Landlords from Hell - Channel 4 tonight at 8.30

lighting_up_the_chalice

poppysarah wrote: »

http://www.urbansplash.co.uk/residential/chimney-pot-park

I think they're not particularly nice but they have changed terraces into something very modern.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=POSTCODE^4017158&includeSSTC=true&_includeSSTC=on
Houses on rightmove

And very expensive, with rents about a third higher than comparable traditional terraces in the area. Whilst this kind of development may satisfy a small percentage of the current housing demand, it can never be the entire solution. In much the same way that most old warehouses were flattened rather than turning them into trendy flats because the demand simply wasn't there.

lighting_up_the_chalice

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with Victorian terraced housing? I live in one, our own, we bought it in 1976, it is a lovely house with a long garden.

As another poster has said, stick some double glazing and central heating in it and damp-proof, - lovely, warm and cosy.

And so what if it has a downstairs bathroom and no garden? Most flats have no gardens and no-one grizzles. The downstairs bathroom I see as no problem whatsoever.

Knock two into one if a bigger house is needed,.

You can bring two children up in a two-bedroom place, in fact I know someone who brought three children of different genders up in a two-bed place. (parents had sofa bed in living room).

I would be really pleased to be offered such a place if I were inadequately housed. Why do people turn them down?

Don't understand.

Because they can?

Wouldn't you be even more pleased to be offered a purpose built, modern home built for the 21st century family?

Ulfar

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Because they can?

Wouldn't you be even more pleased to be offered a purpose built, modern home built for the 21st century family?

No because new builds that are currently being put up are crap, they have small rooms and a rubbish build quality.

With most of them long term maintenance issues aren't considered. One very obvious example is a lot of new builds are rendered, that rendering needs to be painted and maintained at a greater costs than a brick building.

Who knows how some of the more outlandish features will fare in ten or twenty years.

Choice is something people should work for themselves, people on benefits should be given decent basic accommodation, you want better work for it.

RAS

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Because they can?

Wouldn't you be even more pleased to be offered a purpose built, modern home built for the 21st century family?

According to our local planning rules, new builds need an expected life span of 30 years. Victorian terraces have already proved their basic structure can last 100 plus and seem capable of taking a fair bit of knocking about.

Added to which the ground floor of my little terrace is the same size as a one bedroom flat and the house about 50 percent bigger than a new build with the same number of bedrooms; master bedrooms being about 12 X 9ft rather than 15 square?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Ulfar wrote: »

No because new builds that are currently being put up are crap, they have small rooms and a rubbish build quality.

Well, house prices would indicate that you are in the minority there.

Ulfar wrote: »

With most of them long term maintenance issues aren't considered. One very obvious example is a lot of new builds are rendered, that rendering needs to be painted and maintained at a greater costs than a brick building.

Who knows how some of the more outlandish features will fare in ten or twenty years.

Choice is something people should work for themselves, people on benefits should be given decent basic accommodation, you want better work for it.

Agreed. All we are debating is how to provide that decent, basic accommodation.

lighting_up_the_chalice

RAS wrote: »

According to our local planning rules, new builds need an expected life span of 30 years. Victorian terraces have already proved their basic structure can last 100 plus and seem capable of taking a fair bit of knocking about.

Added to which the ground floor of my little terrace is the same size as a one bedroom flat and the house about 50 percent bigger than a new build with the same number of bedrooms; master bedrooms being about 12 X 9ft rather than 15 square?

You are talking about the minority of Victorian dwellings that remain and comparing against the bottom of the new build spectrum, the bottom of the Victorian spectrum having long been converted to rubble.

BigAunty

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with Victorian terraced housing? I live in one, our own, we bought it in 1976, it is a lovely house with a long garden.

.

Yes, I lived in a small semi detached cottage in east London surrounded by streets of small terraced housing albeit with tiny front and rear gardens.

Mine had two main rooms up and down, plus a small extension for the kitchen and ground floor bathroom off the bathroom. Ideal starter home for a couple - lots of retired folks, professionals and families in the neighbourhood.

But the things that prevented it from being a slum environment with significant lack of empty properties was its good local amenities, strong transport links, good shopping, etc.

I don't know where it figured on the deprivation scale - it was an unfashionable part of East London but I don't think there was much social housing or significant embedded worklessness.

Plus, of course, there are huge housing pressures in the south east and London caused by ever increasing population and household increase - the bar has to be lowered about physical space and density.

So I think part of the equation is the type of property but part of the viability of whether a property works is whether the community works - slum housing or slum tenants?

Same thing for the demolishion of traditional tenements in Glasgow and the social issues from the replacement housing (tower blocks).

At the time, the tenements were unsanitary and crowded. It was about lack of decent heating/plumbing and multiple occupancy, not the fabric of the buildings themselves, that were the problem.

tbs624

From the Bournemouth Echo here - "programme was unbalanced and unfair" says LL's son........

Any local MSEers who may want to add their names to the petition?

Damp-tennant

I have read the article, and only just recently found out about the landlords from hell program. I now live in my second property of his, and find that the properties are still damp, poor repair work carried out. And the staff are extremely unhelpful, rude, argumentative an do not listen as they think they are always right, even when shown to be in the wrong. I would not recommend anyone live in these properties after a friend did, and has had quite a few problems including mould, damp, and other issues having only been in approx 2 months. As for improving property conditions. How does a coat of paint stop the cold, damp, leaking roof's, windows etc ? Awful Awful company, as soon as finances allow I will be moving an never looking back except in disgust !!