Have you been here a while and if so, happy with it?

enda1

old hippy wrote: »

It's well for some who can live in Chiswick. Very grand, indeed

Meh. If you can afford to live there your earned the right through your hard work.

It's the council tenants in the centre (pimlico for example as came up in the news recetly) who've never done a days work or contributed a thing who I don't appreciate taking up valuable real estate while the hard working are pushed out into suburbia and a horrid commute.

Playboy

enda1 wrote: »

It's the council tenants in the centre (pimlico for example as came up in the news recetly) who've never done a days work or contributed a thing who I don't appreciate taking up valuable real estate while the hard working are pushed out into suburbia and a horrid commute.

Completely agree. Don't understand why huge swathes of zones 1 and 2 are taken up with council housing for people who are long term unemployed. Makes no sense as people are then forced to commute long distances. I can understand the government wanting to avoid large ghettos on the outskirts of London like what happens in Paris but there must be some other solution.

Although all the foreign investment in London doesn't exactly help to keep housing prices in London affordable. The wealthy from all over the world buy property in central London thus making it impossible to compete on price. I don't know what the answer is but something has to be done. The quality of life for a huge amount of Londoners is really poor due to long commutes and terrible travel conditions. I go to tooting broadway in the morning from Balham just so I can find a decent spot to stand on the tube. I know many people who get the train and have to stand in cramped conditions for two hours each way every day. New York subway is luxurious with the amount of space you get in comparison

djpbarry

enda1 wrote: »

Meh. If you can afford to live there your earned the right through your hard work.

I know a letting agent who lives in Chiswick, so that torpedoes that argument.

djpbarry

Playboy wrote: »

Although all the foreign investment in London doesn't exactly help to keep housing prices in London affordable. The wealthy from all over the world buy property in central London thus making it impossible to compete on price. I don't know what the answer is but something has to be done.

You make residency a condition of buying. In Amsterdam, for example, you cannot buy a property in the historic central district unless you’re resident there. As a result, property in Central Amsterdam is relatively affordable.

Playboy wrote: »

I go to tooting broadway in the morning from Balham just so I can find a decent spot to stand on the tube

Yeah, I don’t even bother with the Northern Line during rush hour anymore – the trains are almost overflowing by the time they get to Clapham Common.

Fysh

I like the fact that most boroughs don't allow segregation of council housing and private housing. Given that no large city in the world has really solved this problem in a different manner I think there isn't better solution, at least not while commercial for-profit property ownership is a factor in the market.

I have little time nor sympathy for complaints that start with the assumption that there are a huge swathe of people in council housing who've never worked, because it's an assumption based on ignoring the realities of current salaries. If the current average wage is less than £25K, then by definition half the working population earn less than that in declared income. Which means that in a city as pricey as London, which still has a substantial number of not-very-well-paid jobs that need doing, council housing is a factor in making it possible to earn a living doing said jobs. And that's without even considering the combination of stratospheric property prices and social bellendery that seem to manifest any time an area becomes largely free of affordable/council housing (yes, Westminster and your "we don't have homeless people" policy, I'm looking at you here).

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

I like the fact that most boroughs don't allow segregation of council housing and private housing. Given that no large city in the world has really solved this problem in a different manner I think there isn't better solution, at least not while commercial for-profit property ownership is a factor in the market.

I have little time nor sympathy for complaints that start with the assumption that there are a huge swathe of people in council housing who've never worked, because it's an assumption based on ignoring the realities of current salaries. If the current average wage is less than £25K, then by definition half the working population earn less than that in declared income. Which means that in a city as pricey as London, which still has a substantial number of not-very-well-paid jobs that need doing, council housing is a factor in making it possible to earn a living doing said jobs. And that's without even considering the combination of stratospheric property prices and social bellendery that seem to manifest any time an area becomes largely free of affordable/council housing (yes, Westminster and your "we don't have homeless people" policy, I'm looking at you here).

I have no issue with affordable housing for people who are on average to low salaries and need to live in central London. In fact I think more of it needs to be encouraged. What I do have an issue with though is long term unemployed living in estates in central London of which there are many.. Borough, shadwell , tower hamlets, Peckham etc.

who the fug

Playboy wrote: »

I have no issue with affordable housing for people who are on average to low salaries and need to live in central London. In fact I think more of it needs to be encouraged. What I do have an issue with though is long term unemployed living in estates in central London of which there are many.. Borough, shadwell , tower hamlets, Peckham etc.

What do you propose to do with them ?

old hippy

enda1 wrote: »

Meh. If you can afford to live there your earned the right through your hard work.

It's the council tenants in the centre (pimlico for example as came up in the news recetly) who've never done a days work or contributed a thing who I don't appreciate taking up valuable real estate while the hard working are pushed out into suburbia and a horrid commute.

There's families that have lived for generations in now fashionable/upmarket areas. Why shouldn't they live there? Council tenants or otherwise.

djpbarry

Playboy wrote: »

What I do have an issue with though is long term unemployed living in estates in central London of which there are many.. Borough, shadwell , tower hamlets, Peckham etc.

I'd be surprised if most of the so-called council flats in central London are not privately owned at this stage.

Fysh

Playboy wrote: »

I have no issue with affordable housing for people who are on average to low salaries and need to live in central London. In fact I think more of it needs to be encouraged. What I do have an issue with though is long term unemployed living in estates in central London of which there are many.. Borough, shadwell , tower hamlets, Peckham etc.

I think one problem there is that most of the time, the solution the free market proposes for those situations is "kick out the lazy bums, gentrify the hell out of the area to alienate everyone who originally lived there, then turn it into a posh rich hangout". Which is great for the property investors who get in on the ground floor with one or more properties that appreciate in value in the New Trendy Part Of Town, but doesn't really do anything for or with the people who've been there for longer and are part of the community. And, well, they've got to live somewhere, right? So all you end up with is a new variation on the NIMBY problem.

I don't know what proportion of the population in London are long-term unemployed, but as a whole this population segment in the UK represent a real issue in that by the time it becomes apparent, it's very difficult to find some way of engaging with them and moving them into gainful employment. Especially with our current Tory Overlords busy taking an axe to anything that even looks like public sector employment because the private sector will fill the gap...

enda1

old hippy wrote: »

There's families that have lived for generations in now fashionable/upmarket areas. Why shouldn't they live there? Council tenants or otherwise.

Tough. You don't (shouldn't) have a "right" to live somewhere that's beyond your means.

old hippy

enda1 wrote: »

Tough. You don't (shouldn't) have a "right" to live somewhere that's beyond your means.

So, mass clearings, gentrification and the like is perfectly acceptable? Like tenants who couldn't afford to live in Stratford last year, once greedy landlords started to up the rent?

If the developers came into, say, the Liberties back home to make it all very luxury and des res, would it be ok if the former inhabitants had to leave?

Fysh

enda1 wrote: »

Tough. You don't (shouldn't) have a "right" to live somewhere that's beyond your means.

Balls to that. That logic would give us a London full of insufferable city nobbers banging on about money, cocaine and strippers the whole time.

To reverse your argument, what makes folks with money so special that they should be able to kick everyone else out of an area where their family may have lived for decades?

I'm personally delighted that London government recognises the value in promoting local communities with varied and diverse populations, it's one of the best things about the place. I wouldn't change it for anything, because it would make the city far more boring.

enda1

Fysh wrote: »

Balls to that. That logic would give us a London full of insufferable city nobbers banging on about money, cocaine and strippers the whole time.

To reverse your argument, what makes folks with money so special that they should be able to kick everyone else out of an area where their family may have lived for decades?

I'm personally delighted that London government recognises the value in promoting local communities with varied and diverse populations, it's one of the best things about the place. I wouldn't change it for anything, because it would make the city far more boring.

If I grow up in Chelsea but can't afford to live there, but still earn let's say 80k a year, should the government assist me too?
Or is only poor people who have this right you speak of?

old hippy

enda1 wrote: »

If I grow up in Chelsea but can't afford to live there, but still earn let's say 80k a year, should the government assist me too?
Or is only poor people who have this right you speak of?

You're advocating the destruction of communities and the pursuit of wealth and upping property prices.

I bet you vote tory, too

enda1

old hippy wrote: »

You're advocating the destruction of communities and the pursuit of wealth and upping property prices.

I bet you vote tory, too

Thanks for putting words into my mouth, really appreciate that.

I'm advocating the pursuit of bettering yourself and not expecting others to pay your way in life. The system of high benefits over here doesn't encourage anyone on them or growing up with parents on them to attempt to better themselves and just drives this entitlement culture that has set in.

My political persuasions are none of your business, thanks.

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

I think one problem there is that most of the time, the solution the free market proposes for those situations is "kick out the lazy bums, gentrify the hell out of the area to alienate everyone who originally lived there, then turn it into a posh rich hangout". Which is great for the property investors who get in on the ground floor with one or more properties that appreciate in value in the New Trendy Part Of Town, but doesn't really do anything for or with the people who've been there for longer and are part of the community. And, well, they've got to live somewhere, right? So all you end up with is a new variation on the NIMBY problem.

I don't know what proportion of the population in London are long-term unemployed, but as a whole this population segment in the UK represent a real issue in that by the time it becomes apparent, it's very difficult to find some way of engaging with them and moving them into gainful employment. Especially with our current Tory Overlords busy taking an axe to anything that even looks like public sector employment because the private sector will fill the gap...

I'm not advocating gentrification and I think there is middle ground to be found. I think there are certain parts of London which have a fantastic charm and sense of community that should be maintained and protected to an extent. There is absolutely nothing wrong with working class communities living centrally as long as they need to. There is however no justification for some of the huge tower blocks and estates across parts of central London where unemployment is endemic and long term. People either can't get a job or won't get a job and the council properties are dilapidated and not attractive to anyone other than the unemployed to live in. These families or individuals in my opinion should be moved to better accommodation on the outskirts of London and integrated into communities there. I'm not advocating banishing them to some mass ghetto tower blocks somewhere up north.

The old estates and tower blocks should be knocked and redeveloped with a certain percentage committed to affordable housing and the remaining percentage allocated to residents as DJpbarry suggested. It's not fair that hard working people with families should have to shoulder the tax burden of this country along with horrendous commutes so the unemployed can enjoy the privilege of living in central London. I'm sorry but tough ****... If you want to live somewhere desirable then work hard for it like everyone else has to.

Playboy

enda1 wrote: »

If I grow up in Chelsea but can't afford to live there, but still earn let's say 80k a year, should the government assist me too?
Or is only poor people who have this right you speak of?

That's a really good point... It's not only the working class and the unemployed that are being squeezed out of London... Lots of middle class just can't afford to live here anymore. In the years that I have been here house prices have jumped 25% where I live and that's in a recession. I don't know who I'm competing with but I earn a good income and I just don't know how people afford to buy in the area anymore unless you are a millionaire. I'm blaming foreign investment because there can't be that many people in London earning that much money surely!!!

djpbarry

Playboy wrote: »

I'm blaming foreign investment...

There really is no other explanation when you consider the income distribution in the city - I don't really understand the scapegoating of council residents.

Playboy

djpbarry wrote: »

There really is no other explanation when you consider the income distribution in the city - I don't really understand the scapegoating of council residents.

I don't think they are being scapegoated... Central London has two issues 1) no space and strict planning regulations 2) it's a very attractive place for foreign investment because of rising house prices and exclusivity.

When you see the huge amount of poor quality social housing in in zones 1,2 and 3 it's hard not to imagine what could be done for residents if they were redeveloped. I'm not talking about working class communities but those horrible tower blocks in Brixton, shadwell, tower hamlets etc. of which there are many. I think both issues need to be tackled in parallel in order to improve the life of Londoners and take some of the pressure off the overburdened transport system

enda1

djpbarry wrote: »

There really is no other explanation when you consider the income distribution in the city - I don't really understand the scapegoating of council residents.

Don't get me wrong, that's a massive issue which pushes up housing cost. I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing though. Foreign investment adds money to the economy through its trickle effects of stamp duty, financial instruments and sundries. Not to mention the initial capital release. Rent and house prices are not directly correlated products though (thank feck!).

Rent is far more relevant an issue from my point of view especially when you see rental yields at 5% in the centre.

Rent though is assisted by the councils too for many. This pushes up rental prices as they being artificially inflated by subsidies. Add to that the lack of council tax paid by many inflating the council tax paid by the rest of us. All these costs plus the increased tax burden to support the lifestyles of the dependent are draining on the average normal London worker.

old hippy

enda1 wrote: »

Thanks for putting words into my mouth, really appreciate that.

I'm advocating the pursuit of bettering yourself and not expecting others to pay your way in life. The system of high benefits over here doesn't encourage anyone on them or growing up with parents on them to attempt to better themselves and just drives this entitlement culture that has set in.

My political persuasions are none of your business, thanks.

They are if you're expelling people out of their homes and areas just to satisfy the property developers greed.

enda1

old hippy wrote: »

They are if you're expelling people out of their homes and areas just to satisfy the property developers greed.

I'm not expelling anyone. Again, thanks for putting words in my mouth.

There is nothing wrong with property developers trying to run a successful profitable company.

Doing so provides growth, jobs and prosperity.

Pandering to your ideologies leads to hyper taxation, social inequity and recession.

Jack B. Badd

Let's get this thread back on topic, shall we?

If anyone wants to discuss specifics of the benefits system, economy, housing costs, gentrification, etc., please feel free to start a new thread.

Thank you,
Jack

old hippy

Fair enough. I have been here a while and I do like it but am yearning for the day when I can leave these islands. London ain't no shangri la.

That said, it's head and shoulders above Dublin, in terms of amenities, things to do, public transport and so forth.

ballsymchugh

old hippy wrote: »

Fair enough. I have been here a while and I do like it but am yearning for the day when I can leave these islands. London ain't no shangri la.

That said, it's head and shoulders above Dublin, in terms of amenities, things to do, public transport and so forth.

should've been at the last beers then, the LSD was superb.

old hippy

ballsymchugh wrote: »

should've been at the last beers then, the LSD was superb.

Nope. Right over my head, that one.

ballsymchugh

old hippy wrote: »

Nope. Right over my head, that one.

maybe you had to be there. there's always the next one.

just watching location, location, location and there's 2 couples looking for their own place in london. it's times like this i'm glad i'm outside the m25, but then again, if i was closer, would i be watching this on a thursday night....

bluewhitehoops

it all depend on what the person want out of life. I love london, I cannot see myself ever leaving the big city but there are downside to living in london if you are not loaded. I dont think i will ever be able to buy a 3 bedroom in london but that don't bother me at all.

philologos

old hippy wrote: »

Nope. Right over my head, that one.

You ought to come to the next one. We were all saying that it'd be great to see the hippy himself in person