Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 171

Thread: Housing Mistakes

  1. #46
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    They follow the world-wide trend of forcing the population into denser housing and to be near "transportation hubs"
    Liverpool foolishly does the opposite. Merseyrail is comprehensive and can be far more comprehensive using the mothballed tunnels and trackbeds. The potential is enormous. The city was laid for for around 2.5 million and the redundant rail lines run right where people live - or could live.



    Yet Liverpool, even with existing used lines fails to utilize the stations. Project Jennifer in Scotland Road should have been on the Northern Line to give it a station. Unused Dingle underground station should have been the hub of Park Road, but was ignored. New developments should be built around the rail lines to get people off the roads. Merseyrail is considering new smaller Docklands Light Railways trains, that will have higher frequencies to give a hop-on hop-off service.

    Atlanta in Georgia is building around its Belt Line track. A track circling the city. It makes common sense to pay to your strengths and use the rail transport infrastructure.
    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. #47
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    All I know is, at a residential level, every bod with more money than sense (it seems) that appears on Grand designs with some wacky idea that looks to me like it'll fail at the first downpour does so every time.
    To be honest, I don't follow Grand Designs but what I have seen of it is it's all a bit too easy. But the one time I watched it the guy did get into trouble with his roof (condensation I think it was) because he thought he knew better than the architect so...


    ---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    Same goes for the city/urban planners or whatever they call themselves now.

    They follow the world-wide trend of forcing the population into denser housing and to be near "transportation hubs" - but if you ever meet one, ask them where they live.
    I think this is a bit different from being forced to live in a house foisted on you by a 'selfish architect' (see below).

    Compact cities are a good idea for the planet and I would live in the centre of a city (in a 'vibrant, diverse and walkable' environment) every time

    It is about choice (moral and financial). Some people have more choice than others but a city that offers as much variety (ie., choice, to suit different moral stand-points and financial circumstances) as possible will be a winner...


    ---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    ...You're right in that the architects would never live in these, just try to make selfish personal statements and let some poor other buggers be the guinea pigs.
    ...I would also have lived in a lot of the buildings that have since become derelict. Including the Radcliffe Estate (before it got trashed).

    In fact, there's a bit of a tendency with architects to live in otherwise 'unsatisfactory' designs - from the Trellick Tower to the Barbican Centre which is now very des res (originally 60s council flats - and it's a bit more than a hundred yards to the parking there).

    Personally, I have never designed anything that I wouldn’t live or work in and I don’t know any architects that have.

    But for sure if someone asked me to design a residential scheme at (say) £100 per sq ft, I’d do it (and do a good job for the money) but at the same time if I could afford to live in a house that cost £105 per sq ft, I’d do that too. I imagine anyone would do the same.

  3. #48
    Senior Member wsteve55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Crosby
    Posts
    2,199

    Default

    I suppose that's the problem really! If you are building to a competitive,agreed cost per unit,it opens up a whole ballgame, of potential failure of quality! Surely though,that's a tendering/political problem,as opposed to an architectural one?


  4. #49
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post

    I think this is a bit different from being forced to live in a house foisted on you by a 'selfish architect' (see below).

    Compact cities are a good idea for the planet and I would live in the centre of a city (in a 'vibrant, diverse and walkable' environment) every time

    It is about choice (moral and financial). Some people have more choice than others but a city that offers as much variety (ie., choice, to suit different moral stand-points and financial circumstances) as possible will be a winner...

    .
    Yes... but my point is that the 'planners" did not live in the same environment they were planning for everyone else.

    After moving to Arizona and living on 7 acres surrounded by desert and wildlife I now get somewhat clustraphobic in cities...

    I'm not sure if I agree with the morals you are talking about (being green and paying carbon taxes, I presume), and financially the house and lot was less than we sold our little 1940 Los Angeles shack for.

    But I do agree with having choices - which the demographic (and political) trends are somewhat removing in the rural vs. urban debate, and is actually similar in the US and the UK. Just look at a political party representation map in either country and the urban/rural divide is clearly shown.

  5. #50

    Default

    If we accept that poorly designed (council, slumlord) properties are a thing of the past (big ask) and that the mistakes of the 60s - 90s are being rectified (however slowly and don't let's even touch on the New Heartlands scheme that continues to cause problems in areas where the houses have been emptied but nothing is being done and some of them are now finding a new use as crack-dens, squats and impromptu knocking shops). Irresponsible landlords are the problem! Social landlords (housing associations, council) are slow to respond to anything that is going wrong: whether it's a tenant having a psychotic breakdown or someone who plays music at high volume all through the night and then throws a strop when challenged. Private landlords can be even worse still (there are some good ones), especially when they place problem tenants into a neighbourhood without any concern for the consequences, fill a large house with students and let them get on with it, fail to maintain their property so that it drags down the surrounding area or in the case of potentially high value properties in L8 & L17 deliberately let the property fall into disrepair so that the tenants (on low rents) are forced to move out facilitating a rapid conversion to 'luxury apartments'!

    The common factor in all this? An absence of civic responsibility. The solution? Legally force landlords to maintain their properties to a high standard and have letting agreements with tenants that are enforced. Of course, there will always be tenants who just want everything their own way and will never comply. Not forgetting anti-social property owners of the dog barking in the garden/yard all day, centre for local drug dealing/fencing variety etc. These problem citizens should be relocated to that disused depot outside Kirkby (just over the border in West Lancs), or an equivalent somewhere else, and kept there until they can demonstrate that they can behave like socialised human beings. People in struggling communities have a right to be protected from people who couldn't care less if the community they are living in is run into the ground.

    Then maybe people could chill out in their own neighbourhoods and more life might find its way into local High Streets as the sense of being under seize lifted. Of course, there would still be the problems associated with lack of skills / work opportunities but not constantly running into a scally with a pitbull or out-of-control kids/adults who don't give a flying f**k for anyone would make life so much sweeter.

    Yes, I am being a bit of a fascist but baby Jesus meek and mild just doesn't cut it.

  6. #51
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    People like different living arrangements, but the planners seem to prefer one version that they say is "good for us".
    Planners should plan the districts - and do. In most other countries house are built by the individual who buys a plot and gets in an architect and builder to design and build an individual house.

    Because of the ridiculous planning and land laws in the UK a handful of major builders most of the homes. They may give you a choice of the front door colour and kitchen units and that is about it. An artificial land shortage ratchets up land prices and the knock on is small pokey, poor built homes. Modern homes, since WW2 are pitiful.

    I like this... an eco German kit house - Huf Haus. They erect them in the UK



    http://www.huf-haus-owners-group.co....1/10/mack1.jpg

    Bolted together with stainless bolts to German precision. Heating bills are pennies.
    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

  7. #52
    Senior Member lindylou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    well said. It's all true what you say.
    All the things you describe I see every day in my neighbourhood.


    Quote Originally Posted by Big where it matters View Post
    People in struggling communities have a right to be protected from people who couldn't care less if the community they are living in is run into the ground.

    Then maybe people could chill out in their own neighbourhoods and more life might find its way into local High Streets as the sense of being under seize lifted. Of course, there would still be the problems associated with lack of skills / work opportunities but not constantly running into a scally with a pitbull or out-of-control kids/adults who don't give a flying f**k for anyone would make life so much sweeter.

  8. #53
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wsteve55 View Post
    I suppose that's the problem really! If you are building to a competitive,agreed cost per unit,it opens up a whole ballgame, of potential failure of quality! Surely though,that's a tendering/political problem,as opposed to an architectural one?
    No not really. Designs have to be done to meet a budget and have to work (without failures) within the budget. More often than not the variable is how long it lasts.

    Obviously if you build a timber shed at a fraction of the cost per sq ft of a brick house, it's not going to last as long ie., it needs more maintenance to keep it going (if you want to live in it).

    Council doesn't have much money and has to build 'cost-effectively' (cheaply). Then you get the lifts kicked in and it blows the (maintenance) budget.

    ---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Big where it matters View Post
    If we accept that poorly designed (council, slumlord) properties are a thing of the past...

    The common factor in all this? An absence of civic responsibility. The solution? Legally force landlords to maintain their properties to a high standard and have letting agreements with tenants that are enforced. Of course, there will always be tenants who just want everything their own way and will never comply...

    Yes, I am being a bit of a fascist but baby Jesus meek and mild just doesn't cut it.
    This last sentence hits the nail on the head.

    The mood is changing and thank God it is. There is less and less sympathy with the scallies and smackheads (yes, I’ve stopped getting The Guardian...). Something must be done and firmly but is a concentration camp over the border really the answer?

    Forcing landlords to nanny undesirables is not going to work either. People in struggling communities do have a right to be protected from people who couldn't care less if the community they are living in is run into the ground but it is not a function of landlords to root them out.

    In fact, Landlords who do turn people away on that basis are labelled as fascist, discriminatory and irresponsible.

    Blowing them up to council or the bizzies brings its own problems. People have to carry on living next to them when there is nowhere else for them to go.

    As even the highest court in the land said, it isn’t reasonable to expect councils (or landlords) to carry on pouring money into houses that are being kicked to pieces by those few tenants that are vandals.

    And how are councils to protect the honest citizen if they are spending huge sums on broken lifts and, it has to be said, defending spurious legal action in the courts? - no doubt versus legal aid assisted complainants (fascist enough I think...)

    Beating up Landlords is not the answer. A shift in public values is needed. Some would say that would be retrogressive but really what else would work? We need to go back to the days of social responsibility and social accountability and consequence (ok, really sounding like Cameron now).

    But there is no redress (it seems) against people who trash where they live and intimidate their neighbours. This is wrong. This must change.

    ***

    I used to concede that it was the fault of ‘poorly designed’ properties. That it was all in the past, things were looking up etc etc... but just maybe they weren't so poorly designed. When you look at the Garden Tenements for example...

    A huge improvement to begin with (and you had to be ‘respectable’ to get in), eventually dominated and trashed by people with no respect for themselves or anything around them (where’s that Guardian??) and now (what’s left of them are) beautifully managed and well run again.

    I accept that they didn’t suit everyone or even every family for which they were intended but nothing wrong with the design in all of that.

    ***

    The problems with empty houses in the New Heartlands is caused by central government pulling the plug on the funds to keep going. Properties have been bought and paid for, some of them cleared and government says 'ok, no more money now'.

    And... they were right to do so. Because HMRI subsidy (the Housing Market Renewal Initiative) artificially propped up houses prices to the betterment - not of landlords and definitely not of tenants - but of those that lent the money in the first place and those to whom mega interest was paid. The Banks!

    ***

    Well, there's a good Thursday morning rant. Who else wants some?!!!



    ---------- Post added at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    Yes... but my point is that the 'planners" did not live in the same environment they were planning for everyone else.
    But so...? I guess no-one is forcing anyone to live anywhere. The choice still exists.

    And being Green is a moral issue. It is hard to get on a train or bus when the car is right there but it should be done - as a moral issue. For our children. If only public transport was more accessible and convenient... something I'm sure these 'planners' are advocating.



    ---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    I like this... an eco German kit house - Huf Haus. They erect them in the UK
    Although I would agree that space standards have fallen terribly and construction costs have unnecessarily increased in the UK, I really can't see what relevance this has to our social housing.

    It would be wonderful to have every house in the UK individually designed. A bespoke property for everyone. But are you really suggesting that this is even remotely affordable? Or is it perhaps that council or government will pay? Perhaps the Peabody Trust?

    There is also plenty of social housing in Europe - particularly in Germany, and France, and Holland, and... where are these other countries where most houses are designed individually???? Cloud Cuckoo land? (Actually, Switzerland would be about right).





    http://www.huf-haus-owners-group.co....1/10/mack1.jpg

    And yeah. I'd be very interested to see the penny heating bills for that property. Particularly in relation to construction cost. With all that glass, it might keep in some heat if tripled glazed but it would cost a fortune to build even in kit form (which BTW kind of suggests they are not so individual as you think) and some of the guys down Norris Green way (got to pick somewhere) would make short work of those windows.

    ---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    You are very confused. I am a free-marketeer....

    The owners of the Everton properties still make money on the land under the decaying bricks...Currently they pay zero tax.
    When I say if I mean if. What you say would tend to lead anyone to expect you to hold socialist views. It's not an accusation - even these days. It is a reasonable deduction, nevertheless it is conditional.

    And I am neither confused nor am I stupid. At least not so stupid to take what others have said as proof of what they say. I can read The Times for myself thank you, and interpret same. I don’t need it regurgitated to me as gospel.

    Now, you are seriously suggested that Land Value Tax is responsible or even a major contributor to Hong Kong’s wealth. Right, I see. How silly of me.

    ‘Wealth laying idle’ was at one time income was it not? and taxed as such? was it not? To then attached a causal link to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is... tenuous.

    Hyams may well have not paid tax on Centrepoint until he realised its increase in value. I think that is rather the point of a tax on income is it not? For sure he spent a great deal of money on all the tradesmen needed to build it. **** him.

    It’s a stretch but since it occurs to me... much like the Empire State perhaps. All those workers, working away in a depression, getting paid - what a fool Hoover was to create all that wealth and spread it around a bit! And no doubt there was and is a tax bill down the line.

    And how dare you buy land near a railway line, with money taken from your taxes for the benefit of all it serves. Outrageous! You know what? I’m going to build a line next to you so you have to pay me for it! I'll call it the Canada Dock Branch Line and I’ll call the tax Land Value Tax. There. Fixed.

    To suggest that Cornwall taxpayers paid more than their share of the nation's infrastructure costs is disingenuous in the extreme. This is how Crossrail is funded: www.london.gov.uk/crossrail-brs. So as not to bore everyone with the detail and to summarise - those that benefitted from it, paid for it.

    If there is no one that can afford to occupy houses in Everton, do you imagine that money will drop from the heavens to relieve current owners of possession and renovate them to make them more expensive and less affordable?

    And if taking tax at source is regressive (and it may well be) how does a wealth tax help? The depletion of 'wealth' to pay tax has a long and regrettably regressive history in this country and yes, that would include the landed gentry less able to pay income tax or inheritance tax or invest in wealth creation - and jobs and services. And this is where you 'betray' your socialist leanings.

    However, without a market there can be no wealth and no income whether the owner holds it or tries to flog it for threepence. Without a market, it is worth nothing. There is no wealth to tax. When there is income there will be something to tax. Geddit?

    Incidentally the empty house owner in Everton does not pay zero tax. If he’s lucky his community charge is discounted. And BTW it’s not economics. It’s fiscal policy.

  9. #54
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197

    Default

    I made an enquiry to the council regarding an empty Georgian property in Everton - almost derelict. They were very cagey when I suggested they would not be earning any income from council tax for it. There are no for sale boards on it, just trespassers will be prosecuted notices. It's an eyesore in need of some action by the landlord.

    Liverpool, like Ormskirk is overun with students and even conversion to flats with the brilliant views of the city from this high vantage point would surely be a viable proposition. There should be no option to do nothing at all.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  10. #55
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    I made an enquiry to the council regarding an empty Georgian property in Everton - almost derelict. They were very cagey when I suggested they would not be earning any income from council tax for it. There are no for sale boards on it, just trespassers will be prosecuted notices. It's an eyesore in need of some action by the landlord.

    Liverpool, like Ormskirk is overun with students and even conversion to flats with the brilliant views of the city from this high vantage point would surely be a viable proposition. There should be no option to do nothing at all.
    I suspect I know the one(s) you mean. It's in a really great spot but would cost an arm and a leg to fix up but if you haven't got the money what can you do? Council can't buy it off you (they don't have the money to buy it or redevelop it). No one else can force you to sell it and you can't force people to buy it...

    Even if you could, what then? Nothing's changed. If it's the one I think it is, I can see how the rents achievable wouldn't pay for it ie., it's not viable. It's barely standing. I could be wrong and I'd like to do it myself but...

    The area is a bit of a wasteland (on one side), so it would be a case of waiting for the area to come up a bit or holding the redevelopment costs till it did. Who can do that? Chicken and Egg.

    BTW I think students bring economic activity to an area and to the city. The more that come here and stay on after graduation, the better. Our friends down the East Lancs have achieved a lot this way.

  11. #56
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post

    Although I would agree that space standards have fallen terribly and construction costs have unnecessarily increased in the UK, I really can't see what relevance this has to our social housing.

    It would be wonderful to have every house in the UK individually designed. A bespoke property for everyone. But are you really suggesting that this is even remotely affordable? Or is it perhaps that council or government will pay? Perhaps the Peabody Trust?

    There is also plenty of social housing in Europe - particularly in Germany, and France, and Holland, and... where are these other countries where most houses are designed individually???? Cloud Cuckoo land? (Actually, Switzerland would be about right).





    http://www.huf-haus-owners-group.co....1/10/mack1.jpg

    And yeah. I'd be very interested to see the penny heating bills for that property. Particularly in relation to construction cost. With all that glass, it might keep in some heat if tripled glazed but it would cost a fortune to build even in kit form (which BTW kind of suggests they are not so individual as you think) and some of the guys down Norris Green way (got to pick somewhere) would make short work of those windows.
    Social Housing. You were on about housing. These house are vert well made are zipped up ina few days on an insulated concrete pad. This method is ripe for social housing. They are oriented for passive solar. Insuation values are very high. As an architect you must have heard of Huf. They have been goping for decades. They give you anything you like. Glass? you have it. No glass and heavier insulation - you have it.
    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

  12. #57
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    ....

    But so...? I guess no-one is forcing anyone to live anywhere. The choice still exists.

    And being Green is a moral issue. It is hard to get on a train or bus when the car is right there but it should be done - as a moral issue. For our children. If only public transport was more accessible and convenient... something I'm sure these 'planners' are advocating.

    ...
    .
    No, the planners do force people to live in certain locations - in the US it's called Planning and Zoning - I'm sure the UK has a similar law. It's also enforced in the longer term by where, and what type, of infrastructure is built.

    The moral values of Green based on carbon is still up for debate and deserves it's own thread. Note how every solution proposed so far involves taxes flowing the the govt.?

    I'll just leave with this - from a mere 40 years ago, a drop in the time bucket compared to climate predictions -

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	newsweek-1970.jpg 
Views:	758 
Size:	258.9 KB 
ID:	24341

  13. #58
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    When I say if I mean if. What you say would tend to lead anyone to expect you to hold socialist views. It's not an accusation - even these days. It is a reasonable deduction, nevertheless it is conditional.
    Read properly and the views are nmot socialist. Just because someone wants a fairer society with an economic system that works not directing most wealth into a few hands and does not create boom & busts and world-wide crashes that does not mean socialist. I want to roll back the state - and the Tories want Big Government. More of the same tripe.

    And I am neither confused nor am I stupid. At least not so stupid to take what others have said as proof of what they say. I can read The Times for myself thank you, and interpret same. I don’t need it regurgitated to me as gospel.
    Read:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
    Geonomics is an economic philosophy and ideology that holds that people own what they create, but that things found in nature, most importantly land, belong equally to all
    Now, you are seriously suggested that Land Value Tax is responsible or even a major contributor to Hong Kong’s wealth. Right, I see. How silly of me.
    Land tax is the core of it - you must be acting silly. It gives low income and corporation tax encouraging peopel to work as they keep most of their earnings and companies to set up. Honmg Kong is a fiorm of LVT as all land is leased out and owned by the state.

    ‘Wealth laying idle’ was at one time income was it not? and taxed as such? was it not?
    It is no coincidence that the riches people in the UK are parasites (economic term) who take in rent - landowers. Duke of Westminster, etc.

    If Hyams had to pay full LVT on the land, the block would have been built ASAP, and not left idle for years on end. Look at what the USA is doing....and Auss, Tiawan, Denmark, USA, etc.
    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

  14. #59
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    I suspect I know the one(s) you mean. It's in a really great spot but would cost an arm and a leg to fix up but if you haven't got the money what can you do? Council can't buy it off you (they don't have the money to buy it or redevelop it). No one else can force you to sell it and you can't force people to buy it...

    Even if you could, what then? Nothing's changed. If it's the one I think it is, I can see how the rents achievable wouldn't pay for it ie., it's not viable. It's barely standing. I could be wrong and I'd like to do it myself but...

    The area is a bit of a wasteland (on one side), so it would be a case of waiting for the area to come up a bit or holding the redevelopment costs till it did. Who can do that? Chicken and Egg.

    BTW I think students bring economic activity to an area and to the city. The more that come here and stay on after graduation, the better. Our friends down the East Lancs have achieved a lot this way.

    Perhaps if time limits were put on making places habitable, after all, it's not a million years ago it was a nursery, passing stringent regulations no doubt to be able to be one. After which there would be penalties with the most extreme being a handover to the council as it's they after all who take the criticism of thoroughfares into the city looking grubby and uninviting. Maybe a cpo based on its dilapidated condition then the likes of Maghull developments wouldn't just let them fall down so they can then build anew - without the VAT penalty etc. Look what happened to Jamica House on the corner of Dale st/Vernon st and what also happened not long ago to the oldest property on Dale st on the corner of Cheapside.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  15. #60
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    Hyams may well have not paid tax on Centrepoint until he realised its increase in value. I think that is rather the point of a tax on income is it not? For sure he spent a great deal of money on all the tradesmen needed to build it. **** him.
    You really do not get it. No matter what he spent his money on in tradesmen, he stopped the lot because he could make even more doing NOTHING at all for about 8 years. He was not making productive use of the land - our land, our commonwealth. The Queen owns all a land in the UK.

    Harry Hyams wanted to demolish the Albert Dock, the largest collection of listed buildings in the UK to built cheap London Docklands like tat -like Peel are offering in Liverpool Waters. Hyams? Peel? No different.

    It’s a stretch but since it occurs to me... much like the Empire State perhaps. All those workers, working away in a depression, getting paid - what a fool Hoover was to create all that wealth and spread it around a bit! And no doubt there was and is a tax bill down the line.
    Hoover? He is famous for the Hoovervilles - shanty towns in the US depression. Roosevelt got things moving. There are shanty towns in the USA again as foreclosure has thrown millions out of their homes. Many shanty towns overlook empty homes.

    Look at:


    The USA went into major government funded infrastructure building like dams, as did Germany with its autobahns.

    And how dare you buy land near a railway line, with money taken from your taxes for the benefit of all it serves. Outrageous!
    Those near Crossrail stations experience a 60% increase for doing NOTHING. Cornwall taxpayers paid towards Crossrail and do not use it. The houses near the stations increase in value giving windfalls to those landowners - which people who do not use Crossrail contributed to. It is not difficult to understand. Read the Welsh MPs transcript again and understand what he is saying and Wales is no different to England or Scotland. Those that benefitted from Croassrail paid for it - the paid the whole £20 billion? Wow...

    If the land was taxed by its value whether built upon or not there would be no vacant buildings in Everton. Experience all over the world has proven that. I never made it up.

    And if taking tax at source is regressive (and it may well be) how does a wealth tax help?
    Taxing people's earning at source is 100% regressive. It penalizes the wealth creators. Those who should not be penalized. "A tax on land value has been described by many as a
    progressive tax, since it would be paid primarily by the wealthy, and would reduce income inequality." Vince Cable is trying to get something sensible into a government that economically knows sweet nothing. LVT reclaims community crated wealth to pay for community services. It is lauded as brilliant for funding infrastructure - Hong Kong built a metro using it.

    The depletion of 'wealth' to pay tax has a long and regrettably regressive history in this country
    Not so. You confuse taxing income at source from high earners - the wealth creators -from taking from taxing wealth. And ever since we have had boom & busts and world-wide crashes, and poverty in an age of amazing technical advancement has not gone away. For e.g., in the USA the top 1% own more wealth that the bottom 90%. Something is clearly very wrong and deep-root analysis will point to land and its resources.

    BTW, Winston Churchill was great supporter of Land Valuation Taxation -the finest speeches supporting LVT were made by him. He was in the government that caused the 1909 ructions in the House of Lords, which the Welsh MP mentions in the Assembly debate.

    However, without a market there can be no wealth and no income whether the owner holds it or tries to flog it for threepence. Without a market, it is worth nothing. There is no wealth to tax. When there is income there will be something to tax. Geddit?
    I got the free-market when I was about 13. Your last sentence is 100% incorrect.

    Incidentally the empty house owner in Everton does not pay zero tax. If he’s lucky his community charge is discounted.
    It it is uninhabitable he pays ZERO. Yet the land can stay idle for decades and then he can make a killing selling the land. As Mark Twain said..."buy land they not not making any more". That land speculator in Everton keeps that land from being used productively...and creating an eyesore...and abusing the architectural culture of the city. In times gone by you could not own land unless you used it productively. If you stopped using it to reverted back to the community. Ever since we have treated land like a saleable commodity, like a washing machine, the world's economy has gone haywire. Land is like nothing else you can ever buy. BTW, I studied economics at degree level.

    Land Valuation Tax will clear up the derelict homes in Liverpool within a few years. Experience in the USA proves that so.
    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 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •