"Young professionals" to infest flats above Iceland

[ViolentPanda]

Yes. And that sucks. But that doesn't make any one who manages to raise the cash to buy a property an "infesting yuppies", does it?

I didn't claim that it does, however, in previous posts I've made I have said that I can understand resentment against some people buying such properties.

It seems to me that some of the people on this thread are having difficulty with understanding that it's human nature to resent forces that deprive you of the ability to, for example, live securely in an area where you have settled. Those forces include the development of private rather than social housing.

 

[Mr Retro]

Well, one development stopped the working practices of the duke of e

No it didn't.

The apallingly poor current landlady did that

 

[christonabike]

Yes

She was shit

I don't go there now

(Could of swore it was summat to do people in the new development complaining of the noise from the garden that meant you could no longer sit out there until the small hours when they opened late)

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I didn't claim that it does, however, in previous posts I've made I have said that I can understand resentment against some people buying such properties.

It seems to me that some of the people on this thread are having difficulty with understanding that it's human nature to resent forces that deprive you of the ability to, for example, live securely in an area where you have settled. Those forces include the development of private rather than social housing.

In much the same way, I imagine that some homeless people may sometimes resent me for having a place to lay my head. Is this entirely reasonable? No. But what the fuck else do people want from them? Like the man says, they're human.

[Edit: and, frankly, I think I would rather have them, resenting me, than any of the people who have just got used to it and don't even notice that there are tons of homeless people about now. Let alone the people wh olay into them for being workshy or whatever.

Actually, I think I might prefer them to homeless people who don't resent me.

The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No: a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious, is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest. As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinarily stupid. I can quite understand a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under those conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance.
]

 

[tarannau]

indeed, but:

1. It's part of a trend - nobody's thinking of this development as just a one-off.

2. Of course anything that makes an area look nicer can have a similar effect, and hence my observation about possible benefits. Note however that this wouldn't necessarily apply to council tenants!

3. There's been lots of these developments across London and it's not like this has led to any downward pressure on house prices, has it? Of course your general principle is perfectly sound, but it's not working that way.

See 1. above.

1) That's maybe true, but perhaps it would be better to choose a site and development really worthy of condemnation as luxury yuppie boltholes rather than this thing above Iceland .

2) Will these flats really make the area look nicer, pushing property values up. I didn't realise that they weren't flats previously, and I doubt that anyone will realise that they are private accommodation once they're completed. And besides, if they were purchased and used for social housing - which We'd all prefer - wouldn't they also look nice and liable to push up house prices as well. Or am I missing something?

3) It's difficult to know either way. You've got to ask how high house prices would be if developments like this weren't made available - I suspect prices would be even higher.

I do agree that there's a huge issue re. housing though Justin, with the Govt very unlikely to have the courage to intervene and put effective downward pressure on house prices. Too much of a vote loser, no matter how ridiculous the long-term view. I still don't think that sloppy, second-rate 80's stereotypes of yuppies (pretty much any 'young professional' who works and can scrape together a deposit it seems, at least on this thread) are really helping the discussion though...

 

[ViolentPanda]

What he means is that if you increase the total amount of housing then, as supply has increased, price should fall even if that additional housing is expensive. This is perfectly sound in theory.

Doesn't (like an awful lot of economic models) work too well in practice though, does it?

In inner London we very much have a "pressure cooker" effect with housing prices. This is caused by such factors as (for example) the upward pressure created by social housing development in Lambeth not keeping pace with "Right to Buy" sales, where a net deficit in social housing stock even if matched by an increase in available private rental stock, will generally cause rental prices to rise. Part of this is of course because private rental housing is (mistakenly in my view) perceived as inherently better than social rental housing.

In sum, I think Bob's "trickledown theory of housing" has more holes than a Macari-era West Ham defence.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It's difficult to know either way. You've got to ask how high house prices would be if developments like this weren't made available - I suspect prices would be even higher.

I think lower, because it should be possible - indeed it happens even now - to compel developers to build lower-cost housing rather than catering so enthusiastically for the young professional market.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

In sum, I think Bob's "trickledown theory of housing" has more holes than a Macari-era West Ham defence.

Wasn't Martin and Gale then, was it? They were good.

 

[chegrimandi]

1) That's maybe true, but perhaps it would be better to choose a site and development really worthy of condemnation as luxury yuppie boltholes rather than this thing above Iceland .

why, why bother distinguishing when they are part of the same phenomenom?

as I look out of my work window (in Vauxhall) now I can see the biggest fucking development of 'penthouse' flats I've ever seen. It dwarfs the MI5 building easily. Its foul and bland. I can think of shit loads more, and I mean shit loads more where I live in Hackney. All part of the same thing. Why do we need to pussyfoot round what we call it and rage against the negative impacts it has.

 

[OldSlapper]

From the Officer’s report to tonight’s meeting:

Planning History

3.8 June 2004 - Planning application withdrawn for the erection of a five-storey extension, from first floor level fronting Brixton Road, together with the conversion of the existing upper floors and associated alterations to create a total of 59 studio flats at 441-447 Brixton Road and 2-4 Electric Avenue (04/00366/FUL).

So this application is a scaled down version of a proposal from June last year. And it’s entirely coincidental that only twelve flats are now proposed – escaping the 15 unit social housing rule – instead of the 59 proposed in June 2004 which would have led to a 25% social housing provision, i.e. 14-15 flats for poor and/or sick people from the housing register.

Modest suggestion for any Lambeth councillor with a vote on planning committee reading this thread and considering voting for this development at tonight’s meeting (officers are saying "approve"):

1. Discover how much of Electric Avenue is owned by this developer and related companies.

2. Satisfy yourself that the developer is not involved in a “14 unit scam” phased development designed to escape the 25% social housing rule.

3. If this is a phased development extract a section 106 agreement (the social housing legal trigger) from the developer before agreeing to this development.

4. Adjourn this application at tonight’s meeting until you’re satisfied on points 1-3 above. Refer the proposal back to officers for inquiries to be carried out and a report made to the next planning committee meeting.

The councillors who will vote on this application at tonight's meeting - Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, 7pm - are:

MEMBERS: Councillor BAKER (Vice Chair), CLYNE, FOLLIS, GRIGG, LING, PALMER (Chair) and SMITH

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillor FEWTRELL, GENTRY, HUSSAIN, David MALLEY and Clive PARRY

The meeting tonight is a public meeting. Anyone can stroll along.

Incidentally, I was talking to someone last night who lives further along Electric Avenue towards Atlantic Road. He’s not been consulted about this development so local democracy has, at least in part, broken down.

This is a further reason for councillors to adjourn this item at tonight’s meeting and to instruct officers (a) to answer some basic questions (see above) and (b) to consult fully with the local community.

Why? Because Lambeth councillors cannot represent the interests of the community they serve if that community has partially been excluded from the consultation process.

Councillors’ email addresses are at www.lambeth.gov.uk. Getting them off their bottoms at tonight’s meeting could secure 14-15 flats for people from the housing register so this isn't an idle debate.

A one bedroom housing association flat in Electric Avenue would rent (on a secure tenancy) for about £60 p.w. That's what councillors should be voting for tonight.

I wonder if they will?

 

[noodles]

And let me once again, if I may, fail to see relevance.
I tend to think of it as "not wishing to have my position completely misstated for ill-motivated reasons".

Ok I'll try again, I feel a bit like Jeremy Paxman:

When do YOU cease resenting buyers of flats?

Is it just people buying flats above Iceland that you have a problem with? Or in Brixton generally?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

So this application is a scaled down version of a proposal from June last year. And it’s entirely coincidental that only twelve flats are now proposed – escaping the 15 unit social housing rule – instead of the 59 proposed in June 2004 which would have led to a 25% social housing provision, i.e. 14-15 flats for poor and/or sick people from the housing register.

You're surely not suggesting that some of this development was originally intended for social housing, are you? I thought that was out of the question.

Ok I'll try again, I feel a bit like Jeremy Paxman:

When do YOU cease resenting buyers of flats?

At a date somewhat later than the date you cease misrepresenting my views as you have done so consistently above.

 

[IntoStella]

All part of the same thing. Why do we need to pussyfoot round what we call it and rage against the negative impacts it has.

Very good question. It makes you wonder what this board is these days, doesn't it?

Is it being funded by Conservative Central Office or something?

 

[isvicthere?]

what is the it about their posting style that makes you think that they are wealthy young men?

I think it's some sort of dig. I'm neither young nor wealthy.

I asked Old Slapper what it was supposed to mean, but s/he has yet to respond.

 

[tarannau]

I think lower, because it should be possible - indeed it happens even now - to compel developers to build lower-cost housing rather than catering so enthusiastically for the young professional market.

I somehow doubt, without looking at the plans admittedly, that these will be small flats rather than palatial abodes, with costs kept down and aiming to be affordable. Not really affordable to you or me admittedly, but reasonable in relation to a working couple on above-medium wages and for a Zone 2 location.

Turning it around, if you were a property developer wouldn't you be aiming the make the finished property appeal to 'young professionals?' After all, they're not going to give the places away (even to work-averse protestors) and Brixton has undoubted primary appeal for the young, especially in that highly central and noisy location, no matter how old us 'locals' are getting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Wasn't Martin and Gale then, was it? They were good.

They were good when they actually played, but Gale had some kind of fixation with getting sent off, and Alvin was forever getting injured.

 

[noodles]

At a date somewhat later than the date you cease misrepresenting my views as you have done so consistently above.

Perhaps you'd care to point out where I have done so?

 

[IntoStella]

I think it's some sort of dig. I'm neither young nor wealthy.

I asked Old Slapper what it was supposed to mean, but s/he has yet to respond.

Try inserting irony chip.

I would have thought that was obvious, though with all the screaming, frothing and toy throwing from the Defenders of Yupdom, it is all a bit chaotic, I admit.

 

[tarannau]

why, why bother distinguishing when they are part of the same phenomenom?

as I look out of my work window (in Vauxhall) now I can see the biggest fucking development of 'penthouse' flats I've ever seen. It dwarfs the MI5 building easily. Its foul and bland. I can think of shit loads more, and I mean shit loads more where I live in Hackney. All part of the same thing. Why do we need to pussyfoot round what we call it and rage against the negative impacts it has.

Well, because they're not part of the same phenomenon really are they?

One's a purpose built luxury new development of penthouses, almost certainly aimed at commanding a high price. The other's a conversion of some largely undesirable, vacant space above a shabby supermarket, seemingly aimed at near-affordable rates. Chances are that the people that live in them are just going to be average people that may even - shock horror - contribute to and become involved in the local community. It's hardly likely that they'll be living in something called 'The Iceland' Penthouse, swanning off to Park Lane in the roller to pick up some black truffles...

 

[Bob]

It's hardly likely that they'll be living in something called 'The Iceland' Penthouse, swanning off to Park Lane in the roller to pick up some black truffles...

I'm pretty sure the Deli on Atlantic road has black truffles. They certainly have everything else.

 

[hayduke]

...anyone daring to get off their bottom, luck out in the jobs market, work themselves to the bone, scrape together a deposit and actually, sin of sins, buy a home.

Guilty as charged your honour. I must be an infecting yup.

I recently bought a flat in Brixton, spend my money in local businesses, love the areas vitality and am fascinated by its history and diversity.

The only thing I don't like is the constant inference by U75 posters that I am bringing all this down in flames.

Of course Lambeth and much of London needs more affordable housing, but in the meantime, would Brixton be better left to rot?

I don't think so.

 

[isvicthere?]

Try inserting irony chip.

I would have thought that was obvious, though with all the screaming, frothing and toy throwing from the Defenders of Yupdom, it is all a bit chaotic, I admit.

Irony chip? I've usually got a whole plateful, smothered in irony ketchup. Indeed, in my original query to Old Slapper I DID acknowledge it appeared to be irony, but just asked him/her to explain cos it wasn't obvious to me.

<scuttles off in search of irony salt and vinegar>

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Guilty as charged your honour. I must be an infecting yup.

I recently bought a flat in Brixton, spend my money in local businesses, love the areas vitality and am fascinated by its history and diversity.

The only thing I don't like is the constant inference by U75 posters that I am bringing all this down in flames.

Of course Lambeth and much of London needs more affordable housing, but in the meantime, would Brixton be better left to rot?

I don't think so.

You don't think you might be "guilty as charged" of not taking the blindest bit of notice of what people are actually saying? What is it with this thread?

Turning it around, if you were a property developer wouldn't you be aiming the make the finished property appeal to 'young professionals?' After all, they're not going to give the places away (even to work-averse protestors) and Brixton has undoubted primary appeal for the young, especially in that highly central and noisy location, no matter how old us 'locals' are getting.

Indeed. They will seek to maximise their profits. Hence the requirement for local and national government intervention if the goal of maximising profit fails - as indeed it does fail - to produce a rational and responsive housing market.

 

[Giles]

As a general observation, let us suppose, as I do, that we would like a sizeable increase in social housing - something which, by the way, would have a healthy effect on the market for privastre ownership of houses too. In order for this to happen, we need public support for it, and we need public belief that such a thing is possible. We can achieve neither of these things if people adhere to any of the following positions, very different in themselves:

1. "This is the way things are, we should just accept it."
2. "I've worked hard for my home, and I think anything that questions what's happening in the housing market is a threat to that."
3. "If you don't like it fuck you, get a better job."

We have to say that it is not just possible but desirable. In order to do this we have to point out the deleterious consequences of the current policy. These will inevitably involve gentrification, buying to let, the view of a home as an investment and so on. We will also have to say that house prices are unsustainable and that they need to fall substantially. As this will involve moving a lot of people - indeed, precisely those who have found it hardest to get hold of their house - into negative equity, and knocking an awful lot off the paper value of all homeowners' property - this is going to be a very difficult argument to win.

It's certainly a difficult situation at the moment. But: prices CAN'T keep rising much further - simply because fewer and fewer people can afford to get their first place and therefore keep the increases going. There aren't enough "infesting yuppies" to buy all the small flats in London.

I don't think that any government is going to do anything to INDUCE a major price crash. At least, not if they want to win the next election. As you say, it will hurt too many people. And probably cause a recession in turn, losing more people their jobs and homes.

I think that prices will just stop going up, maybe fall a little, quite slowly.

Giles..

 

[Giles]

why, why bother distinguishing when they are part of the same phenomenom?

as I look out of my work window (in Vauxhall) now I can see the biggest fucking development of 'penthouse' flats I've ever seen. It dwarfs the MI5 building easily. Its foul and bland. I can think of shit loads more, and I mean shit loads more where I live in Hackney. All part of the same thing. Why do we need to pussyfoot round what we call it and rage against the negative impacts it has.

I agree that more "social" housing is needed, but surely that does not mean that new private developments of flats are "negative" - as someone else pointed out, the more houses and flats that are built, the better for everyone in the end? And as for how they look, surely the acid test of this is whether or not people like them enough to spend all that money on them?

Giles..

 

[editor]

Oh yes, it's so terrible where you live. I just don't know how you stand it.

What the fuck are you on about?

I was talking about my income not my accomodation, not that it's any of your business.

 

[hayduke]

You don't think you might be "guilty as charged" of not taking the blindest bit of notice of what people are actually saying.

Not really. The sentiment of many posting is that turning premises empty for decades into housing is bad for Brixton (because it "infests a key bit of the avenue with yups").

No genuine yuppie is ever going to want to live in Brixton, above Iceland or not.

 

[editor]

From the Officer’s report to tonight’s meeting:

Fourth and last time before you're banned:

Did you previously post under the name Anna Key?
YES/NO?

 

[Stobart Stopper]

We have two developments going up here in Redbridge, one block of luxury flats which will probably be bought by proessional people, as they are very expensive, another development is a mixture of affordable lower cost part ownership flats and houses. This sort of thing is ok, they are building for people who have different incomes. The "Yuppies," remember,who have the higher incomes, will almost definitely be shopping in the same places as me and my friends, like Ilford and Romford, the local High St. Providing income and employment for people who work in the shops.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Not really. The sentiment of many posting is that turning premises empty for decades into housing is bad for Brixton (because it "infests a key bit of the avenue with yups").

No it isn't. It's in favour of social housing.