Brixton news, rumours and general chat

[nagapie]

The price of flats on the open market is a reliable indicator of how desirable they are.

Your experience is unrepresentative.

It's representative of those people for whom the price of flats on the open market means nothing as it's never ever going to be affordable. So representative of the majority of the population.
Many of these blocks you think should be built will be bought by developers and used for tourists, overseas students or London's transient working population. Is that representative?
As Gramsci said, it's not tall building that are the problem, it's how they're built or used. If built for the rich, penthouses. When built for the poor, covered in flammable cladding. Green space is important, should people not protect it? Do working class Londoners not deserve good outdoor space or should they just be happy to have a resting place so they can carry on working to service the rich?

 

[edcraw]

If you mean Poynders Gardens - yes quite right - built like a tank.
On the other side of the road however you had Poynders Court - probably OK now, but when I represented the area it was the block from hell with shooting up in the stairways and some totally derelict flats.
Story was apparently that the block belonged to a barrister via Channel Islands companies and he was immune to Environmental Health notices from the council by virtue of his legal knowledge and off-shore ownership.
I believe its all nicely tidied up now - though I haven't been to look.
Poynders Gardens (LCC social housing originally)
View attachment 375308

Poynders Court - 1930s private rental block - ill used and still to my eye a bit knackered
View attachment 375309

Regarding useless blocks I have the answer

We were Cotton House but very similar design & yes, lots of problems apparently until they put the gates on the entrances.

Cotton House

https://maps.app.goo.gl/3ow127B8VeW515J8A?g_st=ic

 

[jimbarkanoodle]

I work in a community and have done for 20 years where families have been waiting for housing for years. None of them want a tower block or they could have moved by now. Some have been moved temporarily into council tower blocks and are desperate to get out.

Fair play. Everyone should be entitled to decent housing, no matter what their situation. What do the council do though? The social housing stock is very limited and unfortunately we all know that isn't going to change for the better any time soon. We desperately need to house people in this city and I can't see the issue with it being high up as long as the housing is of good quality and those with mobility problems are able to access it.

 

[Gramsci]

Coincidentally I was watching Novara media just now and squatting came up.

From about twenty minutes in.

Discussion started about how private land owners use thugs
Sorry security firms to get rid of people.

Then they started on short history of squatting.

Question Bastini put was why was it outlawed?

The thesis he puts forward is that it upsets property relations.

In society such as ours property ownership is considered sacrosanct. Why cant landlords put up rent?

That is how things are.

As points out in other cultures property is not seen as ownership to be used for personal profit.

But as a form of stewardship. Used for benefit of community as as whole.

This in our common law lasted for a long time. Basis of squatting is that if land was not being used you could use it.

This of course in present age is threat to all those who use property for profit.

Cant have that. So its outlawed.

Squatting challenged the normative view of property / land ownership for profit so had to be out lawed.

 

[Gramsci]

Fair play. Everyone should be entitled to decent housing, no matter what their situation. What do the council do though? The social housing stock is very limited and unfortunately we all know that isn't going to change for the better any time soon. We desperately need to house people in this city and I can't see the issue with it being high up as long as the housing is of good quality and those with mobility problems are able to access it.

I see plenty of new high housing in Nine Elms. Mm. Can I afford it? Can any average person afford it?

BTW who is the "We" ?

As from my standpoint there is no "We" there is them and us.

That is Landlords/ property developers vs working class londoners.

Its not what is built it is who its for.

As far as I can see the Nine Elms is for the rich.

 

[nagapie]

Fair play. Everyone should be entitled to decent housing, no matter what their situation. What do the council do though? The social housing stock is very limited and unfortunately we all know that isn't going to change for the better any time soon. We desperately need to house people in this city and I can't see the issue with it being high up as long as the housing is of good quality and those with mobility problems are able to access it.

I think we've seen enough to know that any decent high rises are not going to be given over to social housing.

 

[edcraw]

I see plenty of new high housing in Nine Elms. Mm. Can I afford it? Can any average person afford it?

BTW who is the "We" ?

As from my standpoint there is no "We" there is them and us.

That is Landlords/ property developers vs working class londoners.

Its not what is built it is who its for.

As far as I can see the Nine Elms is for the rich.

Wandsworth certainly let them get away with minimal/no social housing. Bits of the Lambeth stuff does have social housing though and more “affordable”.

 

[Gramsci]

Wandsworth certainly let them get away with minimal/no social housing. Bits of the Lambeth stuff does have social housing though and more “affordable”.

Yes. On the basis of counting shared ownership ( which is a con) and 80 percent market rent as making up affiordable.

Across the Thames, opposite Nine Elms, is a large post war built Council estate in Pimlico. Someone I work with grew up their and got a flat when he became an adult. As that is how it worked post war. Homes fit for Heroes and all that.

Plus Communism was seen as a threat post war. So had to give the working classes something in case they got drawn to communism. Difficult to imagine but at one point communism was an alternative.

Definitely versions of socialism was considered post war the way to go. ie bread and butter issues like housing.

The Neo liberal version of housing is Nine Elms.

It is political choices that give this country the kind of housing it has. It is not inevitable that that ordinary people get pushed out of London by house prices.

 

[pbsmooth]

Churchill Gardens? A friend of mine owns a flat there, nice buildings and great location.

 

[pbsmooth]

The price of flats on the open market is a reliable indicator of how desirable they are.

Your experience is unrepresentative.

Well lots of london flats have dropped in value last 5 years or so, or not sold at all, so not quite such a strong sign of desirability.

 

[Gramsci]

Churchill Gardens? A friend of mine owns a flat there, nice buildings and great location.

Yes. He still rents. He was born and grew up there when it had sons and daughters housing policy. So got a flat.

 

[jimbarkanoodle]

I see plenty of new high housing in Nine Elms. Mm. Can I afford it? Can any average person afford it?

BTW who is the "We" ?

As from my standpoint there is no "We" there is them and us.

That is Landlords/ property developers vs working class londoners.

Its not what is built it is who its for.

As far as I can see the Nine Elms is for the rich.

"We" is a Londoner who has struggled with housing and one who recognises the dire situation that many people are in now and will be in the future.

Nine Elms is definitely for the rich and how the whole area was developed is utterly shameful and fucking stinks. The article below explains it well i think, it infuriates, shocks and most of all saddens me, and I wonder if in generations to come it will be an example of what went wrong when our city seemingly inevitably cannot function due to the working class being fucked over and pushed further out, purely so a ridiculously tiny amount of people (often foreign owned companies) can walk away with shit loads of money.

Penthouses and poor doors: how Europe's 'biggest regeneration project' fell flat

The long read: Few places have seen such turbocharged luxury development as Nine Elms on the London riverside. So why are prices tumbling, investors melting away and promises turning to dust?

www.theguardian.com

I digress though, i was referring to existing high rise blocks which from what i gather were built well, and surely there are many people who would be more than happy to snap one of these council homes up given the chronic short supply.

 

[Cat Fan]

The price of flats on the open market is a reliable indicator of how desirable they are.

Your experience is unrepresentative.

A property is not like a banana. Every property is unique, which makes valuing it difficult. We don't know the "true" price until it's been sold in a transparent process on the secondary market. The asking price tells us very little.

A new build flat is like a new car, as soon as you buy it, it loses a chunk of its value. What's more they're aggressively marketed at (naïve?) first time buyers and overseas "investors" who sometimes have murky finances. The more prime central London, the more murky.

There is a large information asymmetry and power asymmetry at play which warps the market.

All in all I wouldn't touch a new build flat with a 10 foot pole from an investment perspective.

There are some good builds, but even the most modern, cutting edge towers have a limited lifespan and will be torn down in the next 50-100 years.

I do wonder if, once new builds are less shiny and new, they’ll struggle to find people able to afford the service charges for the upkeep and they’ll all slowly decline and need to be replaced.

Used to live on Clapham Park in one of the ‘30s GLA built flats and service charge was super low as balcony access, no lift & no shared services whilst brick built with minimal upkeep. There’s a reason those are still around a century later whilst the 60s & 70s blocks there are being replaced.

You're spot on and not only is the upkeep high, but the buildings themselves have finite lifespans. "Owners" can pay off their mortgage but eventually the building will be torn down and the owners at the time will be left with nothing. The leasehold system is cruel like that.

In some other countries commonhold arrangements are much more common. Those are far better in giving the residents a real stake in the building and its future. We don't see these arrangements in the UK because keeping the freehold is an easy way for the developers to make some extra money.

 

[Gramsci]

"We" is a Londoner who has struggled with housing and one who recognises the dire situation that many people are in now and will be in the future.

Nine Elms is definitely for the rich and how the whole area was developed is utterly shameful and fucking stinks. The article below explains it well i think, it infuriates, shocks and most of all saddens me, and I wonder if in generations to come it will be an example of what went wrong when our city seemingly inevitably cannot function due to the working class being fucked over and pushed further out, purely so a ridiculously tiny amount of people (often foreign owned companies) can walk away with shit loads of money.

Penthouses and poor doors: how Europe's 'biggest regeneration project' fell flat

The long read: Few places have seen such turbocharged luxury development as Nine Elms on the London riverside. So why are prices tumbling, investors melting away and promises turning to dust?

www.theguardian.com

I digress though, i was referring to existing high rise blocks which from what i gather were built well, and surely there are many people who would be more than happy to snap one of these council homes up given the chronic short supply.

I was in Balfron tower just before it was refurbished.

‘The council tenants weren’t going to be allowed back’: how Britain’s ‘ugliest building’ was gentrified

The east London brutalist landmark Balfron Tower was conceived as the perfect neighbourhood in the sky by its Marxist architect. Now its flats are being sold as ‘trophy properties’

www.theguardian.com

That is example of post war council housing development that has withstood the test of time.

It's history is example of what's happening to social housing. It's now a private block.

The development was a mixture of low rise and the tower.

Tower was built on streets in the sky philosophy.

Each floor had social room at one end for example. The idea wasn't about just cramming in as much housing as possible.

The flats are spilt level with large balconies.With stunning views

The mixture of lower rise with a tower meant that it felt spacious.

There was a short period when brutalist architecture was well built. Take the Rec. The structure is concrete with brick cladding. Surveys show the concrete structure was built to a high standard.

Same I've heard with barrier block. The structure still has a long life.

It's some of the later towers that were not so well built.

The other issue with towers and social housing is lack of maintenance over the years. Leading to what happened at Balfron. That's a political problem.

Balfron was listed so refurbishment as expensive flats near the City was "feasible".

 

[Gramsci]

As I've said before unless space standards and amenity standards are dropped the idea that towers are the answer won't work.

London plan and local plan have raft of measures to guide development in London.

Unless these are scrapped in favour of some kind of free for all then it's not nimbys holding up development.

One can only oppose planning applications on basis of existing planning rules.

In my experience Lambeth planning committee do not hold up large scale developments. Even if a lot of people oppose them.

So it's not imo opposition that's holding up building housing in London.

Unless one is advocating such things as scrapping Brixton Conservation Area. A reason why Hondo tower has been held up is that it is adjacent to central Brixton. Conservation area.

Recent tower near LJ was turned down as it spoilt views across London. Not nimbys who stopped it. But officers rightly following planning guidelines.

So for those who advocate towers all over the place they need to look to scrapping hard won planning guidelines. And stop blaming nimby residents.

Are people really advocating for example building high rise next to Brockwell park. As that is something the Council were advocating as "regeneration" of the Cressingham council estate.

Cressingham is example of sensitively designed low rise which blends into the area.

 

[friendofdorothy]

The biggest downside to London is the cost of housing. The reason housing costs so much is because the supply is low and the demand is high. The reason the demand for housing is high, is because lots of people want to live here. The reason supply for housing is low is because people object to new housing developments near where they live. Your right to cheap good-quality housing is being balanced against existing residents right to a nice view. It's not going to change until the politics change.

Supply is low for various reasons.

There are still lots of publically owned properties that lie empty for decades, now that squatting is illegal.

There are lots of developers who 'land bank' and don't build, gambling on increasing market values, so they get suitably increased profits without doing anything.

Local authorities are not allowed to use the proceeds of council flat sales to rebuild.

Lots of the 'housing' developments are 'luxury developments' and not built to house Londoners at all.

Building homes has not been a public priority for decades.

The price of flats on the open market is a reliable indicator of how desirable they are.

The London market will always be skewed and prices raised by foreign investors who don't want to live here, and don't want to rent out, they care about housing at all. They buy London property as a way to store their wealth, or to launder their ill gotten gains via offshore companies buying houses. Makes my blood boil.

For too long the UK economy is linked to house prices, which is ridiculous.

 

[friendofdorothy]

Short supply leads to increase prices. That is how open markets work.

 

[sealion]

The London market will always be skewed and prices raised by foreign investors who don't want to live here, and don't want to rent out, they care about housing at all. They buy London property as a way to store their wealth, or to launder their ill gotten gains via offshore companies buying houses.

This happens all the time, it won't stop. The new builds at the Elephant and castle were sold off plan/ bought up by overseas investors before the flats were even completed. What ' social housing ' was built there was/is unaffordable to your average Londoner, both to rent and buy. Social rents coming in at 80% of the market rate and your tenancy is reviewed annuallly so not much security even if you do manage to get a tennacy there.

There was a time when social housing wasn't offered to those earning over 40k a year. You now need to earn that and more to be able to afford the monthly rent on a council/HA property. From the word go the corruption surrounding the Heygate was evident for all to see but Southwark and lendlease just ploughed through a community regardless of any opposition that they came up against. Many of those that worked in Southwarks planning departments ended up with cushy jobs at lendlease. It stinks.

 

[cuppa tee]

missing person alert brixton/streatham area....

 

[Tricky Skills]

I stumbled across Red Music for the first time today - a new record shop just off Atlantic Road. Anyone know if this has any connection with the old Red Records? The logo certainly looks similar.

 

[Gramsci]

Tulster218

I asked you while back whether you supported Khan in wanting next Labour government to bring in rent controls for London.

Is that a yes or no?

 

[Gramsci]

"desirability" and housing.

I originally come from the South West of England.

There the thesis that housing market is neutral mechanism about "desirability" has led to ordinary people who grow up and live there being pushed out by wealthy incomers. Buying second homes and retirement homes.

Its not about people moving to find work. Its all about the well off.

Outside London second homes is an issue.

Point being the so called free market is rigged in favour of the wealthy.

Or perhaps those who grew up there didn't try hard enough? That would be the right wing argument underlying this supposedly politically neutral defence of the free market for housing.

 

[editor]

I stumbled across Red Music for the first time today - a new record shop just off Atlantic Road. Anyone know if this has any connection with the old Red Records? The logo certainly looks similar.

It's the same guy - I popped in and had a chat and will do a wee photo feature on Buzz soon.

 

[Gramsci]

As housing has come up been looking up Grace Blakeley as she has written on financialisation and housing.

This article mentions Brixton.

Her view is that the present housing crisis is due to the financialization of housing since Thatcher.

Basically housing has moved from a place to live to an asset to be speculated on. A commodity to be sold rather than something to be used to live in.

The financialization of UK real estate resulted from political choices made by policymakers, and it can be undone in the same way. By insulating housing from financial markets, controlling rents and increasing the stock of social housing, the government could de-financialize and de-commodify the housing system, ensuring that housing is seen as a human right rather than a speculative financial asset. While there are strong economic arguments for this course of action, it is political economy that is likely to stand in the way. The UK’s consumption-driven growth model relies on a kind of privatized Keynesianism that requires high levels of household debt and continuous rises in house prices. Political action and organizing among those communities most affected by the processes of financialization will be needed to facilitate a transition towards a more sustainable economic mode

Privatised Keynesian. This is move from state led investment for the good of all to be replaced by cheap credit. Neo liberal reforms led to increase in credit. This made up for less bargaining power to increase wages.

Basically one could keep up ones standard of life through cheap credit. Even if ones say wages did not go up enough.

So it was possible for more to enter housing market. As is now seen on a risky basis. Lenders ( banks and de mutualised Building societies ) wrapped up loans in risky CDO and other complicated financial instruments.

Which led to the financial crisis.

Not much was learnt from this.

Quantitative Easing ( central banks pumping up the economy) kept asset prices high ( house prices). Skewing the economy to being about inward flows of investment to buy assets ( housing)

The losers are:

renters

Those seeking social housing.

So no its not about nimbys opposing developments or about lets Build Build.

See even Starmer is buying into this

What it should be about is de financialising the housing market.

To do this will mean confronting how the economy is this country has worked. And the now powerful financial interests who benefit from it.

Financialization, real estate and COVID-19 in the UK

Abstract. In the UK, financialization has transformed many areas of the economy, including the housing market. The deregulation of financial markets that t

academic.oup.com

Short summary of her views here:

It's time for a fair, just and sustainable housing system

The UK needs to break the power of banks and investors on the housing system, writes Grace Blakeley

www.bigissue.com

 

[Gramsci]

The bit from Grace Blakeley article mentioning Brixton:

. The Bank of England will, along with central banks around the world, pump billions of dollars into financial markets in exchange for government debt, leaving investors flush with cash and looking for somewhere to invest it. Given that returns are likely to be depressed all over the world, the UK—and particularly London—property looks like a good investment, given the government’s clear commitment to propping up house prices. As investors continue to reach for yield, much of this new money will find its way into London property markets, sustaining prices—particularly for the most valuable properties.

The money flowing into London’s real estate is likely to accelerate the processes of gentrification that have transformed the nation’s capital over the past several decades (Yee and Dennett, 2020). Communities that have occupied a particular area of the capital for many decades may find it harder to afford increasing rents, forcing many families further out of London and disrupting cultural, social and political networks. Recent battles over landmarks like Brixton’s arches, Elephant and Castle’s shopping centre and Seven Sisters’ Latin Village show both the damage inflicted by gentrification on many communities and their fierce resistance to it (

 

[Gramsci]

Basically blaming foreign investors for coming here to buy housing as assets is not good enough.

The underlying economic model that has led to this is due to political decisions made in this country. By governments.

It is the economic model that has to change.

A fundamental move to a different kind of economy.

 

[Cat Fan]

A fundamental move to a different kind of economy.

That would be the best (and only) way to achieve rapid change.

Rent controls are good in theory but in practice they can lead to a secondary (shadow) market. So they can drive even more inequality and inefficient outcomes

 

[Gramsci]

Rent controls are good in theory but in practice they can lead to a secondary (shadow) market. So they can drive even more inequality and inefficient outcomes

This is a recipe for doing nothing.

Rent controls are a reform not the whole answer. But they are a start. It would not cost the government much to do this.

Question is why Starmer has rowed back on bringing in rent controls?

Landlords are a minority in this country yet have to much influence compared to Generation Rent.

A problem imo is the growth of the Buy too Let landlord. Sections of the better off middle class have invested in small portfolios or kept their old flat one as a BTL investment.

So ( as friend of mine is who votes Labour) went apeshit about Corbyn supporting ( in theory) rent controls.

Im sure landlords are rehearsing such things as they themselves are not against controls but dont you see it will adversely affect renters. Like they have renters best interests at heart. etc

 

[Tulster218]

That would be the best (and only) way to achieve rapid change.

Rent controls are good in theory but in practice they can lead to a secondary (shadow) market. So they can drive even more inequality and inefficient outcomes

There are very effective rent controls in Stockholm. For private rented accommodation, the average waiting list is over nine years.
See here: Stockholm’s ‘Housing for All’ Is Now Just for the Few

Brixton would be a very different place if everyone here had to go on a waiting list for nine years.

Rent controls seek to advantage residents at the expense of incomers. They're as toxic as immigration controls.

 

[CH1]

There are very effective rent controls in Stockholm. For private rented accommodation, the average waiting list is over nine years.
See here: Stockholm’s ‘Housing for All’ Is Now Just for the Few

Brixton would be a very different place if everyone here had to go on a waiting list for nine years.

Rent controls seek to advantage residents at the expense of incomers. They're as toxic as immigration controls.

Funnily enough it was a very different place 60 years ago when many of the Windrush generation were able to buy their own houses in Brixton.
Its true that at that time there were serious rent controls. Owners of properties let out basically had to wait for their tenants to die - on controlled rents!