Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 171

Thread: Housing Mistakes

  1. #91
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    Of course you're not having that.
    Living through the architectural disasters of this *area I must say this guy's got a cheek to say the above.
    My heart bleeds for him and his fellow arch itects- sorry, I meant to type arch enemies- oh ****, enemas...well that's close enough. What a fine bunch of chaps they must be, sharing the blame for the social engineering mistakes of "others".
    Peter, you know you'll never get the chance to live on the Radcliffe estate, it's gone. Good riddance. Those who refuse to learn from the past are liable to keep repeating it's mistakes. A lot of your posts are full of holes, not unlike the Radcliffe estate's roofs.

    *area
    (City centre, Gillmoss, Everton, Walton, Everton, Birkenhead, Norris Green, Toxteth, and for the past 30 years I've lived in Anfield).
    Chas
    Now I could be... rude, and say that there's lots of people out there, all too ready to put the blame for their own inadequacies onto others but no, I won't do that. I won't even call them enemas. And I'm not taking the blame for anyone's mistakes.

    ***

    And what 'social engineering'? The aim was to provide housing not control what people do.

    And if you look at the history of it, there's a long record (in Hansard for one) of the city asking for money from government so that there could re-house the people in decent accommodation. There's an equally long history of government telling them that they were asking too much. It's not surprising that housing got cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.

    Much as the Garden Tenements were loved, loathed and loved again, they couldn't have been built even as early as the late 50s - too expensive. Economics built 'streets in the sky' and the economics of hooliganism pulled them down again.

    The only way we've afforded the housing that has been built recently is via government subsidy. That's what the Housing Market Renewal Initiative is. The artificial propping up of the housing market by people living in houses they can't afford at current construction costs or at the current market price. Wholly unsustainable (because government borrowed too much to do it - another Labour government mugged by the City of London). And now the money is gone.

    And what did architects do in all that? Design homes that could actually be built for the money available and get people out of low-grade and often insanitary conditions? What tw*ts.

    ***

    I'm just astonished that all those so-called failures are suddenly re-born as highly desirable places to live just for want of people who give a flying fig to live in and look after them. In retrospect perhaps I shouldn't be.

    You're right the Radcliffe has gone but not before it was trashed by its occupants. And why was that exactly? What where the defects in its design that drove them to it? Because the cars were a hundred yards away? ok.

    [Here's a clue - At the time, the Radcliffe was said to be 'un-policeable' ie., too many scallies bent on crime and destruction, too many exits for them to get away and too many 'safe' pavements (where police cars couldn't go). It seems that's why we now have 'safety by design', police on bikes, cul-de-sacs and half the streets in North (and South) Liverpool blocked off]

    So who did put the holes in the roof (if there were any)? And elsewhere, who did drop beds from the 20th floor (and TVs). And, put holes in the walls and the refuse chutes and p*ss in the lifts and smash the light bulbs and rip out the plumbing and fill up flats with gas and blow them up...? Eh? Do you want to tell us or just hide behind your 'angry face'?

    ***

    Ok, I'll give you even more room to have a go and ask (since you've lived in all those areas) what your experience of architectural disasters are. In detail - what went wrong? But one thing - only those that were architect-designed, all right?

    No, I'll tell you what. Have a go at them all and we'll apportion blame later.

    Or here's a better idea, let's ask everyone what they think of all housing then, and now - particularly now, and then let's see if we can do something about not repeating the same 'mistakes'.

  2. #92
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    72
    Posts
    248
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Thanks for your early response, Peter. Unfortunately, you're still kicking the can into the council house tenants arena. Working class, lower class, the under class, you'd probably file me as a CHAV. I live in a pre-war estate that still stands. I've had the option to buy my house as many of my fellow residents did. Unfortunately they bought a white elephant in the form of Boswell housing. How can you justify the building of these estates and take the architect's out of the picture. Are the town planners responsible for not using bricks, are the constructors at fault for making a cheap shortcut? I'm nowhere near an expert but you appear to know the score. I'll make it short and simple.
    What part did the architect have in the materials used for Boswell housing?
    Chas
    (Probably being called Chav in the future for this post!)

  3. #93
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Many studies in the US, dating back to the 60's have worked out that home ownership promotes better housing stock - duh - and outfits like Habitat for Humanity use sweat equity to get more home ownership. The govt. has some programs that discount home prices to get more lower income home ownership, instead of just subsidizing rents.

    If you own somethng you tend to treat it better than somethng you rent...

  4. #94
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    72
    Posts
    248
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I can't argue with that, Az. Can you maybe tell me what architects responsibilities are? I know I'm making a generalization, but- Liverpool has been knocked down and redeveloped so many times before, I don't trust architects, town planners or LCC. There have been lots of failed estates that we're supposed to blame the residents for. Cantril Farm, Netherley, Queen's Road, Longview, Croxteth, Kirby and the Radcliffe estate spring to mind. Are we all a bunch of louts or were the designs too futuristic for our primitive minds (a hint of sarcasm creeping in).
    I still can't get an answer to the Boswell question, although I know it can't be laid at Peter's door.
    Well, AZ, nice to speak again,
    Regards,
    Chas ( Off to take me pitbull for an organized dog fight behind the Dockers Club, then going for a bev with me mate Kev to the Cockwell Inn)

  5. #95
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    Thanks for your early response, Peter. Unfortunately, you're still kicking the can into the council house tenants arena. Working class, lower class, the under class, you'd probably file me as a CHAV. I live in a pre-war estate that still stands. I've had the option to buy my house as many of my fellow residents did. Unfortunately they bought a white elephant in the form of Boswell housing. How can you justify the building of these estates and take the architect's out of the picture. Are the town planners responsible for not using bricks, are the constructors at fault for making a cheap shortcut? I'm nowhere near an expert but you appear to know the score. I'll make it short and simple.
    What part did the architect have in the materials used for Boswell housing?
    Chas
    (Probably being called Chav in the future for this post!)
    No, I'm not. No chavs here mate. But I am having a go at the thugs who wreck the joint for a bit of a laugh or because they're out of the heads on something or just generally got a grudge against everybody and every thing. However:



    "The Boswell system of house construction was developed by M. A. Boswell and Co Ltd of Wolverhampton during the late 1920s, and was used by Birmingham Corporation, Liverpool Corporation and Wolverhampton Corporation Housing Authorities to provide 1370, 1500 and 1050 dwellings respectively. All these dwellings are believed to have been completed prior to 1928."

    I'll get back to you in full shortly.

    [Edit: Nice. How's the pit-bull?]

  6. #96
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    72
    Posts
    248
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Hi Peter,
    I thought you'd google it. ( I did too).
    Chas

  7. #97
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    Thanks for your early response, Peter. Unfortunately, you're still kicking the can into the council house tenants arena. Working class, lower class, the under class, you'd probably file me as a CHAV. I live in a pre-war estate that still stands. I've had the option to buy my house as many of my fellow residents did. Unfortunately they bought a white elephant in the form of Boswell housing. How can you justify the building of these estates and take the architect's out of the picture. Are the town planners responsible for not using bricks, are the constructors at fault for making a cheap shortcut? I'm nowhere near an expert but you appear to know the score. I'll make it short and simple.
    What part did the architect have in the materials used for Boswell housing?
    Chas
    (Probably being called Chav in the future for this post!)
    "The Boswell system of house construction was developed by M. A. Boswell and Co Ltd of Wolverhampton during the late 1920s, and was used by Birmingham Corporation, Liverpool Corporation and Wolverhampton Corporation Housing Authorities to provide 1370, 1500 and 1050 dwellings respectively. All these dwellings are believed to have been completed prior to 1928."

    more...

    So it would appear that a. my Dad was six when the last of these was finished and b. that this attempt no doubt at cost-cutting was a contractor/supplier idea.

    ***

    I’m sure the very existence of chlorides in the ash (for that was the cause) was unknown. As was the effect of chlorides on no-doubt iron reinforcement/wall ties (outside of battleship technology). It probably seemed a very effective use of a plentiful resource. Perhaps they didn't use brick because they couldn't afford brick.

    Whatever... whatever the contract said, clearly Liverpool Corporation and its successors carried the can as...

    “In 1999, the city council responded to bitter complaints from residents by saying the clapped-out homes would be demolished. The majority of the Boot houses were of reinforced concrete construction and inherently faulty. They were made with clinker residue from power stations, which immediately started attacking the non-stainless steel tie wires. With the cost of refurbishment put at more than the value of the houses, demolition and rebuilding was reluctantly accepted by the community as the best option.”

    But then:

    “CDS HOUSING/PETRA Pinehurst Estate, Anfield, Liverpool Scheme summary A three-year £17 million refurbishment programme, following the resident-led stock transfer from Liverpool City Council to CDS Housing in 1999. The area had a vibrant community, but the houses were unfit. Residents feared the houses would be demolished. In partnership with CDS Housing, they were able to establish a new structural solution that saved most of the homes... All of the homes were extensively renovated during a two and a half year period.”

    ***

    So what happened to you and your mates? It seems that whoever was at fault, it would appear that tenants/new owners did not carry the can or are you saying different from your personal experience? I know that some houses didn't fair so well... http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...0252-22123293/

    [Edit: Google is your friend but the middle bit is all mine from a report in 2008. Unfortunately I didn't have the terms of the procurement contract to hand then either]


    ---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    Many studies in the US, dating back to the 60's have worked out that home ownership promotes better housing stock - duh - and outfits like Habitat for Humanity use sweat equity to get more home ownership. The govt. has some programs that discount home prices to get more lower income home ownership, instead of just subsidizing rents.

    If you own somethng you tend to treat it better than somethng you rent...
    You have to draw a distinction between actual ownership and beneficial ownership (renting). My parents rented there council house for thirty years. They always called it 'theirs' and they always looked after it (then they bought it).

    ---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    I can't argue with that, Az. Can you maybe tell me what architects responsibilities are? I know I'm making a generalization, but- Liverpool has been knocked down and redeveloped so many times before, I don't trust architects, town planners or LCC. There have been lots of failed estates that we're supposed to blame the residents for. Cantril Farm, Netherley, Queen's Road, Longview, Croxteth, Kirby and the Radcliffe estate spring to mind. Are we all a bunch of louts or were the designs too futuristic for our primitive minds (a hint of sarcasm creeping in).
    I still can't get an answer to the Boswell question, although I know it can't be laid at Peter's door.
    Well, AZ, nice to speak again,
    Regards,
    Chas ( Off to take me pitbull for an organized dog fight behind the Dockers Club, then going for a bev with me mate Kev to the Cockwell Inn)
    "I still can't get an answer to the Boswell question..." I answered you last night! (same day). We were at the Planetarium all day today, all right!? What did your last servant die of?

    ***

    An architect's responsibilities depend on the terms of his appointment. It seldom (well, never) includes liability for every single building component/material for which suppliers are normally required to provide warranties/guarantees or, for the performance of the builder.

    Wouldn't it be convenient for the architect to be responsible for the performance of every nail? But how could he be? For the promises and performance of every single supplier and sub-supplier up the supply chain and every Monday-morning brick laid. Sure.

    ***

    But anyway - you tell us what was wrong with "Cantril Farm, Netherley, Queen's Road, Longview, Croxteth, Kirby and the Radcliffe estate" that can be put at the architect's door. And you'd better be bob on with Longview - that one's a bit close to home (just round the corner). I guess you'll be telling me the architect pulled the trigger in The Quiet Man.

    It just doesn't do to drop poop on the doorstep and run away without explaining yourself - what is this? Knock and Run?

  8. #98
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    72
    Posts
    248
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    As said before, I never took up the opportunity to buy my house. Why? Probably because I believe in the concept of social housing (I really do). Some of my neighbours took up the offer and spent a lot on refurbishing their home. They ended up selling them back to LCC for little more than they'd paid LCC for them. The properties were were not mortgageable.
    Thanks for your efforts in resolving my issue about Boswell houses, Peter.
    Chas

    ---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post


    "The Boswell system of house construction was developed by M. A. Boswell and Co Ltd of Wolverhampton during the late 1920s, and was used by Birmingham Corporation, Liverpool Corporation and Wolverhampton Corporation Housing Authorities to provide 1370, 1500 and 1050 dwellings respectively. All these dwellings are believed to have been completed prior to 1928."

    more...

    So it would appear that a. my Dad was six when the last of these was finished and b. that this attempt no doubt at cost-cutting was a contractor/supplier idea.

    ***

    I’m sure the very existence of chlorides in the ash (for that was the cause) was unknown. As was the effect of chlorides on no-doubt iron reinforcement/wall ties (outside of battleship technology). It probably seemed a very effective use of a plentiful resource. Perhaps they didn't use brick because they couldn't afford brick.

    Whatever... whatever the contract said, clearly Liverpool Corporation and its successors carried the can as...

    “In 1999, the city council responded to bitter complaints from residents by saying the clapped-out homes would be demolished. The majority of the Boot houses were of reinforced concrete construction and inherently faulty. They were made with clinker residue from power stations, which immediately started attacking the non-stainless steel tie wires. With the cost of refurbishment put at more than the value of the houses, demolition and rebuilding was reluctantly accepted by the community as the best option.”

    But then:

    “CDS HOUSING/PETRA Pinehurst Estate, Anfield, Liverpool Scheme summary A three-year £17 million refurbishment programme, following the resident-led stock transfer from Liverpool City Council to CDS Housing in 1999. The area had a vibrant community, but the houses were unfit. Residents feared the houses would be demolished. In partnership with CDS Housing, they were able to establish a new structural solution that saved most of the homes... All of the homes were extensively renovated during a two and a half year period.”

    ***

    So what happened to you and your mates? It seems that whoever was at fault, it would appear that tenants/new owners did not carry the can or are you saying different from your personal experience? I know that some houses didn't fair so well... http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...0252-22123293/

    [Edit: Google is your friend but the middle bit is all mine from a report in 2008. Unfortunately I didn't have the terms of the procurement contract to hand then either]


    ---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------



    You have to draw a distinction between actual ownership and beneficial ownership (renting). My parents rented there council house for thirty years. They always called it 'theirs' and they always looked after it (then they bought it).

    ---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------



    "I still can't get an answer to the Boswell question..." I answered you last night! (same day). We were at the Planetarium all day today, all right!? What did your last servant die of?

    ***

    An architect's responsibilities depend on the terms of his appointment. It seldom (well, never) includes liability for every single building component/material for which suppliers are normally required to provide warranties/guarantees or, for the performance of the builder.

    Wouldn't it be convenient for the architect to be responsible for the performance of every nail? But how could he be? For the promises and performance of every single supplier and sub-supplier up the supply chain and every Monday-morning brick laid. Sure.

    ***

    But anyway - you tell us what was wrong with "Cantril Farm, Netherley, Queen's Road, Longview, Croxteth, Kirby and the Radcliffe estate" that can be put at the architect's door. And you'd better be bob on with Longview - that one's a bit close to home (just round the corner). I guess you'll be telling me the architect pulled the trigger in The Quiet Man.

    It just doesn't do to drop poop on the doorstep and run away without explaining yourself - what is this? Knock and Run?
    Just as I was starting to really dislike you Peter, you go off on another Peter "rant" with more holes appearing. (Anyone following this will know what I mean).
    C'est la vie.
    If you really want to continue this my email address is purpledays@blueyonder.co.uk
    Chas
    Chas

  9. #99
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    As said before, I never took up the opportunity to buy my house. Why? Probably because I believe in the concept of social housing (I really do). Some of my neighbours took up the offer and spent a lot on refurbishing their home. They ended up selling them back to LCC for little more than they'd paid LCC for them. The properties were were not mortgageable.
    Thanks for your efforts in resolving my issue about Boswell houses, Peter.
    Chas
    Well, I'm led to believe that the cladding solution not only fixed the problem but rendered them mortgageable again... so, there you go.

    ***

    I believe in 'social housing' too but not so all the responsibility is with 'someone else'. So not in the form we have it now and in the circumstances in which we are in, because any new social housing is stuffed.

    We can't build houses for prices that people can afford (to rent) without a government subsidy. There are no government subsidies.

    The basics are inescapable. (House prices and) construction costs are too high. Therefore rents would be too high. Therefore no-one could live in them. Therefore they wouldn't get built. Therefore everybody's stuck where they are.




    ---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    Just as I was starting to really dislike you Peter, you go off on another Peter "rant" with more holes appearing. (Anyone following this will know what I mean).
    C'est la vie.
    If you really want to continue this my email address is purpledays@blueyonder.co.uk
    Chas
    Chas

    Come on mate. What holes? Spit it out. Let's all hear it if you've got it.

  10. #100
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    As said before, I never took up the opportunity to buy my house. Why? Probably because I believe in the concept of social housing (I really do). Some of my neighbours took up the offer and spent a lot on refurbishing their home. They ended up selling them back to LCC for little more than they'd paid LCC for them. The properties were were not mortgageable.
    ...
    But was it a hidden unknown defect or did the buyers just not have a good home inspection? (err... I think survey is the UK term...)

    If you purchase something that is known bad - caveat emptor.

    ---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post

    You have to draw a distinction between actual ownership and beneficial ownership (renting). My parents rented there council house for thirty years. They always called it 'theirs' and they always looked after it (then they bought it).



    Yes, your parents might have thought of it as "theirs", but did all of their neighbors? - that is the problem.

    My parents bought their house in 1950 and tell me they had to scrimp and save with two small kids to afford it. My mum still lives there. She still says that was the only thing she wanted back then, her own house - after her two kids, I presume...

    In thirty years your parents would have even paid off the mortgage.

  11. #101
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    [QUOTE=az_gila;400866]
    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    But was it a hidden unknown defect or did the buyers just not have a good home inspection? (err... I think survey is the UK term...)

    If you purchase something that is known bad - caveat emptor.

    ---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------



    Yes, your parents might have thought of it as "theirs", but did all of their neighbors? - that is the problem.

    My parents bought their house in 1950 and tell me they had to scrimp and save with two small kids to afford it. My mum still lives there. She still says that was the only thing she wanted back then, her own house - after her two kids, I presume...

    In thirty years your parents would have even paid off the mortgage.
    Yes that is the problem. There were/are some great streets and tenants and some shockers (in the same houses - go figure Chas). There were plenty prepared to sit in a mess. Too many saying "it's not down to me".

    ***

    As it happens, my parents were lucky. They managed to get out of St John's when that really started to go down (back up again now...). Perhaps because they were 'decent folk'.

    I'm not sure they would have afforded the mortgage and run the property. And lending was a bit more responsible those days. Of course they didn't have access to the securities a council could offer to a lender. They both worked later on, so maybe.

    As it happens, they bought it with Dad's redundancy. After twenty years' renting there, it was cheap - I'd like to think only what was left on the council mortgage. So, maybe they did 'only' pay the mortgage after all (but after 40 years in the one job, straight from the army) - no such thing as a free ride.

    Houses should be for living in, not profiting from (I wish). Maybe the status attached to anyone's house is inevitable but we are deluded if we think we own it if we're paying more than two days a week's wages for a bigger than 70% mortgage.

    ***

    And what fantastically efficient 'taxation' that is! More than 40% on gross wages. A tax on living. Only problem is it's going to the banks to pay for, whatever it is they do with it - not to government to pay for services.

    And as prices rise, how clever are we? We're so wealthy now! Problem with that is we couldn't afford to buy our own homes and our children can't 'get on the ladder' (to what?). You could say the banks were milking us and you might be right.

    ***

    So little old us can't fight that. Not even council can fight that - on the shoestring budgets of what 'we' pay them and in the face of some pretty vindictive vandalism.

    Perhaps the collective bodies that can, are estate owners, body corporates, housing associations and local authorities. Acting as 'social owners' but not there to wipe anyone's bum at every turn - owners, tenants and leaseholders have got to do their bit (and that would include looking after the property they own and occupy. And doing condition surveys...).

    The Grovesnors have been doing it for hundreds of years.

  12. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    They shouldn't. But neither should property ownership include the responsibility to nanny society.
    ...

    Property owners do not let properties fall into disrepair willingly, whether it’s their first, second or fourteenth property.

    It’s an entire myth that they can reap the benefits of house prices in their sleep. There are none (“house prices fall another 10%...”) and there is none (sleep). An empty property is a financial and psychological burden to any owner.

    And the changes to the law you suggest would make the penalties for 'irresponsible ownership' so punitive as to put ownership very firmly in the hands of only those who can stomach the loss ie., the very, very rich - or the state.


    Back on earth and in Liverpool’s case, the local ‘state’ (ie., council) would end up owning vast tracts of low-grade housing and empty land that it couldn’t develop. Oh...

    ***
    Asking property owners to behave responsibly isn't 'nannying' it's just asking them to put social cohesiveness before profit / self-interest. Anyone who owns property needs to put money aside for its maintenance. Properties don't self-clean or self-renew - they are in a constant process of slow deterioration! Obviously the less financial resources you have the more difficult this will be but maybe if we had an expanded, good quality rental sector people would postpone buying until they were in a position to afford it. Alternatively, they might want to spend their time renting a property and having a life if rents were kept at low enough levels.

    I don't know well you know the city but you seem to be unaware of how property owners do let properties become derelict whether its the case of Frenson in Ropewalks (and their portfolio of derelict Georgian properties) or houses in Devonshire / Belvidere Road and around the Sefton Park area that were poorly maintained in order to drive out tenants on low rents. The Georgian property on Everton Road mentioned by Ged is an example of a potentially high value property because of its location. Renovating this property and restoring it to Georgian splendour would be extremely unprofitable and would need to be a very expensive labour of love. Allowing it to fall down and then building 20 units on the site could prove very lucrative. That's how it works nearly every time. Often in Liverpool people own a property (I'm not talking about owner-occupied houses here) in a potentially high value area but don't have the financial resources to develop it, the temptation is to wait until someone will pay a great deal of money for it. Think about how much money the King Edward pub site is now worth.

    House prices tend to rise over time unless an area is blighted by being part of a regeneration scheme or becomes a dumping home for problem families. That's why owning a property is still seen as a viable long-term investment.

    If LCC hadn't so badly managed the housing stock there wouldn't be the problems that exist today in many parts of the city. If the council builds /commissions low grade housing stock or its policy results in creating ghettos of deprivation within certain parts of the city then maybe it should think about changing what it does and, for once, learning from its mistakes.

  13. #103
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big where it matters View Post
    Asking property owners to behave responsibly isn't 'nannying' it's just asking them to put social cohesiveness before profit / self-interest. Anyone who owns property needs to put money aside for its maintenance. Properties don't self-clean or self-renew - they are in a constant process of slow deterioration! Obviously the less financial resources you have the more difficult this will be but maybe if we had an expanded, good quality rental sector people would postpone buying until they were in a position to afford it. Alternatively, they might want to spend their time renting a property and having a life if rents were kept at low enough levels.

    I don't know well you know the city but you seem to be unaware of how property owners do let properties become derelict whether its the case of Frenson in Ropewalks (and their portfolio of derelict Georgian properties) or houses in Devonshire / Belvidere Road and around the Sefton Park area that were poorly maintained in order to drive out tenants on low rents. The Georgian property on Everton Road mentioned by Ged is an example of a potentially high value property because of its location. Renovating this property and restoring it to Georgian splendour would be extremely unprofitable and would need to be a very expensive labour of love. Allowing it to fall down and then building 20 units on the site could prove very lucrative. That's how it works nearly every time. Often in Liverpool people own a property (I'm not talking about owner-occupied houses here) in a potentially high value area but don't have the financial resources to develop it, the temptation is to wait until someone will pay a great deal of money for it. Think about how much money the King Edward pub site is now worth.

    House prices tend to rise over time unless an area is blighted by being part of a regeneration scheme or becomes a dumping home for problem families. That's why owning a property is still seen as a viable long-term investment.

    If LCC hadn't so badly managed the housing stock there wouldn't be the problems that exist today in many parts of the city. If the council builds /commissions low grade housing stock or its policy results in creating ghettos of deprivation within certain parts of the city then maybe it should think about changing what it does and, for once, learning from its mistakes.
    You can expect property owners to act in the interests of social cohesion only if it is in their own interests. That is the society we live in. We can ignore that fact and live with the consequences or we can do something positive about it.

    I agree that a market at low or even just reasonable levels of rent would halt some of the property speculation that has driven houses out of a lot of our reaches. I can even lean (slightly) to the old 'all property is theft'. As such anyone would welcome a strong (rental) market that placed more value in a home for living in than a pile of bricks and mortar for ripping off a few tenants.

    A lot of people overseas are shocked at our house prices and so they should be. How can you possibly be so hard on yourselves? they say. But the answer must be commercially driven to have any chance of happening.

    ***

    House prices have tended to rise over a long period but not now. We are in for a very long and very painful period of 'adjustment'. The market is going to have to wait for wages to catch up with prices. Wages are creeping if not flat, if not actually falling (free training *cough* work at Tesco anyone?). House prices must fall if we are not to continue to pump more money than we've got into a bank's mortgage just for somewhere to live.

    We haven't got raging negative equity and endemic bank foreclosures now because... nothing is moving. We're all sat still. And those without, carry on being without. And a lot of the market had protection. Just wait until the PPI bubble passes.

    ***

    Frenson picked up properties on the cheap when everyone else was looking the other way - couldn’t be bothered (and some were talking about managed decline). He’s held those properties at his cost ever since. However, there would be no commercial or social sense to him ploughing fortunes into them and rushing them onto an empty market.

    He’d of lost his shirt and his houses and so would we (as a ‘social resource’). As I said, they’d be sitting in a bank’s portfolio or council holding doing absolutely zilch. And the city as a whole would have been looking even further into the bottom of the barrel.

    If he had walked away or not bothered back then, how would all those great warehouses down the bottom look now? Look at the Ropewalks as it is today. Has he really done such a bad job?

    ***

    There is no general restriction on demolition of any property that is not either listed or in a conservation area. There is generally no need for subterfuge. But yep, many fell down in the meantime and indeed some may have been pushed but unless it makes economic sense to keep them, that’s how it’s going to be. If people were harassed out of properties in Sefton Park well, there’s laws about that.

    As I mentioned earlier, the King Eddies site is a case in point. An unwanted and derelict pub on an inaccessible site. What else could anyone do with it but wait? Or, commercially and socially sanitise it for another 60 years with low-grade use (a Costco warehouse for example..?).

    ***

    As I’ve also tried to explain, council is between a rock (no funds) and a hard place (high costs of construction AND excessive maintenance bills for want of a bit of responsibility and accountability in some sections of the community).

    And in terms of policy (and their obligations under the Housing Acts to house people come what may) what else could they have done but to prioritise the poor into the houses that they could build, cheap as they were. Re-open the workhouses?

    If you look at those Hansard reports it’s breathtaking to see government’s persistent abrogation of responsibility to the local authorities. No. No. No, has been their mantra. And, this government started the same way. No funding for houses? Not our problem. Big government? no way. Big Society, no funds? be my guest.

    ***

    Shapps is starting to turn. Money is being found. 'Innovative funding' is creeping out of the woodwork. But we can’t expect the old route. The hand-out route (little as it was). This may well turn out to be the biggest U-turn government we've ever had (and what's wrong with that?) but the gimme culture, meagre as it might have been, is over. The 'put us before yourself' culture never started.

  14. #104
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Shapps is starting to turn. Money is being found. 'Innovative funding' is creeping out of the woodwork. But we can’t expect the old route. The hand-out route (little as it was). This may well turn out to be the biggest U-turn government we've ever had (and what's wrong with that?) but the gimme culture, meagre as it might have been, is over. The 'put us before yourself' culture never started.

    ---------------------------

    You could also say we've "Run out of OPM" - Other People's Money

  15. #105
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    72
    Posts
    248
    Blog Entries
    2

    Talking Knock...Knock.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    So what happened to you and your mates? It seems that whoever was at fault, it would appear that tenants/new owners did not carry the can or are you saying different from your personal experience? I know that some houses didn't fair so well... http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...0252-22123293/

    [Edit: Google is your friend but the middle bit is all mine from a report in 2008. Unfortunately I didn't have the terms of the procurement contract to hand then either]


    ---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------



    --------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------



    "I still can't get an answer to the Boswell question..." I answered you last night! (same day). We were at the Planetarium all day today, all right!? What did your last servant die of?

    ***

    An architect's responsibilities depend on the terms of his appointment. It seldom (well, never) includes liability for every single building component/material for which suppliers are normally required to provide warranties/guarantees or, for the performance of the builder.

    Wouldn't it be convenient for the architect to be responsible for the performance of every nail? But how could he be? For the promises and performance of every single supplier and sub-supplier up the supply chain and every Monday-morning brick laid. Sure.

    ***

    But anyway - you tell us what was wrong with "Cantril Farm, Netherley, Queen's Road, Longview, Croxteth, Kirby and the Radcliffe estate" that can be put at the architect's door. And you'd better be bob on with Longview - that one's a bit close to home (just round the corner). I guess you'll be telling me the architect pulled the trigger in The Quiet Man.

    It just doesn't do to drop poop on the doorstep and run away without explaining yourself - what is this? Knock and Run?
    Hi Peter,
    I honestly can't find your answer to the Boswell before Sunday's post. If it was posted I do apologize for bringing it up again,
    I've said before that I'm no expert. When I asked what an architects responsibilities were it was a genuine query.
    I'd assume that our estate was conceived by an architect, why were half the houses Boswell structures? I wouldn't expect the architect to specify every little detail, and the Boswell built houses only showed structural flaws after WW11. Was this just a "cost" cut that went wrong. My reference to learning from the mistakes of the past still stands.
    I already know the problems of Boswell housing (too well). CDS have done a good job, our properties are now receiving regular maintenance, no complaints there. The previous landlord LCC, let the properties decline, how can the tenants take the blame for the problems that came with Boswell houses? I can itemize a lot of these from personal experiences, but to what point?. I'm quite happy to leave Boswell out of the discussion from now on.
    Your thread is called "Housing Mistakes" - I feel that I may have be taking it too literally. I've read each post and there are lots you say that I agree with, but.....there are a lot I don't.
    Your views on the Radcliffe estate are totally beyond belief. Serious question. Were you involved at all with the estate's construction?
    I'll bring up the problems of the other estates in separate posts if you agree, I'm not knocking and running away.
    Chas

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •