Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Canterbury Arms, Brixton to be turned into flats - planning application

leanderman said:
Some of the provision in the block will have to be social or affordable.
Click to expand...
There is zero social rent units in the new build.

"The company proposes to include 11 shared ownership units within the scheme and 20 private sale units, with all top three floors being exclusively private. There will be no social rent units.
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/08/...l-replace-the-canterbury-arms-pub-in-brixton/"
leanderman said:
As the pub closes other drinking places have opened: Effra Social, Craft, Seven.
Click to expand...
Seven is not a pub. Not even close. The other two places are far more expensive than the Canterbury and hardly like to appeal to many people outside a fairly niche demographic.

While I welcome new drinking establishments opening up, far, far more pubs have closed around Brixton than new ones opened up.
 
editor said:
There is zero social rent units in the new build.

"The company proposes to include 11 shared ownership units within the scheme and 20 private sale units, with all top three floors being exclusively private. There will be no social rent units.
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/08/...l-replace-the-canterbury-arms-pub-in-brixton/"
Seven is not a pub. Not even close. The other two places are far more expensive than the Canterbury and hardly like to appeal to many people outside a fairly niche demographic.

While I welcome new drinking establishments opening up, far, far more pubs have closed around Brixton than new ones opened up.
Click to expand...

Ok, no social housing and I am not convinced by shared ownership. But housing is housing. And, by definition, extra supply will help keep rents and prices lower.

Are you implying that every housing development in central Brixton should be social housing? If might be desirable, but it's unrealistic.

It sounds like the pub in question here also has a fairly niche demographic.

The old boozers, in both senses, are dying off. And new things are cropping up.
 
editor said:
How does building expensive new properties with zero social housing help keep rents down?
Click to expand...

Because people renting have a (limited) flexibility in how much rent they're prepared to pay. Increasing the supply of housing at one level decreases the market rent at that level but also has an effect at the level below.
 
editor said:
I don't believe the new private housing developments in Brixton are helping keep the rent down.
Click to expand...

Of course they are. They help address a supply and demand imbalance in the private sector. Unfortunately, demand is still way outstripping supply at the moment so the effect is that rents go up less than they might otherwise have, rather than down.
 
It's a bit oversimplistic to say that new build will definitely keep rents down in Brixton itself tbh. It's assuming 'demand' is static (or at least the demand curve is), but they can also support the gentrification processes that increase demand and push prices up.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
It's a bit oversimplistic to say that new build will definitely keep rents down in Brixton itself tbh. It's assuming 'demand' is static (or at least the demand curve is), but they can also support the gentrification processes that increase demand and push prices up.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good point and may well be happening.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
It's a bit oversimplistic to say that new build will definitely keep rents down in Brixton itself tbh. It's assuming 'demand' is static (or at least the demand curve is), but they can also support the gentrification processes that increase demand and push prices up.
Click to expand...

Of course it was simple. It was a two sentence post in response to a single sentence expressing doubt that new developments are helping keep rent down.:D

Referring to a supply and demand imbalance does not assume either is static. Whether supply and demand are increasing or decreasing is not wholly important. It's the imbalance that of the two which affects prices. As you say, there are other factors but at any one point in time, and all else remaining constant, having more properties is most likely to result in lower prices than if there were less properties. i.e. even if there is still an imbalance, more supply is making sure that the imbalance is less than it would have been. So the supply might not be sufficient to stop inflation but it will almost certainly contribute to reducing it.
 
Rushy said:
Of course it was simple. It was a two sentence post in response to a single sentence expressing doubt that new developments are helping keep rent down.:D

Referring to a supply and demand imbalance does not assume either is static. Whether supply and demand are increasing or decreasing is not wholly important. It's the imbalance that of the two which affects prices. As you say, there are other factors but at any one point in time, and all else remaining constant, having more properties is most likely to result in lower prices than if there were less properties. i.e. even if there is still an imbalance, more supply is making sure that the imbalance is less than it would have been. So the supply might not be sufficient to stop inflation but it will almost certainly contribute to reducing it.
Click to expand...


Maybe static wasn't quite the right word. I was talking about the application of the supply/demand curve model (as featured in A-level economics as a fundamental:p) to real life situations. The usual approach is to assume that within whatever you define as your market moves, the rest of the market stays the same and the price changes. So in this case you'd expect a reduction in prices due to a shift in the supply curve. Usually economics admits there are other factors but insists reality will approximate this, other things being equal. Except in a case like this it's possible that a demand curve change is directly driven by the supply change - I imagine there is a model for this somewhere but the basic supply and demand curve model doesn't cover it.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
Maybe static wasn't quite the right word. I was talking about the application of the supply/demand curve model (as featured in A-level economics as a fundamental:p) to real life situations. The usual approach is to assume that within whatever you define as your market moves, the rest of the market stays the same and the price changes. So in this case you'd expect a reduction in prices due to a shift in the supply curve. Usually economics admits there are other factors but insists reality will approximate this, other things being equal. Except in a case like this it's possible that a demand curve change is directly driven by the supply change - I imagine there is a model for this somewhere but the basic supply and demand curve model doesn't cover it.
Click to expand...
​
I'm afraid that I haven't entirely understood all the sentences in your response which may be largely due to my not having studied economics at school. Even so, I doubt it would be all that useful if I had studied economics as the only things I really remember from school are the French for "Look! The monkey is in the tree" and that clints and grykes are a common feature of limestone pavement which run remarkably perpendicular to one another. Both of which have proven extremely useful over the years in the most unlikely of circumstances. ​
​
I digress. The original comment was that new private housing doesn't help keep prices down. I made two comments in response and I'm not sure which you disagree with:​
  1. increasing the number of properties in the area reduces the supply demand imbalance, relative to what it would be if all else were the same except that those additional properties did not exist.
  2. prices are likely to be lower in the scenario in which there are more properties because the difference between supply and demand would smaller (and consequently the market less competitive, subject of course to complete saturation).
This seems to correlate with the description of supply, demand, equilibrium and imbalance on Investopedia. I appreciate that it's a fairly brief summary but I suffer from either attention deficit disorder or extreme impatience, so it'll have to do.​
​
But given what you learnt at A level, are you saying that if all market conditions - including demand - were exactly the same as now except that there were less properties available to buy or rent (i.e. the supply demand imbalance was greater) rent values should on a balance of probabilities:​
a) rise,​

b) fall or​

c) stay the same, or​

d) none of the above.​
 
Rushy said:
I'm afraid that I haven't entirely understood all the sentences in your response which may be largely due to my not having studied economics at school. Even so, I doubt it would be all that useful if I had studied economics as the only things I really remember from school are the French for "Look! The monkey is in the tree" and that clints and grykes are a common feature of limestone pavement which run remarkably perpendicular to one another. Both of which have proven extremely useful over the years in the most unlikely of circumstances.

I digress. The original comment was that new private housing doesn't help keep prices down. I made two comments in response and I'm not sure which you disagree with:
  1. increasing the number of properties in the area reduces the supply demand imbalance, relative to what it would be if all else were the same except that those additional properties did not exist.
  2. prices are likely to be lower in the scenario in which there are more properties because the difference between supply and demand would smaller (and consequently the market less competitive, subject of course to complete saturation).
This seems to correlate with the description of supply, demand, equilibrium and imbalance on Investopedia. I appreciate that it's a fairly brief summary but I suffer from either attention deficit disorder or extreme impatience, so it'll have to do.

But given what you learnt at A level, are you saying that if all market conditions - including demand - were exactly the same as now except that there were less properties available to buy or rent (i.e. the supply demand imbalance was greater) rent values should on a balance of probabilities:
a) rise,​


​
b) fall or​


​
c) stay the same, or​


​
d) none of the above.​
Click to expand...



A-Level? I'll have you know I have a 15 year old Desmond in 'Economics and getting too drunk to bother with lectures.';)

The balance of probabilities isn't really the point - what I'm taking issue with is the idea that new build properties will necessarily bring prices down, I'm not arguing they definitely won't. THe problem as I see it with applying your basic supply/demand logic to housing is that of defining what's being traded and what 'the market' you're looking at is. As far as the product goes, all houses/flats are different. A flat near a station or a good school can be far more expensive than an identical one a few hundred metres away. In terms of the market - you could look at the market for Brixton housing, London housing, housing in the south East, or even housing on a particular road, and see different effects. It's that geographic element that the basic market model doesn't account for (and is beyond my knowledge tbh.)

Personally I think the effect you and others have been talking about is probably right London wide. The massive rise in house prices across the city has been driven by lack of supply and more houses will push the price down. So to an extent Brixton prices will be pushed down. Against that though building a load of new build, and the resulting facilities that are set up to supply the new residents, could easily create an increase in more localised demand that might outweigh that reduction altogether.

BTW I'm not saying they shouldn't be built - I absolutely agree more housing is needed and that that includes private housing as well as social housing. And if you build enough London wide that would reduce prices for everyone, or at least stabilise the rises. I just don't agree that a new build will automatically reduce prices in the immediate area.
 
I understood him to mean that a slight increase in supply (of high quality housing) could actually result in a greater increase in demand (suppressed demand from people who previously wouldn't have considered living in Brixton) so that overall prices went up.

Edit - sorry, that was meant to quote Rushy.
 
Winot said:
I understood him to mean that a slight increase in supply (of high quality housing) could actually result in a greater increase in demand (suppressed demand from people who previously wouldn't have considered living in Brixton) so that overall prices went up.

Edit - sorry, that was meant to quote Rushy.
Click to expand...


That's the short version yeah, without the layers of economics shite.:oops:
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
A-Level? I'll have you know I have a 15 year old Desmond in 'Economics and getting too drunk to bother with lectures.';)

The balance of probabilities isn't really the point - what I'm taking issue with is the idea that new build properties will necessarily bring prices down, I'm not arguing they definitely won't. THe problem as I see it with applying your basic supply/demand logic to housing is that of defining what's being traded and what 'the market' you're looking at is. As far as the product goes, all houses/flats are different. A flat near a station or a good school can be far more expensive than an identical one a few hundred metres away. In terms of the market - you could look at the market for Brixton housing, London housing, housing in the south East, or even housing on a particular road, and see different effects. It's that geographic element that the basic market model doesn't account for (and is beyond my knowledge tbh.)

Personally I think the effect you and others have been talking about is probably right London wide. The massive rise in house prices across the city has been driven by lack of supply and more houses will push the price down. So to an extent Brixton prices will be pushed down. Against that though building a load of new build, and the resulting facilities that are set up to supply the new residents, could easily create an increase in more localised demand that might outweigh that reduction altogether.

BTW I'm not saying they shouldn't be built - I absolutely agree more housing is needed and that that includes private housing as well as social housing. And if you build enough London wide that would reduce prices for everyone, or at least stabilise the rises. I just don't agree that a new build will automatically reduce prices in the immediate area.
Click to expand...


Sorry - you referred to A levels and I was feeling a bit sarky.


I think you are perhaps misreprestanding my comments and we're not far apart on this, if at all. I haven't said that more availability will automatically reduce prices in a given area. I am saying it is likely to result in prices in a given area being lower than they would have been had less properties been built. Of course there are loads of factors and I accept your point that new developments are part of localised regeneration cycles which stimulates demand, but the less we match that demand the larger that imbalance will be. This will carry on until a point at which some sort of equilibrium is reached because the pace of change slows and the demand ceases to increase or drops. If, mid cycle, we suddenly stopped providing more homes, prices (or the rate of price rises) would almost certainly increase.

Of course, there is a bit of a chicken and egg argument here. Are the new development generating the demand or a response to it? I don't think Brixton's popularity was kickstarted by the new resi developments - they have jumped on the back of demand created by town centre initiatives (in particular the market, but also things like Windrush Square) as well as London wide increases in demand. In turn, as people move into these places, more are introduced to the joys of Brixton, increasing demand, increasing prices thus incentivising more building. Mid cycle, the best we can hope for is that increased availability reduces price rises, rather than prices.

I got a similar desmond tu tu too (in "Law and not bothering to turn up to tutorials"). We presumably learnt a lot of the same stuff. Not the economics (obviously).
 
Actually I've done the internet thing of addressing a few posters making similar points and conflating their arguments. It was Leanderman who said it would reduce prices by definition and that's definitely not true. Beyond that we probably don't have much to disagree on- I certainly don't have the ability to extract the numbers (that could be a PhD on it's own probably) so the exact effects of a particular development are going to be a circular argument. The bigger picture is certainly a need for far more houses.
 
leanderman said:
Supply-demand-price relationship: the only thing I remember from economics A-level. And it's fundamental.
Click to expand...


Excellent article by Faisal Islam in The Observer today;
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/18/default-line-extract-faisal-islam-housing

Rising house prices, to some degree, reflected underlying supply and demand in a competitive market. Greater increases in demand than in supply, and the prices went up, as in Britain. Large increases in supply over demand, as in the US, Spain and Ireland after the crisis, and prices go down. Simple enough.

Except, of course, this simple model is entirely misleading. The housing market is not really a market for houses. The housing market is driven principally by the availability of finance, mainly mortgage debt, but sometimes bonuses, inheritances, or hot money from abroad – London in particular has become the preferred residence of the world's wealthiest people, from Russian oligarchs to Arab oil sheikhs.
 
Dexter Deadwood said:
Excellent article by Faisal Islam in The Observer today;
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/18/default-line-extract-faisal-islam-housing

Rising house prices, to some degree, reflected underlying supply and demand in a competitive market. Greater increases in demand than in supply, and the prices went up, as in Britain. Large increases in supply over demand, as in the US, Spain and Ireland after the crisis, and prices go down. Simple enough.

Except, of course, this simple model is entirely misleading. The housing market is not really a market for houses. The housing market is driven principally by the availability of finance, mainly mortgage debt, but sometimes bonuses, inheritances, or hot money from abroad – London in particular has become the preferred residence of the world's wealthiest people, from Russian oligarchs to Arab oil sheikhs.
Click to expand...


I am sure these things are factors too. But, to repeat myself again, if you increase London's population by a 100,000 a year - and build only a few houses - you have a big problem.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
Hasn't the sale gone through? As I understand it the legislation the Ivy House was bought under allows community groups first refusal when a community asset goes on sale, but if the developers already own the pub it's not much use.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced the sale has gone through yet. When I asked the developers if they owned the pub, they said "we are in control of the pub". When I pressed them, they wouldn't say they owned the pub. They could be waiting to get planning permission before they buy - you don't need to be the owner to apply for planning permission. I don't know, to be fair.

I need to pop down there for a beer and ask them...
 
Some interesting discussion about these proposals on http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1635846&page=14

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/E...Masterplan.htm

This is the (masterplan, so no detail assumed) section along Pope's Road. The Canterbury Arms site is just off to the left. Atlantic Road is just off to the right. The left hand building replaces the ice rink (and has car parking in it). The right hand building replaces the single story retail units between the railway viaducts.
Click to expand...

ngsv3m.jpg
 
That was me :)
The Future Brixton documents are full of such drawings. They're aspirational. They're what they'd like developers to propose, in terms of massing and use. But they shouldn't be interpreted as "proposals".
 
It's off topic for this thread, but IMO the masterplan for Pope's Road is quite good from an urban design POV. The existing office and toilet blocks would be demolished (new toilets built elsewhere) and a proper frontage for the station created, forming a public square between the viaducts. My guess is that it would be tied in with a new station on the Overground line, which would make a complete station re-build desirable.

This is apart from any discussion about the socio-economic harm/benefit such large-scale redevelopment would bring.
 
Yet again, I was wrong: London's population rise by 146,000 last year, not 100,000, according to today's Standard

Interestingly, most of the incomers are provincial Britons, like me.
 
So, regardless of theoretical arguments about the rise and fall of house prices based on the proposed flats, it seems like a crying shame that this victorian pub and piece of Brixton history could be forever eradicated, IMHO.

Is there anything we can do at this late stage, cos I'd like to?...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

teuchter
New development at Hardess St / Wellfit St, Loughborough Junction: 2024 planning application
2 3 4 5
Replies
126
Views
5K
teuchter
teuchter
editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
759
editor
editor
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
489
madolesance
M
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom