Social housing tower blocks in Melbourne?

Do all home-owners also send their children to fee-paying schools and use private health-care? If they don't, they are receiving as much in subsidies from the taxpayer as council house tenants - who are also taxpayers and council tax payers.

One size housing solution doesn't fit all.

I must be very dim. I always thought that council houses were to assist people who'd possibly fallen on hard times and couldn't buy.

No idea why I thought that

However I'm much happier buying. We were mortgage free when I hit 52 and it's nice to know it'sours

However if I had to rent I'd prefer a council house as I think you're possibly safer there? Could be wrong. But I have a friend who was renting from a private landlord and he wants to sell so she has to move. Having a dog is making it difficult to find a suitable place as well.

I prefer the security of owning I think.

Well the person I was talking about earlier told me how much rent she paid the council per month and it most certainly was a hell of a lot less than our monthly mortgage which itself wasn’t high by a lot of standards.

It’s a good job we are all different though isn’t it?

I would chose home ownership over renting any day of the week.

Jennifer eccles Council housing ISN'T subsidised ,thats a myth.Its supposed to earn its keep so to rent a three bed semi here from the council is only marginally cheaper than a private let .Private landlords keep their properties wind and watertight ,they upgrade kitchens and bathrooms as needed ,they redecorate (councils dont do that) and they are on call for emergencies.No difference,some council properties might not be in the poshest of areas but the council tax will be lower .The council HAS to keep properties in decent condition as they are used as collateral for borrowing .It really annoys me when people talk about "subsidised housing" when I know full well its nothing of the sort ..the main benefit of council housing is the long let ,no issue with a landlord needing to sell so you have a safe roof over your head.Honestly if I was starting out again I wouldn't buy renting is much more practical and you're not handing vast sums in interest to lenders every month

Owner-occupiers tend to think that house ownership is the norm, and those who don't buy a house are a minority of poverty-stricken or feckless freeloaders accepting charity from the taxpayer.

I have discovered that in England, 64% of housing stock is owner-occupied, and 18% is Local Authority rental or other rental organisations, the rest private rentals. So about three and a half houses are owner-occupied for each social housing rental in England.

In Scotland the figures are 64% owner-occupied, 24% LA or other rentals, the rest private rentals. Two and a half houses are owner-occupied to each social housing rental.

Then there are all the private rentals to take into account.

The final proportion is about 64 to 36. About one in three householders do not own the house they live in. So we are not quite the nation of owner-occupiers that Margaret Thatcher wanted us to be.

Those who dwell in council or other rentals pay taxes too, including council tax, income tax, road tax and VAT.

Selling Bungalow

Surely these days housing associations take into account savings as well as earnings when they charge a rent. So if you’ve got the value of a house in the bank the rent would be close to market value.

I am sure you are right Elegran
Council rents are so cheap compared with the private rental sector and mortgages and I think that’s the appeal of them.

An acquaintance of mine lives in a council house. Her parents died a few years ago and as an only child she inherited their bungalow.

She sold the bungalow and I assumed she and her husband would buy their own property with the proceeds, but she said she didn’t want the responsibility of home ownership with the maintenance required.

It appeared she had completely got into the mindset of expecting the council to carry out any necessary repairs free of charge that the thought of having to pay for any refurbishment on their own home didn’t appeal at all!

I thought it was very shortsighted of her but she wouldn’t budge!

None of these miserable politicians live in this type pf property surprise, surprise.

JenniferEccles Many people with skills in various jobs STILL live in council houses! There is no divine law that says people with skills also have money, or have a secure income which will enable them to take on a hefty mortgage.

Interesting to read how many people years ago lived in council housing yet were skilled workers in various fields.

It’s tempting to think that decades ago home ownership was the norm apart from those on very low wages, but the stories on here show that that was not necessarily the case.

All we hear now is how terribly difficult it is for young couples to get on the housing ladder, and some friends my age have grown up offspring who are convinced things were so much easier re. buying a home when their parents were young.

I clearly remember it was a struggle for us to save the deposit for our first home and we only managed it because we lived with our respective parents before we were married and saved hard.

I didn’t want to rent or start married life with parents so we didn’t get married until we had the deposit for a terraced house on a new estate.

It took some hard saving though!

Paddyann When I lived in England it wasn't as bad - perhaps they have been affected by Thatcher's bid to get everyone to own their own house.

At least half of the houses I stayed in were in England, and the mix of tenants I refer to was partly down there.

There are and still were estates which are run-down and neglected. Part of that is due to the tenants and partly to the authorities. The two main expenses of local authorities are housing and education, and they are bound to suffer whan there are cuts to funds.

Also, as housing lists are open to everyone, there are bound to be some people who don't care if they live in a tip. It only takes one bad family in a street to make potential tenants reluctant to take up the offer of a house there, so once a street gets a couple of really scruffy houses, only the desperate or those with similar lack of standards move in, so it goes downhill. Eviction of the culprits is a drastic step - and where would they go? Private landlords wouldn't want them either.

Elegran I beleive the attitude towards council housing is very different in Scotland .I grew up in a council house in a Glasgow scheme ,the people were the same variety you would find anywhere.Homes were cared for ,gardens a pride and joy for families who came from tenements .
When I married in 1975 we were lucky to be given a brand new 2 bed and boxroom house with back and front gardens and a garage on what started out as a Glasgow overspill scheme near Loch Lomond in fact I could see both Loch Lomond and Dumbarton rock from my window.
W e might have stayed there and lots of the people who were our neighbours did but we moved to a "bought" flat to get our daughter into the school beside our business simply because it made life easier to just cross the road to collect her rather than lose an hour in traffic and waiting outside the school.I dont understand the looking down your nose attitude of people down south to council house tenants ,not everyone wants to tie themselves to a huge debt for life .

paddyanne

High rise council properties are being demolished here and new homes with gardens built to replace them . These are council houses .
There is one 4 storey building in the town centre that is being built in the style of the victorian tenement that was demolished in the 70's.Its lovely and not out of place among the few original tenements left ,it is just one block though and its surrounded by 2 and 3 bedroom houses and small bungalows for pensioners and single folk
The architects have made a much better job than those in the 70's whose work was demolished last winter ,nice to see the town get some character back

That's so good to hear paddyanne.

I think some of the blocks in Melbourne are not safe which is worrying.

I grew up on a council estate too, (having moved there from married quarters at age 9 when my father was demobbed after WW2) I have lived in council houses in two English cities and two Scottish ones, (eight different houses in eight different schemes in all) until I married and moved into a tiny owned house of our own.

One house ( just after the war) was a flat in a mansion bought by the council and converted into nine flats, one was a drab grey concrete semi in a grimy Scottish town, one was built in the twenties and was old-fashioned, but solid and had all facilities and a large garden. Five of them were new builds (or almost new) and compared favourably with owner-occupied.

My father was a teacher, and the neighbours of those houses worked at all kinds of jobs - I remember a driving test examiner, a lawyer, labourers, a naval officer, secretaries, an antiques dealer, several nurses, policemen, shop assistants, a postman, builders, among others.

I do get annoyed when it is assumed that ALL local authority housing is sink estates full of "the poor". They were built to provide accomodation for those who were renting privately because they couldn't raise the large amounts of capital needed to buy outright and/or they didn't want to commit to repaying a mortgage for the next ??? years. That could be because of their low wages, but also because of a fluctuating income which could suddenly cease and leave the debt still to be paid. Some people expected/expect to have to move to another town to follow their work, and it was/is simpler to go to another rental whose quality and continuity was assured - maybe not luxurious, but of a guaranteed minimal standard, and they were not likely to be evicted when the landlord's daughter married and needed a home.

JenniferEccles
"Because they accommodate the unskilled on low wages"
Not so , I grew up on a council estate my dad was classed as a skilled worker as were several neighbours. Not well paid maybe but not necessarily unskilled

We are having “housing blocks” built now in my town in the midlands, they are low cost and social housing for low paid workers so they can walk to work in town, it sounds a good idea to me.

In Australia there is no point building spread out housing if the work is in the city, and then have a massive transport network to move everyone in and out each day. Recent migrants to any country are most likely to be low paid and don’t have cash to spend on transport to work.

High rise council properties are being demolished here and new homes with gardens built to replace them . These are council houses .
There is one 4 storey building in the town centre that is being built in the style of the victorian tenement that was demolished in the 70's.Its lovely and not out of place among the few original tenements left ,it is just one block though and its surrounded by 2 and 3 bedroom houses and small bungalows for pensioners and single folk
The architects have made a much better job than those in the 70's whose work was demolished last winter ,nice to see the town get some character back

Oopsminty that Pathfinder scheme of John Prescott and Yvette Cooper was so wrong and left many householders distraught.
Far better is the scheme to sell off housing cheaply and to offer loans to the owners for renovation.

Some people do like living in high rise buildings otherwise there would be no market for the luxury end.
I don't think anyone should have to live in one who does not wish to.
Because it is better that they are built at a distance from each other it is questionable whether a higher density of population can be fitted into the space available than conventional houses or low rise buildings.

I guess all over the world there isn’t a large enough budget these days to build anything other than tower blocks for social housing renters.

Because they accommodate the unskilled on low wages, the rent obviously is lower than that paid by those renting privately so that is reflected in the type of accommodation built.

Tower blocks are really awful, but I guess it’s not economically viable, (even in a country the size of Australia )to build even modest terraced housing with gardens for those paying very low rent.

EllenVannin when those towers were built that was the style of architecture. They were built on land which at the time was on the fringe of the central business area where there was easy access to transport and other required facilities. Because they are now old and dated do you suggest they should be demolished and replaced? If so where would you house the many thousand residents. There is no way they could be homed in the area while new buildings were built.
New social housing could has been built in many areas but that does not mean the people want to live in the areas further away from the city.
There have been many schemes put up successive governments to encourage these people - and they are not all immigrants- to resettle in some of the regional areas but they don’t want to live in those areas.
As I said in my post above most of the settlement in Australia is within 100 kilometers of the east coast. Much of the land outside that is not suitable for building large communities and the cost of putting in the necessary infrastructure, transport links and schools is prohibitive. As ugly as these towers are, for many they are a haven in an inner city location which provides all the facilities needed.

EllanVannin

But councils seemed to have been hell-bent on building slums to replace dilapidating homes of yesteryear. Why ? This is my argument. Why are social housing estates made to look like social housing estates ?

Liverpool is a prime example of this

John Prescott's Pathfinder scheme was shocking

Totally obliterating homes for what reason?

moneyweek.com/3526/how-john-prescott-wasted-22bn

Many say we, the UK, are a tiny island but in actual fact only 8.8% of the land is built on

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297

We have plenty of space as well!

Where's the incentive for living in a " prison block " of ugly high rise flats that you couldn't swing a cat in ?
That horrendous fire should have rang alarm bells not to build any more of the monstrosities.

But councils seemed to have been hell-bent on building slums to replace dilapidating homes of yesteryear. Why ? This is my argument. Why are social housing estates made to look like social housing estates ?

EV When social housing was first built by councils in the Uk, it was to replace housing which was condemned as unfit for habitation. The projects were enormous and expensive at the time (I think the twenties saw a lot of them) but were needed for an increase in demand for accommodation by returning demobbed servicemen and their families and a rising population - as in the fifties and sixties, the other boom time for council housing.

Public money was scarce. The aim was to build simple affordable housing cheaply, so yes, they were not fancy edifices, but they were vastly better than the alternative. My mother was a child in the twenties, and their move to a council house - a plain rectangular semi with no claims to arhitectural elegance, was like going to heaven. Their own front door! A bathroom!An indoor loo! A kitchen to themselves, instead of a shared sink and cooker on the landing! Three bedrooms! A place to keep the pram which wasn't used by the sweep they shared the house with as storage for bags of soot! No rats! No leaks! Luxury!

Most of those old estates have been pulled down and replaced, but they served their turn in housing people who would otherwise have been renting a la Rackman.