Pavo on the hard at Alperton

[Tonka]

2 minutes ago, matty40s said:

It's a leaning stack of Pizzas.

You are taking the Pitsa

[roland elsdon]

To the appreciative an object of history and potential, financially beyond reach ., To the ponzi speculative housebuilders a toy to attract the gullible to a chicken coop in the air, it will be cast aside once the last victim has mortgaged their life to live in Alperton.

Truly a levelled up society.

[MtB]

42 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

To the appreciative an object of history and potential, financially beyond reach ., To the ponzi speculative housebuilders a toy to attract the gullible to a chicken coop in the air, it will be cast aside once the last victim has mortgaged their life to live in Alperton.

Truly a levelled up society.

 

Scoff you might but I am lost in admiration for the sheer entrepreneurial spirit of St George developers. 40 years ago they spotted the latent demand for posh riverside flats on the unwanted south bank and invested £bns building them, which could have turned out to be a *ucking financial disaster for them. Instead they have not put a foot wrong commercially in all those years and continue to build highly desirable accommodation for high-earning city workers and dwellers.

 

Just because you and I do not wish to live that way does not make them worthy of scorn. I wish I had bought their shares in 1990. 

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

It's an reasonabky-good phonetic representation for English-speakers  of how 'pizza' is pronounced in Italian.

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Scoff you might but I am lost in admiration for the sheer entrepreneurial spirit of St George developers. 40 years ago they spotted the latent demand for posh riverside flats on the unwanted south bank and invested £bns building them, which could have turned out to be a *ucking financial disaster for them. Instead they have not put a foot wrong commercially in all those years and continue to build highly desirable accommodation for high-earning city workers and dwellers.

 

Just because you and I do not wish to live that way does not make them worthy of scorn. I wish I had bought their shares in 1990. 

 

 

 

And many of those flats are either dark and unoccupied most/all of the time or are even not furnished and just used as an investment, often by offshore owners. That's based on walking past them at night, not just reports -- it's rare to see more than a tiny number of lights on in some of the posh apartment blocks, in contrast to "real" housing where people actually live.

 

Great for the developers and keeping house prices up, not so good for people who actually want somewhere to live when we have a massive housing shortage, especially affordable/social housing... 😞

Edited November 28, 2022 by IanD

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And many of those flats are either dark and unoccupied most/all of the time or are even not furnished and just used as an investment, often by offshore owners. That's based on walking past them at night, not just reports -- it's rare to see more than a tiny number of lights on in some of the posh apartment blocks, in contrast to "real" housing where people actually live.

 

Great for the developers and keeping house prices up, not so good for people who actually want somewhere to live when we have a massive housing shortage, especially affordable/social housing... 😞

 

That's because the owners are all still out at work in the rat race earning the money to pay for them...

 

I fix a lot of boilers in them so visit St George Wharf developments regularly. They are actually very busy sites during the day. evenings they are probably all out in the wine bars and restaurants....

 

 

[PaulJ]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

What's a "Pitsa"? 

 

Is some special sort of Alpertonian pizza perhaps?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, matty40s said:

It's a leaning stack of Pizzas.

Spelling has never been my strong point.

I am pretty good at eating them though 😀

[roland elsdon]

Im not scoffing at the buyers they have little choice. I rail against the rampant profiteering of the developers, and the collusion of the banks and mortgage companies. It started with joint mortgages and will end with lifetime.

The debt trap stifles creativity and mobility, its unfair. I remember when mortgages were3 times earnings and 10% deposit, and there is no reason why they should not still be.

its a ponzi market which excludes ordinary workers.

 

[magnetman]

It is exactly that.

 

deleted blah blah blah off topic.

 

I'd just make it so each individual is allowed to own one property. Thats it. One.

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by magnetman

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

Im not scoffing at the buyers they have little choice. I rail against the rampant profiteering of the developers, and the collusion of the banks and mortgage companies. It started with joint mortgages and will end with lifetime.

The debt trap stifles creativity and mobility, its unfair. I remember when mortgages were3 times earnings and 10% deposit, and there is no reason why they should not still be.

its a ponzi market which excludes ordinary workers.

 

 

The fundamental problem is that the developers are companies whose entire purpose is to make as much profit as possible and pay the smallest amount of tax, which means building expensive houses/flats (not cheap affordable/social ones) and keeping supply relatively scarce to keep the prices up, and finding imaginative ways to keep their profits out of the grasping hands of the government.

 

In contrast one of the jobs of a government -- whose primary job is surely to ensure the wellbeing of its citizens? -- *should* be to prevent market abuse leading to ever-escalating house prices, extract money from developers profits to pay for publically-funded things like the NHS and social care and police and libraries and bin collection, and ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet the needs of its citizens, especially those poorer ones who today cannot afford even "affordable" housing in many places.

 

I say "should be" because there's little evidence that the current government really wants to do this, thjere's plenty of evidence that they're in the pockets of the developers, and that they're more concerned with their own wellbeing and that of their cronies and sponsors than that of poor old Joe Public.

 

So don't blame the developers, it's their nature and they're just doing what companies do, it's like blaming a shark for deciding that your leg would make a tasty lunch  -- blame the government and their lack of effective anti-shark policies for letting the developers eat your leg... 😞

 

Not just this government though, the root cause of the current housing problem points quite clearly to Thatcher's disastrous populist "right-to-buy" policy and stopping councils from using the resulting money to build more council houses, plus many other bad decisions since -- not all from Tory governments, but most of them were...

Edited November 29, 2022 by IanD

[magnetman]

Don't forget BOE independence. A lesson  in how to screw the future generations for decades. Interest rates should be controlled by government not bankers.

[IanD]

Just now, magnetman said:

Don't forget BOE independence. A lesson  in how to screw the future generations for decades. Interest rates should be controlled by government not bankers.

That all sounds good until you get people in government who are financially incompetent and trash the country by pursuing their hare-brained ideas, which any sensible banker would have rejected as utterly stupid.

 

Hang on, didn't something like that happen recently? 😞

[ditchcrawler]

14 hours ago, IanD said:

 

And many of those flats are either dark and unoccupied most/all of the time or are even not furnished and just used as an investment, often by offshore owners. That's based on walking past them at night, not just reports -- it's rare to see more than a tiny number of lights on in some of the posh apartment blocks, in contrast to "real" housing where people actually live.

 

Great for the developers and keeping house prices up, not so good for people who actually want somewhere to live when we have a massive housing shortage, especially affordable/social housing... 😞

Not just flats, My nice has just bought a house that was empty for four and a half years of its five year life, owned by a Chinese Gent. He just lived in it prior to selling

[David Mack]

On 28/11/2022 at 08:43, PaulJ said:

A historic narrowboat, originally built in 1935 for the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company, has also been restored and permanently located at Grand Union, where it will serve as a unique reminder of the area’s rich history.'

What do they mean by 'restored'? From the photos it looks to be in the same state as when it was for sale, so I doubt Berkeley Homes have done any restoration. And it's current guise is certainly not a restoration to its 1935 condition!

19 hours ago, IanD said:

It's out of the water "on the bank", but I can't say for sure because it's opposite the towpath and too high up to see if there's any water under it or not when I pass it. I suspect not...

I suspect that it is located in a shallow lake, probably less than a foot deep and so solidly supported rather than floating.

Edited November 29, 2022 by David Mack

[PaulJ]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

What do they mean by 'restored'? From the photos it looks to be in the same state as when it was for sale, so I doubt Berkeley Homes have done any restoration. And it's current guise is certainly not a restoration to its 1935 condition!

I did wonder that myself.Looked like it had been just taken out of the water as was to me  on the pic where they are craning it.

Thought it would have had a gleaming black freshly epoxied bottom- after all its not really in the best location for getting blacking done in the future.

[MtB]

6 hours ago, magnetman said:

It is exactly that.

 

deleted blah blah blah off topic.

 

I'd just make it so each individual is allowed to own one property. Thats it. One.

 

 

The corollary of this would be that people wanting to rent a house rather than purchase one (and do other things with their money), would be denied their wish.

 

Also, 'mobility of labour' (look it up) is crucial for a successful economy and a viable rental sector is essential for this. 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by MtB
Delete a spurious "not" which reversed the meaning of my post!

[magnetman]

A successful economy is a red herring.

 

What you want is for the vast majority of people, if not everyone, to be having a generally good time.

 

Access to housing is essential to allow this to happen. Being a wage slave and contributing to a capitalist based economy is not.

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Not just flats, My nice has just bought a house that was empty for four and a half years of its five year life, owned by a Chinese Gent. He just lived in it prior to selling

?long enough to avoid CGT?

[MtB]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

A successful economy is a red herring.

 

What you want is for the vast majority of people, if not everyone, to be having a generally good time.

 

Access to housing is essential to allow this to happen. Being a wage slave and contributing to a capitalist based economy is not.

 

Being forced to buy a house instead of being allowed to rent one as you propose, is not my idea of fun.

[roland elsdon]

You cant avoid the cgt by living in a previously rented house. You mitigate some of it. We made a modest gain on our hovel over 9 years, but because it was let while we worked  abroad , and then moved in on retirement for 4 we paid it. Such is life.

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

You cant avoid the cgt by living in a previously rented house. You mitigate some of it. We made a modest gain on our hovel over 9 years, but because it was let while we worked  abroad , and then moved in on retirement for 4 we paid it. Such is life.

We had slightly different advice (accepted by HMRC) but no doubt seemingly small differences in circumstance can lead to different outcomes!

[IanD]

16 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Being forced to buy a house instead of being allowed to rent one as you propose, is not my idea of fun.

 

Being forced to pay ludicrously high rents instead of being able/allowed to buy one is also not fun.

 

The country needs affordable houses to both buy and rent, and it needs lots of them, and it needs them NOW. Unfortunately the current government, planning system, developers, local government and housebuilders aren't anywhere close to delivering this, and haven't been for many years. Here's a letter from today's Grauniad...

 

"It is worth recalling that the only time that we were able to complete 300,000 new homes a year was when half of them were local authority-built for subsidised social rent (under a Conservative housing minister – Harold Macmillan). We know we can’t rely on private housebuilders to provide the affordable housing that we so desperately need, and a thorough reform of the way that housing is delivered is required. What is also needed is a commitment to genuine levelling up, with new, well-paid jobs and the housing that goes with them available throughout the country, not just in the already overheated south."

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

Being forced to pay ludicrously high rents instead of being able/allowed to buy one is also not fun.

 

The country needs affordable houses to both buy and rent, and it needs lots of them, and it needs them NOW. Unfortunately the current government, planning system, developers, local government and housebuilders aren't anywhere close to delivering this, and haven't been for many years. Here's a letter from today's Grauniad...

 

"It is worth recalling that the only time that we were able to complete 300,000 new homes a year was when half of them were local authority-built for subsidised social rent (under a Conservative housing minister – Harold Macmillan). We know we can’t rely on private housebuilders to provide the affordable housing that we so desperately need, and a thorough reform of the way that housing is delivered is required. What is also needed is a commitment to genuine levelling up, with new, well-paid jobs and the housing that goes with them available throughout the country, not just in the already overheated south."

Alas, I can even remember those days . . . and IIRC, the 300K target was only met for a short time and then only just. I think that it was scrapped as soon as they could get away with it!

 

Before we can even begin to get a stable strategy in place, there has to be agreement on objectives etc. The fundamental point to be answered is whether or not there is some inalienable right to a 'decent' home. We need to be very clear about this as unless there is widespread consent then there will always be pushback in some form or another.

 

There then has to be agreement on what is meant by 'decent'. At one time the Parker Morris standards set that but now there is nothing, AFAIK, that is mandatory other than building regs. And this only applies to new build. There has been talk about better controls over homes to let but I suspect that the dragging of feet on this is the result of working out how many homes might fail (depending on the standard set) and also whether it applies in some way to owner occupier properties. (At one stage we did have a framework for slum clearance but we would like to think that we don't have any slums now!) In other words, how much of the pressure comes not from those who want a 'decent' home and do not have one but want a 'better' home? And do they actually add to the deficit?

 

For the context of this forum, it is also interesting to consider whether or not such standards should apply to boast used for 'permanent' housing (or, perhaps, better - used for sole home).

 

Another principle to agree is at what level is housing 'affordable'? Certainly we have not used that term in any meaningful way for a long time (since the abandonment of tight rent control)

 

The long term projection of need (leaving aside regional variation - are the homes in the right place?) is that of social change. Yes, population is still increasing and not just from immigration. so the number of homes has to expand. However, AIUI, the greater part of the current pressure has come from changes in relationships - and increasing number of people live alone, or at least as single parents. Hence the number of properties for the same population has increased.

 

Without public sector buildings schemes, the number built, determined only by a free market, is the level at which the developers believe the supply will not erode prices - and hence their profit. I do wonder where their assumptions come from.

 

300K targets only make any sense at all when there is some objective framework for deciding how many new homes we need, not just pulling a figure out of the air. I can see little reason for using that figure now solely on the basis that it was agreed in the 1960s.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

Alas, I can even remember those days . . . and IIRC, the 300K target was only met for a short time and then only just. I think that it was scrapped as soon as they could get away with it!

 

Before we can even begin to get a stable strategy in place, there has to be agreement on objectives etc. The fundamental point to be answered is whether or not there is some inalienable right to a 'decent' home. We need to be very clear about this as unless there is widespread consent then there will always be pushback in some form or another.

 

There then has to be agreement on what is meant by 'decent'. At one time the Parker Morris standards set that but now there is nothing, AFAIK, that is mandatory other than building regs. And this only applies to new build. There has been talk about better controls over homes to let but I suspect that the dragging of feet on this is the result of working out how many homes might fail (depending on the standard set) and also whether it applies in some way to owner occupier properties. (At one stage we did have a framework for slum clearance but we would like to think that we don't have any slums now!) In other words, how much of the pressure comes not from those who want a 'decent' home and do not have one but want a 'better' home? And do they actually add to the deficit?

 

For the context of this forum, it is also interesting to consider whether or not such standards should apply to boast used for 'permanent' housing (or, perhaps, better - used for sole home).

 

Another principle to agree is at what level is housing 'affordable'? Certainly we have not used that term in any meaningful way for a long time (since the abandonment of tight rent control)

 

The long term projection of need (leaving aside regional variation - are the homes in the right place?) is that of social change. Yes, population is still increasing and not just from immigration. so the number of homes has to expand. However, AIUI, the greater part of the current pressure has come from changes in relationships - and increasing number of people live alone, or at least as single parents. Hence the number of properties for the same population has increased.

 

Without public sector buildings schemes, the number built, determined only by a free market, is the level at which the developers believe the supply will not erode prices - and hence their profit. I do wonder where their assumptions come from.

 

300K targets only make any sense at all when there is some objective framework for deciding how many new homes we need, not just pulling a figure out of the air. I can see little reason for using that figure now solely on the basis that it was agreed in the 1960s.

 

I don't think the letter was saying that 300k was the right target for today, just that it's often been said to be and that the only time this actually happened was a long time ago. My suspicion is that the number needed today might even be higher than this, because there has been such a shortfall for so long. But this is simply never going to happen so log as "the market" is in charge of housebuilding, because the interests of "the market" and a large part of the population are in direct opposition.

 

Though of course a lot of people would be horrified if large numbers of affordable houses started appearing because this would undoubtedly cause the prices of their properties to fall from their current ridiculous values to more reasonable ones, so it's also a case of the haves vs. the have-nots.

[David Mack]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Though of course a lot of people would be horrified if large numbers of affordable houses started appearing because this would undoubtedly cause the prices of their properties to fall from their current ridiculous values to more reasonable ones, so it's also a case of the haves vs. the have-nots.

So what we need is a strategy that keeps house prices stable at their current prices (in £) but allows their value to fall in real terms as inflation takes effect. Over time that results in houses becoming more affordable without existing home owners actually losing money, and in particular without putting mortgage payers into negative equity. Unachievable over the last decade or so when inflation has been so low, but maybe more possible as we move into an era of higher inflation.