Page 26 of 35 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 130 of 171

Thread: Housing Mistakes

  1. #126
    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 Ged View Post
    Chas, I think you're getting mixed up with architects costing tax payers regarding mistake with Peel who are private investors to the tune of 5.5b (just for Liverpool Waters)
    Peel are primarily land speculators. They do little investment. They are not much different to Harry Hyams.

    Advertisements -------
    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. #127
    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 Peter McGurk View Post
    And I will continue to rise that because it colours everything you say about housing and what a lot of people believe are the housing mistakes. What you say about housing is, itís **** because it was badly designed by architects. And thatís all you say. You donít even substantiate that.
    Architects were building down to a price for sure. Housing mistakes? You can't separate planning and land when looking into it. There is a deep-root problem, but no one here has hit they button of what it is.

    Planning laws create artificial land shortages. This distorts the free-market - rigging the market.

    Land The Mother of All Monopolies

    It is quite true that land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies - it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment which is derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public.
    - Winston Churchill

    What Churchill was saying, was that each piece of land is unique, it cannot be moved. Just because one piece of land is worth double what another is, you can't move the lower value land to the higher value land to equalise the price. Land is unique and special being completly different from movable objects like machinery, equipment and raw materials. If the price of cement rises in one location than another the cheaper cement will move to the location where the prices are higher equalising the price of cement (making cement cheaper) - moveable goods and service equalize the price (value). In that sense land ownership is the mother of all monopolies. That is anyone who owns land, even the owner/occupier.

    If we had planning and land laws the served the people not the large landowners and speculators then matters would be very different to housing. Sink estates would not exist.
    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

  3. #128
    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
    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
    Housing mistakes is what the thread's about. I think it was you who jumped in two feet first against architects? Yes it was.

    And I will continue to rise that because it colours everything you say about housing and what a lot of people believe are the housing mistakes. What you say about housing is, it’s **** because it was badly designed by architects. And that’s all you say. You don’t even substantiate that.

    But you do deny what did go on. If you don’t think people dropped TVs (or beds) out of 20 storey windows go and ask people - talk to the police and council who had to deal with it (I have. Have you?)

    And you're not back ‘on tag’, you're still having a go!

    ***

    Nevertheless... the purpose of an architect is to design and provide the documentation to deliver a building in accordance with a brief from a client. He also inspects the work but he is not responsible for how well the builder builds. It's the builder's job to build and to build well.

    The brief includes money. “Money crops up so many times in the posts”. Yes it does - as it does in life. You cannot ignore money. How would it be if someone wanted to build you a shed for £500 and it turned out to be £1000 before you even got started? or do you imagine the money for the Florence Institute for example, dropped from the sky?

    “Please don't go back to the obeying rules and regulations speel, indicating others in badly designed housing.” What do you want? Do you want that shed bigger and better even though bigger and better is not required and you haven’t got the money to pay for bigger and better?

    “Radcliffe was a disgrace” I’m still waiting for you to tell me why (when you’ve got a minute) - a leak in a roof?

    “speculaters and carpet baggers”. No. We don’t want people coming here spending their money, investing in things, creating jobs and places to live. Bugger that. Send them home. They can invest elsewhere. Manchester perhaps.

    ***

    “You weren’t aware that you were attacking anything”?!!! (Maybe it was the pit-bull). Rather than tilting at windmills, you might do better to stop living in cloud-cuckoo land and get real.

    There’s no hand-outs. No gimmees. There’s no such thing as a free ride. If you can’t pay for what you want - you don’t get it. The belief that you can is maybe the housing mistake. We need to find ways of affording houses of the quality we want, not bashing people for providing what we can afford (and as it turns out, were not that bad in the first place)

    ***

    And no apologies for giving the issues their due. I haven't descended to the sound-bite solution culture yet.




    ---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Doris Mousdale View Post
    The point is nobody GAVE them anything. They bought the freehold on the land it was something like five pounds a year ground rent in the 60s. So they paid the landowner a couple of hundred to freehold.

    When it was sold a smaller, less expensive house was bought for cash and that house has just been sold for four times what was paid for it in the 80s. The person buying has a bargain, nice well maintained house in a quiet well established area with good neighbours,plenty of shops and buses close by and so it goes.....

    It wasn't the housing that was suspect- we all know you can do up a dump- it was the planning and lack of foresight as to what would happen to the neighbourhood, the breaking up of communities ,families, sent to raw barely finished newtowns and suburbs that planners and councils gave up on too soon. Those demolished tower blocks would be desirable to some if built now on the rolling green slopes of Netherfield Rd where they were originally set down.

    Some good people coped with the change, flourished, treated their houses like little palaces,places of great pride,but you know it only takes one rubbish collector who stores broken down cars "for spares" one bad garden and a crowd of feral kids tagging fences, a couple of horrible dogs and an agressive loudmouth living in the street and it all turns to custard...
    This makes so much sense it's hard to add anything... but one thing, the way house prices have gone means that the next time round, people can't afford the houses. The next generation is priced out.

    All the time our parents were paying off and living in their homes the market was going mad. That is the fault of a system prepared to lend five times earnings on more than 100% mortgages.



    ---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    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.

    All because of planning and land.
    Accepting your 7.7% as settled for a second, that percentage may not be the percentage actually needed to sustain the population, have work, grow food, have transport, leisure, moors, mountains and other ‘un-settlable’ land. However, I think anyone who argues that this is not a crowded island is on distinctly shaky ground.

    And the history of the post-war expansion into the countryside doesn’t back up a suggestion that land shortage increased prices or that there was a land shortage. Ok, the Lords Sefton and Derby did alright out of it I’m sure but the ensuing prices wouldn’t suggest that the price paid for the land was too high or that there wasn’t enough of it. The housing estates designed are of very low density (too low, possibly)

    A higher density would have allowed lower prices, certainly. But too high a density would have put us back where we started - in the slums.

    ***

    Notwithstanding that, there are 64,000 Hectares of 'brownfield site' in the UK. Estimates of what that might accommodate vary hugely, dependent on density. But are anywhere from 2m at low density (outer suburban Woking) to 17m in inner city London. That's not so much of a shortage as yet.

    [incidentally - I should also mention that tower blocks have no higher density than two storey houses. The 'parkland' around the towers means the densities are about the same. Since they both use the same amount of land, tower blocks reduce cost of construction per dwelling, not their portion of the land value per dwelling]

    ***

    State intervention via the various Housing Acts originated in the economic drivers behind early 20th century slum conditions ie., because people were paid so little, they couldn’t afford much. Not even the fare from places like Huyton, let alone the house.

    You might say that the history of social housing has thus been about propping up the ability of poorer people to pay for decent homes.

    Now, all the props are... not quite gone and we have had raging house price inflation fueled by irresponsible banks. That has been the major driver of higher prices. Not land shortage.

  4. #129
    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

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    Chas, I think you're getting mixed up with architects costing tax payers regarding mistake with Peel who are private investors to the tune of 5.5b (just for Liverpool Waters)

    I think with the previous procrastination, red tape and feet dragging, they have every right to give the 'walk away' ultimatum. How other forward thinking city's must laugh at us.
    Hi Ged,
    This is going over old ground for you and me. I think we both know here we stand.

    I'll leave PEEL out of future discussion on this thread and get back to Housing Mistakes. Another apology.
    I'm going back to kicking the can,
    I'm still not happy with Peter's replies, He relies too much on references, has he ever taken a walk on the wild side? He comes cross as a wide, not wise, boy. ( jiust my opinion)
    Tara, Ged,
    Chas
    Last edited by chasevans; 03-14-2012 at 03:23 PM. Reason: Apology for mentioning PEEL

  5. #130
    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 Ged,
    This is going over old ground for you and me. I think we both know here we stand.

    I'll leave PEEL out of future discussion on this thread and get back to Housing Mistakes. Another apology. I'm going back to kicking the can, I'm still not happy with Peter's replies, He relies too much on references, has he ever taken a walk on the wild side. He comes cross as a wide, not wise, feller. (opinion?)
    Tara, Ged,
    Chas
    You've said a lot. Not substantiated much. Been quite wantonly insulting. Not answered anything. You run away when you can't answer. But you're not happy...

    Come on. What do you have to say about housing mistakes (rather than about architects)?

    (by implication, you could even throw in a little bit about how it might be better).

    ---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    Peel are primarily land speculators. They do little investment. They are not much different to Harry Hyams.
    Well, so far they bought MDHC and they've paid for the development of the proposals for Liverpool and Wirral Waters and all the land they own between here and Manchester as the Ocean Gateway. They developed the Trafford Centre. They also developed Media City. They've invested in this port and other ports. They have an impressive development portfolio. But they are 'just speculators'. ok.

    As I said, send them, their money, their jobs and their prosperity elsewhere. Terrific.

Page 26 of 35 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... 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