daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > London Metro Area > Speakers' Corner

Speakers' Corner For London related discussion



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 6th, 2011, 12:45 PM   #1
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,345
Likes (Received): 292

Social housing policy

First, apologies for starting a political thread, which I think is supposed to be the exception rather than the rule.

But social housing often comes up as an issue in other threads, because "affordable housing" policy affects every large residential development, particularly so in London where market-priced housing is painfully expensive or unaffordable for many. I for one often start banging on about this and feel I'm risking taking project-based threads off-topic, so (just as with the Boris thread) I think it's worth having a separate thread to conduct the lightning. I hope others agree – if not I guess it can be moved to the Skybar, though I never go there myself so I hope not.

The issue was in the news a couple of days ago, when it emerged that the Government hopes to encourage local authorities to move people earning over £100k out of council houses. The example is cited of the union leader Bob Crow, who earns something like £140k yet chooses to remain (as is currently his right) in his council house in London, thereby having his rent heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...cil-homes.html

Having spotted that story on the Telegraph website, and finding it staggering that people with such high incomes could be subsidized by the rest of us, I followed the links to two older stories:

From October last year, the revelation that over 90,000 people "inherited" the right to their social housing from their parents, regardless of their own current circumstances – I imagine that includes many of those earning over £100k. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...cil-homes.html

And, from August last year, David Cameron saying that fixed-length tenancies should be introduced, effectively ending the right to a council house for life for new council tenants - though as far as I know this change hasn't happened yet. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...d-Cameron.html

I also remember the decision to cap housing benefit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11633163.

Several issues relating to social housing come up from time to time on SSC, or are raised by these stories:

- A significant part of the housing stock was built by councils, especially in the post-WW2 decades. Unfortunately that coincided with what many see as a low point in architecture and planning, though the homes are often generous in size. Some of this housing stock has already been demolished, and other parts are in a poor state of repair. Many of the cheaply built “tower blocks” are what gave tall buildings a bad reputation in Britain (which we're only now recovering from thanks to some top-end, very high-quality projects such as the Gherkin, Pan Peninsula and the Shard) – this has really held back modern architecture here.

- The right-to-buy policy, started in the 1980s, successfully increased owner-occupation and lifted many families out of state-dependency. However, it also diminished the social housing stock, and there is now a long waiting list for social housing in many areas. Demand has grown, reflecting in part tougher economic times and in part population growth (including through immigration). There is perhaps also a more widely held expectation that social housing should be available – a cultural shift in the opposite direction from that encouraged by right-to-buy.

- Councils routinely require the developers of major new private-sector housing schemes to include a significant (e.g. 25%, 33%, even 40%) proportion of “affordable” homes, in an attempt to rebuild the social housing stock, and in a way that is more integrated than in the age of large council estates. That is a major public-sector economic intervention in the housing market, which has several arguably unfortunate consequences: taxpayers' money is invested in an already inflated market, exacerbating and prolonging high prices, and a poor investment on the taxpayer's behalf if the bubble bursts; by adding a burden to developers (although guaranteeing some sales) it is a disincentive to their investing in new schemes, so that less housing may be developed overall; it may also encourage polarization of the market, as developers build the “affordable” element to the minimum spec required and attempt to compensate for those lower-value homes by targeting the rest of the development at the prime end of the market, so that the middle market is neglected.

- The fact that people are entitled to hold onto their council houses indefinitely, regardless of whether they would still qualify on the basis of need, and can pass them on to their offspring, may foster a culture of dependency, in which some people feel entitled to accommodation and income which most other people have to work for, and in which there is little incentive to get a good job (or even any job), and therefore little incentive first to get a decent education.

- In much of central London, and in the smarter suburbs, and in many hotspots of high prices elsewhere in the country, demand for property is such that without social housing, we would have rich ghettos in which people on middle and low incomes would move out entirely; the combination of right-to-buy and the housing benefit cap is likely to move some areas in that direction. On one level that is fair – why should taxpayers shell out for someone to live in a mansion in Hampstead? – but it may also be socially undesirable to have rich-only areas.

I'm not an expert in housing policy, and I have no direct personal experience of social housing (though I did live in a former council flat for a few years), so I'd be interested to hear others' opinions.

But my own view is that social housing should essentially be temporary accommodation, provided by charities where possible and local authorities where necessary, for those in genuine need – for example, people who have lost their jobs, people working in very poorly-paid jobs but in expensive areas, people unable to work owing to disability, pensioners with insufficient income to house themselves, recent immigrants who are starting from scratch – i.e. people who might otherwise be homeless.

Most of those people should hope to get out into privately rented or privately owned accommodation when their fortunes improve and they can afford it, and they should be obliged to move out if they are earning a more than average salary (something like £35k+).

The idea of holding onto social housing for life regardless of need, or of living in social housing despite earning a good salary (£40k, £50k, £60k) seems unfair to people in genuine need, and to the rest of the population who have to pay their own way, so the steps the coalition government is taking seem to be in the right direction, with scope to go further (e.g. the £100k limit could be much lower).

Meanwhile I'd like to see developers freed up from the need to build lots of so-called “affordable” homes and instead encouraged to get far more homes built overall, easing the supply and demand imbalance and thereby bringing prices down, making homes actually more affordable for everyone.

Am I right or wrong?
__________________
dibble music

Last edited by Officer Dibble; June 6th, 2011 at 01:04 PM.
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old June 6th, 2011, 07:33 PM   #2
randolph
Registered User
 
randolph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,804
Likes (Received): 73

I know several people who live in social, council owned, housing. All are highly educated with the ability to earn good incomes but have used the social housing system , and the benefits system to allow themselves a more 'relaxed' approach to life which does not entail working 9 - 5. These homes were not intended for middle class people who want to use the system to opt out of the system. They were intended, and should still be for, people who are only able to earn a lower wage. Another problem is that thery are all single - these homes were always intended for couples and families - it is no wonder then that many with a genuine need can not find housing.
__________________
See me, hear me, feel me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiwfnLf-MN0
randolph no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2011, 07:35 PM   #3
davidaiow
Registered User
 
davidaiow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London E14/Isle of Wight
Posts: 545
Likes (Received): 6

My question is simple. Would we need social housing, in its current form, if the government allowed and encouraged developers to build more properties and increase urban density?

If we had a larger housing supply, costs would surely naturally decrease, meaning many more people could afford to own their own property, or at least rent one at an affordable price. The fact that studios cost £250-350pw in zone 1-2 is disgusting, and decreases many people's quality of life. This build more model is surely much more sustainable too?

I think the issue here probably extends further than social housing and is once based on a culture where we have a genuinely large gap between the rich and the poor.

I agree with your charity run idea too, with some help from local councils too of course.
davidaiow no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2011, 07:39 PM   #4
hellolazyness
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,588
Likes (Received): 4

It's absurd that rich and/or people capable of being fairly well off get council housing. It basically steals it from the kind of people it's really for It also inflates rental and house prices for everybody else. So cheers to them, eh?
On another note I see no reason why housing has to be hideous looking if cheap. Smacks of a lack of creativity. Uniform perhaps, but not ugly.
hellolazyness no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2011, 07:43 PM   #5
hellolazyness
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,588
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
he fact that studios cost £250-350pw in zone 1-2 is disgusting, and decreases many people's quality of life. T
Yep and even if your spending 350k you're not getting even a luxury studio! Just a box with a fridge and bed. What the hell's that about!
hellolazyness no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2011, 07:49 PM   #6
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,345
Likes (Received): 292

So far I think we're all pretty much agreed. Anyone take an opposing view?

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
My question is simple. Would we need social housing, in its current form, if the government allowed and encouraged developers to build more properties and increase urban density?
I think we'd need less of it, or at the very least get rid of the long waiting lists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellolazyness View Post
On another note I see no reason why housing has to be hideous looking if cheap. Smacks of a lack of creativity. Uniform perhaps, but not ugly.
This might be another problem with the way things currently work: developers building social housing don't really have any incentive to make it attractive - since they bypass the market, they have no need to respond to market signals. In those circumstances some quite prescriptive design standards, or even model designs that can just be rolled out, might help. But primarily it would be better for a larger proportion of the housing stock to be for private sale or rent - then there'd be every incentive to build homes people want - i.e. ones that look nice.
__________________
dibble music
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2011, 08:44 PM   #7
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 2,934
Likes (Received): 347

Housing in the UK has become a form of market failure on a significant scale. Over the past 15 years or so, property sizes have been shrinking yet prices increasing, mostly way above wage-growth levels. The normal laws of the free market aren't working, as if they were we should be seeing suppliers offering cheaper or better quality products - i.e. larger and cheaper housing. Part of the reason is that housing isn't like any other market (land is fixed, homes play a social function, etc). Another reason is because suppressed demand is so high and the number of suppliers is too small - too much of the market is in the hands of a few giant developers which has led to a lack of competition and an oligopoly.

Most other OCED countries have new builds which are on average much larger than older buildings, yet the UK is the opposite. Average sizes in Britain are now under 80m; in Japan, a far more crowded country, it is 130m2. In the Netherlands, the most densely populated European state, it is 110m2. The US and Australia now have new builds which are close to 3x bigger on average. Only Italy is close to Britain at around 88m2. This is a worrying sign and will make the UK uncompetitive for the future.

What to do? Well, a big issue is the rental market. Unless you're under 30 and have no kids, most people don't want to rent as your rights are crap and leases are often too short (it's often forgotten that Thatcher removed the right to long-leases in the late 80s). We need to make renting an attractive choice, as currently you can't blame people for milking social housing because naturally we all want the best. There needs to be a greater range of suppliers, not just small-time individual landlords. Large developers, Co-ops, the council, etc. Long-term leases of 10,15,20 years need to come back and individuals need to be given more freedom to do what they want with the property.

But this is just the start.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2011, 09:01 PM   #8
hellolazyness
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,588
Likes (Received): 4

Long leases is a good idea, but the problem is now people don't like taking them because after a while a tenant has so many legal rights it becomes very hard to increase the rent to contemporary market rates. They take advantage of the owner. Farm tenancies are often hereditary now which is absurd - a rule introduced by the labour government in the 40s I think because they were under the mistaken assumption that the kind of people renting them were proles! lol!
hellolazyness no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2011, 09:42 PM   #9
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 2,934
Likes (Received): 347

But a large part of that is because the rental market in the UK is dominated by individual landlords. As I said, we need different types of suppliers like in other countries. For example I'm sure in Germany that one of the largest renters is the local authority. I'm not talking about subsidised government housing, but regular property. As well as regulation and legislation, we need more players in the game.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 01:08 AM   #10
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 25,852
Likes (Received): 15779

Aside from London, the city I know most about is Atlanta.

Atlanta was the first city in the United States to build social housing, during the depression of the 30s. Much like London, the public housing was built for society's poorest.

Atlanta has now just become the first city in the United States to completely demolish all their housing projects. First city to get them = first city to get rid of them. Much like London, the housing estates were where the poverty and crime was concentrated. Most criminal offenders in the Atlanta area lived in one of the Atlanta estates.

Atlanta is in the process of replacing their housing estates with mixed-income communities. Here's a news clip of what's going on in Atlanta... including the arguments and counter arguments of Atlanta demolishing all its housing estates:




An option for London?
__________________
-



-
SE9 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 02:00 AM   #11
RichW1
In Pursuit Of The Future
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 177
Likes (Received): 0

Mixed income communities is fine in some instances but those people that earn a lot of money should have the right to live in exclusive areas if they so wish without having poor aesthetic builds around them as well as the social issues that go with that housing wherever it is. The pc thing is to say its snobbish but we all know the issues that surround social housing and most people who earn a lot of money (contrary to much press) work damn hard and have earnt the right to eradicate the risk of being surrounded by potential issues that do not surround them in gated wealthy communities. It's a socialist policy that sucks. Mixed communities should be encouraged but not to the detriment of those that don't wish to be in such a community for many reasons many of which have been outlined in terms of quality of housing and its aesthetic. This housing if built poorly will also be defining the British landscape for generations to come and as far as I know, mediocrity and compromise does not a grand development make. We should be allowing all types of developments with different incentives and subsidies not forcing people to live in some socialist lefty utopian vision that will never work for all. Dictators in socialist countries did something similar I believe - offer one option up and you have to like it - no thanks.
RichW1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 02:23 PM   #12
mulattokid
BLAND
 
mulattokid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London
Posts: 8,721
Likes (Received): 283

^ No one is asking or telling you or anyone else to live anywhere so what are you talking about?? You can earn as much as you like. The more you earn the more you are able to separate yourself from 'typical' society and best of luck to you.

However, if you are not earning as much as you think you deserve and can only afford to live in mixed communities around humans below you, then I for one would understand your disappointing and the right of right wing ranting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer Dibble View Post
.

Am I right or wrong?

The big downside I see to forcing people to move out when you exceed a certain income is this:

What happens to an an estate or area of housing if everytiime someones income reach a certain level they have to move out?

So for example, just a you are getting to the point that you can afford to send your children to evening classes and activities rather than them hang around in the street. Just at the time you can afford to make you home and surroundings really nice and just as you can have a nice car(if you drive) go on nice holidays, Improve yourself generally etc, you are moved away.

In your place is moved in another family at the bottom of the pile.

Does the area that would normally have a mixture of incomes and with a general movement toward improvement over the years become a permanent poor zone?


Does the area never settle down with permanent residents - instead being an itinerated and temporary place?

Does the place become a monoculture of peoples that for various reasons (low ability - disability - mental health issues - criminality etc) cannot move on?

Does it become a 'true' ghetto in the American sense, that we have never seen in this country before?
__________________
Quote: "Everything in life is our fault...but that's not our fault" (By a friend of Quentin Crisp)
www.jclodge.com (my singer sisters site)
The headlines read: 'another footballer is charged with sexual miscontuct'!

Is it pure coincidence that a mans ******* resembles a brain - requisite with both hemispheres, and its truncated spinal cord - always in search of sensation?
(Mark Joseph 2008)

Last edited by mulattokid; June 7th, 2011 at 02:35 PM.
mulattokid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 02:49 PM   #13
Mwmbwls
Registered User
 
Mwmbwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 927
Likes (Received): 219

it is important to remember that councils together with the private sector build houses but that people live in homes. There is a subtle but important difference.
One of the best things Margaret Thatcher ever did was to let people buy their own homes - note she and other politicians thought they were selling houses. One of the worst things she ever did was to then stop councils reinvesting the proceeds of these sales into building further new housing. I do not accept the generalisation that all council houss lacked architectural merit - yes when there was a move into system building of tower blocks the builders did not understand the limitations of the building's lifespan and the social issues that would be caused. Many people lept at the chance to buy their homes - particularly the Parker Morris standard houses - almost universally the estates they were on had not been built with increased car use so front gardens got paved over. The politican's mistake was to assume that the ladders of social mobility put down after the second world war were no longer needed and that social housing was something only for the poor - thus they "built sink estates" and the associated underclass. What is needed is for the resumption of housing being built by local authorities with the incentive that after being a good tenant, for say twenty years, you can buy your own home. set rents to cover the interest on the investment and pay off the capital debt with the sale proceeds. From this forum's point of view it would mean that councils could specify houses that were not poky boxes with high standards of construction that could play a long term role in the country's housing stock.It is a national disgrace that people who need a home join waiting lists that stretch to infinity. This hoohah about Bob Crowe and where he lives in just is self serving political and media froth. It is a symptom that the system is not working.I do wish they would stop messing with the symptoms and start to tackle the causes. Better house make better homes and better home make better people - As that annoying meer-cat puts it - Simples
Mwmbwls está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 03:52 PM   #14
Octoman
Just Relax
 
Octoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,606
Likes (Received): 2938

Its a nonsense that someone on £100k or more per year should get to live in government subsidised housing.

Personally I think we need to change the mindset of people in council housing to thinking of it as a stopgap solution rather than a lifestyle choice. A review of each tennant every 3 years and immediate eviction if they dont meet a strict set of criteria would do that. After 10 years anyone still stuck should be subject to a thorough review and relocated if necessary. e.g if someone has failed to find productive work for 10 years do they really need to be in an expensive council house in London? Should they be moved to a cheaper property to free theirs up for someone who is able to take advantage of the location? The advantage of this is that we can save money by building council stock on less expensive, more remote land to house the people who genuinely have no hope.

Combine that with freeing up land and encouraging more private sector home building and we probably have a long term solution.

Also, we should stop forcing affordable housing quotas on new developments. It leads to ridiculous situations where subsidised homes end up in the most expensive locations in the UK. If we want to provide the maximum amount of housing for the minimum outlay we need to build on cheaper land e.g East London / Gateshead.
__________________
You don't pull a person up by pulling another person down.
Octoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 05:05 PM   #15
mulattokid
BLAND
 
mulattokid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London
Posts: 8,721
Likes (Received): 283

Are we not in danger of heading backward into dangerous times?

The headlines across the news a few days age were that most young Britons do not expect to be able to buy their own homes.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Bri...788265787.html

http://itn.co.uk/business/20032/homeownership


As house prices are now beyond almost everyone, the alternative for those that have not yet reached the property ladder (without social housing) is to rent on the open market.

Would that mean that young people will end up paying a majority of their salary....for possibly the rest of their lives, into the pockets of those fortunate enough to have more than one property? Its next to impossible to save for a deposit required these days. Only the children of the very wealthy will be able to own property.

A promise was made to (the vast majority of) people in this country on coming home for fighting for it in WWII, that they and their children would never find themselves slaves to unscrupulous landlords ever again? My mother was thrown out of her privately rented flat when I was a baby because she had the nerve to complain about the leaking roof in the bedroom. That was in 1967.

Personally, I think its unfair that the young are condemned to spend most of their hard earned income on just staying dry at night. Also, Britain during the boom years has become a place for foreign investors to buy up property and let it out, helping to push up the prices still further.

As far as I can find, the average cost of renting a flat in Paris -France is around £400 -500 per month. http://www.connexionfrance.com/renti...w-article.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8231536AAhKVsI

http://parisbynumbers.com/2008/03/02...rrondissement/

In London its around £1000 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...nth-barrier.do

The same disparity in occurs in averages across both countries. http://www.rentright.co.uk/00_00_00_1_00_rrpi.aspx




Maybe a better idea would be that those who live in social housing actually get to own their own property and the rent taken into account on buying (the right to by idea under the Tories) The difference would be that the social housing management would get to build new housing with the profits (banned under the last Tory Gov. The money was used to keep council tax down) Only quality housing should be built so that it is easily saleable on the open market.

The incentive would be to be rent free and be able to sell and move on or leave it to your kids etc. For those that cant or choose not to, well the rent they pay will eventually more than the cost of building the house. I would not personally run 'housing benefit' indefinitely for those that do not work, other for the ill or infirm.

I am not convinced that the young of this country are going to accept this.
__________________
Quote: "Everything in life is our fault...but that's not our fault" (By a friend of Quentin Crisp)
www.jclodge.com (my singer sisters site)
The headlines read: 'another footballer is charged with sexual miscontuct'!

Is it pure coincidence that a mans ******* resembles a brain - requisite with both hemispheres, and its truncated spinal cord - always in search of sensation?
(Mark Joseph 2008)
mulattokid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2011, 02:44 AM   #16
RichW1
In Pursuit Of The Future
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 177
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by mulattokid View Post
^ No one is asking or telling you or anyone else to live anywhere so what are you talking about?? You can earn as much as you like. The more you earn the more you are able to separate yourself from 'typical' society and best of luck to you.

However, if you are not earning as much as you think you deserve and can only afford to live in mixed communities around humans below you, then I for one would understand your disappointing and the right of right wing ranting.

The big downside I see to forcing people to move out when you exceed a certain income is this:

What happens to an an estate or area of housing if everytiime someones income reach a certain level they have to move out?

So for example, just a you are getting to the point that you can afford to send your children to evening classes and activities rather than them hang around in the street. Just at the time you can afford to make you home and surroundings really nice and just as you can have a nice car(if you drive) go on nice holidays, Improve yourself generally etc, you are moved away.

In your place is moved in another family at the bottom of the pile.

Does the area that would normally have a mixture of incomes and with a general movement toward improvement over the years become a permanent poor zone?


Does the area never settle down with permanent residents - instead being an itinerated and temporary place?

Does the place become a monoculture of peoples that for various reasons (low ability - disability - mental health issues - criminality etc) cannot move on?

Does it become a 'true' ghetto in the American sense, that we have never seen in this country before?
You miss my point with your socialist rant. People WILL be forced to live where some don't want to contrary to your opinion. The policy is made to enforce the policy that social housing must be included in all large housing developments. Therefore by default people are being forced to live in mixed communities which may sound a great utopian idea but completely ignores human nature and reality.

Whether or not I earn a lot of money I do not think I am above anyone, however, I do wish to set myself aside from POTENTIAL issues surrounding social housing areas which isn't being right wing, more using my hard work to want the best for me and my family to be surrounded by. We all start mostly in mixed areas, but if I work ******* hard in my life and am fortunate then I believe I also have a right not to be surrounded by the problems the sadly is more common in areas with social housing along with statistically higher crime levels and poor building design. It might be unpalatable to you but those are the facts I'm afraid. You will never get many humans wanting to live in the same mixed communities they did as young professionals. I'm not saying ghettos are good but socialist policy dictat is just unrealistic. I don't want to live in a country wherr hard work is not rewarded in terms of where and how people like. Some people want to live in mixed housing communitiesnand others don't. This policy removes choice and to say we can no longerbuilt a millionaire's estate because of social housing policy is inverted snobbery and ridiculous social engineering.

It had nothing to do with thinking people are less than others and everything to do with freedom of choice. The hard truth people want to stick their heads in the sand about here is that social housing whilst being vital and needed for many of us, also brings with it higher potential for types of people and traits we'd rather not be surrounded by when we can afford not to be. This is why, before this policy got as meaty as it has, places emerged as millionaire suburbia like Virginia Water. Under this policy such places can't be made again. That I find just as apphorant as the problems people face in poor ghettos. You can't legislate away social exclusion and human nature. The way to eradicate such poor ghettos is through education and helping people to help themselves work their way out but that's easier saidthan done. By dictating a policy that lumps social housing in with other housing all the time is a crap answer that will not change who people wish to socialise with. What do you think will happen when this utopian vision emerges? We'll all be drinking coffee together and the problems will all go away? Of course they won't. All this policy does is eat at those who want freedom of choice about where and how they livewithout being dictated to.

Last edited by RichW1; June 8th, 2011 at 02:51 AM.
RichW1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2011, 10:58 AM   #17
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 2,934
Likes (Received): 347

You really are a ******* clueless idiot
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2011, 12:13 PM   #18
RichW1
In Pursuit Of The Future
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 177
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848 View Post
You really are a ******* clueless idiot
Be intelligent for a change and state your case instead of a swipe without foundation. You'll find real life experience will go a long way to teaching you some hard life truths.

Find one part in what I've said in either of the posts above which is not true. You appear to be another one that doesn't like the reality of life and how most of us choose to live. Live in your utopian world if you want to, I'm merely saying you can't social engineer this to work as simply ghettos will still be created as wealthier people won't move into such developments easily.

You can hate it all you like; it's simply human nature for most people that given the choice, they wouldn't move into areas with 30% social housing - fact. I suggest you obtain a little experience.

This policy should work for inner London without too many problems as people there are there for urbanity and the mix that makes London what it is. In the suburbs of the home counties I cannot see how this would work at all well. Social housing programs are desperately needed but the blanket policy of social housing quotas is not the way forward. The last time such a policy was excercised, poorer people ended up being isolated miles away from jobs and opportunities and they live with the consequences of idealist policy to this day. In cities this policy works well because all are near opportunity. Housing poorer people in communities miles away with no hope of accessing skills or opportunity for the sake of a social housing quota is ridiculous and makes the disadvantaged even more disadvantaged.

Last edited by RichW1; June 8th, 2011 at 12:30 PM.
RichW1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2011, 01:07 PM   #19
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 2,934
Likes (Received): 347

Lol, you have no idea of my background, experiences and I doubt even my age. But anyway.....

Quote:
Find one part in what I've said in either of the posts above which is not true. You appear to be another one that doesn't like the reality of life and how most of us choose to live. Live in your utopian world if you want to, I'm merely saying you can't social engineer this to work as simply ghettos will still be created as wealthier people won't move into such developments easily.
So consumed are you by your own ideology that you have a massive rant against something which wasn't even suggested.

You go on about how people will be forced to live in mixed communities as all large housing development will contain a degree of social housing and that millionaire enclaves will be a thing of the past.

First, not all housing is part of a large development and the majority of Britons continue to live in older housing stock. There would not, for example, be a mass bulldozing of the millions of inter and post-war semi-detaches which swamp most of England. As such, there would remain plenty of districts where someone who has no desire to mix with those on benefits can do so.

Second, did you even watch that clip? It said it was replacing government housing with mixed communities; it didn't say it was replacing all housing developments with such concepts. Hence, your assumption that all new housing development, if we follow this model, will contain social housing is false. I assume you believe it would be like affordable homes, but we can't know, plus under the current zoning laws (which is how they make developers include affordable housing) I don't believe every new built housing development is required to contain x% of affordable stock. Even if they do, it may not be the case with social housing because of differing demand, council policies, etc.

Third, you don't seem to realise we already have mixed-income areas. This is not just new developments like GMV either. Because of the-right-buy, many former estates/council own streets have families and individuals of varying income levels and socio-economic backgrounds. Similarly, much council housing was built on a small scale and integrated into wealthy streets. I use to live with someone who grew up close to Belize Park on a street which was social housing, but which was put of a larger network of mostly wealthy homes.

Fourth, you continue to espouse the myth that our economic system dictates a correlation between wealth and hardwork. It doesn't quite do so and that was never the aim (although it was claimed it would partly happen as a byproduct). There are many people, small businessmen such as newsagent owners, who work 60+ hours a week but earn around only the median (or under) income. Similarly, there are those who live off the fat of the land, or who got lucky because the service/product they were involved in suddenly became in high demand. Our economic system is based on the idea of supply and demand, not hard work/average work. What causes high demand is not always the result of actions by the producer, and inferior services and goods can out sell better ones.

Avocation for capitalism was that a) it was an efficient and automatic mechanism of allocating resources; b) that despite any inequalities or lotteries that may arise, it would, by its vary nature, improve the lot of everyone, increasingly life quality across the board. To put simply, it would lead to services and goods of greater quality, increased quantity and lower prices. As such, the cleaner who works 50 hrs a week on unsocial hours benefits in other ways because products and services become affordable and of better quality.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2011, 01:37 PM   #20
Octoman
Just Relax
 
Octoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,606
Likes (Received): 2938

I don't know why some people are so obsessed with focing groups of individuals to live together who would rather not. It never has and never will work.
__________________
You don't pull a person up by pulling another person down.
Octoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu