The gentrification of New Park Road, Brixton

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by editor, Dec 28, 2017.

  1. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  2. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    editor likes this.
  3. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    That was the starter. This lot - and the vultures they'll bring in their wake - are the main course :(
  4. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    I can see there would be scope for a Guinenss Trust-style revamp of the Clapham Park Estate - only 10 years after a previous revamp!
    That sounds like the Lib Peck style, and in her ward too.

    Maybe we should be asking for clarification - signed in blood - prior to voting in May?
  5. han

    han brixton hill hobbit

    I have to say, aside from this development, New Park Rd hasn't changed at all in the time I've been living round the corner since 2004. So, let's see.
  6. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    The strip outside my block was unchanged for 30 years. Now there's a trendy cocktail bar, two expensive hairdressers, a pricey pizza joint, an upmarket 'networking' cafe and the ukulele-twanging The Yard and more crap to come.
  7. han

    han brixton hill hobbit

    You live a 5 minute walk from the tube, though. It makes a real difference. Your area has been gentrifying for the past decade, at least.
  8. DJWrongspeed

    DJWrongspeed radio eros

    Yes indeed, I think I went to a party in that flat a long time ago.

    Now it's £4900 a month :eek:
    CH1 likes this.
  9. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Are Brixton property prices related to Bitcoin?
    phillm likes this.
  10. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    I miss Nell's deli :(
    shakespearegirl likes this.
  11. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

    That makes sense, probably a big part of why Camberwell and even here in LJ is '"in motion" less quickly. Can't off the top of my head think of any bits of London more than 5 minutes walk from a tube that are stuffed full of cocktails & coffee /boutique hairdressers . Are there any?
  12. han

    han brixton hill hobbit

    Yes. That was about 30 years ahead of its time. People might want olive ciabatta round here in 20 years, but they don't now, and certainly didn't in 2004 which is why it failed, I think. It was a lovely shop though.
    shakespearegirl and Winot like this.
  13. han

    han brixton hill hobbit

    I went to a party there too over 10 years ago.

    I heard on the grapevine, people go there to film porn movies, but this may be bollox. :D
  14. donkyboy

    donkyboy Crazy cat man

    do new builds need to have a certain % going to council tenants or once the land is sold, the property developer has free reign to sell it to private buyers/renters?
  15. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    if there are over 10 units then theoretically up to 40% should be "affordable" and sold on to a registered provider of social housing usually secured through a s106 planning obligation.

    In practice the introduction of viability assessments intended to encourage developers to build more properties to ease the housing shortage has had the unintended consequence of providing developers a means to avoid supplying affordable by enabling them to claim it would make the development nonviable - an industry has sprung up around manipulating viability assessments to this end.
    DietCokeGirl and donkyboy like this.
  16. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    No "council" requirement at all. If the development is over a certain number of units, then a certain %age of them have to be "affordable"
    "Affordable" generally means "80% of local market" ie. not affordable at all.
    editor, Gramsci and donkyboy like this.
  17. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Let's make this clear "viability assessments" , which were brought in to planning policy in 2012 were intended to reduce local authorities ( ie the ordinary people) ability to get planning obligations from property developers to increase supply of affordable homes.

    Given that using planning obligations on new build private development to increase affordable homes in a locality was one of the few ways left for local authorities to get affordable homes the introduction of "viability assessments" was the Tories way of getting rid of this "loophole" in planning in favour of there chums the property developers. Nothing unintended about it. The language it's written in sounds reasonable but it's not. Developers haven't been using this "aggressively" or in ways that have been unintended. They have just being using viability assessments according to National Planning policy as laid out by central government. This isn't the fault of local authorities.

    Local authorities could be blamed for not contesting viability assessments enough. They are however up against a well organized private sector who aren't averse to getting top legal advice on this issue.

    It's not as if planning obligations to build social housing will make developers go bust. The argument in viability assessments is that it will reduce there profits. Poor dears.
  18. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    A vile, disgusting industry at that, run by utter cunts and used by greedy scum. May they all burn in hell.
    Slo-mo likes this.
  19. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Who can forget the farcical sight of Barratts Homes pleading poverty on their multi-million development on Coldharbour Lane, and then getting all that pesky promised social housing provision removed from the build?
    Slo-mo and Gramsci like this.
  20. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    That's perhaps a bit simplistic. The introduction of viability as a material consideration when determining the proportion of affordable housing was intended to address the lack of supply of properties. Developers who had bought land pre-2008 at the top end of the market based on development appraisals that assumed continuing growth couldn't afford to build them out, so they sat on the land. Making viability a material consideration was simply an economic stimulus for the construction sector, much the same as all the other economic stimuli flying around at the time - it kept developers developing, which kept builders building.

    The problem is that we are nearly 10 years on from there, but the stimulus has been retained - now it is just a market imperfection artificially increasing land values by ring-fencing profits. Like all market imperfections i'd like to see it gone. If a developer can't stand on their own two feet in the current climate then they have no place being there - the 40% requirement has been writ large for a long time so there's no excuse.

    It is also worth noting that local authorities engage consultants to audit the viability assessments; however these are from the same pool of consultants engaged by the developers to undertake the assessments in the first place, so it is in no-one's interest to rock the boat by looking at them too closely.
    snowy_again likes this.
  21. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    This is the reality and it fucking stinks.

    The truth about property developers: how they are exploiting planning authorities and ruining our cities
    Gramsci likes this.
  22. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Utter scum.
    Section 106, Reduce the cost of Section 106 Affordable Housing with a viability report - Section 106 Management

    Section 106 Management : Section 106 | Affordable Housing Case Studies | Section 106 Management
  23. Slo-mo

    Slo-mo Banned Banned

    Barratts are a particularly scummy company in a sea of scum.
  24. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    The reverse is the case. You are being to simplistic. This reform of planning on a national level is now a "market imperfection"? It's not for developers. I know this is supposed to be a free market society in ideological terms. The way Capitalism works in practice is that State plays a big role in how the market works.

    An economic crisis can be used to push "reforms" of the market through. Developers never liked Local Authorities ability to meddle with there schemes. The ability of developers to avoid planning obligations isn't a market imperfection. The market is working perfectly well , for developers, now this measure has been brought in. It's an example of a crisis of capitalism leading to further entrenchment of the power of capital.

    It's no accident or oversight by this government that this" market imperfection" is being kept.

    Planning Obligations and section 106 now called CIL are an interference in the market by the local and national state. I think language like market imperfection is part of the problem. It's making it seem like an objective problem outside ideological considerations.

    As for economic stimulus. The only economic stimulus I saw was bailing out the Banks. Joe public saw bugger all.

    Given the low interest rates , instead of bailing out the Banks , the government could have borrowed and built new homes. Cheaper than developers. A people's Quantitative Easing as John McDonnell advocated.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
    Crispy and editor like this.
  25. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    To be fair, the original revamp - started in '98/99 using a "Single European regeneration grant" - still isn't completed. The "second revamp" is just a continuation of the first, after refinancing (due to lots of the original money going walkies) and re-thinking. Basically, Clapham Park will - in keeping with most regenerations - now have a lot less socially-rented units than it started out with, and under an HA.
    Gramsci and CH1 like this.
  26. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    The signage for Neway has changed since I used to use it in the '80s, when I lived on Clapham Park, but that's about it!

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice