Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
eric pebble

Battersea is part of a huge building project –

19 posts in this topic

I actually saw a Sky News report on this yesterday....   

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/14/battersea-nine-elms-property-development-housing

 

"Ravi Govindia, the Conservative leader of Wandsworth council, is very upbeat: “Yes, some of the buildings will be tall, but there will be a distinctly London flavour. It’s going to be a place that people [will] enjoy living in.”

 

Anyone seen a fat brown envelope around the place?:blink:

Edited by eric pebble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what's wrong with UK's property market, not the BTL's and FTB's but rather no restrictions on nonresidents UK acquiring properties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elative said:

This is what's wrong with UK's property market, not the BTL's and FTB's but rather no restrictions on nonresidents UK acquiring properties.

yes clear evidence that TPTB dont care about the welfare of the populace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the report about it on Sky News too. Was pleased to see they interviewed Peter Rees, the former planner of the City of London.

Some very good quotes from him (see http://news.sky.com/story/battersea-power-station-development-will-it-help-london-10918946):

"London is currently covered by a rash of development that the politicians describe as being the creation of homes. I question whether that's the case.

"One of the most intense areas of that rash is behind me at Nine Elms. Immediately behind me you have St George's Tower, which is widely rumoured to be a home for Russian ill-gotten capital - a laundry you might say.

"And further up the river, Battersea Power Station being expensively restored, rebuilt - and it's a monument after all to a decade of pollution and Pink Floyd.

"Those three landmarks epitomise what's actually happening in London: it's not do to with the creation of homes. It's iconic buildings for property developers to maximise their development return, to maximise their profit.

"And in between them we've got these blocks of real estate which the politicians describe as homes but which are in fact simply investment ready - they're piles of safety deposit boxes."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What have is a situation where the government have firmly shown that they care very little for the plight of the average persons right to adequate and affordable housing.

Instead, in order to keep the illusion of wealth in the UK, particularly London, we have a complicit and corrupt leadership that would rather allow the building of vital housing so Russian Oligarchs, cash rich eastern middle classes and Arabs can hide their cash, our own government has basically sold us out in order to enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of our futures.

We now have people burning to death in substandard housing, massive over crowding and unrest. I have to wonder what needs to happen before the tide is turned, you can bet it won't be due to the benevolent actions of those that assume to rule over us but rather the ordinary folk who are sick and tired of being milked and abused by the system.

 

 

Edited by JustAnotherProle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, JustAnotherProle said:

What have is a situation where the government have firmly shown that they care very little for the plight of the average persons right to adequate and affordable housing.

Grenfell is a monument to the greed. Clad in cheap plastic to make it look nicer so as to keep the surrounding property prices high to satisfy the greed of the already super-wealthy and the investors and money launderers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tempus said:

Grenfell is a monument to the greed. Clad in cheap plastic to make it look nicer so as to keep the surrounding property prices high to satisfy the greed of the already super-wealthy and the investors and money launderers. 

Think on this: they could have clad it in simple aesthetic panels for less money than insulation+aesthetic. It was the insulation which spread the fire.

Why was there insulation? It cost them £80,000 per flat, surely much more than would be saved in energy over the lifetime of the insulation (this stuff needs to be replaced every what, 15 years?)

Eco-terrorism should go into the dictionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Locke said:

Think on this: they could have clad it in simple aesthetic panels for less money than insulation+aesthetic. It was the insulation which spread the fire.

Why was there insulation? It cost them £80,000 per flat, surely much more than would be saved in energy over the lifetime of the insulation (this stuff needs to be replaced every what, 15 years?)

Eco-terrorism should go into the dictionary.

Yes Locke. But if it had been a cheaper, more honest quote, they would not have had the margin to hive off into nefarious greed cavities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Locke said:

Think on this: they could have clad it in simple aesthetic panels for less money than insulation+aesthetic. It was the insulation which spread the fire.

Why was there insulation? It cost them £80,000 per flat, surely much more than would be saved in energy over the lifetime of the insulation (this stuff needs to be replaced every what, 15 years?)

Eco-terrorism should go into the dictionary.

I think the main cost was the remodelling of the bottom four floors - it used to be a semi open structure on the lower floors with large walkways - this was all "filled in" -  everything on the lower levels was then relocated and one and a half extra residential floors were created.

I'm sure I read that the cost of the insulation, cladding and double glazing was £2.6m - which is more like £20k per flat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should anyone be surprised at this?......sold almost everything else why not our capital city?......sold down the river.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a local resident I don't mind turning a industrial wasteland into a lightly occupied residential estate. The upcoming crash should make them affordable and there more social facilities than previously  ( there was nothing )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

As a local resident I don't mind turning a industrial wasteland into a lightly occupied residential estate. The upcoming crash should make them affordable and there more social facilities than previously  ( there was nothing )

I agree, there's at least one positive outcome - that area was a dump which now looks very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood that Berkeley Homes were not going to get involved in Battersea as they thought it would be impossible to make a profit. But it looks like they have a development there .. or am I mistaken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

As a local resident I don't mind turning a industrial wasteland into a lightly occupied residential estate. The upcoming crash should make them affordable and there more social facilities than previously  ( there was nothing )

That 'lightly occupied' might, and even then only might be possible after a crash that at least halved the value of 'industrial wasteland' and in fact all land suitable for housing. We actually need to legislate against high land values, accepting that there are cost incurred in the actual build but not the land it sits on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the physical difference between a home and an 'investment property'? Surely just who is buying them?

I would have thought this forum would always be in favour of more building, as previously mentioned I'm very happy for a bunch of Malaysian banks to pay billions to redevelop an industrial wasteland.  Much rather they go bust rather than local councils, housing associations or actual UK citizens when the crash comes.

Ok you might argue the current developments are prioritising 1 and 2 bed flats too much, but purpose built smaller properties are desperately needed, and hopefully will allow some of the butchered, multiple occupancy houses to be converted back into family homes as they were designed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Upabove said:

What's the physical difference between a home and an 'investment property'? Surely just who is buying them?

I would have thought this forum would always be in favour of more building, as previously mentioned I'm very happy for a bunch of Malaysian banks to pay billions to redevelop an industrial wasteland.  Much rather they go bust rather than local councils, housing associations or actual UK citizens when the crash comes.

Ok you might argue the current developments are prioritising 1 and 2 bed flats too much, but purpose built smaller properties are desperately needed, and hopefully will allow some of the butchered, multiple occupancy houses to be converted back into family homes as they were designed to be.

If you know you can sell houses to international speculators, then this pushes up the value of development land.  If you can't, then land is worth less.

In either case, there's profit to be made building houses and charging for that work, but with a lower input cost the houses that get built are cheaper.

Theres no point building houses people can't buy as homes.  You might as well not build.

Since the houses would be built anyway, if there's demand for homes, speculative money poured into these developments does not push down the cost of housing. It only pulls it up.

Consider what you would do if a patch of land became available in the place you wanted to live for, say, 20k, but there were no houses?

Which is better for you - land with no house for 20k, or a million pound house ready built?

What's really happening is more like a CDO:  companies are transforming undeveloped difficult to invest in land into a commodity that is more easily traded on international financial markets.  

Nothing to do with providing homes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Upabove said:

I would have thought this forum would always be in favour of more building, as previously mentioned I'm very happy for a bunch of Malaysian banks to pay billions to redevelop an industrial wasteland.  Much rather they go bust rather than local councils, housing associations or actual UK citizens when the crash comes.

I agree. And the end purchasers fund it and take the losses too. 

2 hours ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

If you know you can sell houses to international speculators, then this pushes up the value of development land.  If you can't, then land is worth less.

In either case, there's profit to be made building houses and charging for that work, but with a lower input cost the houses that get built are cheaper.

Theres no point building houses people can't buy as homes.  You might as well not build.

Since the houses would be built anyway, if there's demand for homes, speculative money poured into these developments does not push down the cost of housing. It only pulls it up.

The first bit is true, but effectively such developments are lowering the cost of rented accommodation, which has a knock-on effect on the cost of housing available for owner-occupation. 

I say that after land value plummets in the crash we need to legislate to restrict overseas ownership and that will keep land value low in future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Patient London FTB said:

I agree. And the end purchasers fund it and take the losses too. 

The first bit is true, but effectively such developments are lowering the cost of rented accommodation, which has a knock-on effect on the cost of housing available for owner-occupation. 

I say that after land value plummets in the crash we need to legislate to restrict overseas ownership and that will keep land value low in future. 

No, not really. Rental costs are set by local incomes, more or less.

What happens is that the the build-to-let developers price out the potential build-to-own, developers meaning that those owners now need to rent.  They've increased demand to match their new supply. 

Essentially, you can ignore house building and treat development land as if it was already developed land, because the market will ensure that housing gets built as soon as land is available and the demand exists.  This is true whatever the cost of the land.

That's why build-to-let developers buying up land is really no different to buy-to-letters buying existing houses.

The idea that foreign (or landlord) money is financing building assumes that local owner occupiers don't have to finances to pay for houses to be built.

But people are already borrowing many times the build cost to buy houses, so that argument doesn't work.  

Vast amounts of money have poured into housing since the start of the century. Whatever the problem in the housing market is, it is not caused by a lack of finance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

No, not really. Rental costs are set by local incomes, more or less.

What happens is that the the build-to-let developers price out the potential build-to-own, developers meaning that those owners now need to rent.  They've increased demand to match their new supply. 

Rental costs aren't just set by local incomes. They're a big factor, but supply and demand are important too. 

I understand your point about build-to-rent developers pricing out development for owner-occupation, but you also have to accept that build-to-rent developers are going to render a tranche of buy-to-let units uneconomic and push them onto the sales market, lowering prices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.