Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

iwca article on brixton

Donna Ferentes said:
When you say "authoritarian", do you mean "taxes"?
Click to expand...

Nah.. sorry; should've said "and/or" rather than "and". I don't consider taxation authoritarian, though I don't really like the idea of the govt. deliberately trying to move people anywhere around the country... not very into deliberate social engineering by anyone, I'm afraid, however well-motivated.
 
Donna Ferentes said:
Well first, no it doesn't. Second, while not being organised or deliberate as such, I'm not convinced that the basic reaction of a lot of better-off residents (and the council) to the worse-off residents is anything more than "who cares?" Oh, everybody will say in theory that the latter shouldn't be elbowed out: but when it comes to specifics, it always turns out that this is just the way things are. And - pace yourself - we can't have the poor people imposing on the better-off, can we?
Click to expand...

I saw this attitude very much at work in the borough of Wandsworth from the mid 1970s onward. Once "gentrification" started then the needs of council tenants became very much subordinate to the desires of homeowners, including prioritising of re-surfacing of roads (told to me by family member who worked in the borough as a highways inspector), street litter collection (info from a former classmate who became a roadsweeper) and other rate-funded activities in areas of high-density owner-occupation over areas with "social housing". The councillors didn't drive the problem so much as the senior council officers.

As for the attitude of "gentrifiers" (I differentiate them from "incomers", who may very well be in a similar situation to myself), I experienced different attitudes ranging from animosity (to social housing tenants) to indifference, but very little positive engagement except (in a couple of hilarious cases) of the "missionary" sort.

I also remember moorings on the Thames waterfront at Battersea being moved/removed at the behest of the owner occupiers of the renovated ex-council estate on Vicarage Crescent (Archer Hse?), so that they didn't have to look out on the barge hulks etc.

Personally I don't look for compassion and positive engagement from "gentrifiers", that way I;m seldom disappointed by the mass standoffishness they demonstrate when not among others of their ilk.
 
ViolentPanda said:
I saw this attitude very much at work in the borough of Wandsworth from the mid 1970s onward. Once "gentrification" started then the needs of council tenants became very much subordinate to the desires of homeowners, including prioritising of re-surfacing of roads (told to me by family member who worked in the borough as a highways inspector), street litter collection (info from a former classmate who became a roadsweeper) and other rate-funded activities in areas of high-density owner-occupation over areas with "social housing". The councillors didn't drive the problem so much as the senior council officers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've noticed this numerous times; the way you can have streets of privately owned Victorian terraces with nicely surfaced, clean pavements a couple of streets away from an estate where the paving's uneven & there's rubbish in the undergrowth. Never been sure if it's just 'cos the owner-occupier types are more likely to complain due to higher expectations (or low expectations on the part of those in social housing making them less likely to complain), or if there's someone in the council looking out for the better off. Either way, 'tis a fucked up situation & no mistake.
 
newbie said:
William, think back to pre- Congestion Charge, pre-TfL London. It was becoming somewhere that exasperated people to the extent that they were considering their quality of life being better elsewhere, even if they didn't have access to the same levels of buzz. A few years of transport chaos- say, Oxford Circus tube station, or maybe the Circle Line was closed for whatever reason, would see a lot of people looking to get out. As would a significant amount of innercity rioting, or a major increase in crime, or a progressive collapse of overstretched GP services, or... Maybe even simple economic recession.

Or- and this is the real challenge the government won't address seriously- policies designed to move jobs, opportunities and prosperity back to the old heavy industrial areas, and to regenerate the countryside so that it offers more than retirement and second homes.

Cities are fragile, living organisms and the overheated popularity London has experienced for the past decade or so is built on the premise that the streets are paved with gold, that life is better here. I'd like to see it made sufficiently better elsewhere that London isn't so attractive to young singles and dinkies.
Click to expand...

These desireable policies to encourage people to look elsewhere to live, are not going to happen any time soon, are they?

Your argument about pre-Congestion Charge London is flawed. Yes, people were exasperated and impatient, but were they moving away in any significant numbers, enough to drag prices down again?

The ONLY time property prices have dropped in London since 1970 (at the latest!!) was for a brief period in the early nineties, for special reasons. All that repossession crisis may have affected a significant number of overextended mortgage holders, but did actual prices fall to any significant extent?

I don't think so, not enough to make many places genuinely affordable, even then, to people on low to average incomes. As far as I'm concerned a large flat or small house at £180,000 is as unaffordable in practical terms as one at £230,000, £280,000, or £300,000, or £500,000!! :mad:

It would take a property price collapse of monumental proportions to make anywhere round here even slightly affordable for me or for those on the same OK but modest money (let alone the genuinely low paid), and for me to have any hope whatsoever of even thinking of 'buying' a place, any place.

Not that I particularly want to, as I'm lucky enough to be securely and pleasantly housed :)

But any talk of cyclical rises and falls in propery prices, includes a deeply flawed assumption. Such talk argues on the back of changes having happened in the past. Changes in both directions did happen in the past, but a fall that anyone will notice is nowhere near as likely as all the rises we've consistently seen for the last 30 plus years. So such airy talk -- from you and article two -- of ups and downs, swings and roundaouts, as well as being flawed anyway, rings very hollow to all those priced, and increasingly so, out of this insane but highly unlikely to change 'market'.
 
grosun said:
Yeah, I've noticed this numerous times; the way you can have streets of privately owned Victorian terraces with nicely surfaced, clean pavements a couple of streets away from an estate where the paving's uneven & there's rubbish in the undergrowth.
Click to expand...
When you're cycling across London you can sometimes feel the difference from poor area to rich!
 
William of Walworth said:
But any talk of cyclical rises and falls in propery prices, includes a deeply flawed assumption. Such talk argues on the back of changes having happened in the past. Changes in both directions did happen in the past, but a fall that anyone will notice is nowhere near as likely as all the rises we've consistently seen for the last 30 plus years.
Click to expand...

A lapsed economist writes...

That is revisionist history, which I don't think would be recognised by any of the Brixton Hill residents (many of them on modest "blue collar" or public or third sector incomes) who were stuck with "negative equity" when the value of their one or two bedroom flats in local mansion blocks plummetted between 1989 and 1992 to way below the value of their mortgages.

When the next property crash comes, as it inevitably will, I will have rather less sympathy with people on City/media salaries buying at the current crazily inflated prices for the same flats
 
Communities always change over time though; fifty years ago Brixton would have been a radically different place to what it is now, and fifty years from now the same will apply. "Dissident minds" have almost always had to go where the cost of living is cheapest, and anyway doesnt something lose its "hip, vibrant edge" over a while?

I disagree with the comments on Lambeth Council - the author could be much more vehement and highlight their incompetence as well as that which was found in the Oluwade cases - as the recent Central Heating fraud highlighted.
 
Out of interest, what is a city/media salary exactly?

I work in the media and earn £21k. Obviosuly i'm luckier than most in that I have a full-time job paying that amount, but I'm not exactly minted and couldn't afford a flat in Brixton.

If you're talking about peeps buying flats in the new developments as buy-to-let, then I agree it's hard to have sympathyu for people making losses on second or even third properties. I saw soem recently - one beds advertised at "from "175k" :eek:
 
lang rabbie said:
A lapsed economist writes...

That is revisionist history, which I don't think would be recognised by any of the Brixton Hill residents (many of them on modest "blue collar" or public or third sector incomes) who were stuck with "negative equity" when the value of their one or two bedroom flats in local mansion blocks plummetted between 1989 and 1992 to way below the value of their mortgages.

When the next property crash comes, as it inevitably will, I will have rather less sympathy with people on City/media salaries buying at the current crazily inflated prices for the same flats
Click to expand...

I do take that point, and yes, maybe I didn't notice the impact on those at the sharp end of the 1989-1991 blip, because all prices were seriously unaffordable to me, 1987 inflated or 1992 'dropped'

But you take my wider point I'm sure, that 'falls' of that kind have in the last thirty years been exceptional. 'Slowing down in rate of increase' has been somewhat more common, and thats what I'd predict to happen next time, rather than any discernable drop of any significance.

I dispute that a 'crash' is inevitible. Except what the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Standard labels a 'crash', which is different

A slow down in increase, or utterly miniscule** falls in prices of SOME properties in SOME areas, will no doubt be trumpeted in the media as a catastrophic and horrendous crash and coillapse, though ...


**ie unrecogniseable as anything remotely affordable to any normally paid person. How many people do YOU know who cannot afford a £290,000 flat but could afford one at £270,000? I would think that for most Urbanites, the 'differences' between those two prices, in practical terms, is negligible.

Anyone who can currently afford, at current prices, to first time buy a flat/house ANYWHERE within Zone 3 is, as far as I'm concerned, either very fortunate with a windfall, or (to my perception) rich.

I know a large number of buyers have something to sell already, but I've had that 'unaffordable' perception of first time buying since the 1980s, a period within which very many of the curent first or second time buyers first got on the 'ladder'.

Housing inside Zone 3 (and probably outside it, too) is simply unaffordable in buying terms to any normally-paid person, yet more recently at least, my wages have not been shit.

It's not ME who's 'out of touch' in thinking like that ....
 
newbie said:
Suggestions you've made on this thread, as possibilities for improving the area,
Click to expand...
Not suggestions for "improvement", merely responses to changes that might enable some benefit to be shared more widely.

newbie said:
No disrespect, because I don't think this stuff needs personalising, but you've recently arrived and now you're handing out demands which will all contribute to creating a Brixton in the image of you and your peers, precisely the bulge group in the population. They have little or nothing to do with addressing the problems gentrification has wrought.
Click to expand...
Not demands. Not at all. Just ideas for how things could be changed for the better.
 
William of Walworth said:
Very little for us planned for round here, beyond the bare mimimum of replacing existing social housing (eg at the Elephant) with some housing association properties, as part of a larger, more private development.

I do think this is one case where you can't extrapolate the future from what happened back in the immediate post war period.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Check the Unitary Development Plan (http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/wp...ect_object_id=1094490229292&text_category=P2). The forecast is for approx 20k new housing units 'til 2016 in Lambeth, of which about 8k are affordable. So, a preponderance of market-priced housing, but more than "very little" of social housing.
 
Donna Ferentes said:
In order to do that, you'd have to have a regional policy.

In order to have a regional policy, influential people would have to be aware of the existence of the world outside London.
Click to expand...

It is known as the Lyons Review, the movement of 20k civil servants to the regions, leading ultimately to "a radical new approach to shaping the future pattern of services, with the retention in
London of only slimmed-down headquarters functions for the main departments of government"
(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legislation/lyons/consult_lyons_index.cfm)
 
articletwo said:
It is known as the Lyons Review, the movement of 20k civil servants to the regions, leading ultimately to "a radical new approach to shaping the future pattern of services, with the retention in
London of only slimmed-down headquarters functions for the main departments of government"
(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legislation/lyons/consult_lyons_index.cfm)
Click to expand...


I reckon that's mainly window dressing. They talked about 100k for a while and it may now officially be 20k but I bet far fewer jobs have actually been transferred. I know of major government agencies who have got away with simply rationalising their offices in London and not one of their employees has gone outside London.

And the government's housing policy of developing all over the growth corridors in the South East whilst selectively demolishing social housing in the North doesn't suggest they have a regional strategy or policy other than 'stick with London'.
 
shandy said:
And the government's housing policy of developing all over the growth corridors in the South East whilst selectively demolishing social housing in the North doesn't suggest they have a regional strategy or policy other than 'stick with London'.
Click to expand...


And replacing it with what?

Not straightforward Council Housing, I'm sure ....

And thats the North. Even less (as in not at all) likely that actual council housing in/around London will be replaced by more council housing.

You only have to see whats happening at the Elephant** (Heygate Estate) and the Aylesbury** to see that ...

(** See relevant Elephant and Aylesbury threads on London Forum for detail .... )
 
Good posts William :) I appreciate you're not looking to move, but there are plenty of others in your position who might be. The home truths you're pointing out apply, one way or other, to about 2/3 of the households in Lambeth.

William of Walworth said:
Anyone who can currently afford, at current prices, to first time buy a flat/house ANYWHERE within Zone 3 is, as far as I'm concerned, either very fortunate with a windfall, or (to my perception) rich.
Click to expand...

For completeness it should be pointed out that many, many people took the discount and bought their council flat. The wider effect of that has been a massive lack of social housing, but it has enabled people in your position to join the asset-rich.

I know a few who've done it. On a political level I've always opposed the sell-offs and it saddens me that they should do so; on a personal level their opportunities have improved and, as they're my mates, I'm glad for them.

You're realistic, though, in stressing that the overheating of London housing isn't going to change any time soon. Without an injection of substantial funds from somewhere the asset poor are unlikely to be able to buy, which broadens an ever increasing disadvantage.

Even if it was on the agenda, providing more social housing won't change that, although it's clearly urgently required for people in real housing need. It's a solution to one set of problems, but not to the one you've outlined. Nor, in the short term, will a regional policy, especially given what shandy posted, while making London ever more attractive to live in only increases the problems. Nor will 180k 'affordable' housing, nor keyworker schemes and so on. What will?
 
As a council tenant of twenty-odd years I understand what people say about social housing and the right to buy but wonder if you all know that the discount in London has been capped now at £16,000. As I live in a very beautiful three storey listed building I have always wanted to buy it - not to make a profit but to keep it in our family - my last two children were born there, I've lovingly looked after it and planted the massive garden. twenty odd years of rent should count for something.
Anyway I've had the house valued three times now and have never been able to afford it, even though, now, my salary is reasonable - the first valuation was in 1985 - £55,000, the second in 1995 £150,000 - next door just sold for £560,000 and has no garden.
I am surrounded by 'city' bods, they are the only people who can afford to buy on this street - they come for a couple of years, then sell at a profit, they rarely want to get involved in the community but will fight tooth and nail if something 'local' affects house prices. The 'couples' usually have children then move out very quickly to take advantage of better schools and surroundings for their offspring.
The last three house sales on the road (£720,000 and rising) have been bought by gay couples who are staying around longer. This group seem to have a lot of clout financially at the moment for obvious reasons.
So, the £16,000 cap will keep expensive property within the council and will stop people like me getting anywhere near the property ladder.
 
reubeness said:
twenty odd years of rent should count for something.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, because you might want to move, and without a housing asset to sell the options are limited.

It sounds as though you don't and, as with William, you're ok with what you've got. I hope so, there are far too many people in who would love to live somewhere else and... what? Especially those in overcrowded, badly repaired flats on sink estates can be trapped: their options amount, at best, to taking the 16 thousand and buying a place they don't like and won't be able to easily sell, or sitting on a waiting list. :(

So, the £16,000 cap will keep expensive property within the council and will stop people like me getting anywhere near the property ladder.
Click to expand...

I can't remember what the maximum discount was, before it was capped- quite high I think, 35% :confused: maybe a couple of hundred grand in your case? :eek:

It's hard to see why the public should hand over a phenomenal sum like that to an individual when the effect is to remove a nice house from the pool of those available to people based on need.

It's equally hard to see why people should be trapped, when they look around at plenty who aren't. It spells misery.
 
newbie said:
I can't remember what the maximum discount was, before it was capped- quite high I think, 35% :confused: maybe a couple of hundred grand in your case? :eek:
Click to expand...
At its highest I believe it was 60% maximum, but that was based on 30+ years of council tenancy.
It's hard to see why the public should hand over a phenomenal sum like that to an individual when the effect is to remove a nice house from the pool of those available to people based on need.

It's equally hard to see why people should be trapped, when they look around at plenty who aren't. It spells misery.
Click to expand...
Yet another quandary made worse by the miniscule volume of social housing development.
 
yes because there are plenty of people for whom decent social housing is a salvation. It may turn into a trap, long term, but it's the only way to satisfy the immediate needs of (in a lot of cases) desparate people.

But the trap, and the quandry, was there before the sell-offs. Indeed they were a response to the trap not its cause.

Taking the housing out of the social pool was stupid then and it's stupid now, That's why the discounts are capped.
 
I'm in a bit of a rush right now ....

Just bumping this, because there was an excellent expose by Andrew Gilligan** in last night's Substandard** (Monday 19th) of the scam and the con that is so-called 'affordable' housing, contained within bigger, profiteering property schemes.

**Normally have little time for Gilligan and even less for the Substandard, but this particular piece was surprisingly good ..

The article went into some good revealing detail about the absence of control over what is allowed (by developers) to be called 'affordable' :mad:

But I can't find the text online, if anyone else with a bit more time, is able to find it and post a link here, I'd be obliged ... :)
 
dogmatique said:
Scan of article here (linked cos of bigness).

Click on the picture to make it full size and easily readable.
Click to expand...

:mad: fucking cunts. Presumably this is the kind of shit that'll get built if they ever manage to demolish the St. Agnes place buildings. Fuckers.
 
Actually, Gilligan's piece about the unnecessary passing of the Routemaster and Ken's role in it the other week was good as well.

^^Nah worries W
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Clean Up Brixton
Replies
23
Views
742
Mr Joyful
M
editor
Police facial recognition operation in Brixton
2 3
Replies
87
Views
11K
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Emergency Dental Care in Brixton
Replies
14
Views
2K
wemakeyousoundb
wemakeyousoundb
editor
Dry cleaning and zip repair in Brixton?
Replies
9
Views
2K
story
story
editor
Pollen count and hayfever in Brixton
Replies
14
Views
2K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom