Wow!

Cornucopia

CLAPTON wrote: »

'affordable' like 'sustainable' or 'hard working family' or 'squeezed middle'

are basically catch phases that mean something like ' I am a kindly, caring politician that understand your concerns (oh and please vote for me).

the other meaning of 'affordable' as in 'affordable housing' is a technical one that has a special meaning in planner speak i.e. it means 'social' housing for poor people.

This usage is preferred by politician because no-one really objects to 'affordable housing ' being built but lots of people object to council or social housing especially if it is next door to them.

The question was really aimed at those in the thread who are calling for "something to be done" about house prices and/or the cost of renting.

What level of cost are they trying to get to, and why? (And is their perception of high prices actually justified?)

I can remember criticising people who were applauding HPI back in the 80s and 90s: ordinary people do not get much benefit from rising house prices.

And then I began to work out ways of benefiting from it...

Bantex_2

captainhindsight wrote: »

The problem with any type of housing is that you get slums of one type of housing. Near where I live there is an estate of 'affordable/council housing, an estate of £250000 houses, another with £500000 houses then another with just £750000 houses.

All these types of housing should be all mixed together and then this would mean people from different backgrounds would mix together and I believe this would solve many problems

Much like if you go into any old village or town where you will see a very large house with a couple of smaller houses next to it then a slightly bigger house and so on, this way everybody is integrated and mixes with each other and solves many social issues IMO.

I believe modern housing policy is forcing developers to deliver this type of housing so hopefully we wont end up with large areas and estates of carbon copy housing with people only mixing with people just like themselves making a polarized society.

The real resentment happens when one has paid say £500,000 for a house and a similar property next door is council and the single mother with 5 kids is living there fro free whilst you are paying thousands on a mortgage.

captainhindsight_2

Bantex wrote: »

The real resentment happens when one has paid say £500,000 for a house and a similar property next door is council and the single mother with 5 kids is living there fro free whilst you are paying thousands on a mortgage.

Sorry what I was trying to say was it wouldnt be a similar house nextdoor, there would be 2,3,4,5,6 bedroom houses all on the same street meaning different incomes and social backgrounds all living next to one another rather than whole estates of the same types of houses and the same types of people and no body would know which ones were social and which ones weren't (unless the people living in the house told people) to try and remove any stigma and stereotyping associated with living in a certain ares.

I believe current housing/planning policies are supporting this type of development

MFW_ASAP

mayonnaise wrote: »

There is some real hatred towards anyone financially well off on this section of the forums.

e.g. If you post about your MFW challenge on other boards on MSE you get support and encouragement from other users.
If you post it on here, you get ridiculed and branded a debt junkie.

It is only a minority of posters, the usual suspects.

I've lost track of the number of times they have had a go at my Interest rate/MFW challenge, telling em how they 'love being mortgage free' and how they 'pity' me being in such debt. What they don't seem capable of understanding is that I could also be mortgage free if I wanted to live in a 2 bed starter homes like theirs, indeed I was only a few month sfrom being mortgage free in a 4 bed detached. I CHOSE to buy a 6 bed farm house with land while interest rates were historically low. It wasn't forced on me.

They're not very bright though, so it never really sinks in.

captainhindsight_2

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I CHOSE to buy a 6 bed farm house with land while interest rates were historically low. It wasn't forced on me.

They're not very bright though, so it never really sinks in.

I bought a farm house with tenanted working farm attached, the rent pays the mortgage so my house has only cost me my deposit.

Some people cant see the benefits of taking on manageable debt.

wotsthat

Bantex wrote: »

The real resentment happens when one has paid say £500,000 for a house and a similar property next door is council and the single mother with 5 kids is living there fro free whilst you are paying thousands on a mortgage.

Sounds like an unlikely set of circumstances.

Bantex_2

wotsthat wrote: »

Sounds like an unlikely set of circumstances.

Check out Abu Hamsa's Mrs who is living in a 5 bed place in Shepherds Bush worth over a million and paying nothing.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Sounds like an unlikely set of circumstances.

are you saying a single mother of 5 children would not be a candidate for designated social housing ?
if not then who would be?

IveSeenTheLight

captainhindsight wrote: »

Sorry what I was trying to say was it wouldnt be a similar house nextdoor, there would be 2,3,4,5,6 bedroom houses all on the same street meaning different incomes and social backgrounds all living next to one another rather than whole estates of the same types of houses and the same types of people and no body would know which ones were social and which ones weren't (unless the people living in the house told people) to try and remove any stigma and stereotyping associated with living in a certain ares.

Whilst I understand your example, it just simply would not be a reality.
To start with the existing properties / housing scheme are already in conflict with your ideal.

I would say however that what you are looking for socially is already in place.

I own a 5 bed detached, there are 4 and 5 beds in the street and round the corner is flats, 2 and 3 beds.

The issue is that we more and more do not socialise with our neighbours, preferring to keep ones self to ones self.

Many are civil and may stop for a 5 min chat with their immediate neighbour, but won;t know everyone in the street as they might have done a generation or two ago.

Looking at your proposal, why would someone buy / build a 6 bed property next a a 2 bed terrace which might have a family on benefits? They'd probably look at a better area and the 6 bed would eventually be transformed into two 3 bed terrace

captainhindsight_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Looking at your proposal, why would someone buy / build a 6 bed property next a a 2 bed terrace which might have a family on benefits? They'd probably look at a better area and the 6 bed would eventually be transformed into two 3 bed terrace

I understand that and they probably wouldn't if they had the choice, but if all new developments were built in a way where it forced people to be neighbors with people they wouldn't usually be neighbors with I think it would be a step in the right direction.

There is nothing wrong with people on benefits, and by forcing (not really the right word but you know what I mean) people to live next to people they wouldn't usually choose to mix with I think would help to break down social barriers by making them interact with the individual not the stereotype.

And I think by both parties benefit from interacting with different ends of the social scale.