Demolishing housing estates

JessM, just been watching Shetland. Nothing wrong with the buildings there, but the drugs....
Sorry, I know it's fiction.

What rules, Monica?
There were none as far as New Earswick was concerned, as far as I can find out. The houses were rented out to 1/3 Rowntree employees, and the rest came from the slums. The rent was 20% of their pay, definitely better than now.

As far as think tanks are concerned, I look at www.thinktankreview.co.uk which checks up on the work of lots of think tanks every week.
One that is run by Tories would not be my first choice to look at.

Monica I was being perfectly serious, and I didn't think anything of the kind.

Lots of students live in horrible rented properties with unhelpful landlords. Building great big housing estates was never a great idea - a response to the desperate housing crisis after WW2.
Reading Jennifer Ward's books about midwifery in the East End opened my eyes to how truly awful East End slums were in the 1950s.
I wonder if maybe the worst thing about the most difficult estates is drugs not the buildings.

durhamjen In relation to housing built by Rowntrees et al. I was referring to rules that existed when the housing was built. Obviously these kind of rules do not apply now and haven't for many years.

As far as think tanks go, practically all think tanks have a political view. This does not mean that, regardless of political persuasion, the research they do is of dubious quality. Yes, it can be sometimes, but it is not inevitable

I assume you had a look at the two links I posted and noted that the policy they are advocating is in direct conflict with the policy announced by David Cameron. They are recommending social solutions to social problems and give several examples of where such policies when applied have been successful. Doesn't that actually support the arguments you are putting forward?

Elegran After I commented that DD had sucessively owned 2 ex-council houses and was very happy in both you posted, as below. I got the feeling that you thought I was surprised by DD's experience and expected her to find council tenants somewhat 'other'. I assure you I did not expect her to find her neighbours any different to what they are, generally, pleasant and friendly people. Which is what I would say of my own neighbours, none of whom are council tenants.

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.

MOnica could you remind me what I said to which you answered "Of course she is, did you think I expected anything else?" I don't remember and can't find it.

Have you got any proof, Monica, of residents being evicted from New Earswick? I would be interested to know of your sources.
I lived near there for over ten years,and had an aunt and uncle who lived in New Earswick, and have never heard of it before. The house I lived in used to belong to the Rowntree family.

Monica, policy exchange is a Tory thinktank, so not exactly objective.

npi.org.uk/publications/housing-and-homelessness/paying-high-price-faulty-product/

It's not just a few rogue landlords.
This report was commissioned last year by Citizens Advice.
These are the main findings of the report.

There are more than 100,000 households who pay more than £900 per month to live in an unsafe private home.

The average monthly rent for an unsafe home in the private sector is £650, not much lower than the average overall cost of £720 for a home that meets minimum standards.

Just 210,000 of the households in unsafe privately rented homes have no one in work or are of pension age.

Private renters in England spend £4.2 billion a year to live in unsafe homes that fail to meet legal standards.

Half a million children live in unsafe privately rented homes.

Elegran Of course she is, did you think I expected anything else?

durhamjen families like the Rowntrees, Cadburies, and Peabody estates in London did much to give their workers and others decent homes when much housing was appalling, but it is worth remembering that residents were expected to look after their properties and lead acceptable lives, within the mores of their time. If not tenants were at best 'encouraged' tomove out, at worst evicted. Those who built the estates made sure they did not have the problems we now have with estates with high levels of deprivation.

thatbags I think there is very little evidence that demolition and rebuilding helps levels of deprivation. Yes, the properties have more services built in than similar dwellings would have had 100 years ago, electricity, gas, running water, sanitation, central heating, but 100 years ago many quite upmarket houses lacked a lot of these facilities. The dwellings planned for demolition have all these services now as do many small 19th century properties that were built without them but have installed them since.

I think you are fairly new to this thread, but some distance up I posted these two links
www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/the-estate-we-re-in-lessons-from-the-front-line
www.policyexchange.org.uk/media-centre/blogs/category/item/britain-s-sink-estates-can-and-must-be-turned-around.

I am sure that refurbishing such housing and the introduction of landscaping can do much to improve an area and raise morale but there is little evidence that demolishing adequate but rundown properties and replacing them has any effect at all.

I still have a few years left to pay on my mortgage.

Those who take advantage of the Right to Buy scheme will at least be paying less monthly than they did in rent, and will eventually own their own homes.

Cameron's idea sounds very 19th century philanthropy. However, he is not putting his own money in.
At least the Rowntrees et al built the houses first before moving people out of the slums/sink estates.
Actually, they were moved from the very places in York which have been flooded now.

www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/for-regeneration-to-work-residents-need-to-be-in-control

www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/right-to-buy-or-the-right-to-lifelong-debt

An interesting take on right to buy. I always assumed that people my age would have paid off their mortgages, but it's not so, according to the NEF.

A different type of 'bad' I'd say.

In the city slums people were poor and had no gardens or inside loos; sink estates can have drug dealers, high unemployment, many fatherless children, vandalism, litter, anti-social families, and general lawlessness.

Is it really true that it hasn't worked? It may not have solved all the problems there were but is it true to say none of the problems of poverty have been solved? Are so-called sink estates anything like as bad as city slums used to be?

Demolishing houses to improve areas with social problems has been tried several times by both main parties and it didn't work. Why do it again? It doesn't work.

Do something else and stop wasting taxpayers money on futile gestures aimed at enriching developers.

No such thing as society; just a load of individuals. Can't remember who I am paraphrasing.

Perhaps we need to think about what we can do to mend it, if we want to mend it.

In my opinion we need to accept society has broken down

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.

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 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?

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.

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