Tower block fire - london

StriderX said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're arguing for now exactly?

This was a deal done between the City of London - the local authority that controls the small 2 square mile area around the financial district of London and a developer - the City has essentially generously donated 10 million by agreeing to buy these and hand them to Kensington (they give away rather a lot of money to charity, good causes the arts etc.. every year and they build and run social housing outside their area of London too) and the developer has given up a potential small profit on the social housing section of their development.

This purchase has nothing to do with 'the Government' nor is it an example of requisitioning. It is a Charitable act by another (very wealthy) London local authority to help out. Whether a sweetener/other has been offered by the City towards the developer or whether the developer has given up a a small slice of profit for good PR and to build good will with a very wealthy London local authority doesn't change that either.



'The government' has now got involved to provide extra funds to make sure the blocks are completed quickly, it seem the people working on the development are going to work overtime to get it done

diamount said:
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.
Click to expand...

again the government didn't purchase them another London local authority did as a charitable act and yes they were designated as social housing... whether they were previously intended for a housing association or for some part rent part buy scheme etc.. it is still social housing and a part of the development that doesn't make much profit but rather has to be built to comply with planning requirements!
 
dowie said:
again the government didn't purchase them another London local authority did as a charitable act and yes they were designated as social housing... whether they were previously intended for a housing association or for some part rent part buy scheme etc.. it is still social housing and a part of the development that doesn't make much profit but rather has to be built to comply with planning requirements!
Click to expand...

Not trying to be belligerent but I cannot find anything that the blocks were designated for social housing, only an affordable quota for those who aren't multi-millionaires.
 
diamount said:
Not trying to be belligerent but I cannot find anything that the blocks were designated for social housing, only an affordable quota for those who aren't multi-millionaires.
Click to expand...

well if it is anything like the development I'm in you'll maybe have a mixture - on my development there are two separate affordable blocks that aren't run by our management company - they've got some other social landlord organisation responsible for managing the blocks and they're a mix of properties owned by housing associations (social housing) and properties that are 'affordable' and were sold part rent/part buy to eligible local residents.

regardless the block in this instance seems to have been at least something similar to that - 120 affordable or social homes, 68 of them purchased by the City of London to donate to Kensington for the victims

people have come into the thread stating that this is 'the government' and an example of 'requisitioning' when it is an example of another Local authority being rather generous and buying up a big chunk of homes from within a block that the developer wasn't going to make much money from in the first place. AFAIK when housing associations purchase properties like this they're often getting them at rather a nice discount too - though perhaps not at cost. whether all or some of these homes were going to be social housing or affordable part rent, part buy etc.. doesn't matter too much re: the point that the developer wasn't expecting to make much from them in the first place - they're simply a requirement for the developer to also be allowed to build the luxury flats next door that they're flogging for 1.6 million+ each.

I don't see why people try and turn this sort of thing into a conspiracy etc..
 
dowie said:
well if it is anything like the development I'm in you'll maybe have a mixture - on my development there are two separate affordable blocks that aren't run by our management company - they've got some other social landlord organisation responsible for managing the blocks and they're a mix of properties owned by housing associations (social housing) and properties that are 'affordable' and were sold part rent/part buy to eligible local residents.

regardless the block in this instance seems to have been at least something similar to that - 120 affordable or social homes, 68 of them purchased by the City of London to donate to Kensington for the victims

people have come into the thread stating that this is 'the government' and an example of 'requisitioning' when it is an example of another Local authority being rather generous and buying up a big chunk of homes from within a block that the developer wasn't going to make much money from in the first place. AFAIK when housing associations purchase properties like this they're often getting them at rather a nice discount too - though perhaps not at cost. whether all or some of these homes were going to be social housing or affordable part rent, part buy etc.. doesn't matter too much re: the point that the developer wasn't expecting to make much from them in the first place - they're simply a requirement for the developer to also be allowed to build the luxury flats next door that they're flogging for 1.6 million+ each.

I don't see why people try and turn this sort of thing into a conspiracy etc..
Click to expand...


I just dont get why anyone thinks local authorities aren't governments. Though City of London, is vastly different to most, so i'll concede that it might not be May saying lovely words.
 
Dis86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Any particular reason why? Is there a prerequisite for affordable/social housing to be a minimum size, whereas the private housing doesn't, or something else?

Presumably the builders would want the cheaper housing robbed as small as possible?
 
Mynight said:
"Sell it to us for X and we'll look the other way next annual accounts ;)"
Click to expand...

Would it even need to be that dodgy. Could equally be taking these at cost and in return being a bit more relaxed on the amount of affordable housing in one or two other developments in the area.

In that example they could lose out on a couple of million in this development but gain by being able to build another half a dozen £5m apartments elsewhere.
 
StriderX said:
I just dont get why anyone thinks local authorities aren't governments. Though City of London, is vastly different to most, so i'll concede that it might not be May saying lovely words.
Click to expand...

you referred to 'the government' in the previous post re: this purchase so I pointed out that 'the government' didn't purchase these flats but the City of London did that was all

Amp34 said:
Any particular reason why? Is there a prerequisite for affordable/social housing to be a minimum size, whereas the private housing doesn't, or something else?

Presumably the builders would want the cheaper housing robbed as small as possible?
Click to expand...

yes, there are different requirements for social housing that can lead to this rather odd scenario of the rich neighbours actually getting smaller flats

agin this also ties into the poor doors - service charges are often calculated per sq ft of the development... so you'd actually have the social housing tenants needing to cover an even larger service charge if they were sharing facilities/management company etc.. with the private buyers
 
Amp34 said:
Any particular reason why? Is there a prerequisite for affordable/social housing to be a minimum size, whereas the private housing doesn't, or something else?

Presumably the builders would want the cheaper housing robbed as small as possible?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know. I don't know if there's a minimum size or if it's due to it being designed for x number of people as a minimum whereas the smaller luxury places are designed very much with single people in mind. I'd love to be able to get some of the drawings to show you guys but they're all obv confidential.
My feeling on it is that a certain percentage of the space must be allocated to the affordable segment so it could be a case of putting a more limited number of apartments in there as there will no doubt be an optimum price per square foot that they can charge, smaller places might not quite hit that value whereas larger start to see prices tail off too.

Edit ^^ Dowie has a bit more insight on that :)
 
see this for example (if interested)

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/poll/2013/apr/19/minimum-space-standards-social-private

Some affordable housing developers have to meet minimum space standards as part of their funding requirement, which has created a bizarre situation in which people who buy and rent homes privately have less space and less flexibility than social tenants and are at a disadvantage if their household changes.
Click to expand...

there is also an argument by some developers that some people are so keen to live in central areas that they ought to be allowed to develop much smaller homes to cater for that demand. like maybe small pods similar to tiny hotel rooms in Tokyo etc.. (even the private sector would seem to outlaw these at the moment AFAIK)
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
Why does anyone even want a bar or cinema to share anyway... these rich people are getting shafted.
Click to expand...

It's seen as being part of the atmosphere. You're rubbing shoulders with other wealthy people. There are opportunities for business or social progression there. Some will pay the cash in the hope that being in this exclusive place benefits them, some will pay the cash simply to live in a fantastic building and others will because they know that only people who earn x or y will be able to afford to live there so it cuts out the 'dregs'. I have no doubt whatsoever that a large number of the places will stand empty as they'll be bought by speculators and investors.
 
Dis86 said:
It's seen as being part of the atmosphere. You're rubbing shoulders with other wealthy people. There are opportunities for business or social progression there. Some will pay the cash in the hope that being in this exclusive place benefits them, some will pay the cash simply to live in a fantastic building and others will because they know that only people who earn x or y will be able to afford to live there so it cuts out the 'dregs'. I have no doubt whatsoever that a large number of the places will stand empty as they'll be bought by speculators and investors.
Click to expand...

Why not just... you know do it in the correct social manner of going out, you know into the city... the city that you just spent millions on living in and "seemingly" don't want to experience. I feel this is more a developer problem than it is a desire, as if to say "you want this, so gimme more money".
 
StriderX said:
Why not just... you know do it in the correct social manner of going out, you know into the city... the city that you just spent millions on living in and "seemingly" don't want to experience. I feel this is more a developer problem than it is a desire, as if to say "you want this, so gimme more money".
Click to expand...

Because you can't control who you bump in to in the city. You can control who is around you in this building.

There's also, as I say, the prestige factor. Oh yeah, I live in the same building as x. Or...oh yeah, don't you know that it costs at least £750,000 to live there?
 
StriderX said:
Why not just... you know do it in the correct social manner of going out, you know into the city... the city that you just spent millions on living in and "seemingly" don't want to experience. I feel this is more a developer problem than it is a desire, as if to say "you want this, so gimme more money".
Click to expand...

I'm not sure having a pool, gym and cinema onsite prevents that - if anything the owners (at least those who live there) probably do spend plenty of time away from the property (quite likely more than most if they're bankers working 12 hour days, taking clients out etc..)

there are plenty of developments out there without these facilities so there is clearly a market for it

personally I'd rather minimise the service charge and not have this sort of stuff included but each to their own - I've got a gym, nursery, doctors surgery, Tesco etc.. on site but those were simply retail units sold to those businesses and I don't need to fund them unless I chose to say join the gym etc..
 
dowie said:
personally I'd rather minimise the service charge and not have this sort of stuff included but each to their own - I've got a gym, nursery, doctors surgery, Tesco etc.. on site but those were simply retail units sold to those businesses and I don't need to fund them unless I chose to say join the gym etc..
Click to expand...
Sounds very similar to another one I'm working on. Ground floor is a mixture of retail units and a forum/reception + cycle store. Everything above is residential. Top floor is a combo of penthouses, roof terrace, pool, bar and gym.
 
Christ if I paid £1.5 million to live there and all of sudden it was full of social housing I wouldn't be to impressed.

Anyone who didn't own the apartment in the tower should be housed where they are told. And if that's outside London so be it.
 
teaboy5 said:
Christ if I paid £1.5 million to live there and all of sudden it was full of social housing I wouldn't be to impressed.

Anyone who didn't own the apartment in the tower should be housed where they are told. And if that's outside London so be it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, don't worry about the implication that has on their employers, any family that might be relying on them for support, schooling, their own ability to find work etc.
 
teaboy5 said:
Christ if I paid £1.5 million to live there and all of sudden it was full of social housing I wouldn't be to impressed.

Anyone who didn't own the apartment in the tower should be housed where they are told. And if that's outside London so be it.
Click to expand...

Wow, this forum produces some horrible attitudes towards the less fortunate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom