Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Much the same in rural areas of course.oryx said:
"Young professionals" to infest flats above Iceland
- Thread starter OldSlapper
- Start date
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
Justin said:
Very much - possibly worse, due to (I guess) a higher level of unemployment, lower pay & fewer job opportunities in rural areas, coupled with almost London-esque house prices.
The initiative in the Yorkshire Dales where AFAIK certain homes will not be available to second home owners or wealthy incomers (I must look up the exact details) is an interesting one.
The GLA's insistence on a quota of social housing in schemes over a certain number of homes is admirable. I often wonder if the GLA & local authorities have more power to make it possible for people to live in areas they are priced out of, e.g., with the Iceland scheme, could Lambeth possibly insist to the vendors that in order to get planning permission, all purchasers have a local connection? Probably not, but it would be good if they could. Not as good as building more affordable homes, but better than a free for all.
newbie
undisambiguated
oryx said:
The answer isn't to social engineer people out of where they want to be, nor to cram ever more people into the same space, it's to create reasons why they want to be somewhere else. Over the years Brixton (& London as a whole) has reversed from being somewhere people clamoured to get away from, to being too popular for its own good. The real issue is how to stop those with choices herding into the southeast and various pretty bits and make the north and the grotty bits into better, more desirable, places to live.
I have the impression people in Burnley or Oldham would welcome being able to argue about the effects of their area being too popular.
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
newbie - I think you are right in the long term, & in the greater scheme of things, but in the shorter term, some "social engineering" helps to redress the balance - e.g. quotas for key-workers & local people (by which I very much mean people from all ethnic backgrounds, BTW!) in popular inner-city areas, and housing mobility schemes where people who want to get out of London can move easily to areas of low demand.
Areas of London (and elsewhere) have always been in a state of flux.
You can't just suddenly expect it to stop.
I mean, look at the various different groups and nationalities of people that have made parts of the East End (and indeed Brixton) their home. I bet that when each new group began moving in to an area, there were rumbles of discontent from those who had lived there for years about how these new people were taking the place over, and about how many new businesses (shops, cafes, bars) were catering to their needs, and so on. And in the end, some would have left because they no longer felt it was "their" place any more.
Brixton started off as quite a "posh" area by all accounts. I bet the original residents (those who hadn't already left) clucked and tutted in disgust at the riff-raff moving in to their neighbours former homes and the noisy, rough pubs that (I assume) sprang up to cater to them.
And in more recent times I bet there were those long-term residents who did not like it when the the Caribbeans arrived in the 40s and 50s, with their different culture and traditions.
You can't just expect this to stop happening. It never has and probably never will.
Giles..
You can't just suddenly expect it to stop.
I mean, look at the various different groups and nationalities of people that have made parts of the East End (and indeed Brixton) their home. I bet that when each new group began moving in to an area, there were rumbles of discontent from those who had lived there for years about how these new people were taking the place over, and about how many new businesses (shops, cafes, bars) were catering to their needs, and so on. And in the end, some would have left because they no longer felt it was "their" place any more.
Brixton started off as quite a "posh" area by all accounts. I bet the original residents (those who hadn't already left) clucked and tutted in disgust at the riff-raff moving in to their neighbours former homes and the noisy, rough pubs that (I assume) sprang up to cater to them.
And in more recent times I bet there were those long-term residents who did not like it when the the Caribbeans arrived in the 40s and 50s, with their different culture and traditions.
You can't just expect this to stop happening. It never has and probably never will.
Giles..
Giles said:
Er ... it started off as fields and stuff, with farmers and market gardens. It should be given back to the farmers (or any prior owners you care to define, such as the Normans, Romans, Saxons, Neanderthals ....). Life moves on and, as several posters have commented, you'll never stop it.
Social engineering may help - and I entirely support efforts to make housing available to those on way lower incomes than at present - but it will never stop "incomers". There is a flip side to arguing that no-one should be able to come IN to an area - the residents will never be able to move OUT for any reason. I for one would never wish to live in that sort of society - movement, diversity, change are what I love. It's just a question of balance.
I don't think it has been raised yet, but another aspect which may be worthy of debate is the UK obsession with property ownership. Owning your own house is the big thing in UK culture and people have aspired to it for years but it is not such an issue in other cultures, even in the rest of Europe. Why are we like that? What is it about the UK that makes us so obsessed with property ownership? Is it linked to our ingrained history of inherited wealth (a house being a pretty big lump to pass on to the kids)?
And by the way, those posters using phrases such as "yuppies" (infesting or otherwise!) and "incomers" may like to consider the following definition:
Stereotype:
• Noun 1: A preconceived and over-simplified idea of the characteristics which typify a person or thing.
(www.askoxford.com)
Not everyone in any particular group is the same (see, that Met Police Diversity Training wasn't wasted
). Some people who come into an area will bring good things, others will not.Retires to safe distance and takes cover
chegrimandi
associated with adultery
editor said:So you'd agree that it's a bit silly labelling everyone moving into a property above a supermarket as "infesting yuppies"?
You see, I agree with the majority of your post but can't help getting pissed off when people slap up blanket assumptions about the motives and personality of people they've never met just because they're able to afford a none-too glamorous property in Brixton.
Wow! Is this some sort of anti-yuppie indemnity even if I suddenly strike it rich?!
But you're making my point for me: if I just happened to have been moving into those buildings on Electric Avenue, some people here would have already condemned me as a yuppie (or even worse, an "infesting yuppie!"), I'd have to face the full force of Justin's 'resentment'and put up with all the other prejudices posted up here just because I bought a 'pokey' flat!
It's the blanket condemnation that offends me, but that doesn't mean that I don't sincerely wish that those buildings hadn't been put into use for social housing decades ago.
If the building was turning into a luxury yuppie development a la Atlantic 66 I could get worked up about it. But I find it hard to work up much of a lather over a building that's been empty for twenty years being converted into (for London) cheap flats.
Given the realistic, real world choice of it remaining empty and rotting away (like some other Elec Avenue buildings) and being put to so some less-than-ideal use, I'd prefer the latter.
Although - to repeat - I'd rather it be put to community/social use. But that, sadly, wasn't an option and there's nothing I could do about that.
what a load of disingenuous apologist bollocks that is. I couldn't do nothing about it mate so now I don't give a a shit. If you can't see that it is part of a wider phenomenon that has massively negative far-reaching impacts all over the shop you are either blinkered or dumb, I dunno which.
oh god forbid anyone was condemned as a yuppie! how simply awful that would be for them.....how oppressed they would be....imagine they might log on to the internet and see nasty people slagging them off...ooo how traumatic that would be.
Mike: I believe did you not once produce t-shirts that said anger was an energy?
hendo said:
For what it is worth, I don't think Hendo is a yuppie or he and his partner are infesting anything. I have met the man and the idea he is a pernicious yuppie is excrement. They're just a working professional couple who have had the luck and intelligence to be where they are.
You know what I think about the housing situation OldSlapper, we've chatted about it often enough and I agree with plenty of what you and Justin argue.
You do need to find an alternative to 'yuppie' though (as you suggested yourself recently) real yuppies aren't bothering with Brixton, they're more interested in river-side properties at a million plus.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Mmm. Ever read News From Nowhere? You may not be wrong.detective-boy said:
Delighted to see that phrase. "Social engineering" is so often used as a pejorative term in an of itself. (You can see this often in the Times for instance - not least, indeed, in pieces objecting to the provision of social housing on the grounds that it's "social engineering". Naturally one rarely reads objections to, say expensive public school educations, which are very much a form of social engineering. But I digress.)detective-boy said:
And I should hope not too. Incomers are a good thing, at most times and in most ways.detective-boy said:
This debate does go on, but one problem with raising it here is that people tend to come straight out with "what, am I wrong for wanting to buy my own home then? Does that make me a yuppie then? Are you saying you would never buy your own home?" and so on and so on, which then requires another two hundred posts to the effect that nobody ever said that, which nobody takes any notice of, accusations and counter-accusations, and so on ad nauseam.detective-boy said:
chegrimandi
associated with adultery
editor said:
I've met you. I've told you my name before. I would like to maintain a degree of anonymity by not plastering it all over the boards if thats allright by you. But if you REALLY want to know pm me and I'll tell you. Again.
However I suspect you're only asking because once again you're trying to sidetrack....
WTF? Since when did people have to reveal their real names on the board?editor said:
For that matter, since when were people no longer allowed to call you Mike?
Are you feeling all right?
You have really, really lost the plot this time.editor said:
editor
hiraethified
My board name is 'editor'. I've repeatedly asked people to refer to me by that name here, as well you know.IntoStella said:
If you must know, I'm currently getting a shedload of hassle from banned members and I'm not inclined to make it any easier for them to work out my real name, thanks.
chegrimandi
associated with adultery
editor said:
I'll consider my wrists slapped then. Apologies.
editor
hiraethified
You haven't got a fucking clue what you're on about. I've had aggressive letters from people who haven;t worked out that the editor and me are one and the same and I have no intention of making it any easier for them to make that connection, given the recent mails I've been getting.IntoStella said:
But what the fuck it's got to do with you is anyone's guess. If I choose to be called by my board name like everyone else, that's my choice and none of your fucking business.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I should perhaps add more constructively: of course this country needs, in general, a proper debate on home ownership, which needs to take the form of asking how (and whether) more extensive alternatives to home ownership can be provided for people who are unable or reluctant to undertake it. It would need to be a pretty tough debate though, because there is a very strong current of feeling, particularly amongst the affluent, that things like council houses are some osrt of welfare scam for the workshy.
It would also need to be tough because it would hard to touch on the question of second homes and whether their ownership should be discouraged, not least because one of the factors pushing up house prices has been buy-to-let. We're back to resentment here, but it does piss me off a great deal to see newspaper features glorying in the available of homes for people who do not even need to use them and for whom they are merely a source of income. The requirements of second-home owners have a great priority in this society than the rights of people who have none, and this is a consequence of the manoeuvre by which people who have a little property - a small house with a burdensome mortgage - are induced to side with people who have much property rather than their real allies, the people who have none.
Sorry, little bit of politics there.
It would also need to be tough because it would hard to touch on the question of second homes and whether their ownership should be discouraged, not least because one of the factors pushing up house prices has been buy-to-let. We're back to resentment here, but it does piss me off a great deal to see newspaper features glorying in the available of homes for people who do not even need to use them and for whom they are merely a source of income. The requirements of second-home owners have a great priority in this society than the rights of people who have none, and this is a consequence of the manoeuvre by which people who have a little property - a small house with a burdensome mortgage - are induced to side with people who have much property rather than their real allies, the people who have none.
Sorry, little bit of politics there.
IntoStella said:
How comes Spud Murphy III, erstwhile London Forum moderator, has been airbrushed from history?
Trotskyite School of Falsification yet again.
editor
hiraethified
Cheers for that.chegrimandi said:
I know you didn't mean it maliciously, but it is causing some problems.
In fact, I might make a announcement in community about this because the amount of off-board hassle I'm getting has started to rise with the growing popularity of the boards.
And I'd rather get abusive emails addressed to 'editor' than to me personally!
chegrimandi
associated with adultery
can we get back on topic please...editor I genuinely apologise for using your name and won't do it again.
newbie
undisambiguated
detective-boy said:
Do you think the term 'incomer' is pejorative? I use it because it is, I thought, a description which is both accurate and free from value judgement. Is there a preferred term which is inclusive of all those who move into an area from outside? Genuine question- is there a better word?
chegrimandi
associated with adultery
So am I to take it we are to refrain from slagging of new housing developments/yuppification in general/shite housing situation in this country, because a few yuppies might find it offensive and a few posters get upset at being labelled in this way. Pathetic.
radical anarchist boards indeed. Sad state of affairs.
radical anarchist boards indeed. Sad state of affairs.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I think the answer to this is going to be along the lines of "where does it say these are radical anarchist boards?".chegrimandi said:
Justin said:
In various newspapers apparently:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=28215&highlight=anarchist
Similar threads
