Streetlife

The trouble with your reasoning Linda is that if rocketing accomodation prices are allowed to continue, there won't be any people left to serve your Rich americans and to be expoited by them!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2163169/Chelsea-images-Battersea-Power-Station-sta...

Copied from Legoland

I haven't been on streetlife for weeks.
Thank you all for the comments.

There is a perfect storm buillding in housing.  It began with Thatcher's jerimander and continued under her acolytes in New Labour.  Now Cameron has wheeled it out again and his cronies on the council have embaced it.  It is worth reheasing the mechanism. A house or flat belonging to the council paid for by the common purse is fraudulently valued as  an 'occupied' dwelling with unlimited tenure.  According to the lenghth of time the tennant has enjoyed this subsidised dwelling he is offerred a discount of up to 60%.  With a subsidised council  mortgage of up to 100%.   Ergo a dwelling which could realise 250 thousand is commonly sold for as little as sixty five.

Now long-term council tenants are. as a demographic. not the people  one would expect to set about owning their own home and paying amortgage in any other circumstances.  Likewise they are very unlikely to have savings of one hundred and ninety thousand pounds.
A large proportion of these houses are cashed in at an early stage and the capital disapated on sundry personal ambitions.  The family move to private renting. The house is bought on a buy to let mortgage and comes back as a rented dwelling which is only affordable because of housing benefit   We are seeing the end and curtailment of these subsidies. There will always be a significant minority of people who would be homeless but for social housing.  Selling the the commonwealth in this manner is irresponsible and constitutes a fraud on the public purse.
A deeper problem is that nearly all privately rented accomodation is limited to six months or a years tenure.  How does this augur for settled communities.  For being in the Scouts or the bowls cliub or living near mum to get support with the kids.  Our entire working class is becoming transient and itinerent and as interest rates rise and buy to let mortgages get more expensive rents will rise; housing benefit will fall and all the  goodwill in the world wont help

Very well said Nicholas G

I am most concerned about Battersea Power Station. It is an iconic South London building. Is there anyone or any group 'protecting' or speaking out for its interests & continuance.  I have suspected for some time that someone is waiting for it to collapse & then can do whatever they like with the abandoned site. Does anyone else agree it should be preserved?  Can we form one? Unless people fight to contain the greed & hubris of those who tear down & build ghastly things, it will continue to happen.  Every now & again there's a a sparkle of hope- the Charles Dickens workhouse in Cleveland Street was saved from demolition.  I'm game for a fight.

Hi Miriam. Maybe you should post this as a new comment, or it may get lost on this one. Am happy to support but as I'm disabled, and have heart problems, I cannot physically offer practical help at the moment. Good luck x

Hi Miriam - Battersea power station is a listed building so it would not be knocked down, but needs a huge amount of money to restore it 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/05/british-absent-battersea-power-station-auction?newsfeed=true 

Why not contact Pink Floyd band members ? I am sure they would help

I have known of buildings that got into such a bad state of repair, that it was too far gone, and got knocked down. the swimming pool at ladbroke grove was listed, but went in the end as nothing was done to preserve it

Never mind the American Embassy - what about the monstrosity they have named THE TOWER at Vauxhall. It has to be the ugliest building in the UK whilst obliterating views from homes in St Georges Wharf facing west. Bet they were not aware of this eyesore being planned when the originally bought these homes. Someone has mentioned riverside living in Europe. Just think of Paris - and its accommodation which is set far back from the river Seines shores?. The Thames belongs to us all. Its just greed that restricts our access.

Michael B. Am I alone in thinking that progress on 'The Tower' has slowed-up? Could that be because permission has been granted for some even higher buildings on the Market Towers site?

The millions requested for some of the properties in The Tower will thus result in unrivalled views of another building!

Pleased to see better comment entering a thread that was descending into racialism.

Best - Ian

Streetlife should not be used as an outlet for xenophobia.   The average American is no more responsible for designing and erecting an embassy than the average Londoner can be held responsible for any chaos resulting from the Olympics.

The Tower .. is this the office block on the corner of Nine Elms Lane??

Re: the US Embassy and 'Linear Park' etc. Having just watched the video about what fantastic properties the new buildings will create, there seems to be absolutely NO mention of affordable housing for anything like 'local' people. It's all about private clubs and fantastic views. Couldn't be that they are designing this for Embassy staff, Mayfair exiles and their cohorts, could it?

this has been mentioned before. Those who can only afford "affordable" housing, are not welcome in Central London any more. We are supposed to live in Stoke or hastings, and leave Central London to the hooray Henreys, the bankers and the Russians, oh and of course the Americans

Vivian B. That's 'Market Towers', shortly to be replaced by three much taller buildings.

In general. To quote from the Council's website re. the Embassy Gardens development...

"The scheme would provide up to 1,982 flats of which up to 298 would be set aside as intermediate and affordable rent homes. If the value of the development improves during the build period the developer has agreed to share up to £40mn of the extra profits with the council. The funds would be used to provide more affordable homes across the regeneration zone."Best - Ian

I know diddly-squat about housing, but this councillor's blog suggests Wandsworth are requesting 15% affordable housing in Nine Elms (i.e. 298/1982) whereas Lambeth are asking for 40%. 

http://simonhoggblogs.com/2012/01/18/video-the-great-nine-elms-swindle-how-wandsworth-gave-up-4000-affordable-homes/#more-313

I get the impression that affordable housing is becoming increasingly less so due to changing definitions and changes to housing benefit - is there information about how Wandsworth's (or Lambeth's) affordable housing breaks down into social housing or other types like part-ownership etc?

The Tower at Vauxhall is flipping HUGE! Viewed from Chelsea Bridge, the flats next to MI6 look like cottages. 

I would like to know who can afford the affordable housing.  We have some new properties near us with this facility - the only people I know who are going into them are all - without fail - on a housing benefit of some sort.  I know nothing about the benefits system - at all.  But four of the families who moved into the small amount reserved for non-purchasers all qualify for them.  I don't know the other two families.

so .. where is it stated what 'affordable' is?  Affordable to what finance bracket?

People on here are bashing the Americans, but here we go again  with people on benefits.

Affordable means they can charge up to 80% of market rate. In the flats I live in, that would be about £200 per week, an amount that I could never have afforded when I was working let alone now I have retired. 70% of people on housing benefit are working people, but wages in London are so low for many jobs, that housing benefit has to be paid because rents are so high, and wages so low.
read my earlier comments on treatment of low paid workers in London

It is confusing reading the comments over the past few weeks as very few commenting seem to live in the real world.

I think many of us may not like so many of the horrible tower blocks that have appeared all along the river front but ultimately it is the Council who approve such schemes so why are we bashing the Americans.

If the US had not bought this land to develop does anyone think that with the high cost of the land any other developer would be proposing anything much different. Can anyone make money out of having an estate on small 3 bedroomed houses?

The only way that would happen would be if the Council and Government would buy and develop the land at taxpayers expense - perhaps they should but unlikely in a recession.

I agree with some of the comments about architects - many seem to think an architect can design what they like when in the real world the client has the final say so why blame architects.

It is right to criticise those responsible but let's target those really to blame and not just targets Americans and Architects.

Personally as moderns buildings go I agree with Ian and a few others it is not as bad as many modern buildings and it will bring jobs to a very run down area.

I've been looking at the 'Nine Elms Opportunity Area Planning Framework', a not very catchy name for an interesting document about what's being planned for the area, such as how the super-tall buildings (180-200m) are just for Vauxhall whereas the Wandsworth area tops out at 60-70m (just shy of the Power Station?).
 http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/VNEB_OAPF_2012_0.pdf

Re: Housing, it says that, in general, Wandsworth ask for 33% affordable housing (on individual developments) and Lambeth 40%, both with a breakdown of 70% social housing and 30% intermediate.

However for Nine Elms, it says:
"Given the need to maximise financial contributions towards the provision of infrastructure required to support development in the Opportunity Area.., 15% affordable housing.. will normally be expected in the Wandsworth part of the Opportunity Area".

From the consultation comments, I take this to mean that Wandsworth dropped the amount of affordable housing so that developers would cough up for things like the tube extension, which is of less interest to Lambeth. 

However I don't see how undercutting affordable housing targets that are put in place in order to make strong diverse communities can be a good thing for the future of the area. I'd like to see the justification for this and some reassurance that we're not just building another Canary Wharf.

Other than Wandsworth's FAQs that is, that say this isn't just going to be another Canary Wharf.

There are two very different pictures being painted and it makes me uneasy.

I'm not too political either right or left –  they are all a bit of a let down. However it seems profit-driven companies have being given free reign to steamroller over what used to be a fair (ish) society. 

There will always be variants in the standard of living. But when these are stretched the unjust lengths they are now, there will be violence. This is tragic! Turn back now before innocent people are hurt.

Jean - I didn't 'bash' anyone on benefits - I was asking a question.

Of the four families I know, three have folk working.. one doesn't.  Of the three who work, they are all on a benefit of some sort - not being au fait with benefits (I am retired and not eligible) so - I will ask my question again ... what is their critria for 'affordable'??? My daughter and son in law both work - they wouldn't be eligible for social housing but couldn't afford most of the properties surrounding their workplace .. so .. what financial level is set for needing 'affordable' accommodation?

Not 'bashing' anyone .. asking a question. 

I know about the low paid etc., but who sets the level which is 'affordable'?  Does someone sit in an office - elect a committee and between then they decide that family earning (say)  £25k as a family can afford their properties?  Is it a formula laid out by the Councils/Government agencies?