Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 171

Thread: Housing Mistakes

  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    So they have given your mother indirectly a windfall. That is the case i all rent vs owning land. Your mother's house, the bricks dropping in price, like a car, it was the land that increased in value.

    This explains it well:

    I know it is the land value rather than the bricks and mortar which rises in value.
    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.....
    My point is it was a leap of faith, a change from going with what was expected back then.
    What has happened in the meantime is we have two generations reliant on social housing which was meant as a stop-gap. In some cases both parents and grown children have been in long term secure work but still feel their place is in a "corpy house" and that's fine that's their choice but what happens,years later, when a more needy family comes along, more deserving of your lovely little house and garden and legally all you are entitled to is a one bedroom flat in a run down block what rights do you have?
    So back to the mistakes in housing.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.
    So is it architects, planners,the council, the tenants or what?
    The greening of Liverpool 5 has taken 50 years during which time council houses have come and gone as have the population and yet in other places there are hundred year old houses looking better than ever ( Woolton Village)
    I don't know the answer but maybe a good rent to buy scheme for tenants who look after the property, bonds with interest payable every five years if the property is in good order or guaranteed good downsizing when the time is appropriate, whatever it takes to put the landlord/tenant question under the spotlight.

  2. #122
    Senior Member lindylou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doris Mousdale View Post
    In the sixties we were offered a corporation house in Macketts Lane or Cantril Farm because of Slum Clearance in Liverpool 5. My parents went and had a look and decided they didn't want to live in either place ( You were given a choice of three places at the time ) They had a look at houses for sale and chose one in West Derby. The house was three thousand pounds with a four hundred pound deposit and fifteen pounds a month for twenty five years.
    After paying a pound a week it was a big increase and just a bit more than the corporation rent would have been down Macketts Lane.They stayed in the house paid off the mortgage and houses in the road are selling for between 160 to 190 thousand pounds now. The neighbour who went to Halewood is still paying rent.
    Much the same with my parents. When first married they lived as lodgers in a friend's house. My dad was away at sea and my mum worked in a factory. Later on my dad went on to work in factories and my mum became a shop girl. They didn't have unlimited income, but what they had they struggled to put down money for a 3 bed house in a quiet road which was Wolverton st. This was late 1950s, I think the cost was something similar to what you have quoted, but I've a feeling the price of our house was a bit less. (must ask for curiosity) .. but I do know the house price sounds laughable to today's prices!

    Quote Originally Posted by Doris Mousdale View Post
    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.
    Yes, I definitely agree with this. .. this is what I mean when I said about people can make or break a place.
    As I said in another post, even if you are poor and don't have much resources, you can make the best of things until your situation improves. There is no excuse to live in your own tip of your own making ! Even in a bad situation, you can at least attempt to live in a civilised manner!


    Quote Originally Posted by Doris Mousdale View Post
    My point is it was a leap of faith, a change from going with what was expected back then.
    but what happens,years later, when a more needy family comes along, more deserving of your lovely little house and garden and legally all you are entitled to is a one bedroom flat in a run down block what rights do you have?
    Funny you should mention this - it just happened to someone I know only last week - living in a 4 bedroom council house for over 16 or 17 years - family now flown the nest - so now been moved into a one bedroom place last week.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doris Mousdale View Post
    I know it is the land value rather than the bricks and mortar which rises in value.
    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.
    ps, Doris, I just checked with my mum, she says our first house in Wolverton st was 11 hundred pounds !! it sounds unbelievable now with todays prices !
    She says you paid weekly - like paying rent - with no other costs. My mum says garden houses were a bit more expensive, ours was less because it was a terraced with a back yard.

  3. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    I'm not mobile anymore, I guess you mean the Florence Institute? Did you manage to get any pics?
    Thanks for the update.

    Chas
    No I didn't take any pictures but if you go to Google Street View and type in Wellington Road, Liverpool and then choose the Wellington Road, L8 option (there's more than one Wellington Road in Lpl) and click on the More option, and choose street view, you'll see the estate I mean. Because it's an old street view you can also see how the Florrie looked before renovation even began!

  4. #124
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doris Mousdale View Post
    I know it is the land value rather than the bricks and mortar which rises in value.
    The point is nobody GAVE them anything.
    Doris, I have owned my own places since I was 22. In the current unfair system it is the only way to go, and your parents profited. My point was that the renters invariable pay for the landowners windfalls - me amongst them. Renting is a form slavery without shackles.

    My Dad always rented all his life. When at 21/22 I was to buy my first house he openly mocked me and said I was wasting my money. I never lived in the house and later sold it for twice as much as I bought. Many people thought that to own your own place was foolish as you may end up with a massive repair bill, while all his repairs were done for him. All he had to do was decorate.

    So back to the mistakes in housing. 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.
    Doris, it was primarily the land. In another post I wrote:

    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.

    People could not afford their own homes. What did not help was the lower working class were deliberately not educated to buying a house and could never figure out the benefits, even though they may have just been able to afford it. The more intelligent middle classes figured it out and made windfalls in their homes. At 14 years old, a light bulb lit in my head. The teacher in passing mentioned land and those who own it and the money they make. I instantly connected that with power - I was right. As a kid I could never understand how Lord Derby occupied all that land on the outskirts and we could not go onto it and Cantril Farm next door was a collection of jerry built barracks type homes - a massive contrast. I went there once and it was a world away yet so near, with deer and lakes and a big mansion.

    Our planning system, backed by the large landowning aristocracy, was primarily responsible for the appalling estates. The private sector could not meet demand in a massively growing economy post-WW2 - because land prices were too high because of an artificially created land shortage, which cascaded into high house prices. There was no shortage of skills to build the houses -private or public. To keep prices down private developers made small, poky, jerry built houses. If an artificial land shortage was not created none of these amazingly expensive council blocks and estates would not have been built. They costed a fortune and had to be demolished while money was still owed on them.

    Travel around western Europe. Look at the small, cheap & nasty post WW2 homes in the UK, public & private compared to what they build. We always skimp on the roof. Look at the cheap roofs in the UK, most do not have barge boards on the gables, the top windows run up to the eves to save a few courses of bricks, making the houses look like sheds. They have better planning laws than us.

    The averaged sized new home:

    1. UK - is a paltry 76 square metres,
    2. Germany - with a similar population density new homes are 109 square metres, nearly half as much again in size.
    3. Australia - the average sized new home is 205.7 square metres,
    4. Netherlands - 115 square metres
    5. Denmark - 137 square metres. Danish rooms are twice as big as the hutches now on offer in the United Kingdom.
    6. Japan - a country once notorious for small homes, the average sized new home is now 140 square metres.



    The averaged size living room in the UK is a miniscule 13 foot by 15 foot; a room which has to function as TV room, children’s play room, entertainment room and relaxation room. If the averaged sized man stands in the middle of a typical British living room and stretched out an arm he will hit either a wall or ceiling. British TV has many programmes dedicated to giving a larger feel to a room by careful choice of furnishing and colour co-ordination. This is an attempt to create an impression of space in undersized homes.

    The housing charity, Shelter, estimate at least 500,000 households are officially overcrowded. All this in country, the UK, with a land surplus.
    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

  5. #125
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197

    Default

    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.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  6. #126
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    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.
    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. #127
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    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, it’s **** because it was badly designed by architects. And that’s all you say. You don’t 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

  8. #128
    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 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.

  9. #129
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    72
    Posts
    248
    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 02:23 PM. Reason: Apology for mentioning PEEL

  10. #130
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    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.

  11. #131
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    72
    Posts
    248
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
    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? (by implication, you could even throw in a little bit about how it might be better).
    I never run away. I've said on other threads that the whole Everton slum clearance idea was a mistake. There were many properties that could have been saved and renovated. "The Lost Tribes of Everton" authored by Ken Rogers, gives a perspective on it. Many of the demolished property's bricks were reused, but few by LCC.
    I stayed on till 1968. By that time the area was a wasteland, but friends were still returning to the area they'd grew up in with tales of the soulless estates they now lived in. Hence my tiring references to learning from past mistakes.
    You may have lived in a house similar to the Radcliffe's, it sounds much like the VW advertisement
    ~ " similar to a Golf"
    Peace,
    Chas

  12. #132
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post


    [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]

    ....
    Was that really true fort the Liverpool blocks?

    The only one I drove by regularly is now "gentrified" but I believe was an original 60's block.

    It is the one near the North end of Seffie Park. A google map view does not seem to show any specific park area arounf it - Sefton Park was there before it...

    http://g.co/maps/55jdu

    I don't remember much parkland around the tower blocks...

  13. #133
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    Peel are primarily land speculators. They do little investment. They are not much different to Harry Hyams.
    They have the Chinese interested in Liverpool. Meanwhile central government, our own, continue the managed decline route

    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  14. #134
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    They have the Chinese interested in Liverpool. Meanwhile central government, our own, continue the managed decline route
    Stop lionizing Peel. They bring no manna from heaven.
    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

  15. #135
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    They have the Chinese interested in Liverpool. Meanwhile central government, our own, continue the managed decline route
    Let's be fair. We are skint....

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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, 08:15 AM
  2. Court Housing in Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 10:41 AM
  3. Eldon Grove Housing
    By Kev in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 10:31 PM
  4. Insanitary Housing Images
    By Kev in forum In My Liverpool Home
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-07-2009, 01:37 PM
  5. cathedral &housing
    By gregs dad in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 07:34 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
  •