Two thirds of private rental landlords will leave sector if Labour win

jayson043

Wonderful news.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

Is that typical of all council housing and yes high rise blocks were obviously bad but many estates were ok in 60s And 70s.

It is (or was) obviously not typical of all council housing. I don't believe that anyone has ever suggested that it was.

But if you read stuff like Kynaston's post war histories, there's an underlying sub plot of almost an unholy cabal of councils and planners engaging in what were essentially social engineering projects, where the goal was try and imnspire a particular way-of-life rather than simply to provide, well, places to live.

CLAPTON

there is nothing intrinsically bad about high rise blocks: in fact in many parts of London they sell for very large sums.

whilst some may have been to a substandard built quality, the main problems was the people and management rather than the building.

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

It is (or was) obviously not typical of all council housing. I don't believe that anyone has ever suggested that it was.

But if you read stuff like Kynaston's post war histories, there's an underlying sub plot of almost an unholy cabal of councils and planners engaging in what were essentially social engineering projects, where the goal was try and imnspire a particular way-of-life rather than simply to provide, well, places to live.

Is that fact or speculation? mistakes were made not only in council accommodation. In aldershot all out all off the army accommodation has been demolished including married quarters.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is nothing intrinsically bad about high rise blocks: in fact in many parts of London they sell for very large sums.

whilst some may have been to a substandard built quality, the main problems was the people and management rather than the building.

No, I don't believe that there is anything intrinsically bad about high rise blocks per se. But a lot of the problems do (or did) relate to the building. Not perhaps the actual structure of the building itself, but the surrounding stuff; concrete walkways. communal spaces, and suchlike.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is nothing intrinsically bad about high rise blocks: in fact in many parts of London they sell for very large sums.

whilst some may have been to a substandard built quality, the main problems was the people and management rather than the building.

They are far from ideal for family homes, many were of substandard build and if you think they were badly you should look a post war private rental properties. Have you ever been on a council estate it obvious you know nothing about council estates of the 60s and 70s and as to people that is more a problem of post Thatcher Britain.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

No, I don't believe that there is anything intrinsically bad about high rise blocks per se. But a lot of the problems do (or did) relate to the building. Not perhaps the actual structure of the building itself, but the surrounding stuff; concrete walkways. communal spaces, and suchlike.

Yes, better consideration of 'defensive' spaces, access control etc would have / has improved the living experience of the people living there.
However, it's also true that a different social mix would have made them great places to live.

As a frequent visitor to many London (ex) council estates, it is remarkable how much improvement there has been in the quality of life of the people there.

Generali

tincans6 wrote: »

Funny, considering that you have never lived in a council house (or social housing for that matter, no doubt) that you are such an expert on the subject.

My Uncle lived in a council house in the town I was born in.

I don't have to have done something to know something about it. I've never visited a star but I have a rough idea how they work.

Ronan Point was built by a private sector contractor to public sector standards. The disgraceful part was that once it was understood that those standards were deadly many councils didn't do anything at all about reporting that fact. They deliberately put the lives of their tenants at risk because they couldn't be bothered to do anything about it.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

Yes, better consideration of 'defensive' spaces, access control etc would have / has improved the living experience of the people living there.....

Yes, I think 'defensive space' is indeed the correct architectural jargon.

CLAPTON wrote: »

...However, it's also true that a different social mix would have made them great places to live....

I believe that's another issue, in the sense that councils always seemed to prefer the option of building a nice big council estate somewhere, so it would be a nice safe Labour ward, and allow a nice big private estate somewhere else which the Tories could have.:)

CLAPTON wrote: »

...As a frequent visitor to many London (ex) council estates, it is remarkable how much improvement there has been in the quality of life of the people there.

There is stuff you can do things better, once you work out what was wrong in the first place.

MARTYM8`

This would be excellent news - they can just have one massive sell off of their properties on the cheap to first time buyers.:D:D They won't of course - perhaps we need a game of call my bluff.

You can always spot the buy to let properties in any street - run down and badly maintained and often with anti social neighbours. From the perspective of owner occupiers we should welcome more homes owned by people who live there and care about the place - not absent landlords who dont as they only come round once a year to sign a new tenancy agreement!

Sorry to generalise - but its generally the case!

And frankly I have little sympathy for middle aged whingers who bought property on the cheap - and now want to profit by leeching off young people who are priced out of buying or off the taxpayer by getting their property paid for via housing benefit. Buy to let adds no value to society - it costs us big time! What we need is council housing for the poor - and owner occupier status for everyone else - it worked rather well in the 50s, 60s and 70s and much the better off society was for it