Million council homes at Tower Bridge

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 1 of 4
Wednesday 26 November 2014 1.46pm
I'm really surprised that no one has commented on this! This is a brand new development of 43 affordable homes consisting of:

14 one-bedroom flats
15 two-bedroom flats
14 three-bedroom flats

Total estimated value is 43 million, so 1 million per flat on average (but obviously the 3-bed flats will be worth significantly more than this, with some in the 2+ million range). The 3-bed flats will be rented out at 161.60 per week, compared with a market rent of 1,000+ per week.

While I think that it's a good idea to have some affordable homes in the area, I don't think that this really meets that goal. We've either got homes for the rich, or homes for the poor, but nothing really "affordable" for the majority of the population. Seems like a waste of resources to me.

I do like the plan to grant 5-year tenancies though. I've never really understood the "lifetime tenancy" concept. If your circumstances change then your social housing should change to allow others the opportunity to benefit as you did.

I do like the quote though: existing tenants of its other estates have shown "considerable interest" in moving into Horace Jones House. You think?

Related news & features

Wednesday 26 November 2014 2.12pm
What's the problem, sjac? I'd say it more than "meets the goal". I'm very pleased to see it, though wish I had one. I'm not bitterly jealous though, which is what seems to ooze from your post!

The community, which those "peasants" living in the community make up, has lost use of a building which was a community asset - it was for many years the home of Lambeth College and prior to that was an old boys' school (St Olave's). Same community now has the blight that is Horace Jones House on its doorstep. Why shouldn't a proportion be affordable housing and go to council tenants? It's actually the most positive thing that has emanated from "One Tower Bridge".

In actual fact, I think you'll find not all of it is going to be let on five-year tenancies. Some of it will still be on a lifetime tenancy. Again, why not?
Wednesday 26 November 2014 4.28pm
I would have thought that there are (and plans for further) plenty of "affordable" homes in the area, surely what is needed is more social housing.

Anyway, it would appear that I'm officially poor.
Wednesday 26 November 2014 6.15pm
It's quite amusing that the City Corporation outsources its social and affordable housing allocations to north Southwark while Southwark takes financial contributions from north Southwark developments and locates the social and affordable housing elsewhere in the borough. PErhaps someone in Southwark will eventually start providing its housing quota outside the borough.

Personally, I think it's a pity that 43m could not provide more substantial properties for a council's stock.
Wednesday 26 November 2014 6.26pm
We're talking about ideals though, Marcus. Whilst it would be nice to create more housing stock, by doing that we create a segregated "community" that is barren of normal people that aren't earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.

The point you raise about outsourcing is a good one. Perhaps we've done a trade - we allow the City of London Corp to take over control of our schools (first the aptly named COLA - City of London Academy) and now a new primary school on Galleywall Road - in exchange for accommodating some of their housing!
Wednesday 26 November 2014 6.54pm
'The capital value of the block is 43m'. This does not mean that it cost this sum. I'm really glad that for once, the 'affordable housing' is actually social housing.
Wednesday 26 November 2014 8.20pm
Gavin Smith wrote:
We're talking about ideals though, Marcus. Whilst it would be nice to create more housing stock, by doing that we create a segregated "community" that is barren of normal people that aren't earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.
The point you raise about outsourcing is a good one. Perhaps we've done a trade - we allow the City of London Corp to take over control of our schools (first the aptly named COLA - City of London Academy) and now a new primary school on Galleywall Road - in exchange for accommodating some of their housing!

I'm sorry but I think there's actually quite a lot of social housing directly abutting that area. The private developments of the last 25 years or so are what has reduced the level of segregation. Personally, I think it could have been used to provide more family friendly housing stock. The block itself lends to the segregaton.

As regard the City of London, it has always invested outside it's own borough and there's plenty of CoLC housing around Southwark - you can see it with the plaques attached. IN fact, he City was probably the only borough which stood up to what has been the bane of social housing - the right to buy. That combined with a lack of new building has dramatically reduced the scale of social housing stock while enriching those lucky enough to have been in tenancies at the time.
Wednesday 26 November 2014 8.30pm
Marcus wrote:
there's actually quite a lot of social housing directly abutting that area

Where is that?
Wednesday 26 November 2014 9.00pm
Gavin Smith wrote:
Marcus wrote:
there's actually quite a lot of social housing directly abutting that area

Where is that?

Are you serious? Devon Mansions, St Olave's Estate. Even the Arnold Estate is not that far away or is your point that a lot of these have been sold off?
Wednesday 26 November 2014 9.05pm
Deadly! Yes, most of the flats therein have been sold off, even on the Arnold. Those that are left are mostly one-beds that aren't suitable for families and those "units" bigger than single people.
Pages:  1 2 3 4 Next
Current: 1 of 4

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: