It's not unreasonable to consider they would be buying some social stock anyway. Maybe the money that they found to buy them is just a consolidation purchase in one development. It's an asset now for the LA which they could sell on so not really a loss in that respect.
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Indeed. Because of the deal struck it's good value and a decent solution.
So why can't the right wing media report the story properly without putting their inflammatory spin on it? The DM headline reads "250 homeless residents are rehoused in a £2billion luxury block". This is deliberately misleading and inflammatory. Nowhere in their headlines or bolded sections do they mention the £10 million figure, it's all about the £2bn development, the £160 million market value of some flats in the development etc etc. You have to dig for the £10 million figure and we all know DM readers rarely see beyond the headlines. It's deliberately aimed to incite their readership into a jealous reaction. So divisive.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,936
- Location
- Essex
What's the problem... it will be!
Anyone found to be living illegally / subletting should be made an example of asap also.
Why will it be like Baghdad?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 584
Was Grenfell tower like Baghdad before the fire ?
Your comment like the one on the daily mail website is idiotic beyond belief.
Yup it is - the daily fail is going do what the daily fail is gonna do.... I hope the residents aren't also being mislead into thinking they're getting access to the pool, cinema etc.. if they aren't as no doubt we can then get follow up stuff about 'poor doors' etc... (on the other hand as the local council are getting these properties for free maybe they can stump up for a larger service charge instead)
Indeed, especially for the area! Fantastic effort by the City of London and much more efficient than the nonsense tweets/soundbites about requisitioning empty properties etc..which could have cost over a million each
Isn't it still requisitioning though?
I mean they were bought at construction cost after all, that is more or less a government order.
the purchase itself is nothing to do with the government or 'requisitioning' - the developer wasn't obliged to sell them at cost either they've chosen to do so - whether they've had some other sweetener or simply want to keep the particular local authority that generously handed over the cash for them happy is another matter
Come on now, they pretty much were forced to do so. It would be PR suicide otherwise.
no, they weren't - no one forced them to sell to anyone - there are plenty of developments in London. This block was already designated for social housing, that would have been part of the requirements for them to build the overall development so they weren't going to be making much money from it in the first place - whether it went to some other social housing landlord for a small mark up or whether it went to the local council after the Corporation of London stumped up the cash isn't really a massive issue for them in the grand scheme of things. If this hadn't have happened then presumably some housing association might be running it or some other org offering homes on a part rent part buy basis etc..etc..
this is far removed from requisitioning property
It does highlight something that I find interesting. I'm currently working on a very exclusive development (we're talking starting price of £750k for a 1 bedroom studio apartment) and yet, even in that development there HAS to be 'affordable properties'. It's got to the point where the architects whom I work with have, at the client's request, completely segregated the affordable section from the rest of the building. There is no way for a resident to get from one part to the other without leaving the building and going in to another entrance. The affordable entrance has literally been referred to by some as 'the poor door'.
yup, this was mentioned earlier - it seems like a reasonable solution if you can't put them in a separate block... alternatively are people paying a social rent also supposed to fork out for several grand a year in service charges to pay for the onsite pool, gym, cinema etc..
you mean the City of London, not the government
It's just crazy! They actually have larger apartments than some of those paying insane prices. In the same flipping building. I don't actually know whether they will be able to pay to have access to the pool, gym, bars, lounges or cinema should they choose to or whether it's purely restricted to the wealthier clientele.
City of London answers to the government at some point, if not explicitly, certainly implicitly. I'm sure in some discussions the City of London has all the pressure to apply, but this isnt one of them.
"No, the 'affordable' flats weren't designated for social housing. That just means they aren't the highest spec - but of course there are plenty of developments, but they weren't going to be shown to be tight and sending them to a more affordable borough. But the government wouldn't be paying full whack, not saying they were forcibly coerced either - just in the current climate no way would they refuse.