How there haven't been more riots yet I don't know

Windofchange

Cornucopia wrote: »

In what way "shady"? I can see that marketing them abroad is politically embarrassing, but shady is stretching the point, I think.

Shady as in a regeneration project is supposed to regenerate an area and fill it with the local population? An active decision has been made to sell the lot off to investment companies abroad who likely won't ever even visit the flats they have brought. In bidding to buy the land I should imagine the company waxed lyrical about building a community, but the ink on the contract hasn't even dried and they are off to Singapore to setup cocktail parties. All this during a housing crisis?

Money talks I know. Can't blame the company for wanting to max their profits, but why is it allowed? Southwark council (the tax payer) made no money out of the sale of the estate as per the above article. The council is I think from memory getting few million out of it for local projects. The company is getting a projected 200 million. Nice.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Shady as in a regeneration project is supposed to regenerate an area and fill it with the local population? An active decision has been made to sell the lot off to investment companies abroad who likely won't ever even visit the flats they have brought. In bidding to buy the land I should imagine the company waxed lyrical about building a community, but the ink on the contract hasn't even dried and they are off to Singapore to setup cocktail parties. All this during a housing crisis?

Money talks I know. Can't blame the company for wanting to max their profits, but why is it allowed? Southwark council (the tax payer) made no money out of the sale of the estate as per the above article. The council is I think from memory getting few million out of it for local projects. The company is getting a projected 200 million. Nice.

for the first time i think i actually agree with you on this. why would the council sell it off so cheap? someone will lose out on this and it looks like the taxpayers that live in the borough.

westernpromise

I don’t know offhand what the facts are here but I agree it would be disgraceful if people were chucked out of even grotty flats and told to live 30 miles away. If the scheme doesn't work if they're rehoused locally, then its economics depend on displacing people. This is the kind of thing Ceaucescu used to do in Communist Romania; reminiscent of the enclosures of the 18th and 19th centuries here.

That said, I do wonder how else you are supposed to renew and revivify grotholes like the Elephant and Castle. There are still large tracts of cities given over to hideous brutalist estates that were never fit for purpose then, and are still less so now, that need tearing down so we can start again

Windofchange

Absolutely. The place was a hole and I'm not sad to see it go, but I think that both local and national government should be taking a greater stake in what is put up in its place. Developers are getting away with murder when it comes to affordable homes - they are dodging their commitments quite spectacularly all over the capital. Few units stuffed round the back out of sight, and then it's profit o'clock for the rest. The Battersea power plant development is another example:

http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/its-battersea-poor-station-firsttime-buyers-banished-to-former-industrial-estate-half-a-mile-from-47706.html

I get that London needs to change, but by flogging it off to the highest bidder do we effect a change that is desirable for all rungs of society? Your earlier point about people looking to stay in London for life is just not backed up by the numbers - people are fleeing the capital in their masses - I'm joining them as soon as I can persuade the Mrs to sell up:

https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2016/7/flood-of-20-and-30-somethings-leaving-london-claims-high-end-agency

Once we've sold everything to investment companies, what will be left of the city?

lisyloo

I share your concern, however it's hardly surprising that 20 and 30 somethings needs to leave the city and their shared houses with shared kitchen/bathroom when they wish to stop living that lifestyle and have a family, but certainly it's a concern when the city is full of empty luxury apartments and the transport systems are verging on unsafe IMO.

antrobus

Windofchange wrote: »

.... Your earlier point about people looking to stay in London for life is just not backed up by the numbers - people are fleeing the capital in their masses - I'm joining them as soon as I can persuade the Mrs to sell up:

https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2016/7/flood-of-20-and-30-somethings-leaving-london-claims-high-end-agency

...

Estate agents have something of a reputation for being economical with the truth.:)

The ONS has data on internal migration used in that piece.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/bulletins/internalmigrationbylocalauthoritiesinenglandandwales/yearendingjune2015

Scroll down toF igure 6: Internal migration moves (including cross-border moves), year ending June 2015 - there was an outflow of 283,065 and an inflow of 205,531; a net outflow of 77,534 people. But that's just internal migration within the UK; people also move in and out of London to places thaet are not in the UK.

Here's someone who has compiled numbers of both internal and external movements in and out of London from the ONS for the years 1998 to 2013. Tne net numbers don't amount to much.

Migration in and out of London
http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/londons-geography-population/migration-in-and-out-of-london/

Besides, London's population is growing at twice the rate of the UK as whole. The ONS expect the population to increase to 10 million over the next decade. That's because of the birth rate; London's immigrants tend to be 20 somethings keen to procreate.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/12/london-population-growth-twice-that-of-uk-official-figures-show

Those would be the real numbers.

antrobus

lisyloo wrote: »

I share your concern, however it's hardly surprising that 20 and 30 somethings needs to leave the city and their shared houses with shared kitchen/bathroom when they wish to stop living that lifestyle and have a family, but certainly it's a concern when the city is full of empty luxury apartments and the transport systems are verging on unsafe IMO.

But

Neal Hudson, UK housing market analyst at property firm Savills....said that the number of people in their late 30s and early 40s who were leaving London was also down on the levels before the recession. and

People aged between 20 and 29 account for the largest influx of people into to the capital

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/12/london-population-growth-twice-that-of-uk-official-figures-show

lisyloo

antrobus wrote: »

But

Neal Hudson, UK housing market analyst at property firm Savills....said that the number of people in their late 30s and early 40s who were leaving London was also down on the levels before the recession. and

People aged between 20 and 29 account for the largest influx of people into to the capital

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/12/london-population-growth-twice-that-of-uk-official-figures-show

Different stages of life.
The previous group mentioned may have left for family accommodation.
The first group you mentioned may already be property owners.
The second group you mention are prepared to live with multiple occupancy in return for career and living in a vibrant city.

Different requirements for different stages of life.

lisyloo

antrobus wrote: »

But

Neal Hudson, UK housing market analyst at property firm Savills....said that the number of people in their late 30s and early 40s who were leaving London was also down on the levels before the recession. and

People aged between 20 and 29 account for the largest influx of people into to the capital

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/12/london-population-growth-twice-that-of-uk-official-figures-show

Different stages of life.
The previous group mentioned may have left for family accommodation.
The first group you mentioned may already be property owners.
The second group you mention are prepared to live with multiple occupancy in return for career and living in a vibrant city.

Different requirements for different stages of life.

I expect to leave london early/mid fifties for retirement, so not in any of those groups but again a change of lifestyle related to age.

Windofchange

No surprise there are lots of 20 somethings heading to London. I wouldn't have been anywhere else and I'm sure the same still rings true. Happy to pile into a 4 bed house for £500 a month each plus bills. Move on a decade and your wife and small child won't want to be in your frat house. People head out.

As to where we're going to put another 10 million people should that prediction come to fruition...