Lambeth's plans to demolish Cressingham Gardens and other estates without the consent of residents

[editor]

This is certainly also a problem - foreign investment + second homes should be taxed at a MUCH higher rate than homes owned by people living in them. Nobody should view buying a house as an 'investment', it should be a good that you use (much like a car).


All evidence to the contrary. San Francisco has ludicrous pricing because it is nearly impossible to build. In New York, prices are high but not as high as SF - that's because its slightly easier to build. Go further down to a place like Houston, where it is much easier to build, and housing is on the borderline of reasonably priced. Why? Because it's easy to build.

The harder you make it to make something, the more expensive that thing becomes. In the UK, it is very hard to make houses. Therefore housing is very expensive.

Not all local residents are NIMBYs. The younger generations are coming to see that housing policy in this country (and in many places in the world) is completely broken - that the older generation have left us in the lurch by taking up available resources and then pulling the rug out from under us. They bought their houses when housing was abundant, then decided to make it extraordinarily difficult to build anything new ever again.

For those of you who believe you have good intentions, ask yourself this.

• Has housing policy of the last two decades worked out well?
• If not, what changes can we make that might make a difference?
• Directionally, should building new housing be easier or more difficult (in order to achieve our common goal of less expensive housing)?
• Are you participating in making housing easier to build, or harder to build?

Broadly supportive of Elephant and Castle, don't know much about Nine Elms. More housing being built is good. I wish there was a greater component of affordable units but 25% affordable homes is not awful.

As long as the population of London is growing, given only so much land that's near public transit hubs, the only option is to build denser housing (or try to stop people from moving to the city which I find abhorrent). Existing residents concerns are valid, but they should not (as a general rule) outweigh the right of everybody else to have a decent place to live at a non absurd price.

Why do you keep blaming 'existing residents' for the lack of social/affordable housing?

And why did you support the disaster at Heygate which saw thousands of council flats torn down and replaced by a handful of social rents.

Heygate Estate redevelopment: just 79 social rented units out of a total 2,535 new homes

Is Elephant posh now? Not yet but....

www.urban75.net

 

[nonya]

Why do you keep blaming 'existing residents' for the lack of social/affordable housing?

And why did you support the disaster at Heygate which saw thousands of council flats torn down and replaced by a handful of social rents.

Heygate Estate redevelopment: just 79 social rented units out of a total 2,535 new homes

Is Elephant posh now? Not yet but....

www.urban75.net

Because the unwarranted scorn that that new statesmen article has for 'white collar professionals and students' is exactly the kind of generational privilege that nimby's don't understand that they have.

Yea, screw those damn students and other young people who want an affordable city to live in!

I'm not fully familiar with Heygate specifically, I was rather young at the time. It looks like it was reasonably dense. I say let's tear down all the terrace houses in the city and build lots of those until everybody has an affordable flat to live in.

 

[Carvaged]

the older generation have left us in the lurch by taking up available resources and then pulling the rug out from under us

The older generation have nothing to do with the fact that most land earmarked for housebuilding is owned by large corporate housebuilders who will not build - even though they can - because restricting the market pushes up prices of housing and also increases the value of their land assets.

You evidently know very little about the housing market, and are just parroting painfully lazy and superficial talking points with all the verve of a dunning-kruger expert.

 

[editor]

I'm not fully familiar with Heygate specifically, I was rather young at the time. It looks like it was reasonably dense.

Seeing as you claimed to be broadly in support of what happened there, perhaps you should do your basic research first?

 

[Gramsci]

This is certainly also a problem - foreign investment + second homes should be taxed at a MUCH higher rate than homes owned by people living in them. Nobody should view buying a house as an 'investment', it should be a good that you use (much like a car).


All evidence to the contrary. San Francisco has ludicrous pricing because it is nearly impossible to build. In New York, prices are high but not as high as SF - that's because its slightly easier to build. Go further down to a place like Houston, where it is much easier to build, and housing is on the borderline of reasonably priced. Why? Because it's easy to build.

The harder you make it to make something, the more expensive that thing becomes. In the UK, it is very hard to make houses. Therefore housing is very expensive.

Not all local residents are NIMBYs. The younger generations are coming to see that housing policy in this country (and in many places in the world) is completely broken - that the older generation have left us in the lurch by taking up available resources and then pulling the rug out from under us. They bought their houses when housing was abundant, then decided to make it extraordinarily difficult to build anything new ever again.

For those of you who believe you have good intentions, ask yourself this.

• Has housing policy of the last two decades worked out well?
• If not, what changes can we make that might make a difference?
• Directionally, should building new housing be easier or more difficult (in order to achieve our common goal of less expensive housing)?
• Are you participating in making housing easier to build, or harder to build?

Broadly supportive of Elephant and Castle, don't know much about Nine Elms. More housing being built is good. I wish there was a greater component of affordable units but 25% affordable homes is not awful.

As long as the population of London is growing, given only so much land that's near public transit hubs, the only option is to build denser housing (or try to stop people from moving to the city which I find abhorrent). Existing residents concerns are valid, but they should not (as a general rule) outweigh the right of everybody else to have a decent place to live at a non absurd price.

You keep saying this.

I have not opposed all new developments.

Planning process does not stop new developments. Which is what your arguing.

Existing residents views don't stop new developments that go through the planning process.

Planning is part of the democratic process.

So I really don't understand why you keep going on about this.



On the other thread you take view that protecting a kids playground is nimby.

Your also against rent control. Which I find bizarre.

 

[Gramsci]

This is certainly also a problem - foreign investment + second homes should be taxed at a MUCH higher rate than homes owned by people living in them. Nobody should view buying a house as an 'investment', it should be a good that you use (much like a car).


All evidence to the contrary. San Francisco has ludicrous pricing because it is nearly impossible to build. In New York, prices are high but not as high as SF - that's because its slightly easier to build. Go further down to a place like Houston, where it is much easier to build, and housing is on the borderline of reasonably priced. Why? Because it's easy to build.

The harder you make it to make something, the more expensive that thing becomes. In the UK, it is very hard to make houses. Therefore housing is very expensive.

Not all local residents are NIMBYs. The younger generations are coming to see that housing policy in this country (and in many places in the world) is completely broken - that the older generation have left us in the lurch by taking up available resources and then pulling the rug out from under us. They bought their houses when housing was abundant, then decided to make it extraordinarily difficult to build anything new ever again.

For those of you who believe you have good intentions, ask yourself this.

• Has housing policy of the last two decades worked out well?
• If not, what changes can we make that might make a difference?
• Directionally, should building new housing be easier or more difficult (in order to achieve our common goal of less expensive housing)?
• Are you participating in making housing easier to build, or harder to build?

Broadly supportive of Elephant and Castle, don't know much about Nine Elms. More housing being built is good. I wish there was a greater component of affordable units but 25% affordable homes is not awful.

As long as the population of London is growing, given only so much land that's near public transit hubs, the only option is to build denser housing (or try to stop people from moving to the city which I find abhorrent). Existing residents concerns are valid, but they should not (as a general rule) outweigh the right of everybody else to have a decent place to live at a non absurd price.

Your broadly supportive of Elephant and Castle development?

That does surprise me. Before it was redeveloped it was high density Council housing. Affordable housing that I thought you wanted. End result of Southwark Council so called regeneration is markedly less affordable housing on this site.

 

[nonya]

Your broadly supportive of Elephant and Castle development?

That does surprise me. Before it was redeveloped it was high density Council housing. Affordable housing that I thought you wanted. End result of Southwark Council so called regeneration is markedly less affordable housing on this site.

the goal is affordable housing at market rates. We need to build as much as we can until we get there.

Subsidizing the housing costs for individuals is an acceptable short term solution, but in the long run de facto privileges old people and locks out younger generations.

So yes, I wish that there were more units earmarked for subsidies of various kinds, but broadly more units overall is better than less units overall.

 

[editor]

the goal is affordable housing at market rates. We need to build as much as we can until we get there.

Subsidizing the housing costs for individuals is an acceptable short term solution, but in the long run de facto privileges old people and locks out younger generations.

So yes, I wish that there were more units earmarked for subsidies of various kinds, but broadly more units overall is better than less units overall.

But an influx of high end developers wildly inflate market rates so they become totally unaffordable to the vast majority of residents, young and old.

And you still haven't explained why you were 'broadly supportive' of what happened in the Heygate estate, because what happened there is exactly the kind of thing that happens when councils hand over large regeneration projects to big developers (see also Brixton Square, which I've already linked to):

Here we document using a timeline, how original promises to Heygate tenants of 500 new social housing units on the redeveloped estate, were reduced over the years to just 82.

Affordable housing - broken promises

www.35percent.org

 

[nonya]

You keep saying this.

I have not opposed all new developments.

Planning process does not stop new developments. Which is what your arguing.

Existing residents views don't stop new developments that go through the planning process.

Planning is part of the democratic process.

So I really don't understand why you keep going on about this.

On the other thread you take view that protecting a kids playground is nimby.

Your also against rent control. Which I find bizarre.

I think we need major reforms that introduce zoning laws - such that in certain areas, higher density housing can be built (without needing to go through planning permission). The process is so long and expensive that only developers with the deepest pockets can get through it.

I quote myself

"Here's the argument in plain terms.

In the market for cars, we have both expensive cars and cheap cars. Why is that? Because it is profitable to produce cheap cars, so rich pricks can buy Mercedes and regular folk can buy Hyundais. I'd rather get rid of cars altogether and force people to use (and spend money on) the tube and busses, but there you go. It's a functioning market where both privileged and less privileged people are served, because it's profitable to manufacture cheap cars.

In the market for housing, we only have expensive houses because it is not profitable to build regular housing (that would be affordable for normal people). It is not profitable to build regular housing because it is inordinately difficult to get planning permission, it is impossible to get the support of local residents (who are the privileged ones who already have access to housing), and the process of getting to the stage where you can actually lay a brick costs millions. The barrier to entry of building new housing is so high, to recoup their costs, only massive developers can afford to go through this process, and they need to sell/rent whatever they've built at ludicrous cost because their barriers to entry in terms of cost and the built in uncertainty of the success of any given plan is so high."

Anybody who has studied rent control understands that it is merely a wealth transfer from privileged people who already have secure housing away from less privileged people who have less access to housing. At best it is a stop gap solution that does absolutely nothing for future generations because ultimately there are 5 houses available and ten people who need housing.

The older generation have nothing to do with the fact that most land earmarked for housebuilding is owned by large corporate housebuilders who will not build - even though they can - because restricting the market pushes up prices of housing and also increases the value of their land assets.

You evidently know very little about the housing market, and are just parroting painfully lazy and superficial talking points with all the verve of a dunning-kruger expert.

Older generation opposing literally new building have everything to do it with it. Interestingly, the world runs these experiments where we can see in real time that places where older generation nimbys are more powerful (like San Francisco and London) have much more expensive housing (relative to average income) and far less high density housing available than places where nimbys have less power like Houston (where there is a general preference for less regulation overall) or Singapore (where the collective good is seen as more important than the individual good and the government has more centralized power).

Higher barriers to get to the point where you can actually build anything = more expensive = only the richest, greediest developers get to build anything = only luxury apartments.

You are part of the vicious cycle that's depriving an entire generation of housing.

The only way to get enough housing is to build more housing.

We are in a situation where there are 5 houses and 10 people who need housing.

The right says "The other 5 are lazy and don't deserve housing, and we can't build more because we need high property values"

The left says "Let's lower the cost of housing by freezing the rents, but lets not build anything new because these new houses will only end up housing the rich"

Neither side actually does what is needed, which is to build five more houses.

 

[nonya]

But an influx of high end developers wildly inflate market rates so they become totally unaffordable to the vast majority of residents, young and old.

And you still haven't explained why you were 'broadly supportive' of what happened in the Heygate estate, because what happened there is exactly the kind of thing that happens when councils hand over large regeneration projects to big developers (see also Brixton Square, which I've already linked to):

My broad view is that more units and taller blocks is generally better.

There were probably less dense areas that should have been prioritized, but ultimately the goal is to flood the entire market with so much supply that housing prices and rental prices go down overall, and more units is helpful to that goal.

 

[Pickman's model]

My broad view is that more units and taller blocks is generally better.

There were probably less dense areas that should have been prioritized, but ultimately the goal is to flood the entire market with so much supply that housing prices and rental prices go down overall, and more units is helpful to that goal.

To save the town we had to destroy it

 

[editor]

My broad view is that more units and taller blocks is generally better.

There were probably less dense areas that should have been prioritized, but ultimately the goal is to flood the entire market with so much supply that housing prices and rental prices go down overall, and more units is helpful to that goal.

So how has, say, the Nine Elms development helped that goal in any way at all?

And how do you account for the impact of foreign investors, some of whom who are happy to keep properties empty? In fact, many of these new high rise developments that you love so much are directly targeted at foreign investors, who will buy them up and rent them out at the highest price they can get away with (once they've finished sitting on them and waiting for the rentable value to rise).

 

[nonya]

So how has, say, the Nine Elms development helped that goal in any way at all?

I don't know much about nine elms so I will refrain from commenting specifically.

 

[editor]

I don't know much about nine elms so I will refrain from commenting specifically.

Before posting any further, perhaps you should do some really, really basic research into the things you claim to know so much about?

You don't know about Heygate. You don't know about Nine Elms. What do you know about?

 

[nonya]

To save the town we had to destroy it

This is unironically true if the town in question is constantly growing at a rate far beyond the rate that new housing is being built and the town only has a certain amount of land.

You either stop the influx of people (which I disagree with vehemently) or you build more houses, which sometimes requires you to knock down old houses.

I know the older generation loves the old houses and pristine views of the park but as someone who will never get to enjoy either of those things, I'd knock that old house down and take an affordable shoebox over what we have available now.

 

[editor]

I know the older generation loves the old houses and pristine views of the park but as someone who will never get to enjoy either of those things, I'd knock that old house down and take an affordable shoebox over what we have available now.

So you're all for the total demolition of the Cressingham Gardens estate, the dispersal of its long term community and its replacement with high rise, unaffordable luxury flats then?

 

[nonya]

Before posting any further, perhaps you should do some really, really basic research into the things you claim to know so much about?

You don't know about Heygate. You don't know about Nine Elms. What do you know about?

I will continue to express my views on this public forum as long as I remain unbanned.

I have the honesty to say when there are things that I don't know that much about. When was the last time you did so?

Specifically the thing that outraged me was the universal opposition to this proposal.

402 objections for the demolition of Roper’s Walk at Cressingham Gardens with only 2 in support

A re-submitted planning application to demolish Roper’s Walk at Cressingham Gardens has received 402 objections and only two letters of support.

www.brixtonbuzz.com

One of the comments, from the "Friends of Brockwell Park"

"Proposal will result in harm to Brockwell Park: visual amenity will suffer, with negative impacts on the views / sightlines from the park."

Visual amenities. Literally people saying that their right to a view from a park supersedes the rights of others to access housing.

This proposal is made up entirely of below market (aka more affordable) units.

“14 low cost rented units and 6 intermediate units (shared ownership). The tenure split would be 70 per cent social rent and 30 per cent intermediate by unit.”

But of course it's "NO NO NO" from the build-nothing-because-it-would-obstruct-my-park-views generation who already have their housing locked in and secure.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is unironically true if the town in question is constantly growing at a rate far beyond the rate that new housing is being built and the town only has a certain amount of land.

You either stop the influx of people (which I disagree with vehemently) or you build more houses, which sometimes requires you to knock down old houses.

I know the older generation loves the old houses and pristine views of the park but as someone who will never get to enjoy either of those things, I'd knock that old house down and take an affordable shoebox over what we have available now.

The affordable shoebox with a planned life of twenty years. The affordable shoebox built with concrete using the sand from some beach. Why not expropriate the flats bought as investments instead of building more poor quality flats? And all the other properties sitting empty. There's a vast ton of housing out there not being used and that's a crime. Oh and expropriate all houses with vast new basements and divide them up into flats too. The original owners can lead a troglodyte existence in their subterranean caverns.

 

[nonya]

The affordable shoebox with a planned life of twenty years. The affordable shoebox built with concrete using the sand from some beach. Why not expropriate the flats bought as investments instead of building more poor quality flats? And all the other properties sitting empty. There's a vast ton of housing out there not being used and that's a crime. Oh and expropriate all houses with vast new basements and divide them up into flats too. The original owners can lead a troglodyte existence in their subterranean caverns.

I would support this without a question, this is absolutely a crime. It won't solve the problem but would help for sure. But we'd still be in a situation where there are more people than housing units available.

So you're all for the total demolition of the Cressingham Gardens estate, the dispersal of its long term community and its replacement with high rise, unaffordable luxury flats then?

14 low cost rented units and intermediate shared ownership units is not "luxury" housing.

 

[nonya]

The affordable shoebox with a planned life of twenty years. The affordable shoebox built with concrete using the sand from some beach. Why not expropriate the flats bought as investments instead of building more poor quality flats? And all the other properties sitting empty. There's a vast ton of housing out there not being used and that's a crime. Oh and expropriate all houses with vast new basements and divide them up into flats too. The original owners can lead a troglodyte existence in their subterranean caverns.

along with the need to build much much more housing, we need to ban or severely restrict (tax of 100% the cost of the property or more) foreign investment in housing.

Housing should not be seen as an investment, it should be seen as a good that you buy in order to use, and controls over who can buy it and how much of it you are allowed to buy are totally fair game in the interest of the collective good.

But in my situation right now, it's breaking my back to pay market rate rent for a shoebox, or having a more affordable shoebox, so I'll take the shoebox.

 

[Pickman's model]

I would support this without a question, this is absolutely a crime. It won't solve the problem but would help for sure. But we'd still be in a situation where there are more people than housing units available.

I hate to break it to you but very many people live with others,with friends, partners, parents, children. There have always been more people than housing units available

 

[oryx]

Just an observation on the rather silly and divisive generational argument being put forward here: where I live, not Lambeth but also in S London, there seems to be plenty of young people able to afford £700,000 houses.

It's not about age, it's about class and poverty/wealth/inequality.

 

[Carvaged]

The left says "Let's lower the cost of housing by freezing the rents, but lets not build anything new because these new houses will only end up housing the rich"

No, the left says, quite rightly, that unless you break up the distortions to a free housing market caused by the near monopolisation of land banks by a handful of large corporate housebuilders who happen to enjoy rather profitable direct and indirect links to major Tory politicians and donate handsomely to that party, then it's mostly just tinkering around the edges of the problem. Blaming the shortage of affordable housing on 'old people' is such a bizarrely feeble and hollow right-wing misdirection that it really doesn't deserve a response from anyone.

 

[nonya]

I hate to break it to you but very many people live with others,with friends, partners, parents, children. There have always been more people than housing units available

I don't literally mean 1 person per house, it's a simple example that everyone can understand, don't be obtuse.

 

[nonya]

Just an observation on the rather silly and divisive generational argument being put forward here: where I live, not Lambeth but also in S London, there seems to be plenty of young people able to afford £700,000 houses.

It's not about age, it's about class and poverty/wealth/inequality.

The generation that feels utterly locked out of housing certainly doesn't feel that way - hence the discourse about "boomers" and how they ruined everything (which is broadly true).

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't literally mean 1 person per house, it's a simple example that everyone can understand, don't be obtuse.

You seem to be obtuse here. Building new tower blocks is really really stupid. When they suffer from subsidence each block will make dozens of families - not to mention single person households - homeless. It's not like it's a great secret that in the foreseeable future there'll be more subsidence in london, it's been reported - see eg Climate crisis to put millions of British homes at risk of subsiding so running up a load of shoddily built tower blocks that'll then need to be torn down doesn't strike me as a good way forwards.

 

[oryx]

The generation that feels utterly locked out of housing certainly doesn't feel that way - hence the discourse about "boomers" and how they ruined everything (which is broadly true).

You're not making any sense.

You sound like a spoilt child to be honest. 'Wah, I can't buy a house, older people have ruined EVERYTHING, wah!'

So explain to me how so many young people (I'm talking about people in their twenties and thirties) are buying houses for £700,000 (and probably quite a bit more in Lambeth) if they're all utterly locked out of housing?

Of course, I appreciate a lot are struggling with high rents and insecure tenure. That goes for people of all ages. Many of the opportunities of the 80s and 90s such as squatting, short life, fair rents and hard-to-let council flats are no longer there. The same with longer term tenancies. But that's the fault of governments, the right to buy and the rise of landlordism being major factors. And you have rightly pointed out the need to eliminate the absentee landlords who buy up new developments in swathes (one housing scheme near me was being marketed abroad and aimed at investors, rather than locals).

What do you mean by being 'locked out of housing', by the way? Do you mean it's hard to buy a place in your twenties?

 

[editor]

I would support this without a question, this is absolutely a crime. It won't solve the problem but would help for sure. But we'd still be in a situation where there are more people than housing units available.


14 low cost rented units and intermediate shared ownership units is not "luxury" housing.

Oh for fuck's sake. Read up on Cressingham Gardens before posting any more vacuous nonsense. Lambeth want to demolish the entire estate.

Search Results for “cressingham” – Brixton Buzz

www.brixtonbuzz.com

 

[Gramsci]

the goal is affordable housing at market rates. We need to build as much as we can until we get there.

Subsidizing the housing costs for individuals is an acceptable short term solution, but in the long run de facto privileges old people and locks out younger generations.

So yes, I wish that there were more units earmarked for subsidies of various kinds, but broadly more units overall is better than less units overall.

Post war Council housing was in general a success in housing the population in decent accommodation at affordable rent.

It took the profit motive out of housing.

Your fixating on market rates. One of the reasons Council housing and other forms of social housing developed was that the so called market failed to house large sections of society properly.

Its the "market" that is the problem.

Nor did social housing lock young people out in the past. I know Londoners who grew up on a Council estate. Once adult got a flat. Once married got a Council house. That is how it worked before Thatcher.

What is needed is more social housing not market housing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Post war Council housing was in general a success in housing the population in decent accommodation at affordable rent.

It took the profit motive out of housing.

Your fixating on market rates. One of the reasons Council housing and other forms of social housing developed was that the so called market failed to house large sections of society properly.

Its the "market" that is the problem.

Nor did social housing lock young people out in the past. I know Londoners who grew up on a Council estate. Once adult got a flat. Once married got a Council house. That is how it worked ore Thatcher.

What is needed is more social housing not market housing.

Also much council housing built to a good standard - there's housing being used that's more than a hundred years auld built by the London county council or the metropolitan boroughs