentment about how much tax they pay and what they 'get' for that.
> 
> @Gramsci's post about bond street is interesting, as I think that the 'rich' category is fragmenting- there are rich- people paid a lot for what they do; the idle- people living off income from investments trusts etc, and the global or super rich- the oligarchs, Arab royal families etc. they just live on their own planet, frankly.
> ...


 
I've worked in posh designer shops and it's odd to watch people shop without looking at the price tag. Just picking up a bunch of products they like (£1k dresses) and taking them to a till, wave credit card, take goods home. I can not imagine shopping without wondering whether I could afford it.

(on an aside, for a while I had a £1k diary sitting under my desk at work- some fussy bugger wasn't happy with the finish - alligator skin - so came back and choose the skin that we would use to make her diary... stories of the mega rich.Also remember having £6k worth of handbags on my arm going for repair)


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> It'd be a bugger getting home from the pub if you lived on one of those.


Well there's only one way round that-build pubs up there too! 

Presumably you'd get quite drunk quickly due to the thin air.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 2, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Well there's only one way round that-build pubs up there too!
> 
> Presumably you'd get quite drunk quickly due to the thin air.


Sounds cold. Not for me thanks.


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2012)

boohoo said:


> I've worked in posh designer shops and it's odd to watch people shop without looking at the price tag. Just picking up a bunch of products they like (£1k dresses) and taking them to a till, wave credit card, take goods home. I can not imagine shopping without wondering whether I could afford it.
> 
> (on an aside, for a while I had a £1k diary sitting under my desk at work- some fussy bugger wasn't happy with the finish - alligator skin - so came back and choose the skin that we would use to make her diary... stories of the mega rich.Also remember having £6k worth of handbags on my arm going for repair)



It is actually obscene.... Buggering around with beautiful and luxurious things because they aren't beautiful and luxurious *enough* is a bit mad.  I did once watch someone drop 240k on a painting without looking at the price, that was quite bizarre... I did wonder what would happen if I tried that. Expect my bank manager would have me committed....


----------



## newbie (Dec 2, 2012)

<gives up>


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 2, 2012)

Manter said:


> It is actually obscene.... Buggering around with beautiful and luxurious things because they aren't beautiful and luxurious *enough* is a bit mad.  I did once watch someone drop 240k on a painting without looking at the price, that was quite bizarre... I did wonder what would happen if I tried that. Expect my bank manager would have me committed....


....... And that is why the "free market" is not as free as the crapitalists would have us believe


----------



## Manter (Dec 2, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> ....... And that is why the "free market" is not as free as the crapitalists would have us believe


Very true


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

Manter said:


> I
> I think the rich know they are rich- my boss has never said he is broke or underpaid in any way!- but there does seem to be a resentment about how much tax they pay and what they 'get' for that.


 
They get the privilege of being allowed to live and to earn and to be taxed rather than annually expropriated of all but a worker's wage. What more do the cunts want? 



> @Gramsci's post about bond street is interesting, as I think that the 'rich' category is fragmenting- there are rich- people paid a lot for what they do; the idle- people living off income from investments trusts etc, and the global or super rich- the oligarchs, Arab royal families etc. they just live on their own planet, frankly.
> 
> There, instant invention of unscientific categories


Well, there's certainly snobbery within the various degrees of wealthiness, although nowhere near as much old money vs. new money snobbery as there used to be.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 2, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Well, I've always assumed that people who are quite obviously objectively rich are aware of it and do admit it, but maybe they are not/don't?
> 
> "Yah, £300k a year isn't _much_, not with my outgoings, we're still paying off the disco and tennis court in the basement..."


 
Trust me they do not. Ive met them. They think everything in the world is ok. They do not see that the low paid have anything to do with them. Its not that they are nasty its just that they do not think inequality has anything to do with them. Its just how things are.

And no £300k a year is not a lot. That is exactly how they think. 

Some of the places Ive seen the people are probably on more that that a year.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 2, 2012)

Manter said:


> I
> I think the rich know they are rich- my boss has never said he is broke or underpaid in any way!- but there does seem to be a resentment about how much tax they pay and what they 'get' for that.
> 
> @Gramsci's post about bond street is interesting, as I think that the 'rich' category is fragmenting- there are rich- people paid a lot for what they do; the idle- people living off income from investments trusts etc, and the global or super rich- the oligarchs, Arab royal families etc. they just live on their own planet, frankly.
> ...


 
A lot of Chinese in Bond street now.

Interesting article here on how business and the state work in China . So wealthy Chinese are no different from Russian Oligarchs.

The Rich are treated differently to the rest. See here the Keiser Report where he interviews someone who was sent to prison for looting in the recent riots in London. Funny but accurate.



> Max Keiser talks to Aston Walker – aka the Birmingham Looter – about whether he was ever offered a deferred prosecution agreement for his crime of looting during the 2011 riots and ask whether he would have been granted immunity had he offered the loot as an infinitely rehypothecated collateralized looted H&M clothes bonds


.


----------



## newbie (Dec 3, 2012)

maybe I don't give up, curiosity about local demographics has the better of me

I presume these posts were not intended to be either ironic or parodies, there's no hint that they were



Manter said:


> I
> I think the rich know they are rich- my boss has never said he is broke or underpaid in any way!- but there does seem to be a resentment about how much tax they pay and what they 'get' for that.
> 
> @Gramsci's post about bond street is interesting, as I think that the 'rich' category is fragmenting- there are rich- people paid a lot for what they do; the idle- people living off income from investments trusts etc, and the global or super rich- the oligarchs, Arab royal families etc. they just live on their own planet, frankly.
> ...


 
how much does your boss earn, basic and bonuses- can you estimate an approximate ball park? 

again approximately, how many people do you know who are
people living off income from investments trusts etc,
oligarchs,
the global or super rich
any royal families etc (I've no idea what the word 'Arab' is intended to convey in that sentence, but I'm not inclined to draw lines based on race, myself)

how many of them live in Brixton?  what proportion of the population of Brixton do you think such people compose?




Manter said:


> It is actually obscene.... Buggering around with beautiful and luxurious things because they aren't beautiful and luxurious *enough* is a bit mad. I did once watch someone drop 240k on a painting without looking at the price, that was quite bizarre... I did wonder what would happen if I tried that. Expect my bank manager would have me committed....


 what does to "drop" mean in that context?  Is it a technical term, I've never heard it before.

I guess it translates to 'spend'. So, again approximately, how many people do you know who could spend a quarter of a million quid on anything at all other than housing with a twenty five year payback?  And of them, how many could do it, not at a stretch, but without glancing at the pricetag?


how many of them live in Brixton?  what proportion of the population of Brixton do you think such people compose?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 3, 2012)

I heard that some people in Brixton will spend £500 on a camera lense.


----------



## Manter (Dec 3, 2012)

newbie said:


> maybe I don't give up, curiosity about local demographics has the better of me
> 
> I presume these posts were not intended to be either ironic or parodies, there's no hint that they were
> 
> ...


You really have a problem with me, don't you? Posh, rich, racist and using unacceptable slang. Why don't you just put me on ignore and save yourself some heartache?

My boss's income is published in the partnership report. Last year it was just over 3million. He doesn't live in Brixton. We were talking about 'the rich' not brixton incomes.

One of the other partners does live in Brixton- he earned just over 1.5million in the last financial year. He bought his house 20 years ago. One of the others lives in Camberwell. Also on 1.5, been there a while but not sure he long, I've never asked. May well be others, I have no idea, never done a complete search and income assessment- they are just the ones I work with lots that are near-ish me. No idea what the numbers, locations or length of occupation is for other partners from other firms, either. Or for people in other professions. Or trust fund holders. Or people who sold out businesses and made money, or all sorts of people who may be around here.

The financial situation of people I've met, worked with or actually know isn't, I would have thought, particularly relevant to anything.  As it happens, I have met at least one person I would put in each category over the course of my life, and I have met people who could spend a lot of money on all sorts of things. I tend not to demand people justify exactly what their spending capacity is and how they came by it, so can't answer your questions. 

Arab royal families are usually considered to be distinct from 'royals'- the Swedish or the Dutch royal family are not like Russian oligarchs, Chinese party functionaries or the house of Saud. Arab royals are a category of super rich that you see in parts of London. Most of it is oil money, tho they typically own other infrastructure or major businesses in their countries. And they are all royal as that is usually a condition of entry to the cartel.


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 3, 2012)

Manter said:


> Arab royal families are usually considered to be distinct from 'royals'- the Swedish or the Dutch royal family are not like Russian oligarchs, Chinese party functionaries or the house of Saud. Arab royals are a category of super rich that you see in parts of London. Most of it is oil money, tho they typically own other infrastructure or major businesses in their countries. And they are all royal as that is usually a condition of entry to the cartel.


 
Why are they considered different, the way they dress, European royals owe a significant proportion of their wealth from colonising and subjugating people less well equipped militarily by proxy, I believe the British Royals and certain other parts of the establishment did very well out of forcing the Chinese to allow vast quantities of opium into their country for example


----------



## Manter (Dec 3, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> Why are they considered different, the way they dress, European royals owe a significant proportion of their wealth from colonising and subjugating people less well equipped militarily by proxy, I believe the British Royals and certain other parts of the establishment did very well out of forcing the Chinese to allow vast quantities of opium into their country for example


Oh, they are all as bad as one another, i agree, but in modern business/financial terms, european royals are a curiosity, with what money they have tied up in land and mainly passive investments.  Arab royals, on the other hand, are a financial force to be reckoned with- in fact the only show in town in lots of places. UAE, Saudi, to a lesser extent Jordan- If you are setting up a business, supporting a business, investing etc you need to engage with the royal family. The families are huge, and various obscure branches pop up all over the place. Interesting to work for too, as the behaviours of sovereign wealth funds are different to institutional investors at the best of times: if you add active junior royals working through dynastic squabbles in board meetings, it can be quite difficult.
The Arab royals are also pretty notorious for turning up in London for 3 months every year, with attendant spending and upward pressure on London prices. Because of the Olympics, lots went to Paris this year instead, but most own property here.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 3, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> Why are they considered different, the way they dress, European royals owe a significant proportion of their wealth from colonising and subjugating people less well equipped militarily by proxy, I believe the British Royals and certain other parts of the establishment did very well out of forcing the Chinese to allow vast quantities of opium into their country for example


Firstly there's a hell of a lot more people in the Arab royal families than there are of European royalty (House of Saud numbers in the thousands), and they have been quite aggressive in terms of visibly investing in property in London in particular. Having just spent 6 months in the ME it certainly seemed to me that London was the no.1 destination for property investment in Europe made by rich Arabs. And it's a lot easier to buy in London for foreigners than it is in for instance New York.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 3, 2012)

Manter said:


> The Arab royals are also pretty notorious for turning up in London for 3 months every year, with attendant spending and upward pressure on London prices. Because of the Olympics, lots went to Paris this year instead, but most own property here.


We did a job at work for one of these guys a few years ago. He hired half a floor of [well-known high class central london hotel] and had it replanned and redecorated to his tastes, including a whole room for his shoes.

We also do work on mansions/townhouses for this market. The amount of wealth is sickening, but they're the only people with real liquid money right now, so that's the work we get.


----------



## Manter (Dec 3, 2012)

Crispy said:


> We did a job at work for one of these guys a few years ago. He hired half a floor of [well-known high class central london hotel] and had it replanned and redecorated to his tastes, including a whole room for his shoes.
> 
> We also do work on mansions/townhouses for this market. The amount of wealth is sickening, but they're the only people with real liquid money right now, so that's the work we get.


I did a job in UAE- setting up a health service (don't ask, a properly surreal job)- project sponsor and board were all royals, the office skyscraper was owned by royals, the car service was theirs, as was the hotel we stayed in and every restaurant we visited. The guys doing all the work were Lebanese, mainly, and a feisty princess who tried not to come back from London when we went for a meeting. She wore jeans in London and went bareheaded as she said the hijab was intended to make women inconspicuous because the prophet said they should be modest: and in London, wearing it called attention to you. She was fabulous....


----------



## TruXta (Dec 3, 2012)

Manter said:


> I did a job in UAE- setting up a health service (don't ask, a properly surreal job)- project sponsor and board were all royals, the office skyscraper was owned by royals, the car service was theirs, as was the hotel we stayed in and every restaurant we visited. The guys doing all the work were Lebanese, mainly, and a feisty princess who tried not to come back from London when we went for a meeting. She wore jeans in London and went bareheaded as she said the hijab was intended to make women inconspicuous because the prophet said they should be modest: and in London, wearing it called attention to you. She was fabulous....


It's funny when you get a plane out of there going to Europe and you see all these girls in traditional dress go to the loo and come out in tight jeans and tops, high heels and bling bling bling.


----------



## Manter (Dec 3, 2012)

TruXta said:


> It's funny when you get a plane out of there going to Europe and you see all these girls in traditional dress go to the loo and come out in tight jeans and tops, high heels and bling bling bling.


Also odd going the other way. And if you are female, arrive on your own and your driver isn't there yet, they have a 'room' for you to wait in. They are v persuasive about your going to said room.... (That was Saudi)


----------



## TruXta (Dec 3, 2012)

Manter said:


> Also odd going the other way. And if you are female, arrive on your own and your driver isn't there yet, they have a 'room' for you to wait in. They are v persuasive about your going to said room.... (That was Saudi)


Huh, guess they're a bit stricter there than UAE.


----------



## Manter (Dec 3, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Huh, guess they're a bit stricter there than UAE.


Just a bit....


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 3, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Huh, guess they're a bit stricter there than UAE.





Manter said:


> Just a bit....


 
Do any members of Royal Famliy own Dubai airport? Every time I've ever been there (only 3 or 4 times), there's always been a couple of guys that seem to feel they're allowed to walk around the airport smoking whilst all other smokers sit in tiny glass cubicles


----------



## TruXta (Dec 3, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Do any members of Royal Famliy own Dubai airport? Every time I've ever been there (only 3 or 4 times), there's always been a couple of guys that seem to feel they're allowed to walk around the airport smoking whilst all other smokers sit in tiny glass cubicles


I think it's owned by the Dubai Emirate, which kinda means that the royals own it.


----------



## Manter (Dec 3, 2012)

I hated Dubai. The novelty wore off in about 4 days and then it was just marking time, waiting to go home.  Disney in the desert


----------



## ymu (Dec 3, 2012)

TruXta said:


> It's funny when you get a plane out of there going to Europe and you see all these girls in traditional dress go to the loo and come out in tight jeans and tops, high heels and bling bling bling.


A Palestinian friend dresses up to the (Western-style) nines whenever she leaves the house, but wears the traditional stuff at home because it's more comfortable. Something I'm sure loads of Western women can identify with!

/derail


----------



## TruXta (Dec 3, 2012)

Manter said:


> I hated Dubai. The novelty wore off in about 4 days and then it was just marking time, waiting to go home. Disney in the desert


Aye it's shit.


----------



## Winot (Dec 3, 2012)

Manter said:


> One of the other partners does live in Brixton- he earned just over 1.5million in the last financial year.


 
Is it @Onket?


----------



## Manter (Dec 3, 2012)

Winot said:


> Is it @Onket?


Thanks, I just snorted tea through my nose


----------



## Manter (Dec 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> A Palestinian friend dresses up to the (Western-style) nines whenever she leaves the house, but wears the traditional stuff at home because it's more comfortable. Something I'm sure loads of Western women can identify with!
> 
> /derail


Total detail but interesting 

I saw lots of women in the ladies loos, single sex cares etc without their robes (of various sorts) and they were all v heavily made up, in very glamorous clothes.  In my head, the advantage of hijab, burkas etc, is you can just wash, stick your hair back in a ponytail and wear tracksuit pants and no one would be any the wiser.  But apparently not....


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 3, 2012)

Manter said:


> I saw lots of women in the ladies loos, single sex cares etc without their robes (of various sorts) and they were all v heavily made up, in very glamorous clothes. In my head, the advantage of hijab, burkas etc, is you can just wash, stick your hair back in a ponytail and wear tracksuit pants and no one would be any the wiser. But apparently not....


but you did say most of the places you visited were owned by the royal family which may be indicative of some kind of class distinction ?


----------



## Rushy (Dec 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> A Palestinian friend dresses up to the (Western-style) nines whenever she leaves the house, but wears the traditional stuff at home because it's more comfortable. Something I'm sure loads of Western women can identify with!
> 
> /derail


I was visiting Iran a couple of years back and it was just the opposite. Western clothes, hair down, etc.. the moment they got indoors.


----------



## Manter (Dec 3, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> but you did say most of the places you visited were owned by the royal family which may be indicative of some kind of class distinction ?


Dunno. Don't know enough about class in UAE. One place was a toilet in a service station, but it sold Louis Vuitton so not your average service station....


----------



## Manter (Dec 3, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I was visiting Iran a couple of years back and it was just the opposite. Western clothes, hair down, etc.. the moment they got indoors.


What is Iran like?


----------



## ymu (Dec 3, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I was visiting Iran a couple of years back and it was just the opposite. Western clothes, hair down, etc.. the moment they got indoors.


That may also be true of the more conservative parts of Palestine (Gaza and some of the refugee camps in the West Bank). I don't know, but I'd think it depends a great deal on how rigidly dress codes are enforced outside the house. Hijab is very much optional in more liberal countries/areas.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 3, 2012)

Manter said:


> What is Iran like?


Remarkably welcoming. Exceedingly so.
Someone graffitied my van with "Please take peace message to the world on the wind road".


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 3, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> Why are they considered different, the way they dress, European royals owe a significant proportion of their wealth from colonising and subjugating people less well equipped militarily by proxy, I believe the British Royals and certain other parts of the establishment did very well out of forcing the Chinese to allow vast quantities of opium into their country for example


 
I dont think the Royal family can be said to benefit directly from imperialism in a straightforward way.

Also the East European royal families like in Romania for example etc were not linked to imperialism. Some of them are still around though not recognised officially as royalty in there own countries any more. The "king" of Romania returned after communism fell to visit the country.


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 3, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I dont think the Royal family can be said to benefit directly from imperialism in a straightforward way.


possibly not directly but I imagine the booty would fetch quite a bit on ebay.


----------



## newbie (Dec 3, 2012)

I'll take you at face value, but I do wonder whether I should just wave to ak 


Manter said:


> You really have a problem with me, don't you? Posh, rich, racist and using unacceptable slang. Why don't you just put me on ignore and save yourself some heartache?
> 
> My boss's income is published in the partnership report. Last year it was just over 3million. He doesn't live in Brixton. We were talking about 'the rich' not brixton incomes.
> 
> One of the other partners does live in Brixton- he earned just over 1.5million in the last financial year. He bought his house 20 years ago. One of the others lives in Camberwell. Also on 1.5, been there a while but not sure he long, I've never asked.


 

give over. if you don't want your posts commented on then the solution is very, very simple: read more and post less. Whining because someone questions what you've written is as ludicrous as whimpering because you're identified as rich.

Let's remind ourselves, you're a willing participant in a gentrification thread in the Brixton forum of Urban75 called "Professionals send Brixton property prices surging by 15%". Actually more than that, you're all over it, there is demographic change and you're by far its most visible face.

You've chosen that role, just as you choose to insist, over and over, that we get just how well connected you are, how important you are, how successful, how stellar. You're a winner in life, and you've made sure we know it. The clear implication doesn't need to be vocalised.

I offered you some good advice earlier, which was that maybe you should recalibrate what you think of as rich to closer to local norms. You didn't have the gumption to take it.

If you'd actually bothered to read what other people have written you might have noticed that this subject is close to a lot of hearts, that even within this narrow, self selecting group there are plenty of personal testimonies of lives that have had to change course because people with real ties simply cannot afford to live here. People have been directly pushed out because others with no ties to the area but greater privilege, more wealth, more power have muscled their way in. If that sounds brutal it's because it is. You have made other people cry.

If you had any sensitivity at all you might have given that some thought before you started bragging about knocking two homes into one or about your mates who 'drop' a quarter of a million pounds on bling. btw I still don't know what drop means- does it mean spend or gamble or what? Like most, I do have some understanding of how slang is used to delineate those who are part of the charmed circle and those who aren't- the guys hanging around by the shops know too, but it's very unlikely you'll get what they're saying about you.

Yes, bragging. Rubbing peoples noses in it.


> No idea what the numbers, locations or length of occupation is for other partners from other firms, either. Or for people in other professions. Or trust fund holders. Or people who sold out businesses and made money, or all sorts of people who may be around here.


is that what you think Brixton is like 



> The financial situation of people I've met, worked with or actually know isn't, I would have thought, particularly relevant to anything.


 

ah but it is, as I posted up there #909 _"Pretty much all of us know people financially both wealthier and less well off than ourselves, their experiences allow us to calibrate our own expectations of what 'rich' and 'poor' mean."_ It matters that you know people who earn three million pounds a year and that most of the rest of us have never knowingly met anyone like that, nor are ever likely to. Nor have our neighbours. Do you have even the slightest idea of how far beyond the wildest of wild dreams that is?

Maybe you harbour ambitions to be them in a few years, maybe you always were them.

People being paid three, or one and a half million pounds a year have helped calibrate what you think of as normal, your norms, far far more than the 50% of local children who qualify for free school meals. You've forgotten them already, haven't you?

Why are you in Brixton?


----------



## newbie (Dec 3, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I dont think the Royal family can be said to benefit directly from imperialism in a straightforward way.


wrong thread, wrong board, but don't be daft


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 3, 2012)

Come on Newbie give Manter a break. 

You do good posts every now and then but I think this is going to far.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 3, 2012)

newbie said:


> wrong thread, wrong board, but don't be daft


 
Yes maybe. Cant say Im a royalist.


----------



## newbie (Dec 3, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Come on Newbie give Manter a break.
> 
> You do good posts every now and then but I think this is going to far.


yeah?  gentrification thread turns into one about her and the fabulous princess she knows and we're all supposed to smile?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 3, 2012)

@newbie I thought you said earlier this wasn't personal. I see the general point you're making, but come off it man.


----------



## ymu (Dec 4, 2012)

It's escalating because she's not taking in a word he or anyone else has said. It gets a bit annoying, and does rather reinforce the impression that Manter's bubble is the only one she's capable of engaging with.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 4, 2012)

What Truxta said.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 4, 2012)

^ Not that.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> yeah? gentrification thread turns into one about her and the fabulous princess she knows and we're all supposed to smile?


 
What the Saudi one?

Funnily enough I met one in Hyde Park last week . She was looking for the entrance to Winter Wonderland. Had a decent chat. Stunning as well.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> It's escalating because she's not taking in a word he or anyone else has said. It gets a bit annoying, and does rather reinforce the impression that Manter's bubble is the only one she's capable of engaging with.


 
The thing about message boards is that things can get out of hand easily. They are useful but that, ive learnt, has to be taken into account. You can see only a part of a person. Its not the same as talking to someone directly and seeing there facial expression and body language as well.


----------



## Kanda (Dec 4, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> The thing about message boards is that things can get out of hand easily. They are useful but that, ive learnt, has to be taken into account. You can see only a part of a person. Its not the same as talking to someone directly and seeing there facial expression and body language as well.


 
That also benefits some posters here that choose to tear into people without having to face them /brave new world


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

it's words on a screen, nothing more.  completely ignorable by simply clicking away.  or, there to be quoted and argued about.


----------



## Kanda (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> it's words on a screen, nothing more. completely ignorable by simply clicking away. or, there to be quoted and argued about.


 
No, it's a community forum I think. Not /4chan


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

what?


----------



## Kanda (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> what?


 
I'm sure you have the resources to work that out.


----------



## cesare (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> it's words on a screen, nothing more.  completely ignorable by simply clicking away.  or, there to be quoted and argued about.


Of course it's more than words on a screen. Posting on a bulletin board is like having a written conversation; not simply akin to reading an impersonal article.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> Why are you in Brixton?


 
Do you need a passport? Pass some ideological test?


----------



## Kanda (Dec 4, 2012)

Is it that difficult to understand that people are moving to Brixton because it (was) affordable and has great transport links? It's not just Brixton, it's Streatham too. Should everyone read these forums first and then make an informed decision? No, they're going by all the positive press the place has received over the last 5 or so years... 

Sure, it sucks for some people but don't fucking attack people because they're trying to settle somewhere they can afford... Look at the root causes....


----------



## ymu (Dec 4, 2012)

Finally caught up with the thread

*shakes fist at quimmy for summoning her to a 30 pager with 25 pages of people talking at cross purposes* 



ViolentPanda said:


> Brockley is a bit odd, though. Although (IIRC) it was mostly a "working class suburb" in the same way Watford was (i.e. built around a trade), it was never slummy in the way that bits of Battersea, Brixton etc were, so perhaps the reason it's happening now is because there was actually less availability of the sort of cheap "doer-uppers" that the more inner-city parts of south London had, and that's helped places like Brockley to preserve their identity for longer?


My in-laws live there. It's the new train connections wot done it.




Manter said:


> you've missed my point. In some parts of london, you have schools next to each other that are becoming racial segregated. That is completely different to whites large scale giving up on areas and leaving lock stock and barrel to avoid minorities (when of course they wouldn't drive their kids back there every morning for school)- the former is racial segregation within a community, the latter is white flight from a community. And in Brixton, middle class professionals, often white, are moving in.


It's not necessarily racial segregation within a community. They've started busing kids to 'sink' schools because the middle classes have nabbed all the places at the schools near where they live. There was a documentary a couple of years ago - might have been John Humphries fronting it - where this was happening at a school in Wimbledon.




ViolentPanda said:


> They get the privilege of being allowed to live and to earn and to be taxed rather than annually expropriated of all but a worker's wage. What more do the cunts want?


They get a fuck of a lot more than that. They get a criminal 'justice' system to protect their property, healthy workers educated and trained at no cost to themselves, access to a sophisticated and expensive communications and transport infrastructure and if they ever get seriously ill they'd be off their fucking nut to use a private healthcare provider - their outcomes are appalling compared to the NHS.

If they object to paying tax on the grounds that they don't get much back from the state, they need to explain why they're not setting themselves up in Somalia. Stupid ignorant cunts.




newbie said:


> Of course, it's still entry level for posh lawyers, brokers and mandarins ...


Mandarins are civil servants. Have you seen the civil service pay-scale? I started out on a civil service pay grade as a graduate and didn't earn enough to have to pay back my student loan for ten years of continuous employment.

Yeah there are a few fuckers taking the piss at the top, but they are not entry level. Cameron sent Will Hutton off to do a high pay review a couple of years ago with the aim of setting a maximum public sector wage of 20x the lowest pay in each dept. The project was quietly buried when Hutton failed to find any ratios higher than 19 (some universities). The ratio in Whitehall was 10.

That public sector pay bullshit is more divide and rule. Please erase the information from your brain. 




Red Cat said:


> That's the dominance of the City in the economy. I mean, once upon a time, people made things in the UK. An awful lot of them were made in Birmingham.


It's even worse than that.

Rich people ‘invest’ (aka save) their money in property and other pre-existing assets which create no new wealth, but do create bubbles in those assets. This raises prices for everyone (especially housing) without adding anything to the economy. Worse, it destabilises the economy and takes money away from productive activity because so much of our national income ends up going to unproductive rentiers, whilst the talent gets wasted shuffling useless bits of paper around in tax efficient ways. It's not just a shift in economic activity - it's actively harmful (in aggregate, not just for an unfortunate and powerless few)..


----------



## ymu (Dec 4, 2012)

And apologies for being too harsh Manter - but I know where newbie is coming from. It's really fucking annoying when very highly paid people have no clue as to the reality they're living in. Not aimed at you so much as people like this and this.


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> Of course it's more than words on a screen. Posting on a bulletin board is like having a written conversation; not simply akin to reading an impersonal article.


 
none the less it's not the real world, there are no significant consequences and at any time any participant can just click away.


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> Mandarins are civil servants. Have you seen the civil service pay-scale? I started out on a civil service pay grade as a graduate and didn't earn enough to have to pay back my student loan for ten years of continuous employment.
> 
> Yeah there are a few fuckers taking the piss at the top, but they are not entry level. Cameron sent Will Hutton off to do a high pay review a couple of years ago with the aim of setting a maximum public sector wage of 20x the lowest pay in each dept. The project was quietly buried when Hutton failed to find any ratios higher than 19 (some universities). The ratio in Whitehall was 10.
> 
> That public sector pay bullshit is more divide and rule. Please erase the information from your brain.


 
fair do's


----------



## cesare (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> none the less it's not the real world, there are no significant consequences and at any time any participant can just click away.


Of course it's the real world, which doesn't cease to exist outwith face to face communication. You do not know the consequences anymore than you would if you took that approach with someone you newly met in the pub.


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Is it that difficult to understand that people are moving to Brixton because it (was) affordable and has great transport links? It's not just Brixton, it's Streatham too. Should everyone read these forums first and then make an informed decision? No, they're going by all the positive press the place has received over the last 5 or so years...
> 
> Sure, it sucks for some people but don't fucking attack people because they're trying to settle somewhere they can afford... Look at the root causes....


I didn't and I haven't.  I read her posts and commented on them.  You're welcome to tear my posts to shreds if you don't like them. Or indeed if you think I'm fronting myself as the face of a particularly disagreeable social trend, the precise subject of a thread.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 4, 2012)

Sorry ymu! I was only meaning the stats....


So on the one hand manter should shut up because she 'made someone cry' but newbie can say what he wants because its not real and we can just click away.  Just so we're clear.


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> Of course it's the real world, which doesn't cease to exist outwith face to face communication. You do not know the consequences anymore than you would if you took that approach with someone you newly met in the pub.


so what are you suggesting?  that when offence is taken to a bunch of posts and the attitudes being expressed within them, that no response should be made?  Just in case, you know, offence is taken?


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Sorry ymu! I was only meaning the stats....
> 
> 
> So on the one hand manter should shut up because she 'made someone cry' but newbie can say what he wants because its not real and we can just click away.  Just so we're clear.


Who did I make cry? I am behind....


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Sorry ymu! I was only meaning the stats....
> 
> 
> So on the one hand manter should shut up because she 'made someone cry' but newbie can say what he wants because its not real and we can just click away. Just so we're clear.


I haven't said she should shut up , merely that if she posts she should anticipate consequential posts and not whine if they're critical.  Just as I do or you do.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 4, 2012)

Newbie says so in the long post up there.


----------



## cesare (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> so what are you suggesting?  that when offence is taken to a bunch of posts and the attitudes being expressed within them, that no response should be made?  Just in case, you know, offence is taken?


It's perfectly fucking possible, especially with someone new, to fucking express yourself more fucking politely. And to avoid fucking labouring the fucking point when someone doesn't fucking get it straight away.


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

just as it's possible for newcomers to settle in without making sure everyone knows they're better than the rest


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 4, 2012)

It's not real newbie! Just words.


----------



## cesare (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> just as it's possible for newcomers to settle in without making sure everyone knows they're better than the rest


I'm not challenging your point about unconscious entitlement, just about how you optimally achieve your point.


----------



## ymu (Dec 4, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Sorry ymu! I was only meaning the stats.....


No probs.  It's a fun form of dramatic irony. You know something that neither of the protagonists do: what the other one actually said and, very often, what they themselves said.


----------



## Yelkcub (Dec 4, 2012)

Manter is running away with Newbie of the year on another thread - whole new meaning


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm not challenging your point about unconscious entitlement, just about how you optimally achieve your point.


optimal use of words, written or spoken, has never been my strongpoint


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> It's escalating because she's not taking in a word he or anyone else has said. It gets a bit annoying, and does rather reinforce the impression that Manter's bubble is the only one she's capable of engaging with.


That is simply not true. I have taken in a lot of what has been said on this and other threads. 

Sometimes I disagree- and as it happens I have the right to look at the same information and reach a different conclusion- but often I am finding out about stuff that I don't know about. I am interested. In the views and perspectives of people on here.  I want to understand how we, as a society, got to where we got to. That's why I am still here, and that is why I like and respect some of the posters on here so much-they take the time to share, and to listen, and to challenge, and see other perspectives.
 What I can't do is change my background, history, experiences- and I won't lie about them. (Though some of the conclusions being jumped to are utter garbage). Seeing something, being there when it happens, having a conversation about it does not mean that you buy into it, or don't- it means a sharing of observations and experiences. 
My experiences of some stuff may be different to yours. If I say that I don't get x or understand y or I experienced a,b or c, I am not refusing to engage outside my bubble, I am engaging in a conversation. 

'Scuse the rant, but I want you to understand where I am coming from. You have made some interesting points on a number of threads and I would very much like to be able to discuss them with you. I like how you appear to think, it's interesting. But I really can't see the point of defending myself constantly against some kind of burn the bitch witch hunt just because I happen to have a different set of life experiences.


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

Yelkcub said:


> Manter is running away with Newbie of the year on another thread - whole new meaning


I pleased you got the capitalisation right


----------



## cesare (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> optimal use of words, written or spoken, has never been my strongpoint


Well, I'm hardly the go to benchmark myself


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2012)

And I get the 1000th reply


----------



## cesare (Dec 4, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> And I get the 1000th reply


And I got #1000


----------



## newbie (Dec 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> Well, I'm hardly the go to benchmark myself


ooh I dunno, I don't see you being picked up on individual phrases anything like so often as I am.


off to work, I'm not clicking away from this, I won't be on the internet till this evening.


----------



## cesare (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> ooh I dunno, I don't see you being picked up on individual phrases anything like so often as I am.
> 
> 
> off to work, I'm not clicking away from this, I won't be on the internet till this evening.


Laters!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 4, 2012)

newbie said:


> just as it's possible for newcomers to settle in without making sure everyone knows they're better than the rest


That comes across as paranoid, Newbie.


----------



## ymu (Dec 4, 2012)

Manter said:


> That is simply not true. I have taken in a lot of what has been said on this and other threads.
> 
> Sometimes I disagree- and as it happens I have the right to look at the same information and reach a different conclusion- but often I am finding out about stuff that I don't know about. I am interested. In the views and perspectives of people on here. I want to understand how we, as a society, got to where we got to. That's why I am still here, and that is why I like and respect some of the posters on here so much-they take the time to share, and to listen, and to challenge, and see other perspectives.
> What I can't do is change my background, history, experiences- and I won't lie about them. (Though some of the conclusions being jumped to are utter garbage). Seeing something, being there when it happens, having a conversation about it does not mean that you buy into it, or don't- it means a sharing of observations and experiences.
> ...


I'm enjoying a lot of your posts, especially now that I've read more of them  - and I gave newbie too much credit on this thread for which I have apologised. I'm an aggressive arsehole at the best of times, and I've not slept for some time now which makes me unbearable. I'm sorry.

We managed to hit two of my more sensitive button issues in the only two threads we've interacted on. Here, I just find it really difficult to accept that high earners - presumably intelligent people with easy access to information - are unaware of the level of poverty in this country. It's reported on a lot, as is the ratio of the average house price to the average wage, as is the fact that the minimum wage is 25% below the living wage. Just the stuff that appears in the mainstream media makes it obvious that something is very, very wrong. It upsets me that more people haven't put two and two together. Yet.


----------



## cesare (Dec 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> I'm enjoying a lot of your posts, especially now that I've read more of them  - and I gave newbie too much credit on this thread for which I have apologised. I'm an aggressive arsehole at the best of times, and I've not slept for some time now which makes me unbearable. I'm sorry.
> 
> We managed to hit two of my more sensitive button issues in the only two threads we've interacted on. Here, I just find it really difficult to accept that high earners - presumably intelligent people with easy access to information - are unaware of the level of poverty in this country. It's reported on a lot, as is the ratio of the average house price to the average wage, as is the fact that the minimum wage is 25% below the living wage. Just the stuff that appears in the mainstream media makes it obvious that something is very, very wrong. It upsets me that more people haven't put two and two together. Yet.


Exacerbated by state subsidy of business by way of working tax credits, HB etc rather than raising the NMW. And truly the salt rubbed in the wound by the Workfare fiasco. And yet constant demonising of people on/below breadline wages &/or benefits rather than the businesses extracting every drop of profit at their expense.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> I'm enjoying a lot of your posts, especially now that I've read more of them  - and I gave newbie too much credit on this thread for which I have apologised. I'm an aggressive arsehole at the best of times, and I've not slept for some time now which makes me unbearable. I'm sorry.
> 
> We managed to hit two of my more sensitive button issues in the only two threads we've interacted on. Here, I just find it really difficult to accept that high earners - presumably intelligent people with easy access to information - are unaware of the level of poverty in this country. It's reported on a lot, as is the ratio of the average house price to the average wage, as is the fact that the minimum wage is 25% below the living wage. Just the stuff that appears in the mainstream media makes it obvious that something is very, very wrong. It upsets me that more people haven't put two and two together. Yet.


 
It *is* reported on a lot, now I'm looking for it. But if you read the business news digest they send round at work, or the FT that is lying in the lobby, or skim read the Times, and it is buried in a corner somewhere, or talks about fiscal policy with a one liner at the end saying the TUC objects.  Or it is drowned out by global stories- I have found some good, thoughtful stories in the Times now I've been looking, but at the time they were published, I was concentrating on Hungary, or Greece, or the US- that is what caught my attention. It isn't right, but it is v easy to stay in your bubble.  Information is v easy to find if you are looking for it, but if you are busy, stressed, caught up in your daily life... you don't often bother. 

I think you'd be surprised at what has permeated the conciousness more widely though- just from a different perspective.  From a self interested perspective, because everyone is human, but we all have a lot in common.  To use one example you've used- house prices.  We all know house prices are insane, particularly in london.  What I see (ie how I experience it without thought or looking) is the new joiners to my firm- all v well paid, relatively, etc- can't afford to buy, and can't for some time.  If they stay on the career track they will be able to eventually, and some have parents who can help (tho far fewer than the news stories suggest) but they are seeing the same problem, just through a different lens (a self interested lens).  To personalise it, I have been able to afford to buy because I had no rent for 2 years when I was quite young (like I'd moved in with my parents, tho circumstances were different), then bought a dump in what was then a no-go area, did it up over 5 years, getting promoted as I did it, and moved my OH in as the market was moving upwards.  I know I was and am very, very lucky, but also worked bloody hard for it.  So the idea I am some lady muck swanning in to screw up the local economy for shits and giggles seriously pisses me off.   What is news to me is he erosion of social housing, and how bad/unhelpful housing association substitutes are.  To understand that as more than yet another story in the Guardian, you have to know people experiencing those issues, the issues have to be real- and divide and rule (to go back to a much earlier point in the thread) has effecively meant that most of us don't know, never will, and are scared, dismissive or resentful of people who could help us understand

(When it comes to the living wage - in my opinion, not paying it is indefensible.  And that view is v widely held....)


----------



## Winot (Dec 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> Here, I just find it really difficult to accept that high earners - presumably intelligent people with easy access to information - are unaware of the level of poverty in this country. It's reported on a lot, as is the ratio of the average house price to the average wage, as is the fact that the minimum wage is 25% below the living wage. Just the stuff that appears in the mainstream media makes it obvious that something is very, very wrong. It upsets me that more people haven't put two and two together. Yet.


 
Agreed.  The least the well-off can do (I include myself) is realise how fortunate they are and how tough it is for the rest.  The trouble is, the bubble is very comfortable, and when everyone you know (I don't count your cleaner who you don't talk to) is in the same position it's easy for the unimaginative to imagine they aren't that well off because they know lots of people who are richer (a good test is to ask someone what proportion of the working population pay higher rate income tax).  Or they just don't care (not Manter - she is clearly trying to engage despite the brickbats).


----------



## fortyplus (Dec 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> Exacerbated by state subsidy of business by way of working tax credits, HB etc rather than raising the NMW. And truly the salt rubbed in the wound by the Workfare fiasco. And yet constant demonising of people on/below breadline wages &/or benefits rather than the businesses extracting every drop of profit at their expense.


Careful that you don't unfairly demonise all business here. A lot of small businesses struggle to pay even the NMW.  It galls me that Tesco and Argos use workfare slaves, but when my business partner and I were shredded with exhaustion after starting our enterprise we accepted the services of  "volunteers" under an earlier (nuLab-initiated) scheme predating, but the inspiration for, IDS's workfare.  It saved us; we retained one of them part-time on the NMW at the end of her 4-week volunteering period and she's been with us for over 18 months.  We'd love to pay her more, but if we paid the LLW we'd either have to cut her hours  and do the work ourselves, unpaid, instead of doing what we need to do to grow the business  or be unable to pay the rent at the end of the month and end up closing.

[Argos' situation is  also pretty precarious, despite its use of workfare slaves. Paying full NMW to its Christmas staff might accelerate its decline, because its business model is fucked against online shopping].


----------



## cesare (Dec 4, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Careful that you don't unfairly demonise all business here. A lot of small businesses struggle to pay even the NMW. It galls me that Tesco and Argos use workfare slaves, but when my business partner and I were shredded with exhaustion after starting our enterprise we accepted the services of "volunteers" under an earlier (nuLab-initiated) scheme predating, but the inspiration for, IDS's workfare. It saved us; we retained one of them part-time on the NMW at the end of her 4-week volunteering period and she's been with us for over 18 months. We'd love to pay her more, but if we paid the LLW we'd either have to cut her hours and do the work ourselves, unpaid, instead of doing what we need to do to grow the business or be unable to pay the rent at the end of the month and end up closing.
> 
> [Argos' situation is also pretty precarious, despite its use of workfare slaves. Paying full NMW to its Christmas staff might accelerate its decline, because its business model is fucked against online shopping].


I'm fairly careful when I choose to demonise.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 4, 2012)

fortyplus said:
			
		

> Careful that you don't unfairly demonise all business here. A lot of small businesses struggle to pay even the NMW.  It galls me that Tesco and Argos use workfare slaves, but when my business partner and I were shredded with exhaustion after starting our enterprise we accepted the services of  "volunteers" under an earlier (nuLab-initiated) scheme predating, but the inspiration for, IDS's workfare.  It saved us; we retained one of them part-time on the NMW at the end of her 4-week volunteering period and she's been with us for over 18 months.  We'd love to pay her more, but if we paid the LLW we'd either have to cut her hours  and do the work ourselves, unpaid, instead of doing what we need to do to grow the business  or be unable to pay the rent at the end of the month and end up closing.



So presumably once you have grown the business and start seeing some real returns the folk enlisted to work for you for free should share those rewards given that their contribution saved your business?


----------



## fortyplus (Dec 4, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> So presumably once you have grown the business and start seeing some real returns the folk enlisted to work for you for free should share those rewards given that their contribution saved your business?


Absolutely. We had three "volunteers", but only one was any good, the other two were as much work to supervise as they saved.  I was (and am) really uneasy about the whole scheme, and we won't use it again because the latest version entails much more coercion by the DWP than the one we used,  but I can't deny that it helped us out of a very sticky hole. The one who stayed has been for much of the time the only person (other than the landlords...) taking any money out of the business. We've now got a couple more staff including two apprentices. When we're on a more secure footing, and we are getting there slowly although each month there's a bit of a crisis, they  should all have  secure, well-paid jobs (and we might even be able to pay ourselves). As far as I am concerned, the whole point of starting a business in my community is to create jobs and opportunities. If we ever went down the VC "exit strategy" route and sold up  we'd make sure that some of the windfall (dream on...)  went to our staff.  They're brilliant, they deserve it.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 4, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Absolutely. We had three "volunteers", but only one was any good, the other two were as much work to supervise as they saved. I was (and am) really uneasy about the whole scheme, and we won't use it again because the latest version entails much more coercion by the DWP than the one we used, but I can't deny that it helped us out of a very sticky hole. The one who stayed has been for much of the time the only person (other than the landlords...) taking any money out of the business. We've now got a couple more staff including two apprentices. When we're on a more secure footing, and we are getting there slowly although each month there's a bit of a crisis, they should all have secure, well-paid jobs (and we might even be able to pay ourselves). As far as I am concerned, the whole point of starting a business in my community is to create jobs and opportunities. If we ever went down the VC "exit strategy" route and sold up we'd make sure that some of the windfall (dream on...) went to our staff. They're brilliant, they deserve it.


I have no idea what the level of contribution of this person is beyond what you pay them but if you are certain that they are effectively subsidising your business to the extent that they deserve a percentage share of it then it is worth formalising now so that they are aware of this intention - I'm sure they feel valued already but there is nothing like being given a share in the business to make you feel part of it. If you don't sell it costs you nothing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's perfectly fucking possible, especially with someone new, to fucking express yourself more fucking politely. And to avoid fucking labouring the fucking point when someone doesn't fucking get it straight away.


 
You need to bear in mind that you're talking to newbie. Newbie doesn't do subtlety, and often only has a passing acquaintance with courtesy.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 4, 2012)

He's growing older and grumpier...it's a growing trend with many posters here, me included.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2012)

Manter said:


> 'Scuse the rant, but I want you to understand where I am coming from. You have made some interesting points on a number of threads and I would very much like to be able to discuss them with you. I like how you appear to think, it's interesting. But I really can't see the point of defending myself constantly against some kind of burn the bitch witch hunt just because I happen to have a different set of life experiences.


 
We don't burn witches!!!   












No, we're far more civilised. We hang 'em!!!


----------



## fortyplus (Dec 4, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I have no idea what the level of contribution of this person is beyond what you pay them but if you are certain that they are effectively subsidising your business to the extent that they deserve a percentage share of it then it is worth formalising now so that they are aware of this intention - I'm sure they feel valued already but there is nothing like being given a share in the business to make you feel part of it. If you don't sell it costs you nothing.


Yes. But there is a whole list of other things that have more pressing demands on our time and attention.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> He's growing older and grumpier...it's a growing trend with many posters here, me included.


 
Ah, but newbie has *always* been like that! The rest of us are merely aging into a simulacrum of newbie.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> We don't burn witches!!!
> 
> 
> No, we're far more civilised. We hang 'em!!!


So much stuff to be careful of, just at the end of the road.... Pitchforks, burning brands, and now rope collars....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 4, 2012)

Manter said:


> rope collars....


....fashionably retro.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ....fashionably retro.


So he's doing me a favour? I'll fit in in the village?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> I'm enjoying a lot of your posts, especially now that I've read more of them  - and I gave newbie too much credit on this thread for which I have apologised. I'm an aggressive arsehole at the best of times, and I've not slept for some time now which makes me unbearable. I'm sorry.
> 
> We managed to hit two of my more sensitive button issues in the only two threads we've interacted on. Here, I just find it really difficult to accept that high earners - presumably intelligent people with easy access to information - are unaware of the level of poverty in this country. It's reported on a lot, as is the ratio of the average house price to the average wage, as is the fact that the minimum wage is 25% below the living wage. Just the stuff that appears in the mainstream media makes it obvious that something is very, very wrong. It upsets me that more people haven't put two and two together. Yet.


 
Yeah, but you're not accounting for how people process information, in terms of being faced with what may seem "unpalatable" to us. People see the info, they intellectually acknowledge the info, but for some *emotionally* acknowledging it (and the concomitant consequences) doesn't happen, for reasons of self-protection. Too much cognitive dissonance between the poles of the issue, pretty much the same cognitive dissonance that means that sections of the working classes can sometimes be turned against one another.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah, but you're not accounting for how people process information, in terms of being faced with what may seem "unpalatable" to us. People see the info, they intellectually acknowledge the info, but for some *emotionally* acknowledging it (and the concomitant consequences) doesn't happen, for reasons of self-protection. Too much cognitive dissonance between the poles of the issue, pretty much the same cognitive dissonance that means that sections of the working classes can sometimes be turned against one another.


V good point, well made. Sort of what I tried so say badly in my next post


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2012)

Manter said:


> So he's doing me a favour? I'll fit in in the village?


 
Hmm, you're not a witch, m'dear. I sent a feline minion to test you for witch's spots while you slept t'other night. No spots were found, so you can't be a witch.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm, you're not a witch, m'dear. I sent a feline minion to test you for witch's spots while you slept t'other night. No spots were found, so you can't be a witch.


Damn, so no super powers then? 

(Not sure witches have super powers, but still.....)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> Exacerbated by state subsidy of business by way of working tax credits, HB etc rather than raising the NMW. And truly the salt rubbed in the wound by the Workfare fiasco. And yet constant demonising of people on/below breadline wages &/or benefits rather than the businesses extracting every drop of profit at their expense.


 
What's annoying, in terms of the whole "corporate welfare" mess, is how near-impossible it is to quantify quite how much money/how many resources are transmitted from public purse to private pocket, given the sheer volume of routes that the transmission takes.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 4, 2012)

Winot said:


> Agreed. The least the well-off can do (I include myself) is realise how fortunate they are and how tough it is for the rest. The trouble is, the bubble is very comfortable, and when everyone you know (I don't count your cleaner who you don't talk to) is in the same position it's easy for the unimaginative to imagine they aren't that well off because they know lots of people who are richer (a good test is to ask someone what proportion of the working population pay higher rate income tax). Or they just don't care (not Manter - she is clearly trying to engage despite the brickbats).


 
For the moderately well-off, I think where you live has quite a big effect on how you perceive the level of poverty. In most parts of London (with the exception perhaps of the really wealthy parts) it's hard not to be aware of the relative wealth of people around you.  In other British cities perhaps less so as rich and poor areas tend to be a bit less intertwined, geographically, than in London. If you live in the country or certain types of suburbia, driving to the out-of town supermarket, rarely using public transport, etc, I think it's really easy to have an existence where virtually all of the people you meet on a day-to-day basis are in a very similar economic bracket to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Careful that you don't unfairly demonise all business here. A lot of small businesses struggle to pay even the NMW. It galls me that Tesco and Argos use workfare slaves, but when my business partner and I were shredded with exhaustion after starting our enterprise we accepted the services of "volunteers" under an earlier (nuLab-initiated) scheme predating, but the inspiration for, IDS's workfare. It saved us; we retained one of them part-time on the NMW at the end of her 4-week volunteering period and she's been with us for over 18 months. We'd love to pay her more, but if we paid the LLW we'd either have to cut her hours and do the work ourselves, unpaid, instead of doing what we need to do to grow the business or be unable to pay the rent at the end of the month and end up closing.
> 
> [Argos' situation is also pretty precarious, despite its use of workfare slaves. Paying full NMW to its Christmas staff might accelerate its decline, because its business model is fucked against online shopping].


 
Fair points all, though you're talking about a system that used short-term and less coercive placements, as opposed to what now appears to be a chain of different programmes whose aim is to "churn" the unemployed (in fact anyone below pension age who is "economically-inactive") through schemes that will feed a constant stream of free or near-free labour to large business.

And please please please don't say "grow the business" unless you're a horticulturalist! It's a vile assault on the English language. You *develop* a business!


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Dec 4, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> He's growing older and grumpier...it's a growing trend with many posters here, me included.


 
I remember when his tagline was 'part of the problem'  cos I think that was on a thread like this at least 8 years ago) but that's still how I think of his name in my head... "Newbie: part of the problem" .


----------



## fortyplus (Dec 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's annoying, in terms of the whole "corporate welfare" mess, is how near-impossible it is to quantify quite how much money/how many resources are transmitted from public purse to private pocket, given the sheer volume of routes that the transmission takes.


Vast amounts of it go to intermediaries, parasitic organisations existing between the state and recipients. Our volunteers were "placed" with us by A4E, which is another reason we won't be using the scheme again. We got a bit of free labour, they got paid.  Our apprentices also came through a "learning provider" which got paid to place them with us. Why the jobcentre couldn't do it beats me, but no, we have to have these private-sector organisations paid almost entirely public money to do what the public sector could and should be doing.  It's a nasty web of semi-official corruption. Same sort of scam that G4S pulled on the Olympic security and there are hundreds more of these shadowy parasitic organisations existing to suck the life out of every new initiative from every department of government. Because they're private sector they're practically unaccountable, immune to FOI etc and mostly run by mates of those in power.  They're much more dangerous than the quangos they have largely replaced.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Vast amounts of it go to intermediaries, parasitic organisations existing between the state and recipients. Our volunteers were "placed" with us by A4E, which is another reason we won't be using the scheme again. We got a bit of free labour, they got paid.  Our apprentices also came through a "learning provider" which got paid to place them with us. Why the jobcentre couldn't do it beats me, but no, we have to have these private-sector organisations paid almost entirely public money to do what the public sector could and should be doing.  It's a nasty web of semi-official corruption. Same sort of scam that G4S pulled on the Olympic security and there are hundreds more of these shadowy parasitic organisations existing to suck the life out of every new initiative from every department of government. Because they're private sector they're practically unaccountable, immune to FOI etc and mostly run by mates of those in power.  They're much more dangerous than the quangos they have largely replaced.


^^this.


----------



## fortyplus (Dec 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And please please please don't say "grow the business" unless you're a horticulturalist! It's a vile assault on the English language. You *develop* a business!


a very fair point too.


----------



## cesare (Dec 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's annoying, in terms of the whole "corporate welfare" mess, is how near-impossible it is to quantify quite how much money/how many resources are transmitted from public purse to private pocket, given the sheer volume of routes that the transmission takes.


Very annoying indeed; that smoke and mirrors effect distracts attention from the fact that the public is subsidising the profits going into the purses of private shareholders, in addition to wages being driven down and poverty levels increasing at the same time. Factor in increased food and utility prices (whilst the corporate providers are still making massive profits) and it's straight forward enough to see why the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.


----------



## Winot (Dec 4, 2012)

teuchter said:


> For the moderately well-off, I think where you live has quite a big effect on how you perceive the level of poverty. *In most parts of London (with the exception perhaps of the really wealthy parts) it's hard not to be aware of the relative wealth of people around you.* In other British cities perhaps less so as rich and poor areas tend to be a bit less intertwined, geographically, than in London. If you live in the country or certain types of suburbia, driving to the out-of town supermarket, rarely using public transport, etc, I think it's really easy to have an existence where virtually all of the people you meet on a day-to-day basis are in a very similar economic bracket to you.


 
Although in general this is right, I'm not sure about the emboldened bit.  I think it's perfectly possible to live cheek by jowl with people without realising just how tough it is for them - for that you've got to talk to them (ideally).  After all, even the middle classes shop in Poundstretcher occaisionally, they just don't have to hold down two jobs on shifts to do so.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 4, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Yes. But there is a whole list of other things that have more pressing demands on our time and attention.


Well, I guess it just depends how valuable their contribution has been. But if I could not have kept my own business afloat without having it subsidised by someone else taking below market rate for their work for over 18 months, and could not see myself in a position to up it any time soon, I'm fairly sure that I would make formal recognition of their input an absolute priority. It's easy to tell yourself that you will recognise their contribution later if everything starts going well but you can offer them some certainty by recognising it now. It benefits you as well as them because it makes your success all the more important to them. I know plenty of people who have worked their arses off for very little pay in return for a vague promise of equity which has never materialised for one reason or another. Sometimes the promise is forgotten. Other times they leave the company without anything formal having been agreed. Or ultimately they just can't agree details when the time comes. Yours is a limited company so issuing stock is dead easy. I appreciate that you aren't taking anything much home but to be honest, that's irrelevant because it is your business.

Out of interest, do you know how much would you have to put up the price of a loaf in order to raise all non-shareholding employee's wages to LLW?

I hadn't calculated what the LLW was equivalent to on a daily rate but realise I have not paid anyone less than that rate in over 10yrs - and I have employed some extremely unskilled labour. That said, some people are simply dreadful value even at that rate and I don't have them back. Not sure how the LLW helps them.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 4, 2012)

Winot said:


> Although in general this is right, I'm not sure about the emboldened bit. I think it's perfectly possible to live cheek by jowl with people without realising just how tough it is for them - for that you've got to talk to them (ideally). After all, even the middle classes shop in Poundstretcher occaisionally, they just don't have to hold down two jobs on shifts to do so.


 
Well, I guess its entirely possible to be aware of a wealth gap but to have your own possibly not very realistic ideas about why it exists. But being aware of the extent of the gap is better than nothing, and I think there are people in many parts of the country who simply have no idea.


----------



## Onket (Dec 4, 2012)

Winot said:


> Is it @Onket?



I don't live in Brixton! I've got more self respect than that.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> What the Saudi one?
> 
> Funnily enough I met one in Hyde Park last week . She was looking for the entrance to Winter Wonderland. Had a decent chat. Stunning as well.


careful of chatting up Saudi woman, their menfolk are notoriously protective


----------



## TruXta (Dec 4, 2012)

Manter said:


> careful of chatting up Saudi woman, their menfolk are notoriously protective


Notorious arseholes more like it. Not a fan of Saudis I have to say.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Notorious arseholes more like it. Not a fan of Saudis I have to say.


Few westerners who work in the middle east are....


----------



## TruXta (Dec 4, 2012)

Manter said:


> Few westerners who work in the middle east are....


I got the sense a lot of Emiratis weren't great fans either.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I got the sense a lot of Emiratis weren't great fans either.


no one seems to like them (except the Iranians, sporadically) but everyone seems to want their money

no one seems v keen on the palestinians either, ime


----------



## TruXta (Dec 4, 2012)

Manter said:


> no one seems to like them (except the Iranians, sporadically) but everyone seems to want their money
> 
> no one seems v keen on the palestinians either, ime


Really? The few Palestinians I've met have all been great.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Really? The few Palestinians I've met have all been great.


ditto.  but ask a jordanian or a syrian about them and there is a lot of low level racism.  

And you have to remember the ones you meet in UAE are the ones that got away


----------



## TruXta (Dec 4, 2012)

Manter said:


> ditto. but ask a jordanian or a syrian about them and there is a lot of low level racism.
> 
> And you have to remember the ones you meet in UAE are the ones that got away


Yeah, can see what you're saying. Anyway.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 4, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Really? The few Palestinians I've met have all been great.


 
As long as you 'don't mention the war'. I didn't get away with it


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 4, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> I remember when his tagline was 'part of the problem'  cos I think that was on a thread like this at least 8 years ago) but that's still how I think of his name in my head... "Newbie: part of the problem" .


Yes, some really old poster taglines still stick in my mind too. 'Dour Scots Wanker' was one particular fave!


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 4, 2012)

fortyplus said:


> Vast amounts of it go to intermediaries, parasitic organisations existing between the state and recipients. Our volunteers were "placed" with us by A4E, which is another reason we won't be using the scheme again. We got a bit of free labour, they got paid. Our apprentices also came through a "learning provider" which got paid to place them with us. Why the jobcentre couldn't do it beats me, but no, we have to have these private-sector organisations paid almost entirely public money to do what the public sector could and should be doing. It's a nasty web of semi-official corruption. Same sort of scam that G4S pulled on the Olympic security and there are hundreds more of these shadowy parasitic organisations existing to suck the life out of every new initiative from every department of government. Because they're private sector they're practically unaccountable, immune to FOI etc and mostly run by mates of those in power. They're much more dangerous than the quangos they have largely replaced.


 
G4S business practises are standard ones in the security industry. Also getting more the norm elsewhere. It was not a scam.  It was managerial failure. G4S , for a large business , employ few people on a permanent basis. They employ people on short term contracts. So if they get contract to do security for an office block for a year they employ people for a year. If contract rolls over u keep your job. If not its bye bye.

The Olympic fuck up meant that this became more widely known, I chat to security guards so none of this surprised me. If G4S had not messed up the workers would still have had the usual shit deal.

As a security guard told me security guards wardrobes are filled with different uniforms. As they have to go from firm to firm on different short term contracts.

Some security firms "employ" people on zero hours contracts. So u have to be available but they do not gaurentee u work. This means u get no sick pay etc.

Big and small business say they cannot pay the living wage. Pret a Manger for example will boost your wage with a bonus to just over £7 an hour. But this may be lost for a month if the "mystery shoppers" who visit stores find a fault.

Its how capitalism works in modern Britain. A lot of jobs are like this.

So lifes pretty shit for u if u sell your labour.

Good article here by economic journalist for the Guardian:




> So what's happened? The first thing to note is that this is not a new phenomenon. Life has been getting tougher for labour for decades, with the real break coming in the 1980s. Over the past 35 years there has been a marked shift from wages to profits in the UK economy, with labour's share of national income falling from 59% in 1977 to 53% in 2008 and the share of profits up from 25% to 29% over the same period.
> Over the same period, median earnings failed to keep pace with growth in the economy as measured by gross domestic product. Had they done so, median earnings for full-time workers would be £7,000 a year higher than they are.


 


> A rising share of wages in national income would lead to stronger demand. Reed and Himmelweit say this could be achieved either by reform of the financial sector so it has a less pivotal role in the economy, a full-blooded campaign to raise skill levels or reforms to wage bargaining. A rising share of wages in national income would require either a prolonged period of full employment or a rethink of UK economic policy making over the past 30 years. Neither looks remotely probable.


 



> "The UK is turning into an old-style third world country with low pay growth for most workers below managerial level, widening pay differentials and poor levels of capital investment," Chater says.


 
So low wages and increasing inequality might have been good for the City but its not for everyone else.

The problem with outfits like A4E is not that they milk the state for profits. The underlying problem would not change if the job centre took the role of A4E.

Getting back to the topic its hardly surprising given this that housing is getting more difficult to afford for many.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

leanderman said:


> As long as you 'don't mention the war'. I didn't get away with it


 could never get anyone in the middle east off the subject for long!


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> G4S business practises are standard ones in the security industry. Also getting more the norm elsewhere. It was not a scam. It was managerial failure. G4S , for a large business , employ few people on a permanent basis. They employ people on short term contracts. So if they get contract to do security for an office block for a year they employ people for a year. If contract rolls over u keep your job. If not its bye bye.
> 
> As a security guard told me security guards wardrobes are filled with different uniforms. As they have to go from firm to firm on different short term contracts.
> 
> ...


 
2 things spring to mind.

fristly, zero hours contracts are, in my opinion, to work of the devil.  And not in a good way.  I fundamentally think they are immoral, and have spent a fair amount of time looking for annualised hours solutions for a couple of clients to prevent their introduction.  Which is one of the reasons I think they are so despicable- there are better, equally cost effective solutions, that offer both sides a win.  I know annualised hours are more complicated to introduce and manage, but employers can manage it if they apply their brains, and it is too important not to.  So zero hours is utterly indefensible on any grounds IMHO

secondly, on the short term contracts- I have ranted before about a 2 tier employment model developing, and short term contracts are a real example of that.  Friends from professional services take on short term contracts to turbocharge their income- many have doubled their income moving away from salaried work- they are paid extra for uncertainty and flexibility.  The staff you are talking about are paid less on short term contracts as they don't acrue rights and just have to manage uncertainty of income. 

It is a very strange hole we have got ourselves into and is unsustainable IMO


----------



## ymu (Dec 5, 2012)

Manter said:


> no one seems to like them (except the Iranians, sporadically) but everyone seems to want their money
> 
> no one seems v keen on the palestinians either, ime


For rather different reasons than they hate the Saudi monarchs!

The 1948 and1967 wars drove a lot of Palestinians into neighbouring countries, where most have been living in miserable refugee camps ever since. Palestine, at the time, was the most secular country in the ME and the refugees were considered a threat to the theocratic dictatorships who hosted them. The treatment of Palestinian refugees living on the borders of Palestine/Israel is often no better than the treatment of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation - Jordan are a little better than the others, Syria and especially Lebanon the worst, with armed guards on the gates of the camps and restricted occupations.



Gramsci said:


> G4S business practises are standard ones in the security industry. Also getting more the norm elsewhere. It was not a scam. It was managerial failure. G4S , for a large business , employ few people on a permanent basis. They employ people on short term contracts.


Crapita have been in charge of every DoH project I've been involved in over the last ten years. They have no internal expertise - they buy it in at consultancy rates. So, the DoH gets them in to do a project and they employ people like me - already on the public sector pay role - at eye-watering consultancy rates to do the job or to train up people with fuck all experience to do it badly.

They throw their hands up in horror at the idea of a senior civil servant being paid 6 figures, but it's fuck all compared to the millions the bosses of these companies take home. Fucking con artists. It's ridiculous - and dangerous, given that we're talking about money-grubbing amateurs taking over important roles in the health service.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 5, 2012)

Crapita took over the IT systems at my last school. What a nightmare. Also, you'd think that they'd know that in a large premises that there are staff and kids who just might have disabilities. This struck them as a big surprise on the first day of term. It took them *months* to sort out the ability to increase text size for me 

We weren't initially allowed to directly ask the IT people on site for anything but had to email somewhere hundreds of miles away to raise a job. This meant that where previously there was a problem in a lesson with IT stuff you'd ask a kid to fetch the technician from just along the corridor and chances were it would be sorted in 5 minutes and the lesson could continue. That level of speed and efficiency became a thing of the past.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 5, 2012)

Manter said:


> no one seems to like them (except the Iranians, sporadically) but everyone seems to want their money
> 
> no one seems v keen on the palestinians either, ime


 
The Iranians try to diplomatically and economically rub along with the Saudis purely on the basis of there being a significant Shia minority in Saudi who could very much come in for a lot of bother if things got frosty between the two nation-states.
In all other spheres they're pretty much absolutely opposed, though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 5, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I can be more precise.
> 
> Free school meals is a proxy for 'poverty'.
> 
> ...


do you have a link for those figures for other schools in the borough?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 5, 2012)

On the DfE website there is a tool that allows for such comparisons. Individual Ofsted reports carry the figures. They suggest that school results correlate pretty efficiently with 'poverty' rates.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 5, 2012)

cheers. i want to find out %s of SEN too, so i'll guess i'll find them there too.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 5, 2012)

Just look under statistics. Then postcode search. The most egregious example is Richard Atkins with 56.3pc free school meals and Corpus Christi a few yards down Brixton Hill at 10.8pc.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 5, 2012)

Yep. The same suspicious discrepancies are seen in SEN ratios.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 5, 2012)

Yep. The same suspicious discrepancies are seen in SEN ratios.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 5, 2012)

Damned Tapatalk double phone posts!


----------



## snadge (Dec 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Notorious arseholes more like it. Not a fan of Saudis I have to say.


 
Saudis are the most obnoxious of the M eastern cauldron, Persians are fabulous though.


I will add this to the discussion.

I am a northerner, made redundant at 21yrs old in '81 with an unfinished apprenticeship, '83 was living in a squat in Shoreditch with people looking to scam the system for profit, even then it was happening before Thatcher made it obvious.

I moved back North, festered on the Dole for 3 years, started working in ME.

Nowadays I am single, 50 years old, no pension, no savings, have a lovely house with views but got it as a bargain, I have worked sporadically around the globe for extremely good money, haven't signed on for 20 years now and haven't paid tax/NI in this country for about the same amount of time.

There are thousands of people that have become disjointed from the normalised existence, in my line of work 80% of people are in the same situation as me, we are non existent to the HMRC and DWP.

Couple of years time this sector of society that actully are not on records are going to explode, further wrecking the economy, it's not about gentrification in Brixton, the Whole country is going to realise the rash decisions that where formulated in the Thatcher years.


Monetary worth is irrelevant when the overseas workers like myself want their pensions.


BTW Manter, your posts have been enlightening, I have really enjoyed reading them and if we ever meet, the sparkling wine is on me.


----------



## cesare (Dec 6, 2012)

Did you pay voluntary NICs for the years you were working abroad, snadge? If not, you may want to consider getting a state pension forecast.


----------



## newbie (Dec 6, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> He's growing older and grumpier...it's a growing trend with many posters here, me included.


obviously.  there's no other explanation.


----------



## newbie (Dec 6, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> I remember when his tagline was 'part of the problem'  cos I think that was on a thread like this at least 8 years ago) but that's still how I think of his name in my head... "Newbie: part of the problem" .


you've got a better memory that me, but it's as true now as then.  Everybody is.  Apart from the utterly self absorbed, anyone who claims they're not is trying to sell you something, most likely religion.


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 7, 2012)

Something I've learnt in the last few years is that SEN statementing happens too late for most early years children; which will have a knock on effect for funding for early years schools and then primary etc. If the borough won't put funding into it, its the schools or parents who can afford extra SEN tuition who will have fuller class sizes in January (when actual class sizes affects the amount of funding received in the year) and consequently will be more successful in getting their childs needs supported.

A system which supports the networked, and educated and adversely affects those who aren't.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 7, 2012)

It also seems to me that there are many more children who need more help in the classroom than those officially statemented as having SEN. This is from very limited experience so ignore me if this is bullshit but there are probably plenty of floundering children receiving little to no extra help.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 7, 2012)

There are tons of students who need statements that don't get them, for a number of reasons. But statements are going, part of the government's drive to get rid of special needs funding. They will be replaced by health care plans. No one knows what this really means but we're thinking more work for no additional funding so up to the school to fund, thus disproportionately affecting schools with higher need.
Also these days you have to have less than a level 1 to get a statement for literacy. This means you have to have P levels and then you will be eligible for a special school. So tons of pupils who really can't read or write are not entitled and just expected to get on in the mainstream. A Southwark insider also told me they are moving to no statements for autism. As the autistic population is growing, it's going to be considered normal; I really can't imagine a lot of my ASD students managing without statements. And this term in Lambeth, the Speech and Language service have discharged almost their entire caseload. So now only schools that can afford/prioritise spending for SEN will be buying SALT in. It's pretty fucked up.


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 7, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> It also seems to me that there are many more children who need more help in the classroom than those officially statemented as having SEN.


 
Very true, but it's not going to be addressed in state funded (ie. non academy / private) schools. Budgets are set against that Jan. admission figures; whilst the LA wants to maintain and improve OFSTED results, they don't have the funding to increase staff to pupil ratios.

Lambeth might be currently very interested in addressing early years _prevention_ to address that key stage of support in both child development and support to parents, but they don't half have a bad way of dealing with it. I know they're looking for a big  (£1.5 I guess) grant from the Big Lottery Fund to support early years development in the borough, which I would entirely support; the Coldharbour Ward alone has something like 1600 children at risk of social exclusion with a long term consequence on later educational and employment prospects, with very few services to support them at present, and at the same time cannot provide land or resources for sites or people to address it.

It's simple community development work; you create networks and support systems and places to enable people to access services they can afford and can understand. However it's currently being structured through passing on sites to make profit not _just_ to provide good services at cost. In balance there is will from the LA to support the more effective local schools, but uncertainty from them to take on new services which they need to generate increased turnover to cover increased costs not met by LA funding.

Lastly you employ educational staff for their skills to teach children, not necessarily to run a profit making social enterprise. That skill development isn't supported, and goes back to that situation of 'those who know how to run business' and not those who know how to do community development through education.

Big Society bollocks excuse for funding cuts and they (Lambeth) haven't yet worked out how to manage it.


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 7, 2012)

nagapie said:


> There are tons of students who need statements that don't get them, /quote] is there a ;like your comments, but not the consequence' option?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 7, 2012)

snowy_again said:


> Big Society bollocks excuse for funding cuts and they (Lambeth) haven't yet worked out how to manage it.


Lambeth have an appalling record on statements. From 1982 to 1996 I worked on a project based in Lambeth and some things they did (and didn't do) was a constant strain. I knew of a severely autistic child who didn't get a statement for EIGHT years


----------



## snadge (Dec 7, 2012)

cesare said:


> Did you pay voluntary NICs for the years you were working abroad, snadge? If not, you may want to consider getting a state pension forecast.


 

Bugger that a lot of us just decided that it wasn't worth the effort.

Being able to commando some benefits because you have to account for yourselves and getting screwed by agencies who are supposed to cover your contributions, everyone else working the state line of accountability and getting screwed also,  when this type of crap happens, screwing the state becomes more attractive the older you get.

There is a lot of people like me that have stayed off the radar for years.


Onto the Brixton thing, it is not only Brixton that has become unaffordable, everywhere in the country has also followed suit, I bought my bungalow for 85k 10 yrs ago, now a neighbor is renting his for 1200 a month and we are miles away from a tube station and I mean miles, it is not just London this is happening, it is all over the country, I expect interest rates to be going up in the next 8 months, just so the elite can wrangle some more land/properties of us plebs.


----------



## gaijingirl (Dec 7, 2012)

nagapie said:


> There are tons of students who need statements that don't get them, for a number of reasons. But statements are going, part of the government's drive to get rid of special needs funding. They will be replaced by health care plans. No one knows what this really means but we're thinking more work for no additional funding so up to the school to fund, thus disproportionately affecting schools with higher need.
> Also these days you have to have less than a level 1 to get a statement for literacy. This means you have to have P levels and then you will be eligible for a special school. So tons of pupils who really can't read or write are not entitled and just expected to get on in the mainstream. A Southwark insider also told me they are moving to no statements for autism. As the autistic population is growing, it's going to be considered normal; I really can't imagine a lot of my ASD students managing without statements. And this term in Lambeth, the Speech and Language service have discharged almost their entire caseload. So now only schools that can afford/prioritise spending for SEN will be buying SALT in. It's pretty fucked up.


 
I can't tell you how much this upsets me.  Every day I feel more and more saddened about what is happening to our education system.  I thought I would retire as a teacher and now I wonder if I'll make it through 2013.  I love teaching too - really love it.  I just can't believe how rapidly it's all falling (or being torn) apart.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 7, 2012)

what have I let myself in for?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 8, 2012)

gaijingirl said:


> I can't tell you how much this upsets me. Every day I feel more and more saddened about what is happening to our education system. I thought I would retire as a teacher and now I wonder if I'll make it through 2013. I love teaching too - really love it. I just can't believe how rapidly it's all falling (or being torn) apart.


I've jumped ship already which makes me feel bad, but something had to give and it was me


----------



## gaijingirl (Dec 8, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> what have I let myself in for?


 

I suppose the answer is to just focus on your actual students and the teaching.  That's what makes it such an amazing job.  It truly is brilliant.  The problem is all the other stuff - the politics, the endless endless changes, pointless paperwork, box ticking, bureaucracy and bullshit that surrounds it.   

I might not have a job to go back to after my maternity leave anyway.


----------



## gaijingirl (Dec 8, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I've jumped ship already which makes me feel bad, but something had to give and it was me


----------



## nagapie (Dec 8, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> what have I let myself in for?


 
I think that you'll enjoy it, like gg says focus on your kids. But you may find after x amount of years, you've had enough. That's ok too, nothing's forever any more. You can always change career again or go part-time. You might be one of those people that never wants to leave. Or find a sexy assistant head to hook up with and become a stay at home dad


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 8, 2012)

Oh god, I thought for a second OU's comment was a sign he was becoming a father, rather than a teacher!


----------



## Frumious B. (Dec 9, 2012)

Some of my rich City friends have ignored me since I became ill and poor and an angry leftie do-gooder with ethnic minority/disabled/LGBT friends. They don't know what to say to me. Perhaps they think we no longer have anything in common. And I can't afford to socialise with them when they are sailing, skiing, going to fancy restaurants etc. I think they find poverty in their own social circle to be awkward, embarrassing, shameful, a bit pathetic. The weak are just fodder - they only exist to be trodden on by the entitled alpha males.

It's dog eat dog, public schoolboy ethics. They never really grow up. Watch "If" to see how they were conditioned. It was on telly the other day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If....


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 9, 2012)

The desperate housewives episode?


----------



## Manter (Dec 9, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Some of my rich City friends have ignored me since I became ill and poor and an angry leftie do-gooder with ethnic minority/disabled/LGBT friends. They don't know what to say to me. Perhaps they think we no longer have anything in common. And I can't afford to socialise with them when they are sailing, skiing, going to fancy restaurants etc. I think they find poverty in their own social circle to be awkward, embarrassing, shameful, a bit pathetic. The weak are just fodder - they only exist to be trodden on by the entitled alpha males.
> 
> It's dog eat dog, public schoolboy ethics. They never really grow up. Watch "If" to see how they were conditioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If.... It was on telly the other day.


Then they are cunts. There are cunts in all walks of life.... Tho probably a higher proportion among rich city types, true. But all public school kids and everyone that works in the city and all the rich aren't like that.


----------



## Frumious B. (Dec 9, 2012)

I know, it's only SOME of my rich City friends who are cunts.


----------



## Manter (Dec 9, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> I know, it's only SOME of my rich City friends who are cunts.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 9, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> The desperate housewives episode?


 
No Lindsay Anderson film "If" Frumious B link was incorrect.

Slightly dated. . But still worth a watch.

Malcolm McDowell was a pretty boy then. Also like Lindsay knew all about private schools:



> Malcolm John Taylor was born on June 13, 1943 in Leeds, England, to working-class parents Charles and Edna Taylor. His father was a publican and an alcoholic. Malcolm hated his parents' ways and fought against it. His father was keen to send his son to private school to give him a good start in life, so Malcolm was packed off to boarding school at age 11. He attended the Tunbridge Boarding School and the Cannock House School in Eltham, Kent. At school, he was beaten with the slipper or cane every Monday for his waywardnes


 

Also spot on how the Public schools present a liberal modernising face (The Headmaster in the film ) whilst keeping the class structures intact.

Considering the number of privately educated people in the Cabinet not much has changed.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 9, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Some of my rich City friends have ignored me since I became ill and poor and an angry leftie do-gooder with ethnic minority/disabled/LGBT friends. They don't know what to say to me. Perhaps they think we no longer have anything in common. And I can't afford to socialise with them when they are sailing, skiing, going to fancy restaurants etc. I think they find poverty in their own social circle to be awkward, embarrassing, shameful, a bit pathetic. The weak are just fodder - they only exist to be trodden on by the entitled alpha males.
> 
> It's dog eat dog, public schoolboy ethics. They never really grow up. Watch "If" to see how they were conditioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If.... It was on telly the other day.


 
Thats really crap. However "nice" some of them are it does not overcome the social apartheid of a society like this where wealth is distributed unequally.


----------



## Frumious B. (Dec 9, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> No Lindsay Anderson film "If" Frumious B link was incorrect.


 
I can't link to the right page - the url for the film page goes to the disambiguation page. So you have to scroll down and look for a 1968 Lindsay Anderson film. I went to the same school as the writer of the screenplay. Even the surreal bits of the film seem like entirely logical extensions of the school culture. In fact the whole thing seems just as accurate as my own memories of it all. Even the padre being in the special apology drawer in the headmaster's study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonbridge_School


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 9, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> I can't link to the right page - the url for the film page goes to the disambiguation page. So you have to scroll down and look for a 1968 Lindsay Anderson film. I went to the same school as the writer of the screenplay. Even the surreal bits of the film seem like entirely logical extensions of the school culture. In fact the whole thing seems just as accurate as my own memories of it all. Even the padre being in the special apology drawer in the headmaster's study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonbridge_School


 
Put link up on #1085


----------



## Frumious B. (Dec 9, 2012)

Yebbut that's the imdb page. Someone needs to repair the wiki link


----------



## leanderman (Dec 9, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Lindsay Anderson film "If"....


 
Always wondered what happened to McDowell's rather forward girlfriend in the film, billed only as 'The Girl' and never seen since.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

i play football with a load of bankers - and some of them are the most horrific people you can meet, some of them decent, some of them sound.

some people don't give a fuck about anyone, but you can find many "working class" people who are exactly the same.

i get on with people better who give a shit about the world, community, place and people they live in etc


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2012)

I worked in Canary Wharf for a 'leading global financial services firm' for a while.

I have never, ever seen such a bunch of obnoxious wankers as some of the vile people I encountered there. The way they treated 'ordinary' people like waitresses and bar stuff was unbelievable.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

editor said:


> I worked in Canary Wharf for a 'leading global financial services firm' for a while.
> 
> I have never, ever seen such a bunch of obnoxious wankers as some of the vile people I encountered there. The way they treated 'ordinary' people like waitresses and bar stuff was unbelievable.


they'll wake up one day to it, and realise they haven't got a soul. you end up cold and abusive with them attitudes. FACT.


----------



## Manter (Dec 9, 2012)

editor said:


> I worked in Canary Wharf for a 'leading global financial services firm' for a while.
> 
> I have never, ever seen such a bunch of obnoxious wankers as some of the vile people I encountered there. The way they treated 'ordinary' people like waitresses and bar stuff was unbelievable.


I know a few like that.  But also really lovely, kind, thoughtful people (it was two bankers that rescued us when we found ourselves homeless for 6 weeks)


----------



## Ms T (Dec 10, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> I can't link to the right page - the url for the film page goes to the disambiguation page. So you have to scroll down and look for a 1968 Lindsay Anderson film. I went to the same school as the writer of the screenplay. Even the surreal bits of the film seem like entirely logical extensions of the school culture. In fact the whole thing seems just as accurate as my own memories of it all. Even the padre being in the special apology drawer in the headmaster's study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonbridge_School


If was written by my best mate from university's uncle. I met him a couple of times - very funny and charming.


----------

