Landlords from Hell - Channel 4 tonight at 8.30

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

(Yawn) The point was, for the hard of understanding, that people don't want to buy For Prefects anymore, regardless of propulsion method. The same applies to much of the Victorian housing stock. It's bog standard, outdated housing, nothing special, nothing unique, nothing anyone wants. Why not scrap it and built the housing people want? Why is that such a difficult notion for you to grasp?

So what your saying is social housing (Its stock in its ENTIREITY) should be primarily identified by TREND.
In effect you are saying we should demolish ALL social housing and rebuild it in line with TREND.

This raises several problems:

1) How does one address the destruction of history and identity that comes with this
2) Whos going to pay for this programme of works (Pathfinder failed, during BOOM TIMES and with a smaller remit)
3) How often do we revise this housing stock that is entirely driven by TREND? Every five years, cull 20% of stock that no longer has a 20 foot garden etc... What happens in ten years (While this major programme of demolition and rebuilding is still going on) when TREND/ TRENDS change???
4) Who defines TREND? Who sets acceptable criteria? And for whom?

Question 2 is the most pressing. I think youre in cloud cuckoo land...

propertyman

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

See post #69.

At the risk of being a troll you are being a complete idiot. I practice in London and Sussex, I am based in E14 and deal with the local ALMO several of the HA/RSL's and builders and it is hard to imagine an area with the diversity of social housing in this area, not to mention my experience in the leafier suburbs of Sussex.

Many here would "kill" to live in a 2 up terrace with a small yard than a newly built 2 bed flat.

Largely as they were victims of slum clearance and architectural experimentation in living style and materials.

Ebenezer Howard had it right the first time.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

If youve done your research to come to these conclusions, good on you. But what I ask is IF these are indeed private housing (So we cannot bring the council to task over letting them go to waste) then why are they under the remit of the council/ government who, under Pathfinder want to WASTEFULLY demolish and rebuild them, which brings us back to the SAME ARGUMENT

Because, to put it bluntly, you cannot polish a turd.

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Concerned34 listed various MINORITIES, which he then went on to call MINORITIES. It was YOU who decided to assume that a discussion regarding MINORITIES must be based on race. .... And some think it's ME who should go to specsavers.

We're in a pedantic circle now, so I'll bow out of this little sub-debate and get back to housing. I just wouldn't want this thread to descend into the usual blame game that so many others seem to. I'm sure you know what I mean.

OK so what does RACE have to do with an discyssion about Social Housing standards then, as youre so keen to barge into the question I put to Concerned34?
I picked up on the RACIAL aspect as I didnt see what it had to do with the discussion. The fact he also lists other minorities (The disabled) is neither here nor there.

Are you here for a DISCUSSION or an ARGUEMENT?

lighting_up_the_chalice

propertyman wrote: »

At the risk of being a troll you are being a complete idiot. I practice in London and Sussex, I am based in E14 and deal with the local ALMO several of the HA/RSL's and builders and it is hard to imagine an area with the diversity of social housing in this area, not to mention my experience in the leafier suburbs of Sussex.

Many here would "kill" to live in a 2 up terrace with a small yard than a newly built 2 bed flat.

Largely as they were victims of slum clearance and architectural experimentation in living style and materials.

Ebenezer Howard had it right the first time.

Only a small fraction of tenants and potential tenants live in E14. There is a whole country out there to which your comments simply do not apply. Broaden your outlook a little and you will see that.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

OK so what does RACE have to do with an discyssion about Social Housing standards then, as youre so keen to barge into the question I put to Concerned34?
I picked up on the RACIAL aspect as I didnt see what it had to do with the discussion. The fact he also lists other minorities (The disabled) is neither here nor there.

Are you here for a DISCUSSION or an ARGUEMENT?

Already answered. Let's leave it there... huh?

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Because, to put it bluntly, you cannot polish a turd.

Utter nonsense. Your remark here just illustrates you clearly know nothing about Victorian housing or building materials/ techniques.

The simple fact is Victorian housing was built to a high standard with good materials and with large internal space. I speak from experience here. You seem to be muddling 'build quality' with 'condition'

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Already answered. Let's leave it there... huh?

So you agree you barged the red flag about the RACIAL aspect bought up by the other poster.
This is a discussion about social housing in which racial matters are not a primary point.

jamie11

Victorian housing was the bees knees in it's time. Modern housing does not always show an improvement.
Witness the modern rabbit hutches where you cannot fit a normal 3 piece suite into the living room.

concerned43

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Already answered. Let's leave it there... huh?

Final word - Social housing should be given to those in need and nothing else should come into it. 'Benefits' should not be a qualifying condition nor should those on benefits be treated any differently that those not on benefits as to do so would be discrimination!
The law protects against race/disabilty/creed discrimination but the new discrimination, particularly on this board, is against those unfortunate enough to be on benefits and I find this deeply disturbing.