UK new builds rejected for social housing

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

The thought of the Aussie Government going in to some small town somewhere and announcing that they were going to force people to sell their houses on the cheap so they could be bulldozed is pretty funny really. The party that announced the policy would be out of power for a generation.

difference is australia has loads of land so it wouldn't ever be necessary. although not every australian lives in a nice suburb of sydney. seem to remember there are some pretty grim places there too. personally i wouldn't want to see out my days in coober pedy or alice springs for example. and aren't there some suburbs known for an arson attack a day?

Generali

ninky wrote: »

difference is australia has loads of land so it wouldn't ever be necessary. although not every australian lives in a nice suburb of sydney. seem to remember there are some pretty grim places there too. personally i wouldn't want to see out my days in coober pedy or alice springs for example. and aren't there some suburbs known for an arson attack a day?

There are many very grotty places in Aus (although I'm not sure about the arson figure).

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

There are many very grotty places in Aus (although I'm not sure about the arson figure).

http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,23613617-5013951,00.html

mentioned here. it actually says every second day. still doesn't sound that enticing.

PasturesNew

ninky wrote: »

http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,23613617-5013951,00.html

mentioned here. it actually says every second day. still doesn't sound that enticing.

I read that and looked at where my friend lives... she's dead posh (well, parents' income of about £140k) and looking at the map she's not that far from Bankstown. In a village just one further out.

That's the thing isn't it. You can cross a road and go from "good" to "bad".

Fridge2

I have family in Perth, Australia, and to be honest, much of it is just like a council estate full of barret style houses. No character at all.

Although Freemantle etc is very nice

vivatifosi

ninky wrote: »

http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,23613617-5013951,00.html

mentioned here. it actually says every second day. still doesn't sound that enticing.

Just had a look at the list. Interested to see that it includes the Sunshine Coast. I'd much rather live in Noosa on the Sunshine Coast than in, say, Toxteth here. I have family there and their standard of living is way higher than it would be in a place at the theoretical bottom of places in the UK. Though it is a list for investment purpose, so drivers other than a decent place to live are likely to be factors.

wymondham

ninky wrote: »

it seems when it comes to private sector new builds we are being fobbed off with substandard pokey shoeboxes that are on average 25% smaller even than those in japan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8052470.stm

tbh i'm not that surprised by this story. but isn't it time we had legislation to prevent this shoddiness. i suspect that much of what is being built now will not stand the test of time and will just have to be ripped down again in a few years when people refuse to buy or live in them. a complete waste of resources.

Interesting .... If I'd bought one of these new houses I'd be wondering why a housing association would turn it down, yet it was good enough to sell to me! - do they have high standards or do I have low standards?

Does this also limit your options for selling on to housing associations in the future? - I would expect the reason why they reject it would remain 2nd hand??

ninky_2

wymondham wrote: »

Does this also limit your options for selling on to housing associations in the future?

Yes

I would expect the reason why they reject it would remain 2nd hand??

Yes

however, the fact it's developers trying to sell property they can't shift to the private market suggests they've got what they deserve. it's like woolworths going under - poor business that was limping along in the boom but couldn't survive a downturn. one of the benefits of recession is cutting the deadwood.

Pssst

PasturesNew wrote: »

My view of demolishing old property to build shiny new is it displaced poorer people, like ethnic cleansing.

Imagine this: you've lived in the street all your life. House cost you £2-10k between 1970 and 1990. Now it'd be worth £50-60k - the cheapest houses for 400 miles. Along come the "regeneration team", compulsory purchase your house and give you £60k .... then they build shiny places for sale at £120-200k.

Now, you're sat on the kerb with your £60k, staring at the £120-200k houses. You're 50-85. Where are you going to live? You can't buy.

It is indeed...Pathfinder = ethnic cleansing and theft of peoples hard earned property. throwing people out on the street from houses they have worked and paid for with little compensation. Prescott and New Labour are crooks.

Pssst

vivatifosi wrote: »

Just had a look at the list. Interested to see that it includes the Sunshine Coast. I'd much rather live in Noosa on the Sunshine Coast than in, say, Toxteth here. I have family there and their standard of living is way higher than it would be in a place at the theoretical bottom of places in the UK. Though it is a list for investment purpose, so drivers other than a decent place to live are likely to be factors.

Yes its true.
Most hard working Brits flog their collective tripes out and yet they have very little to show for it at retirement and live their lives like rats in overcrowded towns and cities,tiny houses costing a fortune and amidst a rising tide of filth and crime.

Even many of our Euro neighbours live better.

Crummy terraces trading for £200-£300k when you could buy a ince detached house in Oz,USA,NZ for the same money?

UK is just a money making machine for the few,whilst the majority eak out a low level existence like hamsters on a perpetual wheel.