Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
"Regeneration or social cleansing?" Discuss
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/may/30/london-property...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Yes, it's a real issue, Pav. You have to feel real sympathy for the people in the article you linked to and thousands of other all round the capital.
I remember recently reading the shock and horror of some (I'm sure not typical) Crouch Ender Tweeters when Percy Ingle opened in Crouch End. My thoughts were that although Crouch End does have plenty of wealthy residents, far from everyone has money. There is real hardship there and others who only just manage to make ends meet. It seemd to me that a baker like Percy Ingle would be a godsend for them amongst all the high priced 'artisan bakers'. So, it's not just property prices and rent that exclude. As an area gentrifies, cheap shops that less wealthy people can afford and feel at home in disappear too.
-
Permalink Reply by Lauren on
-
Which is hilarious, because Percy Ingle has been a bakery in Crouch End for at least 20 years on that site (I had a Saturday job there when I was a student in the 90's and it was as it is now). They tried poshing it up by turning the trad bakery counter format into a coffee shop with sofas and lattes for a few years, but then reverted to the original bakery counter a couple of years ago.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I think as well as planned regeneration impacts there will be unplanned ones if the government's manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy to all social housing goes ahead. When the stuff get sold on to a new owner it will be one less option for those who can't afford to buy or privately rent in the area.
-
-
The extension of right to buy was also a bit of a double whammy in London. In order to fund it, local authorities must sell of their most valuable social housing stock. In other parts of the country that will probably have little impact but here in the capital a lot of the stock in inner Lomdon will come above the threashold set for disposal, making inner London a place that people on medium to low incomes simply cannot afford to live in. And these are the people we depend on for health services, transport, education, retail.........
What really sticks in my gullet about this is that the properties that will have to be disposed of were built or acquired using our, the taxpayers', money and the profits from resale will go straight into the pockets of developers.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Pike on
-
They obviously chose Tower Hamlets as the main focus because the gulf with Canary Wharf is so great! I would argue that there has been a failure of planning and policy for a whole generation. My observation is that Canary Wharf is actually a pretty ridiculous a wasteful development. Take the DLR south from Canary Wharf station and soon you are not surrounded by glass and steel towers but overlooking flat roofs of poor quality low rise offices and supermarkets. Similarly between Wapping and Shadwell you find yourself in what appears to be a suburban noddy homesville of low rise low density housing. All across London it is like this. In any other city in Europe such post industrial/ dockland areas have been developed with higher densities. This city has sleepwalked in a housing crisis, 30+ years in the making. And now the results are being played in the form of unaffordable tiny flats, the complete disregard for affordable housing percentages, profiteering developers masquerading as housing associations, and the demolition of good homes, and with it good community.
On the flip side private developers are only doing what they do best. It is the failure of the state to adequately fulfill the building of affordable housing and provide regeneration for all not just the few.
-
Permalink Reply by Fiona Davis on
-
It is only a matter of time before it happens here! The poor are beingpushed out of London to make way for the rich. The government put obstacles in our way in terms of benefits and support!
-
-
Even those of us who don't want benefits or support will struggle to sustain a life here. As a double income no kids couple we are on the verge of having to move because we can't really afford a 1 bed flat here any more. Our landlord has increased by £100 a month despite there being no central heating or constant hot water and the property being unfurnished with standard 1970's wood chip/magnolia finish. This is partly due to the fact that the area is becoming popular and supposedly "gentrified" and partly because we are no longer just competing in the rental market with other couples and single people, but groups of sharers who have to live 3 or 4 (or more) to a 1bed flat because they can't afford the larger properties, or those who don't mind sharing to keep costs down because they are only here working to send money home to families in other countries. Landlords also know this and are charging more. There's also no incentive for landlords to maintain/modernise the properties to a good standard because they know people will want to rent them anyway. I'm currently in a campsite in the middle of Wiltshire where I have better facilities and quality of life than I do for £250 a week in Harringay.
-
Permalink Reply by Ian on
-
I would agree with most said. The problems will continue until some breaking point is reached before action is taken and at that point politicians will stand up with good ideas to provide affordable housing to key workers needed in the capital. It will however need breaking point pressure and until then people will be squeezed more to adapt new practices like room shares in order to survive amid a more brutally competitive environment. The problem we are seeing is all part of a hyper competitive environment that has filtered into all aspects of life and everyone voting for themselves only as people in line for right to buy are very unlikely to oppose right to buy policy. The people at the top set the tone and everyone below lines ups and fulfils the top down strategy of greed etc etc. The issues talked about are part of a bigger problem that unfortunately has no fix in sight.
-
-
As an example of the hyper competitive environment being created leading to social cleansing, pressure on housing is EU immigration. The social aspects of EU and global immigration enriches and creates the wonderful diversity of London but is also a double edge sword. I personally know of commercial banks in London with high levels of international work force as they are looking for "top talent". Unfortunately top talent means UK born and educated are competing against other EU top talent and someone has to loose, so while the emphasis may be on blue collar workers affected by EU creating a hostile competitive environment it also affects the city jobs that some may want their children to aspire to one day. The problems lead back to over globalisation and capitalism.
-
-
Or we could be bold and not wait for the crisis
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/rent-cap-legislation-i...
-
-
Ideas have to be considered and house price and mortgage rates needs to be considered as all small scale buy to let owners should not be considered fat cats. Most are just responding to top down policy and to create a financially secure future. People at the bottom should not be made to pay for the policy of people at the top and the erosion of council houses. No to quick fixes. Even with a % cap it just slows down the rate of rise only and if wages is not proportionally rising the problem continues.
-
-
When I first arrived in London there were rent controls in place and had been for many years. They were abolished by the conservative government and this myth built up that having rent controls would somehow stifle the market. They didn't. The rental market was healthy and real people on real incomes could afford to live in central London as I did from 1978 until 1982 on a library assistant's salary.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
