Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Does Tottenham need more social housing
I am so going to regret posting this, I can tell.... but I am still grappling with this issue and would like a mature debate with my neighbours :) #PlayNiceTrolls!!
So what is everyones view?
a)... We have a housing crisis; people cant get on property ladder blah blah blah
b)... We need a mix of housing and social housing levels in Tottenham is enough blah blah blah
c)... Why are we so concerned with building new, when we have so many old houses not in use blah blah blah
d)... More the marrier... blah blah blah
e)... I think everyone should live in the parks blah blah blah
f)... Other (please specify)
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gerry Platt on
-
problem caused by 2 things (OK, not so simple but ..): housing is overpriced & extremes between the highest & lowest earners. BTW, I'm grateful to live in social housing & have a degree of community which was missing when I rented in Highgate!
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
If you think any opinions on this subject are just blah blah blah, why bother to raise it ?
It takes a troll to know one
-
Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on
-
You are sooooo cute!
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Seema, please don't regret trying to start a discussion on this urgent topic. Nor hoping for a serious debate.
My initial suggestion would be to change your question. Or more exactly, to ask a series of linked questions to which, most of the time, people seem to assume the answers. Although if you look under the surface, they often have different answers.
I have in mind questions such as: Where is Tottenham? And who exactly constitutes "the community"? It's a word which many people use - mostly it seems, to mean people like themselves.
Both questions are especially important since the riot because more and more people now claim to lead, speak for, or know the wishes of "the community". (Even if some of these local leaders don't actually live in Tottenham.)
I'd also ask: What is "social housing" and "affordable housing"? Two recently invented categories which have hidden policy and political assumptions.
Anyway, instead of asking what housing Tottenham needs, perhaps a good starting point is to consider the housing needs of people living in Tottenham. The former question tends to see 'Regeneration' as a sort of Clearance process. Too many poor and unemployed people? Let's get some developers in and subsidise them to build some shiny new towers; while we move "the poor" somewhere else.
I think I know what some of my neighbours don't need. That includes rising unemployment. And having to move yet again from one poor quality, overpriced, overcrowded rented home to another; changing doctors and their children's schools in the process.
This approach to defining and solving problems used to be known as "joined-up thinking" — seeing education, health, housing, employment, ethnic diversity, and transience as inextricably linked.
In case you haven't seen it, I recommend a report today from another Borough. Amelia Gentleman writes about a primary school in Westminster and the impact of the Housing Benefit cap. She also links to an article in January about a paper by the Chartered Institute of Housing.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
You are right there is a difference between social housing and affordable, however to be fair the so called affordable (I assume you mean schemes like shared ownership?) I find those even more expensive, the rent plus the mortgage often equates to the same as a normal mortgage.
I am just wondering when disused buildings will be bought to life, the bank chambers next to Tescos; the shops along Broad Lane to name a few. This "concrete happy" theme of always building new is not always the solution.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
So the reason for watering down the affordable/social housing requirement as part of the Spurs development was what exactly?
-
-
The reasoning - such as it is - can be found in the Planning Committee report here, Michael.
In a nutshell, the original Business plan Spurs had drawn up for the new stadium/supermarket/housing etc did not stack up. "Was not viable" as the report says. Did they know this at the time? I have no idea. Although my assumption - which I think reasonable - is that Spurs will base their business decisions on first rate professional advice.
The report to the Planning Committee "explains" the abandonment of affordable homes. It also has an appendix summarising the original Section 106 agreement and the new obligations on Spurs, the Council, and Transport for London. These include such onerous provisions as Spurs not charging Haringey or Enfield residents to be on the waiting list for season tickets.
But please read through it yourself. There's lots, lots more hilarious good stuff.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Spurs are doing the same as Graingers the developers who want to demolish Wards Corner and build tower blocks. They have ducked out of the need to provide social/affordable housing on the grounds of - well, not enough profit in it. Scum.
S106 used to insist on 50% affordable as part of every large development. Then 30%. Now it seems to be, do what you like, and it doesn't matter if you build on a bit of polluted land two miles away, as you don't want to degrade your Luxury Development with poor people. Tottenham Hale Village lost out like this too.
-
-
So the original section 106 agreement committed Spurs to £16.436m and the new one agreed on 2 February now reduces that to £477,000 from them and £7.5m from The Mayor and Haringey (i.e. us). What a triumph for the borough.
-
-
One of the problems with the focus on Wards Corner and Graingers has been to obscure the much larger and more significant areas of so-called planning/regeneration in Tottenham. There are three areas in particular: Spurs, Hale "Village", and the "Cultural Quarter" around Tottenham Green.
The deal with Spurs can be seen as hard-headed and positive if the logic is: "The club is essential to Tottenham, so how do we keep it here?" This is not unreasonable. It certainly makes sound sense for many jobs and small local businesses. But I've never seen this assumption discussed, questioned or evaluated. Nor am I aware of any "Plan B" by the Council should Spurs have got their first choice of Stratford.
The second area, Hale "Village" is the collection of slabs behind Tottenham Hale station. The assumption that this is an Urban Centre which will "kick-start" the regeneration of Tottenham Hale has long seemed highly dubious to me. But I very much hope I'm wrong. Because local people have moved in there, so for their sake I hope it works. And in any case, whether or not the "Village" and its "Kick-start" are magical thinking, it is now there in all its out-of-place oppressive bulk. And it does include social housing/affordable homes.
Meanwhile the so-called "Cultural Quarter" around Tottenham Green is gathering pace. The concept is entirely smoke-and-mirrors. Although the public money needed to keep it going is extremely real and will mean less to spend on essential services.
There are affordable homes in the Tottenham Green development plans and for that at least I am very glad.
-
-
I'm skeptical about the importance of Spurs remaining in the borough on their terms. Plenty of London boroughs manage ok without one.
-
-
Wow. At last something on which Mr Hoyle and I can agree.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
