"Young professionals" to infest flats above Iceland
- Thread starter OldSlapper
- Start date
No, in suggesting that the debate is more for locals than 'outsiders'. If I suggested that I'd be drowned instantly in a deluge of bile. But it is a pertinent question. Non residents' opinions cannot be dismissed or excluded out of hand -- but do they sometimes take the arguments off on tangents that they might not go off on if they knew the place, or knew it better? At the end of the day none of us mind the opinions of ''outsiders'' just so long as we happen to agree with them.newbie said:What, that in posting I don't use words with a precision that picky can't find a hole in?
newbie
undisambiguated
IntoStella said:
tangents and distractions aren't quite the same but whether it's locals or others that make them isn't really an issue. Not for me, anyway. But sweeping statements tend to be seen differently, perhaps? So where I said "SFAICS everybody on this thread seems to want to justify why they, and their sort, is good for Brixton." the only person to respond directly was not a resident.
Maybe I'm not 'good for brixton'. But the question is, am I a lesser evil?newbie said:
newbie
undisambiguated
I don't know if you fit into the identifiable stereotype: moved into Brixton in the last 10 years or so, then aged between 20 & 40. If you do, you're part of the same trend as all the others. I'm not throwing around words like 'evil', but I am identifying a common identity and a common set of interests across both sides of this debate.
Justin said:
He'll be looking a long time - last time I saw it Barnes was on the same side of the river (i.e. the South side). The youth of today!
And as for Barnes being a "y*ppie zone" (Editor, post 712), well bits of it are and bits of it are not. There are some council flats just behind the High Street and then more towards the Mortlake side, the Red Lion can get a bit yobby but most of the big houses are way, way beyond "y*ppies" - they are full of judges and politicians and Premiership footballers - maybe what "y*ppies" wanna be able to get one day!
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Then you would be looking for me a long time, Mr Detective, for I work on the north side of the Thames....detective-boy said:
Curiously on the rare occasions I've been across that way, East Sheen has never looked all that posh to me.
Barnes I'm fairly sure was always clipped-hedge country. I had a godmotheror a great-aunt or something who lived there and I went there once. This would be thirty years ago though and I think the hedge is all I remember.
Justin said:
Sorry, the I took the context of your posts about your visitors to suggest they were looking for property in Brixton.
As for East Sheen, depends which bit - loads of massive houses between the Upper Richmond Road and the park, a bit less posh between the Upper and Lower Richmond Roads. It's got a Waitrose though ...
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Mind you there's been a Waitrose in Stevenage for decades. It is in the Old Town though.detective-boy said:
newbie
undisambiguated
So then, if my proposition is right- and no-one has really argued against it- how then should we proceed? If unwelcome changes in Brixton can be laid at the door of an influx of 20- and 30-somethings pushing prices beyond the reach of locals, surely something to curb that popularity is needed? Or more to the point, to make Thornton Heath more desireable to that age group. As I've said before, people in plenty of other places would welcome the opportunity for their home area to thrive in the way Brixton has done.
The night economy, all of it, aimed predominantly at local 20s/30s and their friends and peers from further away, is heavily implicated in the squeezing out of long term inhabitants and, crucially, their grown children. Anna Key has done some fine rants on this. While all sides of the argument concentrate on which bar and patrons are more or less desirable, the bigger picture is that both are equally culpable.
The night economy, all of it, aimed predominantly at local 20s/30s and their friends and peers from further away, is heavily implicated in the squeezing out of long term inhabitants and, crucially, their grown children. Anna Key has done some fine rants on this. While all sides of the argument concentrate on which bar and patrons are more or less desirable, the bigger picture is that both are equally culpable.
newbie said:
A lot of people (including a lot of ex council tenants who sell up) move to the suburbs when they have kids and want, for instance, gardens in preference to being close to the local shops / bars. So the only way really to get rid of younger people is to make Brixton more suburban. Two obvious steps would be:
a) Close the tube
b) Close all the pubs & clubs.
That would probably drive me out in about ten minutes...
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Hold on - loads of people have argued against your proposition.
newbie
undisambiguated
Bob said:A lot of people (including a lot of ex council tenants who sell up) move to the suburbs when they have kids and want, for instance, gardens in preference to being close to the local shops / bars. So the only way really to get rid of younger people is to make Brixton more suburban. Two obvious steps would be:
a) Close the tube
b) Close all the pubs & clubs.
That would probably drive me out in about ten minutes...
The tube would be far, far less of an issue if it went to Thornton Heath.
Not all.
newbie
undisambiguated
FridgeMagnet said:
I've just skimmed from #674 and I can't find any, except pickmans, who seems to have retired with an unanswered question hanging. You asked for clarification, which I hope has been forthcoming and Giles qualified what I said by pointing out that Brixton isn't unique,
newbie
undisambiguated
Bob said:
It's not suburban and never will be. But it has been and will be again, very largely a dormitory, where people live, shop and play and from which they travel to work. Over the years it's become a magnet for a fairly tightly drawn section of the population to party and live in, mirrored by rising concern about locals being priced out.
newbie said:
To be honest I agree with some of Newbie's basic thoughts - Brixton has recently been, and is likely to remain, a place that predominantly favours the young. The suburban flight of much of the original West Indian influx is a case in point - much of that generation has often understandably moved for bigger gardens, seemingly better schooling and a more restful experience.
I do feel that the tension Newbie attributes to the conflict between the daytime and nightime economy is somewhat overplayed however. The market is a pale shadow of what it was admittedly, but I suspect that's largely because more people are using supermarkets (bah!) and that the dispersed 'Ethnic' population no longer has to travel to get speciality goods as often - corner shops in the suburbs now sell plantains, okra etc. Equally midddle ground shopping areas have been squeezed severely in recent years - sadly many people prefer to buy branded goods from massive chains and one-stop shopping centres than a comparatively small town centre like Brixton.
The nightime ecomony may be more polarised than it was before - young and old don't tend to drink in the same spots as much as they perhaps used to, but that's more a symptom of increased choice and 'improved' marketing targeting of establishments than unique to Brixton.
And whilst I'm not the biggest consumer of Nailbars or Sportswear shops, they are reflective of the service based and local-interest shops which tend to thrive in smaller shopping/residential areas like Brixton. Nailbars are a bit like crack - once you start, you can't stop needing that chemical hit to have your fake nails reattached ... or suffer withdrawal symptoms as they grow out horribly...
newbie
undisambiguated
tarannau said:
Brixton isn't unique in any of this (except perhaps in the geographic fact which is the tube). To some extent all of London appears to be experiencing a similar effect, the young are moving in and expecting services appropriate to their needs. That Brixton is suffering the consequences more than some other places may not be entirely due to the rising, well targeted, night economy, but it's not entirely divorced from it either. It was striking to hear somone on the radio describe exactly the same phenomenon in Hoxton- overemphasis on the night economy leading to locals being squeezed for housing.
From page 24 or so ...
Is that the people who are based at the Fair Shares co-op at Crampton Street, SE17? They have a great archive and should be able to help you.
editor said:
Is that the people who are based at the Fair Shares co-op at Crampton Street, SE17? They have a great archive and should be able to help you.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
31 pages in the past week.
Havent read them all.One thing about these developments is that they get bought as "buy to let" investments.
Architects have designed units(based on the old partakabin idea)which are capable of being put above "lost" space like supermarkets to provide affordable housing.This would be possible if supermarkets to do this rather than profit led developments like this.
Havent read them all.One thing about these developments is that they get bought as "buy to let" investments.
Architects have designed units(based on the old partakabin idea)which are capable of being put above "lost" space like supermarkets to provide affordable housing.This would be possible if supermarkets to do this rather than profit led developments like this.
Stop saying things I agree with. You're confusing me.newbie said:
newbie
undisambiguated
??
If you agree with me then the issue is not the arrival of rich young professionals forcing prices up (as you've consistently maintained), it's an oversupply of all sorts of young people coming from outside and competing with the local youth for services and homes.
It doesn't matter whether those incomers are particularly rich or not, they create more demand than there is a supply of homes, and it's the local youth that are being squeezed.
If you agree with me then the issue is not the arrival of rich young professionals forcing prices up (as you've consistently maintained), it's an oversupply of all sorts of young people coming from outside and competing with the local youth for services and homes.
It doesn't matter whether those incomers are particularly rich or not, they create more demand than there is a supply of homes, and it's the local youth that are being squeezed.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
...and the parents who know their kids will still be living at home well into their fortiesnewbie said:
1) Does irony always have to be signposted with huge, flashing neon arrows?newbie said:
2) I maintain that these places are completely out of the reach of the vast majority of single young people, based on local prices for similar properties (not 60s council block conversions). But yes, young people are getting squeezed out, along with everyone else on anything other than a far above average income.
Trouble is, it's not the particularly young that are able to afford these types of places either - with the market so expensive, first time buyers are tending to get ever older - even for one bedroom flats above less than fragrant supermarkets.
More social housing and family homes being built may help, but it's far from usunusal to see this stock subsequently used for shared housing/flatshares- itself likely to drag the average age of the area down....
More social housing and family homes being built may help, but it's far from usunusal to see this stock subsequently used for shared housing/flatshares- itself likely to drag the average age of the area down....
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
It's true what Mrs M says, about kids not leaving home. My brother has been trying to get rid of his but it's not working, they are 20 and 21. Just can't afford to pay rent, they live in Sevenoaks in Kent. The cheeky buggers don't give up any housekeeping though.
Similar threads
