Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 116 to 120 of 171

Thread: Housing Mistakes

  1. #116
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doris Mousdale View Post
    They stayed in the house paid off the mortgage and houses in the road are selling for between 160 to 190 thousand pounds now. The neighbour who went to Halewood is still paying rent.
    So they have given your mother indirectly a windfall. That is the case i all rent vs owning land. Your mother's house, the bricks dropping in price, like a car, it was the land that increased in value.

    This explains it well:

    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  2. #117
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    Hi Peter,
    I'll try to put it as simply as I can.
    I only knew one family who lived there, a young married couple and one child. The dampness and creeping mold were there while the estate was new. I believe there were other neighbours experiencing the same problems.
    I'm not qualified to say if it was fixable and I accept that new builds have teething problems, I can tell you the damp started from the roof "area" in my friend's house. General impressions were that the design of the houses was at fault.
    My impression of the estate - At night the "higglety pigglety" ill lit narrow streets resembled the dark courts of the Everton area. This estate stood in an area of dereliction, no local shopping facilities (unless you count a couple of petrol stations), no schools, youth clubs or anything that binds communities together. The estate became known locally as a muggers paradise - I think this was a little bit of Liverpool wit. I don't recall any muggings or crimes at all in my visits to the estate. Another case of give a dog a bad name and it sticks?
    I said your posts. I don't know you, but your posts ramble on. "Empty vessels make the most sound."
    Chas
    I'll put as simply as I can. Why do you persist in attacking the man and not the argument?

    If you can't or don't want to follow the posts or think they ramble on, why don't you ask a question? On the one hand you say you agree with half of it, on the other you say they ramble on and that they're 'empty vessels'. I wonder why you bother.

    ***

    With respect to the 'design' of the Radcliffe... who can say at this stage whether the damp was a design fault, faulty materials or poor workmanship? As I said earlier (when I was rambling on), the architect is not responsible for the failure of a product to live up to it's guarantee or the workmanship of the contractor. So in this one example, did the people you know say whether it was fixed or not?

    The provision of shops etc was clearly not in what the architect (we still don't know if there was one) was asked to do (the 'brief'). Would you expect him to build stuff that there was no money to pay the contractor for?

    With respect to the layout - as I said, I've lived in 'higgledy piggledy' houses with narrow walkways and it was fine, even great. You said there was no actual muggings despite it being called a mugger's paradise. So exactly what criticism are you trying to make? That is was like a court house? I don't think so.

    The houses themselves were built to the building regulations. So they had enough light and they had enough heat. The distance between buildings are regulated too. Which of these rules were broken then?

    They were also built to a cost. A cost that the tenants could afford.

    So in summary the architect (if there was one) designed houses that met the brief, the building regulations and were affordable in a layout that is also regulated and works elsewhere. We have to assume that any defect in detailing, supply or workmanship was fixable (because they all are - regardless of cost because that's how building contracts and insurance work).

    What more could he do? How much control do you think he has? If he breaks any of the 'rules', he does it again until it doesn't break the rules.

    Then you have to wonder what the difference was that gave it the reputation for crime (see above comments about being 'un-policeable'), the general declined to the point of boarding up houses, rubbish in the streets and the costs of maintenance became such that they were pulled down. Do you not?

    In the face of all that, it's just too easy to say him! that there architect! he did it! Isn't it?


    ---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Big where it matters View Post
    I wonder if in the future the architects who were responsible for designing poorly thought through housing estates that had a negative psychological impact on the people who had little choice but to live in them, will be seen in the same light as we now see psychiatrists who medicated political prisoners in the gulags: just concerned about getting their pay-check rather than the consequences of what they were dishing out?

    Extreme, I know, but I went to see the Florrie over the weekend and just round the corner is an extremely badly designed block of flats that on top of it all has been badly maintained by the council or housing association - soul destroying.
    I don't know a single architect who doesn't care for what he does and the social effect it has. Not one. And do you think he's paid for worrying about it? He most certainly is not.

    He's paid to do a job, just like a plumber or a bricklayer. Do you think a bricklayer has even a passing thought for the social consequences of what he's doing? No, he's paid to lay bricks. That's ok.

    ***

    Again, you tell me what was wrong (or even just where it is and I'll have a go at finding out) and I'll try to give you an answer. I know you're desperate for someone to blame but you have to state your case.

    And try not to roll poor maintenance into 'badly designed'...then we could have a decent discussion about housing mistakes instead of let's batter some architect week.

  3. #118
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    71
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big where it matters View Post
    I wonder if in the future the architects who were responsible for designing poorly thought through housing estates that had a negative psychological impact on the people who had little choice but to live in them, will be seen in the same light as we now see psychiatrists who medicated political prisoners in the gulags: just concerned about getting their pay-check rather than the consequences of what they were dishing out?

    Extreme, I know, but I went to see the Florrie over the weekend and just round the corner is an extremely badly designed block of flats that on top of it all has been badly maintained by the council or housing association - soul destroying.
    I'm not mobile anymore, I guess you mean the Florence Institute? Did you manage to get any pics?
    Thanks for the update.

    Chas

  4. #119
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    71
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Thanks for being little more concise in your post, I'll be even briefer.

    1. I wasn't aware that I was attacking anything, Peter. Anyway, I'm back on the tag now.

    2. I've asked questions and got some answers, more than I could imagine.. I think you misunderstand my "empty vessels make the most sound" reference completely. (?)

    3. Your thread is called " Housing Mistakes" isn't it? I followed it to the posts where you started the rant about unpoliceable areas ~ TV's being thrown from high rise flats etc. You revealed yourself in your true colours- a twopence ha'penny sno* with dangerous ideas. I bother to reply because your ideas bother me.
    PROBABLY PETER WILL DISMISS HIS AS ENVIOUS!!!!!!!
    It's gone from kick the can to pass the buck in Peter's thread.
    Going for my tea,


    Back again with another question. What is the real purpose of architects? Money crops up so many times in the posts. Please don't go back to the obeying rules and regulations speel, indicating others in badly designed housing.
    (re. Radcliffe. I think the family I knew were rehoused qute locally. Radcliffe was a disgrace. If it was a result of cutting costs Liverpool taxpayers paid for it eventually. The speculaters and carpet baggers are at it again.
    PEEL HOLDINGS SPOKESMAN SAYS HE'LL WALK IF THERE'S A PUBLIC INQUIRY. F*CK HIM says Chas)
    All along the watchtower,
    Chas
    Last edited by chasevans; 03-13-2012 at 10:47 PM. Reason: T's over

  5. #120
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    The problem was the planning system - only 7.7% of the land in the UK is settled. This created an artificial land shortage ratcheting up land prices. This put houses out of reach of low income people, meaning the state had to intervene. But they were also strapped by the same constraints, so cheap and nasty estates appeared.

    Advertisements -------

    All because of planning and land.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terraced Housing In Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2013, 09:15 AM
  2. Court Housing in Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 11:41 AM
  3. Eldon Grove Housing
    By Kev in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 11:31 PM
  4. Insanitary Housing Images
    By Kev in forum In My Liverpool Home
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-07-2009, 02:37 PM
  5. cathedral &housing
    By gregs dad in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 08:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68