SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1 - 20 of 112 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I think to many Londoners not familiar with south east london( ie those north of the river) this area is a mystery. I was in Woolwich and Plumstead the other day and its was fascinating and very interesting.The amount of great victorian housing stock is unbelivable!This must needless to say have been a very significant area in victorian times with the woolwich arsenal as it feels Very Big and has presence and it has immense potential.Has some fantastic views of London from its hills and winding lanes.:cheers:

Unfortunately so much of it is and has been ruined by neglect and poor taste ie painting and stone cladding etc.It is presently very run down and poor in most parts although plumstead is starting to see the gentrification that charlton has witnessed; and it has some of the worst council estates ive ever seen, in fact i would say in parts it looks like the roughest part of London.

However with proper investment this last former great area of london should be reveived and completely regenerated.Its town centre has some brilliant victorian architecture and the public market could be another great asset to London, i had a look at berkely homes regeneration of woolwich dockyard and theyve done a fine job.

Boris and the GLA should forget building 200,000 new homes in the thames gateway and should regenerate woolwich and plumstead as they could be so much more than they are presently
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,416 Posts
So let me get this straight you think the great housing stock in this area is being wasted on the people who live there and that the area needs to be gentrified so that you and rich people can enjoy the delights Woolwich and Plumstead has to offer without feeling like they are in the "roughest part of London". Got it.
 

·
Bird
Joined
·
17,025 Posts
So let me get this straight you think the great housing stock in this area is being wasted on the people who live there and that the area needs to be gentrified so that you and rich people can enjoy the delights Woolwich and Plumstead has to offer without feeling like they are in the "roughest part of London". Got it.
Quite.

It's sad to see the title and wrongly anticipate a celebration of an area that is yet to succumb to a swarming infestation of Foxtons Minis, overpriced delicatessens and gastro-pubs - only to find that it is instead the exact opposite - a soulless, snobbish, pompous, venal and gimlet eyed vision akin to that of a colonial power greedily plotting to plunder the resources of an impoverished country.
 

·
Bird
Joined
·
17,025 Posts
I think the suggestion is that, unlike areas such as, say, Tottenham, Stonebridge Park or perhaps even nearby Thamesmead, the area is grand or splendid in some way - i.e. too good for the plebs with no 'taste' currently living there.

For me, the reference to "housing stock" sums up the whole sorry gist of the original poster's intentions for the thread - properties viewed merely as an interchangeable assets or bullion, as opposed to homes for living in.
 

·
Moderator
South East Nine
Joined
·
40,777 Posts
The Woolwich/Plumstead area is dominanted by several large housing estates (Woolwich Common, Connaught, Glyndon, Dockyard, Barnfield, Morris Walk, Burrage)... easily amongst the worst in London that I've seen, and I've seen many.

You won't get many of your latte-sipping friends moving to those victorian houses in a hurry, as long as those estates are still dotted-around in their current form.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
aaaarrgh..sorry for using the dreaded word 'gentrification'..i should be strung up by the middle class internet warrior hardnuts here.All i was saying was this area could be so much more, housing has and should have nothing to do with making money..bottom line its just where you kip at night and where your family lives.

As for you bigbossman( **** of a name by the way) who are you to put words in my mouth knobhead, of course rich people arent going to move to woolwich and plumstead you wankstain, what i was saying was the area should be improved including all those terrible housing estates( many of which would shame eastern europe) so that the area can be improved and an option for more families to settle down who work in london.Dont make assumptions about anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Woolwich has got alot better in recent years quite a few riverside appartments being built and lots already built, plumstead on the other hand is a filthy horrible place for the most part. There are however Far worst places in London. just cross the river and have a look around parts of Newham Borough and you will know what im talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,521 Posts
So let me get this straight you think the great housing stock in this area is being wasted on the people who live there and that the area needs to be gentrified so that you and rich people can enjoy the delights Woolwich and Plumstead has to offer without feeling like they are in the "roughest part of London". Got it.
That the poor people live in such housing stock is to know benefit of their own. Old grand houses or even smaller semi's call for greater maintenance costs than smaller terrace housing. A lot of the larger houses will be sub-divided into flats and most likely poorly laid out inside. Whereas a well-off person can afford the costs of higher energy costs, damp removal, etc. these guys may struggle.

Add to this are these people living in the right location? There is a London premium for living close to the best paying jobs in the country, and unless you have too then more of your income is disappearing on the same number of goods and services bought elsewhere.

Unemployment tends to be higher than the national average in deprived boroughs so improved job opportunities is a missing advantage for such areas.

Is it healthy? Surely it is healthier to live in a town outside of London where there is more open space, trees, countryside, less traffic and less crime. Cities are unhealthy for all but if you are missing the upside of city living then why accept the downside.

I am economist and I fail to see the advantage for anyone in allocating large swathes of scarce housing to poor people so that you can satisfy some need for social unfamiliarity. It benefits no one...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,521 Posts
You're just shipping the people on lower income further out of London.
And why's that a bad thing?

Think of another scenario, people on lower incomes can afford a second hand Jaguar or Rolls Royce and why should we deprive them of such with government intervention? I.e. we should keep fuel duty low to allow the poor the same opportunities to drive luxury cars...

However there are hidden expenses to owning an old luxury car, which puts pressure on the income of the owner, okay if you are rich but not if you are poor. The same is true of living in London...

Arguments against gentrification are lazy and are centred on emotion and on the interests of no one.
 

·
Bird
Joined
·
17,025 Posts
And why's that a bad thing?

Think of another scenario, people on lower incomes can afford a second hand Jaguar or Rolls Royce and why should we deprive them of such with government intervention? I.e. we should keep fuel duty low to allow the poor the same opportunities to drive luxury cars...

However there are hidden expenses to owning an old luxury car, which puts pressure on the income of the owner, okay if you are rich but not if you are poor. The same is true of living in London...

Arguments against gentrification are lazy and are centred on emotion and on the interests of no one.
Congratulations on setting a new benchmark in addled bullshit.

Good for you.
 
1 - 20 of 112 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top