Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SEWING BEE 2022 - starts tomorrow Wednesday 27th April

I really don't want this series to end!
I was so nervous while they were waiting to be told who was going....I started welling up and hyperventilating 😂
God knows what I'll be like next week :rolleyes::D
 
That was a very fair decision - I thought it was going to be Brogan, but it's not like she was actually that much worse than everyone else. Man Yee's origami dress was terrible, for example.

Annie's definitely my favourite. I loved her origami dress and the red dress last week. If either she or Debra win I'll be happy (not that I'll be sad about the other two winning either, really).
 
Yay, I've been rooting for Annie for a while - she makes clothes I'd like to wear and seems really lovely. They all do, to be fair, as is usually with these shows. It really was a close final - they all did brilliantly.

hash tag said:
"I've never been able to afford my own home". As lovely as she is, Something doesn't ring true. Apart from earning from sewing bee she is a lecturer at LCF.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it doesn't really ring true, when she lived in rough areas of London in the 80s when properties were going for pennies, and her business was already enormously successful. Still love her though.
 
Although it was successful there's not that much money in avant garde fashion and costume design, Sewing Bee came much later in life, and I'd imagine a lot of what money she had got, got spent on living rather than saving, especially as she had a secure tenancy. In a saner world with more secure housing that would be the much more sensible option.

I have a relative who has been a tutor at Central St Martin's for donkeys years and he lives in a small part ownership flat in zone 5, for comparison.
 
Plumdaff said:
Although it was successful there's not that much money in avant garde fashion and costume design, Sewing Bee came much later in life, and I'd imagine a lot of what money she had got, got spent on living rather than saving, especially as she had a secure tenancy. In a saner world with more secure housing that would be the much more sensible option.

I have a relative who has been a tutor at Central St Martin's for donkeys years and he lives in a small part ownership flat in zone 5, for comparison.
Click to expand...

Yes, sort of, but she was really successful (selling to the most famous people in the entire world at the time and designing costumes for movies), and she was happy to live in areas like Hackney where large family homes were selling for £25k in the 80s - even the area she lives in now wasn't much more than that then. Even if she had no support from her family (who sound like they're at least middle class) it is actually a bit surprising that she wasn't able to buy there in the 80s or 90s. It was really very cheap, not just cheaper than now, actually properly cheap.

Maybe she was ripped off by a business partner or something. Or maybe she chose to spend her money in other ways - not the same as not being able to afford to buy a home, really.

I do quite like that she's stayed a social housing tenant in lots of ways though - it's one of those nice counterpoints to point out to people who assert that social housing is only for unemployed people.
 
I lived in Dalston myself in the mid 90s, so I'm not unaware of how cheap it was. In fact, my auntie who bought in Clapton at the start of the 90s just sold up for an eye watering sum, but they had steady public sector jobs and a small inheritance, not relying on self-employment and selling small runs of handmade clothes out of one shop in North London. My uncle lived in squats and was a very successful buyer for some super fashionable interior decor firms in the 1980s and 1990s yet lived in a Peabody flat, albeit in Chelsea! Seemingly small differences in luck and circumstance do really make all the difference and I find it very easy to believe she's never had that much money to play with.

Social housing should be for a wide range of people - and I'm pleased that she's got a secure home regardless :D
 
Plumdaff said:
I lived in Dalston myself in the mid 90s, so I'm not unaware of how cheap it was. In fact, my auntie who bought in Clapton at the start of the 90s just sold up for an eye watering sum, but they had steady public sector jobs and a small inheritance, not relying on self-employment and selling small runs of handmade clothes out of one shop in North London. My uncle lived in squats and was a very successful buyer for some super fashionable interior decor firms in the 1980s and 1990s yet lived in a Peabody flat, albeit in Chelsea! Seemingly small differences in luck and circumstance do really make all the difference and I find it very easy to believe she's never had that much money to play with.

Social housing should be for a wide range of people - and I'm pleased that she's got a secure home regardless :D
Click to expand...

She was selling to the most famous people there were, though, and she owned the business, wasn't just a buyer. There were people in the 80s buying homes on the salary of a single person working part time as an unqualified health care worker with no deposit; it wasn't just for couples and people with inheritances. I mean, with secure rent and a permanent tenancy it could have been a sensible choice not to buy - but it's not the same as not being able to afford to.

Peabody in those days also used to give tenants £1,000 per bedroom to move out and buy a place. They still did up a few years ago - the exact same £1,000 :D But in the 80s in Hackney that would have been half the required deposit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Sewing Bee 2024
Replies
20
Views
439
AnnO'Neemus
A
danny la rouge
The Traitors ‘24 (starts Wed 3/1/24 9pm).
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
886
Views
20K
belboid
belboid
AverageJoe
Wednesday
Replies
18
Views
483
chilango
chilango
S
Drabblewrimo 2022
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
5K
frogwoman
frogwoman
Ranbay
This Place Rules 2022
Replies
5
Views
390
Ranbay
Ranbay
Back
Top Bottom