London SE1 community website

Housing, development, and the changing population - Discuss!

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 3 of 11
Saturday 25 April 2015 10.26pm
boroughonian wrote:
A step forward?

A goose step forward, more likely. And with people like David Silvester and Peter Entwistle in their ranks, it is hard to see UKIP as anything else but a party of opportunists that prey on a cynical electorate. I'd rather use democracy, freedom of speech etc to force the devils we know to do their jobs properly than give some johnny come lately party an opportunity to abuse my good faith and sense of decency even further.
Saturday 25 April 2015 10.44pm
Jan the old one wrote:
Sjac,
I never realised so many new housing units were going to be constructed on the site of the Heygate, so 1,200 council properties are demolished and if I understood 2,500 properties are going to be built. So out of uninformed ignorance, how many will be council properties for Londoners where ever they hail from?
79 'social rented'. the 'social rented' may not be 'council' as we now know it at all, but could easily be housing association homes, ie more expensive and possibly, if notting hill housing trust is to be taken as an example, really expensive (they've been extremely reluctant to define 'target' rents, while 'affordable' ones are up to 80% market rates)
Saturday 25 April 2015 10.54pm
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
boroughonian wrote:
A step forward?

A goose step forward, more likely. And with people like David Silvester and Peter Entwistle in their ranks, it is hard to see UKIP as anything else but a party of opportunists that prey on a cynical electorate. I'd rather use democracy, freedom of speech etc to force the devils we know to do their jobs properly than give some johnny come lately party an opportunity to abuse my good faith and sense of decency even further.

Pathetic.
Saturday 25 April 2015 11.09pm
boroughonian wrote:
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
boroughonian wrote:
A step forward?

A goose step forward, more likely. And with people like David Silvester and Peter Entwistle in their ranks, it is hard to see UKIP as anything else but a party of opportunists that prey on a cynical electorate. I'd rather use democracy, freedom of speech etc to force the devils we know to do their jobs properly than give some johnny come lately party an opportunity to abuse my good faith and sense of decency even further.

Pathetic.

Why? It's the people's army, isn't it? That's what armies do, they goose step, But, if it offends you, I'll happily remove that bit:

With people like David Silvester and Peter Entwistle in their ranks, it is hard to see UKIP as anything else but a party of opportunists that prey on a cynical electorate. I'd rather use democracy, freedom of speech etc to force the devils we know to do their jobs properly than give some johnny come lately party an opportunity to abuse my good faith and sense of decency even further
Sunday 26 April 2015 12.53am
boroughonian wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDceoETWgAETceP.jpg:large

I don't get it
Tuesday 5 May 2015 10.29am
A great thread. Loving how it was started with some real facts. Also loving the point about vacant homes not really much more than a distraction compared to the magnitude of the population trends.

One other thing that has not been said is the NHS is working. For lots of reasons, including the NHS, people are living longer. This is part of the reason why we need more housing. Combine this with the average family size falling (older people need to live somewhere after the children leave), you can see why we need more housing. It is not just an emigration issue. It took London 75 years to get back to the prior peak population. The city has changed dramatically in that time. Dock workers and people in factories make up a fraction now compared to what was once needed. Bermondsey is not a place for smelly industries and working docks like it once was. The population has changed.

Economically the SE is rising relative to some of the less density populated areas of the UK. Clusters of knowledge worker and other things that are entirely reasonable yet have a direct impact on housing. Look at Silicon Roundabout for an area that has changed over the course of about 15 years.

What I do not understand is the comment about 'being in hock to the developers' or similar. Flipping it around, there are people who are willing to pay to build more housing so they get the attention of planners. They submit applications to build and pay the fees charged by planning to review the plans. The council does not have the money to build great numbers of units. Housing Associations do build a fair number of units in London. Some of them have the money to build so they get on with it. We are still short based on what is completed and what is needed.

Who do we think will pay to build the housing if not private developers? New construction is capital intensive compared to renting the finished product. The private sector is paying the cost of the the social housing that is funded from new construction. If there was less building there would be less money for the social housing that is being funded (broad definition of social housing).

Follow the money and look at the costs. If we want to solve the problem rather than just have a whinge, we need to make the number stack up. It is more about math and getting planning approval than some secret agenda or politics. People do not like change in their area yet they want more housing. Given we have no greenfield sites in central London to speak of, we have to build up, build smaller units or go below ground. Higher densities to catch up with the demand. Only when the demand falls off can we back off on the need to build more. Shelter makes the point that the solution is to build more and most everything else is at best a temporary bandage.
Tuesday 5 May 2015 12.04pm
John_Corey wrote:
A great thread. Loving how it was started with some real facts. Also loving the point about vacant homes not really much more than a distraction compared to the magnitude of the population trends.
One other thing that has not been said is the NHS is working. For lots of reasons, including the NHS, people are living longer. This is part of the reason why we need more housing. Combine this with the average family size falling (older people need to live somewhere after the children leave), you can see why we need more housing. It is not just an emigration issue. It took London 75 years to get back to the prior peak population. The city has changed dramatically in that time. Dock workers and people in factories make up a fraction now compared to what was once needed. Bermondsey is not a place for smelly industries and working docks like it once was. The population has changed.

Economically the SE is rising relative to some of the less density populated areas of the UK. Clusters of knowledge worker and other things that are entirely reasonable yet have a direct impact on housing. Look at Silicon Roundabout for an area that has changed over the course of about 15 years.

What I do not understand is the comment about 'being in hock to the developers' or similar. Flipping it around, there are people who are willing to pay to build more housing so they get the attention of planners. They submit applications to build and pay the fees charged by planning to review the plans. The council does not have the money to build great numbers of units. Housing Associations do build a fair number of units in London. Some of them have the money to build so they get on with it. We are still short based on what is completed and what is needed.

Who do we think will pay to build the housing if not private developers? New construction is capital intensive compared to renting the finished product. The private sector is paying the cost of the the social housing that is funded from new construction. If there was less building there would be less money for the social housing that is being funded (broad definition of social housing).

Follow the money and look at the costs. If we want to solve the problem rather than just have a whinge, we need to make the number stack up. It is more about math and getting planning approval than some secret agenda or politics. People do not like change in their area yet they want more housing. Given we have no greenfield sites in central London to speak of, we have to build up, build smaller units or go below ground. Higher densities to catch up with the demand. Only when the demand falls off can we back off on the need to build more. Shelter makes the point that the solution is to build more and most everything else is at best a temporary bandage.

There's a big old elephant that you're ignoring, the demand will never be met, thanks to Jumbo.

It's a bit like going to the Drs with a lung problem and chain smoking while you discuss treatment.
Tuesday 5 May 2015 1.33pm
I don't agree that we need to go for high density housing. What we need to do is start encouraging commerce to consider other parts of England so that the demand for housing is not concentrated in a few cities. We also need to get transport sorted out so that it is easy and cheap to travel to work.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 3 of 11

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions