Gransnet forums

News & politics

Demolishing housing estates

(270 Posts)
Anniebach Wed 13-Jan-16 13:45:08

Cameron want to demolish some housing estates , he said today he would not guarantee tenants would be rehoused in the new buildings he intends to build.

Where will the tenants be moved to and what houses will be built on the sites after demolishing the old houses !

Also he said it would help people out of poverty, how?

Tegan Wed 13-Jan-16 13:50:00

Maybe he's going to create a sub poverty level....wink

Anniebach Wed 13-Jan-16 13:59:55

You are clever Tegan, bet he has seen those storehouse things which have been placed in Calais

Unless he has taken part of Windsor Park off the queen grin

felice Wed 13-Jan-16 14:03:28

I just heard someone asking on the radio what would happen to former tenants who had bought their homes, surely home owners should have the right to decide where they want to live and had made their choice by purchasing the house they now live in.
Do you think the government would compensate the owners enough to buy a new home, I do not live in the UK so am just going by what I hear on the radio, read online or see on the TV.
House prices are high everywhere and I imagine a sudden influx of new buyers would probably raise prices even more..
Also where are they going to house existing tenants when they are knocking down and re-building.
Sorry a lot of questions but it seems an ill thought out plan.

Jane10 Wed 13-Jan-16 14:07:50

I don't think David C is personally going out with a sledgehammer! Suspect there is more to this than the opening statement and that rationale and plans will be explained.

Anniebach Wed 13-Jan-16 14:11:10

.felice, at times he is on another planet . Houses cannot be demolished without rehousing the residents and we have a serious housing shortage , what about people working , will he house them in the same area or move them miles away and they become unemployed

felice Wed 13-Jan-16 14:31:26

He seems to be obsessed with house ownreship, it is not seen as a big deal here and in other Continental countries. Tenants rights are strong and contracts strict. Many people rent for life if they find somewhere they like.
Not everyone wants or can cope with the responsibiity of ownership as my Mother found out to her cost, when the former Council apartment above her had a burst pipe which brought down her kitchen ceiling and the people had no insurance.
Here even tenants must have basic insurance it is a legal requirement.

M0nica Wed 13-Jan-16 14:38:03

I am deeply cynical. Governments since the 1960s have thought that the solution to poverty and deprivation is demolishing the houses/estates where poor people live.

In the 1960s lots and lots of rows of terrace houses were pulled down in inner cities to be replaced by these great new towers in the sky. Low level deprived areas replaced by high rise deprived areas.

Anyone remember John Prescott's Pathfinder programme of the 1990s/2000s? That condemned large areas of well maintained as well as slum properties in a number of northern towns that were to be demolished to end poverty and build new estates. deprived people in old hosues to be replaced by deprived people in new houses. Thankfully this programme was never fully implemented.

What deprived areas need excellent services. Really good schools, medical facilities, children's centres and help for the disabled and elderly.

rosesarered Wed 13-Jan-16 14:56:11

Houses were demolished under Labour and replaced by better, in certain areas, this is doing the same , in particular regard to high rise housing ( which needs to be got rid of.)Sink estates are horrible to live in and people deserve better. So, it has been done before, it can be done again.It would no doubt be done in phases, and people rehoused temporarily until the new houses are ready.Nobody is saying it will be wonderful until tenants are rehoused back into that area and the new houses built, but that is what always happens when houses are demolished, and it would be worth it to have a nicer place to live. Listening to radio 4 today I heard that the last time this was done ( when Brown was PM) some tenants did not want to go back to the old area and some did, so that woukd likely be the case this time too. For heavens sake, so many moaning minnies for the announcement of something good to happen to people, and this is hardly something new and untried, it's been going on since the original slum clearances.
with the best intentions, the high rise flats were designed to give tenants a good standard of living, but today are often dreadful crime ridden places( talking about the bad ones here) where police fear to tread.

M0nica Wed 13-Jan-16 15:20:53

rosesarered the last two lines of your post contradict everything you have said in the rest of it.

I was brought up mainly in south London, surrounded by bomb sites and when we went up to central London we went through places like Bermondsey, Southwark and Peckham and saw sites cleared of slum housing to be replaced by nice new council flats. What are these flats now 'sink' estates. I was in Newcastle in the early 60s and saw all the blocks of new high rise flats going up on the sites once occupied by terraces of sub-standard squalid little Victorian terraces. I have been backto Newcastle a number of times since and what are these flats? Sink estates. Back in London in the late 60s I saw more slum houses in Ladbroke Grove and Paddington being demolished and replaced by high rise flats, again these are the high rise blocks of more sink estates.

David Cameron's idea's will only make the situation worse. The estates are to be demolished and rebuilt by private developers who will build a mix of social and market housing. This will inevitably reduce the number of properties available for social housing.

Dispersing the poor and deprived to other areas will not solve the problem. Housing is part of it but mainly what is needed is really good schools with really good teachers, decent Health facilities and the extra services and help that those struggling in life need to get them and their children on their feet and building a better life for themselves.

Teetime Wed 13-Jan-16 15:23:04

I think this is another of our beloved Prime Minister's well thought out plans (please see Older People don't get sarcasm thread). wink

Anniebach Wed 13-Jan-16 15:27:37

Rosesarered, Cameron would not commit to the tenants / home owners being rehoused in the new houses, what if people lose their jobs? Where will they be housed ? Would be moved people from London - valuable land - and force them north ?

Anniebach Wed 13-Jan-16 15:28:38

He wants the land

rosesarered Wed 13-Jan-16 15:33:48

I disagree monica that the last two lines contradict my post. I said it was done with the best of intentions( high rise) and we now know that building high is NOT the way to go.If the slums had been cleared and replaced by better housing in the first place, that would have cut out all the awful high rise stuff.I also think that smaller estates ( but more of them) would be much better.As one who grew up in council housing I have a fair idea of which is the better ( not high rise!)
there will be some on here who extoll them, if so, they are living in the better ones.

rosesarered Wed 13-Jan-16 15:37:37

ab ' he wants the land' confused
I think too much negative thought is around at the moment, it's only just been announced! Wait and see before you rush to condemn everything.

M0nica Wed 13-Jan-16 15:43:24

It is not a question of whether the houses are high rise, low rise or underground. Just demolishing and rebuilding did not solve problems in the past and it will not now.

What is needed is more support services for struggling families, not profits and expensive houses for developers to sell.

M0nica Wed 13-Jan-16 15:44:28

It is not negative thought, it is positive thought about what is most likely to work.

rosesarered Wed 13-Jan-16 15:48:56

Living in better surroundings has a very positive effect on how people feel.

rosesarered Wed 13-Jan-16 15:50:48

It nay not be a panacea for all the social ills, but it's a good start.

rosesarered Wed 13-Jan-16 15:51:46

I don't think the new estates would be full of expensive houses to sell btw.

rosesarered Wed 13-Jan-16 15:52:16

Wait and see.

M0nica Wed 13-Jan-16 16:52:05

Well, it didn't work last time, I can remember how many of the people moving into the new flats in Newcastle were over the moon with their nice new flats. It didn't last long. I fail to see that repeating the mistakes of the past will work any better now.

How will the private developers demolishing and rebuilding these estates make any money if they do not include housing for sale? They will need to maximise their returns and private housing in inner city/city centres locations command premium prices.

Jane10 Wed 13-Jan-16 17:00:07

Oh well best not to do anything.* Lets leave everything exactly as it was. Just hope that poor quality council houses don't deteriorate too much.
Actually anything at all that this govt does or does not do is simply bound to be wrong! *sarcasm alert!

Anniebach Wed 13-Jan-16 17:50:28

But he said he will not guarantee the residents who are moved out will occupy the new buildings , so who will be living in the better surroundings ?

When the tiny terraced houses were demolished the new homes were built first

rosesarered Wed 13-Jan-16 17:54:10

Jane grin although anyone over 65 will not 'get it' .