London 2050 Plan

2

Comments

  • edited December 2017
  • Ben's the GOED.<br>
  • Being an immigrant, I generally get the concepts but don't fully grasp all the nuances of what constitutes working class and middle class in this country. But for an outsider, it's all a big bloody bore to be honest. None of the old definitions make sense anymore and I don't see the point of fighting over it. <br><br>
  • @ JoeV, Social Class all comes down to soft furnishings & wood finishes in the end, and this isn't even mentioned once in either Das Kapital or 'The Manifesto; which, in terms of sheer insanity, is a close second to the ludicrous omission of Easter Eggs in the telling of the Passion. It may also be worth mentioning that according to the Daily Mail style guide you must not refer to yourself as 'an immigrant' but reclassify yourself instead, as 'a Bogus-Asylum-Seeker' regardless of the actual reality of your situation. I hope this helps.
  • edited April 2014
    Gardener Joe and Joey, <div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">I'll just be quiet and let the ellite have their way.</span></div>
  • edited April 2014
    @kreuzkav - No one told you to be quiet. But I'm curious how you define elite - anyone who has 'more' than you? It seems so subjective to me. Each person has their own perspective. <div><br><div>There are many people, who I would think you define as middle class, who are actually very disadvantaged in the housing market. You, who define yourself as working class, have a much more stable housing than I do and many people on here. In fact you are much more protected and advantaged than any of the people who have to rent in the private sector. So I'm with you in your fight for affordable housing but I don't know why you have to use language that alienates some people and causes division when in fact there's common ground.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>@BenMyring - getting back to the London 2050 plan, I had a look though it but to be honest I don't understand most of it. I gather the gist of it is that 'They're coming! They're coming! and we need to build more build higher!!'?</div></div>
  • edited April 2014
    @ Joe.  You're right but having a stable housing situation.  That's why I care that more people have it. I know I go on a bit but I don't think big developments like what's happening round the station are good for the area.  That's why I feel livid with Ben.  But that's life.  I'm sure he thinks it will be good for the area and I know he is a good egg.  I just think he's a bit too 'development crazy'.<div><br></div><div>I don't think we need to build more housing. I think it's about managing what we have.  After all the more housing we build the more people will be attracted to London.  I think this isn't a good thing.  What we should do is bring in rent control, foster little industry.  The Emirates development led to the destruction of small workshops  to make way for global corporate big business. As regards the new development creating jobs, this could be created in other ways.  I feel the new development will change the face of area.  It's not going to be the same.  It will have a more corporate slick feel to it. The cosy rough around the edges Stroud Green will go.</div>
  • edited April 2014
    @kreuzkav - Lecture on: Your comments to Ben were uncalled for and very bad form. You attacked him personally, not his positions.  You wouldn't have made them in person in the way you made them here. This is an open forum and when you write something, everyone see it. What about the rest of us? Everyone misspeaks, but if you are indeed a caring person as you say, an apology is in order. Lecture off.  <div><br></div><div><br></div>
  • @  Joe, you're right.<div><br></div><div>@ Ben.  I'm sorry. </div>
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited April 2014
    Misscara, I agree that some developments are necessary.  One of the great things about the last five years has been the overground becoming a valid functioning form of transport.  I remember waiting for nearly an hour for a North London Rail train at Hackney Central twenty years ago because the twenty minute service train had been cancelled. Tfl was a triumph of the rebirth of local government in London.  I remember reading the transcript about the proposal in wonder.  I was involved in the Regeneration Game back then in an administrative role.  We now have an s-bahn system, and a ring on the overground.  Trains are better, more frequent.  Prices are still high but it's London.  I think Crossrail is really a global finance initiative but will be very helpful to communters in places outside London.   <div><br></div><div>Tfl is a modern triumph and I think the London Assembly too.</div>
  • @Ben. Really interesting article with lots of food of thought. With such a huge amount of people projected to increase will water. sewage etc be able to keep up. <div><br></div><div>In terms of transport no mention has been made of potential future change of working patterns of Londeners. As IT improves does everyone really need to be at a desk when they could work from home just as well. </div><div><br></div><div>In terms of trains I still after all these years cannot get to grips with the vast lines of South London, and still am surprised how they all intertwine. If TFL take over all suburban rain services they will be able to potentially integrate the fragmented rail services. There is that lovely bit of track between on the Goblin line just past South Tottenham that connects to the Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters branch of the West Anglia suburban services, It would be so cool TFL take that over as it potentially could connect Crouch Hill with Liverpool street/Stratford. I just got on a train in Vienna and it was double decker. Shame our low bridges cannot accommodate taller trains. I think Parkland walk is a preservation area so wont see the resurrection of the northern line down there. Its a massive challenge to plan and would be good to see what exactly they have in mind</div>
  • edited April 2014
    @Kreuzkav – thank you.<br><br>I think there’s much more agreement on the fundamentals here than we sometimes think.<br><br>People are moving to London because it has a growing economy which provides lots of jobs, and has enormous and cultural appeal. They are not moving to London because of an excess of housing – London has a massive housing shortage and the most expensive houses in the country. That’s not really controversial, but if you are in doubt about the mechanics of that then there are some useful links at the bottom of the article I linked to earlier.<br><br>I think most of us also agree that the priority should be more council housing (you will recall me pointing out, with some exasperation, that it is the Lib Dems who are campaigning for new council housing in Haringey, not Labour). Unfortunately, due to the financial limitations of local government and the general economic environment, we are very unlikely to see a significant percentage of the new housing built by government. They will be built by private developers. So my general approach is – ‘what is the best possible outcome that we can achieve, given the political realities?’. The political realities as I understand them are:<br><br>1) The population is growing rapidly<br>2) We need more housing to cater for this, otherwise housing costs will continue to rise, and the poor will suffer most.<br>3) There will inevitably be an increase in housing density (and sometimes that will mean an increase in height)<br>4) *The GLA recognise this*. Haringey is legally obliged to build 10,000 more homes by the middle of the next decade.<br>5) Haringey are *obliged* to develop a plan that reflects this (you’ve not heard much about that, as it’s going to hugely controversial so Labour have kicked the ball down the road to after the election). The Site Allocation Document and Finsbury Park Town Centre plans tie into this.<br>6) If Haringey fails to come up with a plan that meets its obligations, or if it makes decisions contrary to these plans, then developers can appeal to the Mayor, who will be minded to let the plan through even if the council thinks that it is deficient or looks crap.<br>7) Regardless, the Mayor can call in big developments (as he did with City North) and overrule local councils if he sees fit.<br>8) Housing aimed at a specific part of the population – whether council tenants, students, or the very wealthy – reduces demand on the general housing stock, helping to make housing more affordable for everyone (especially the poorest). So even if we would ideally like all new houses to be council houses, the fact that this isn’t going to happen is not the end of the world. The more houses we build, the cheaper housing will be, and the more money people have to spend on other things.<br><br>In other words, whatever you would like to happen in an ideal world, the population of London and Haringey will grow rapidly in the next few decades, and we will see lots more housing being built where there are development opportunities.<br><br>We can’t stop the population growing, and we can’t stop housing developments happening. What we can do is influence where the housing goes, what it looks like, and the mix of industry/retail/housing on the plot.<br><br>Speaking personally: What I am continually trying to do is drum these realities home to people, and influence local developments so that they benefit the local community as much as possible. Some of you may conclude that I am a hopeless invertebrate compromiser. But I’m just trying to do my best, for a community that I love, in the world that we *actually live in*. Others are welcome to try.<br><br>As ever<br>B<br>
  • edited April 2014
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">@BenMyring  - as always, your comments are well thought out and thoughtful but in regard to point 8 if you are saying that more housing built will increase supply and lessen demand and thus bringing down prices overall, i.e. in accord with general economic theory, I agree at least in a perfect world.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">In the real world though, the only housing that is being built is for students and the wealthy. No serious investment money is being put into council houses and the subsidies made available to ‘rest of us’ via part ownership schemes and Help to Buy benefits developers and banks more than ordinary folk.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">I know I bang on about this but until there’s discussion of real reform in the private rental market, nothing will change.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">Leaving aside the merits or lack thereof of the City North development for example, I agree we need more housing built and this project fulfils that requirement. In the end though, we all know it become a building occupied by a majority of renters, not owners and those renters will not be protected under current regulations.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">If the Lib Dems put together some real policy on this you’d have my vote (if I had a vote).</p>
  • edited April 2014
    Well, we want to build more council houses, more houses in general, and we want increased standards and protection for private renters.    In general, though, I'm with you that we (society in general) need to be more radical on this.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Indeed, but as noted all those new properties relieve the pressure on the sort of private homes that you and I rent.  The more new ones that are built, the cheaper rents will be.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited April 2014
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi">Sure.  More houses = lower rent.  Or the same rent, better house.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Supply and demand!</span></p>
  • But that's not happening Ben. The London property market is dysfunctional. In other areas of the UK maybe but the normal rules of supply and demand don't work here. The increase in supply could further fuel demand, which equates to nothing changing. Are you currently in the private rental market or do you own? The situation is bleak, which is why you get such push back and resentment when big developments projects are announced because they don't seem to help the people already living here.
  • edited April 2014
    I rent privately.  I never expect to be able to afford to own.  The biggest reason for rent rises is that the population is rising faster than houses are being built, or rather that this has been a problem for decades. Building fewer houses won’t significantly impact the population rise, it will just affect living standards.
  • Muscarra you said earlier you were moving out if London. That is just natural part of London growing and wealth creators gettin rewarded and wanting to live central. Extreme eg is Knightsbridge. An ordinary millionaire can't afford it any more. Same with ppl in your situation in SG. There will be affordable places for 'key workers' (not incl vets or bar staff!) so the game has changed. No govt (not luv dems) will fight it. Chang
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • If anyone fancies buying in London you could always try Catford, there is plenty of housing down there which is affordable (in the current insane London context)<div><br></div><div>http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/property/london/se6/catford-bellingham-hither-green/?include_retirement_homes=true&include_shared_ownership=true&new_homes=include&q=se6&results_sort=lowest_price&search_source=home</div><div><br></div><div>The problem with Catford is, well, it's in Catford, and no one wants to live there. </div><div><br></div><div>On the plus side, it is in zone 3 with excellent train lines to town, and very (too) close to Lewisham, rents are cheap (as is life), and there is plenty of victorian housing, not many council estates and the south circular road</div><div><br></div><div>is this supply and demand in action?  could someone with some bona fide economic knowledge please confirm is disabuse me of this notion?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
  • @ Dion.  I haven't been to Catford for twenty years but they used to have a cat in stone at the entrance to the shopping centre.  I love cats but perhaps it's not enough.
  • @kreuzkav - the cat is still there, i forgot to mention that the cat is awesome<div><br></div><div> if you haven't been to catford in 20 years, maybe you should get out more</div><div><br></div><div>and if anyone else is looking for something to do of a weekend, when BBM, the park, Vagabond, WLM, delis, lea valley, highgate woods, upper street, crouch end, talked to your local councillor about important road line painting issues etc have bored you witless, i highly recommend going to Catford - you will realise that Catford as all of that to offer, and MORE. </div>
  • edited April 2014
    Dion, good call. If I'm bored I'll go there this weekend.  <div><br></div><div>For those who haven't seen the cat, here's a taster:<img src="http://www.everythinglewisham.co.uk/wp-assets/2013/02/cat1.jpg" style="font-size: 10pt;"></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
  • Superb kreizkav. Thanks
  • I would gladly pay for several SG types to go to Catford. Chang
  • Maybe some people would have a whip round for you!
Sign In or Register to comment.