Demolishing housing estates

Elegran yes they could build around privately-owned houses on estates - not likely to be practical/financially viable though as I doubt if there are any detached houses on 'sink' estates. Also, many of the flats in high-rises are privately-owned; the government would have to buy-out the owners and such flats in inner London go for around £500,000. The money set aside for these refurbishments is not going to go very far.

I don't think it's been announced which estates are in the plan but there's been mention of a couple of London estates; the ones I've heard are in prime inner areas. I really hope that if this plan goes ahead that the majority of tenants will return but I honestly can't understand how it's all going to work - where will they live in the meantime?

Lots of estates are refurbished without the tenants having to move out - there's no need for demolition. I don't think anyone is against improving peoples living conditions just questioning how it can be done on the very limited budget that's been mentioned - £150 million?

DJ I don't remember saying that it was a good idea for the tories to stop a socialist council from replacing houses. Where did I say that?

What I DID say was that houses which are not fit for purpose should be replaced, and it doesn't matter who gives the go-ahead, so long as it is done. Is it better to leave old housing stock to rot, along with the families in them, rather than start a project to replace them, because you don't like the PM who initiated it?

It surely won't be the good housing that is demolished, and it won't be all at once. So DC said that the details were not settled. For all you know, plans may yet emerge for suitable temporary accommodation for those affected.

AB Who suggested moving problem families to a specific area and turning it into a ghetto? I don't remember anyone saying that was a good idea. Though I daresay their neighbours might approve to get rid of them.

And what about all those single young people that anya refers to, in their "youth culture of drink, drugs, violence, gangs." How do we deal with those, and still keep the estates decent for the decent people who live there?

Elegran, where will problem families live if you think they shouldn't live with 'decent people'

It's not the damn houses which is the problem , can no one see this,

Obviously people have a better chance to thrive in nicer surroundings but it's people and their problems that cause misery on estates.

Unless the physical building is crumbling and it's cheaper to demolish and re-build, I can see no gain from knocking down and starting again.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with high-rise flats and estates - take The Barbican complex owned by The Corporation of London. It has three huge brutalist-architecture blocks, about 40-storeys high; ugly concrete; terraced houses and maisonettes; odd walkways and underpasses that seem to go nowhere and yet it's one the most prized places to live.

Exactly Riverwalk, it's the problems that need working on not the houses

ab Read my lips! " Who suggested moving problem families to a specific area and turning it into a ghetto? I don't remember anyone saying that was a good idea. Though I daresay their neighbours might approve to get rid of them." How do you turn that into me wanting them not to live with decent families? - but do please ask the decent families their view on this.

And I asked "How do we deal with those (the "youth culture of drink, drugs, violence, gangs."), and still keep the estates decent for the decent people who live there?" That was a separate question. so how would YOU deal with them? I got the impression elsewhere that you don't have any close neighbours. Have you any advice for those who do, and have antisocial ones?

Improving the houses won't make saints out of anyone, but living in substandard ones won't either. There is more than one approach need, but one doesn't rule out the other.

The problem with demolishing these "ghetto" estates is that some of the worst people living there are often placed next door to honest, decent people who try their best despite difficult circumstances. Bringing the nice area down to their very low level. I have seen it with my own eyes.

Elegran The majority of people now living in ex-council houses are not the original purchasers. DD's first property was an ex-council flat. She now lives in an ex-council house. In each case bought because that was all she could afford.

In both cases she has lived very happily on an estate that was/is a mixture of housing association and privately owned homes. She has lived on these mixed estates for nearly 25 years and has no plans to move.

She is no doubt living surrounded by a whole lot of nice, ordinary people in nice ordinary houses. Council tenants are not some strange alien tribe, they are the people you meet in shops, hospitals, buses. Council estates get a very bad press from people who have never lived in one, but go by reports of the very worst examples.

Those worst examples are the ones that need targetting - both the houses themselves and the tenants who live in them. It is not just a question of throwing money at the problem (though money is very useful stuff!) There is also - for want of a better word - the atmosphere that reigns in some places, the lack of respect for their own environment and that of their neighbours. Changing that is not easily done once it sets in.

I wonder how much the original tenant paid the council for this flat in Kensington & Chelsea

Council Flat

Soon there'll be very few low-income tenants in central London.

Elegran, I don't do lip reading , my younger daughter who is partially deaf does. Anyway I now live in a council bungalow in a row of sixteen and eight flats , the bungalow was leased by the church when I moved here but now has gone back to council control

I have lived on three council estates, one was very large and there were lovely people living there and problem families, three police houses were built there and we moved into one, I recall occasions when we had to move our babies crib behind a wardrobe because of threats of stones through the windows, we mixed with the problem families , the social workers , probation officers, church and police all worked together and there was a big change in behaviour, simply because the problem families were included not excluded , my poor husband had to drink mugs of tea in two houses where mice scuttled on the work tops, he continued to visit . It was hard work and not always pleasant , we opened clubs , started a junior football team, when the problem families learned to accept inclusion and the nice families learned to accept not to exclude .

I think it was Petra who said most here are not the same as those on the estates, I am not part of most on here

All crime will never be stopped , youngsters have always formed gangs - Cameron's Bullingdon Club was a gang, they smashed windows, went on pub crawls , were hooligans in hotel dining rooms , the difference ? Money

Annie the worst estates are already 'ghettos' believe me.

The most hopeful way forward is to have mixed housing estates as suggested by several people already. Unless you've sat with a group of mothers who were in tears over the future if their toddlers it's hard to imagine the desperation they feel. Being a single parent is hard enough, being a single parent on one of these estates is soul destroying.

To answer your point Annie that giving families new houses will not turn them into pillars of society.... it is taking a young family out of that situation and placing them in new mixed housing away from established gangs, drug dealers, alcoholics, etc. will at least give these parents hope for their child's future.

In the absence of lip-reading, it will just have to be ordinary sight-reading then! But it is still true that you misread the post where you thought I was approving putting people into ghettos.

You know better than most how much sheer hard work and patience it takes to make any difference to people's ingrained behaviour, so you will agree with my post "There is also - for want of a better word - the atmosphere that reigns in some places, the lack of respect for their own environment and that of their neighbours. Changing that is not easily done once it sets in."

Anya, I have and do sit with young mothers in tears unless the problems are tackled the families will take them with them . Why have many rehab centres been closed , treatment for anorexics been cut . We must learn from the disgusting comments by Oliver Letwin .

If people are robbed of any pride they have and hope is taken from them they will sink into a pit of despair

Elegran, I did not say ghettoes were your idea, I brought ghettoes into it because this is what will happen . I lived next door to a prostitute with a drug dealing come and go partner , she had a little girl who lied, stole, skipped school, an elderly neighbour befriended the child, it worked because the child was treated with respect, listened to, she in turn listened , learned to respect people.

You said "Elegran, where will problem families live if you think they shouldn't live with 'decent people' ?" which I took to mean that you thought they should live in ghettos.

If that is not what you meant, I am sorry if I mistook your meaning.

That is the alternative, isn't it, if they don't live beside decent families? - but then I never said that they should not live near decent families, and, perhaps, learn how to live a decent life.

It's pointless trying to be optimistic about getting rid of sink estates ( on this forum) as some will have no truck with it simply because the Tories have proposed it.It has been actually stated on here, that councils should not cooperate because funding for this very idea ( from Labour last time around) was cut when the coalition took over.
Services have been cut because the economy was in a bad place in the years after the Brown government, some of it the fault of Labour, some of it a global thing.It was said at the time it could easily be 15 years before we got back to normal spending patterns.Some countries in Europe could take much longer.When will some people realise this?

Sink estates are sink estates because of some of the residents not the buildings so knocking down the buildings is pointless , the residents with problems will still have the same problems

Estates where housing is fine will be left alone presumably, but there are some very badly run down estates where housing itself needs to be changed.
There will always be problem families, but the whole look and feel of an estate can be improved a lot ,making the area pleasant to live in.For instance, no more high rise flats ( up to 2/3 ) levels only, shorter streets more attractively laid out, closes,small areas of green , particularly if shrubs are planted.

Not necessarily Annie. The ones I'm talking about, it was as much to do with the design - the lay out- out the estate.

Too many corners and areas hidden from view where deals could take place unseen, where people were afraid to pass through for fear. Too many high rises, where lifts are constantly vandalised and stairs have to be climbed with buggies and small children. Too few facilities, and those that were there nirmally included off licences and betting shops. Too few open spaces and playgrounds.

Bad design

New estates take all these and more into consideration and 'lessons have been learned'. If your estate is one of the worst, you will know this already. But if, as I hope, your estate has a thriving community then I can't see it being in line for demolition.

Yes I accept that Anya, if all the residents were to be moved back into the new buildings and the new built before the old demolished I would fully support it, but I do not trust this some for rent some to buy plan , already there are big plans for affordable to buy houses to be built, why buy on a council estate if there are affordable to buy houses springing up . Sorry but it doesn't make sense, where will the families be moved to , how many ,if any , will be moved back , what of those who will not be moved back

Riverwalk, the other articles linked to in your link are also revealing.

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/10200367.html

I wonder what the landlord of this place thought when the Tories decided that people did not need to have flats suitable for human habitation.
I bet he was watching and cheering like mad.
In fact, he could perhaps have been one of those Tory MPs. Roughly half of those MPs have places to rent in London.
A few of them have shares in or are directors of property companies.
Should they have been able to vote on whether property should be fit for human habitation?
SNP MPs were not allowed to vote. I would maintain that they would have been far more objective than MPs who rent out property.

Why are roses and elegran not capable of seeing that it was a Labour idea in the first place? You are the ones who are denying that the idea was a good one years ago.
Did you really vote for the Tories so that they could just change their minds when it suited them? Why did you not vote Labour in the first place if you think it's such a good idea?

Where is the money coming from?

Perhaps because we don't give a damn whose idea it was in the first place. Why are you so uptight about whose idea it was? A good idea is a good idea whoever thought of it, and a bad idea is a bad idea. If you don't like that the tories want to do it, why claim it for labour if it is such a bad thing?

How do you know how I voted, durhamjen? I have never told you that and I have always believed that in this country we have a secret ballot! Do you have access to some information that no-one else does? Has it occurred to you that you may sometimes be wrong in your assumptions?

The money for it will come from the same source it would have come from under Labour - us! That is if the money DOES come for it , or WOULD HAVE come for it if Labour had been implementing it.

Why was it a such a bad idea that the Tories stopped it in 2011, but now it's such a good idea for Cameron?

He's the one who changed his mind, not me.
In the meantime, a lot of people have been living in worse conditions than they would have done if he had let the housebuilding carry on.

Osborne has been using QE for his pet projects. Improving housing wasn't one of them.