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

could have been a nice little bump. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ate-elephant-and-castle.270319/#post-10037271

tbh there are a load of developments, eg in haggerston and round the colville estate in hackney, as well as the heygate which i would suggest ought to have a big single thread rather than having one for every estate which is knocked down and then replaced just without more than a few token social housing flats.

so what do you think this development's potential political ramifications are?

let's start off with the potential involvement of the district auditor who might be interested in why southwark flogged off the land below its market value.

Sounds like somebody's palm somewhere has been crossed with silver. Surely this will face legal challenge.

Can this decision be appealed in any way? It sounds extremely dodgy to say the least.

I wonder what marty21 thinks?

I spent time in Walworth in 2011 and got to know some of the people involved in the Heygate gardening project and met one of the guys holding out to get a decent price for his flat. The whole thing has just stunk of the worst kind of gerrymandering possible. It's abysmal.

just those sheer numbers make me feel physically sick. talk about social cleansing... what's happening in brixton seems sometimes debatable, too many small cuts.

this is just... monstrous.


two and a half thousand new homes for wealthy londoners... a tiny, tiny fraction of them for the people who have traditionally lived in the area.

Disgusting

Is this the gardening thing?

Some nice pics of Heygate here, starting about halfway down the page.

www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=501265&page=123

I also got told that the big Phillishave penis thing in Elephant has all the social housing at the bottom and the higher levels for everyone else. There are separate lifts too - the bottom floors are served by one and then from the 10th floor upwards it's a different one. This is allegedly so that the yuppies don't have to mix with the unwashed.

Yeah. I was there a little bit. I failed at gardening but I have followed the Heygate story closely. If you look at the history of the equally giant and very well-known Cabrini Green project in Chicago, you can see that the same stunts are pulled on social tenants worldwide.

Words fail me. I've left the area now, but my in-laws and their whole family grew up in Walworth and Elephant & Castle. Generations of community up in smoke. Just so Selena and Jasper feel safe when they're braying in their luxury apartments.

Fucking angry just about sums it up.

Boris seems to have stopped bothering about Section 106 - Ken had his flaws, but he was well into the Social Housing element of new developments

Still plenty of Section 106 money being agreed as part of new development agreements as least judging by what is happening in Hackney. Surely S 106 is a borough-level thing. So its to do with Southwark Council rather than Boris Johnson. But what is happening is some of the agreements are being negotiated at Chief Executive level rather than with the planning departments and they are somewhat opaque. Have heard some stuff about Woodberry Down estate as well.

from occupy london's facebook page.

wankers.

Emphatically this. From the ed's blog post:

Its hard to imagine anyone who is competent and honest agreeing to such a deal.

Elephant will be the next or one of the next Dalstons won't it? Edgy, gritty-looking but on the edge of zone one and amazing transport links - it will be perfect for housing the next load of trust-funders and cock-wipes.

£50m for 22 acres of zone 1. Right. That leasehold or freehold? Of course once you sell an asset you no longer have that asset. This is a major issue. Future councils can't re-own what previous councils have sold off. And council land is OUR land.

Sad to say, I'm not even surprised.

They still use this language then?
Using words with antonyms that catagorise the majority of the development as unaffordable or anti-social!

we'll give you a discount on the land if you promise us less 'social' housing than we demand in our policy, and then let you not bother giving us even that much? Good deal.

LB Southwark for one

They've had funding after funding for this development for over a decade. Section 31 money given on the basis that there would be no loss in social housing, but no actual enforceable conditions on the money.