Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Saving For a Space Ship

The Victorian slums are back – and housing developers are to blame again

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

The Victorian slums are back – and housing developers are to blame again

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/victorian-slums-housing-developers-housebuilding-inequality

I walk past many places and say to the wife....Slum of the future.

 

These new build estates on teh edge of towns, with "affordable" housing next to teh "unaffordable" housing wil become a cesspit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take into account the capabilities of the day the Victorian "slums" weren't as bad (on the whole, some certainly suffered though) as cheap and nasty modern developments. With modern amenities added and decent maintenance the typical Victorian terrace isn't too bad a place, and they made much better use of space (although didn't have car accommodation to worry about).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another, related, issue (which has been discussed before) is the build quality and (lack of) size/space.   Many of the victorian slum dwellings were still relatively solid(?) and standing by the time they came to be demolished and replaced.  Does anyone here really believe many of todays new builds will be in habitable condition (or even standing?) a century from now? IF they are I'll wager it will require a large perecentage of the original purchase price in maintenance costs to keep them so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Another, related, issue (which has been discussed before) is the build quality and (lack of) size/space.   Many of the victorian slum dwellings were still relatively solid(?) and standing by the time they came to be demolished and replaced.  Does anyone here really believe many of todays new builds will be in habitable condition (or even standing?) a century from now? IF they are I'll wager it will require a large perecentage of the original purchase price in maintenance costs to keep them so.

 

Indeed.  On average, I'd rather renovate an old building, even up to the 1950/60/70's, than get one of these pokey and really rubbish built new builds.  You have something to work with (e.g. larger room sizes, larger plot, etc) and it's amazing what you can do to tart them up (e.g. cedar cladding, new windows, etc for the 1950/60/70's stuff) as long as they're detached.  Older properties more of a challenge needing specialist (not modern) techniques but often worth it.  Doing the later now.  All lime, stone, hemp, etc.  BTW, really enjoyed the TV series the article refers to.

Edited by Fence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The houses fatty Prescott flattened in the pathfinder scheme were probably built better when new than today's boxes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is a bit weird, headline is about 'Victorian Slums' but Falkner Street is anything but. It's proper townhouses e.g. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-52078398.html and bloody nice ones too. There are areas not far away from there where the big houses are still split into HMOs.

I'm not overly taken with new builds, particularly the way they're always arranged round a car park rather than along a street and have tiny windows. But it's always important to remember that we only see the best of the Victorian housing, the rubbish stuff either fell down or was demolished years ago. And while I'm not 100% behind the pathfinder scheme, people were hardly queuing up to live in the areas which were demolished. There are plenty of respectable looking 1930's houses hiding single skin walls etc. are they 'slums'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see George Osborne still promoting HPI+++ forever in the Evening Substandard.

£1200 a month for 200 square feet of floor space, and as long as you don't mind sleeping on top of the wardrobe there's plenty of room for a bed.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/the-budget-microflat-of-the-future-stairs-double-up-as-drawers-but-there-s-plenty-of-room-for-a-bed-a3741201.html

microflat1601a.jpgmicroflat1601h.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Good to see George Osborne still promoting HPI+++ forever in the Evening Substandard.

£1200 a month for 200 square feet of floor space, and as long as you don't mind sleeping on top of the wardrobe there's plenty of room for a bed.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/the-budget-microflat-of-the-future-stairs-double-up-as-drawers-but-there-s-plenty-of-room-for-a-bed-a3741201.html

microflat1601a.jpgmicroflat1601h.jpg

commit a crime and you get free digs in a space the same size 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chronyx said:

The houses fatty Prescott flattened in the pathfinder scheme were probably built better when new than today's boxes 

Very true and he should get some of the blame for destroying them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tulip_mania said:

I'm not overly taken with new builds, particularly the way they're always arranged round a car park rather than along a street and have tiny windows. But it's always important to remember that we only see the best of the Victorian housing, the rubbish stuff either fell down or was demolished years ago. And while I'm not 100% behind the pathfinder scheme, people were hardly queuing up to live in the areas which were demolished. There are plenty of respectable looking 1930's houses hiding single skin walls etc. are they 'slums'?

I don't think we do only see the best of them. There are plenty of very ordinary Victorian terraces still around. Putting aside all the ones flattened by the Luftwaffe, the rest that got a bad reputation mostly suffered from being neglected (which will happen to new shoebox builds) and not having new amenities added to them, which has largely happened now.  Quite a lot were shoddily built for the time (which is still probably less shoddily built than now) but I doubt that many were beyond fixing. But being at the bottom end of the social heap they'll get some of the blame for the problems that go along with that. As a model for low-rise, high-density housing, they do a better job than anything anyone's come up with since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Good to see George Osborne still promoting HPI+++ forever in the Evening Substandard.

£1200 a month for 200 square feet of floor space, and as long as you don't mind sleeping on top of the wardrobe there's plenty of room for a bed.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/the-budget-microflat-of-the-future-stairs-double-up-as-drawers-but-there-s-plenty-of-room-for-a-bed-a3741201.html

microflat1601a.jpgmicroflat1601h.jpg

Judging by the pics, the headspace above the bed is about/under  a meter [doors are usually under 2m] and some will bang their head when they sit up. Where's the toilet and shower - down the hall for 900-1200/mo ???

How is this not modern slavery? I bought a flat in Peru a few years ago. Not prime-expensive area, more professional-middle class. There's a maids room in that flat with ensuite shower-toilet. Usual for youth to come down from the jungle and mountains and live-in. There's what we call the third world and then there's us. Of course our youth get a different deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ebull said:

 I bought a flat in Peru a few years ago. Not prime-expensive area, more professional-middle class. There's a maids room in that flat with ensuite shower-toilet. Usual for youth to come down from the jungle and mountains and live-in. There's what we call the third world and then there's us. Of course our youth get a different deal.

Out of interest what was it like to live there?

Share this post


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

I don't think we do only see the best of them. There are plenty of very ordinary Victorian terraces still around. Putting aside all the ones flattened by the Luftwaffe, the rest that got a bad reputation mostly suffered from being neglected (which will happen to new shoebox builds) and not having new amenities added to them, which has largely happened now.  Quite a lot were shoddily built for the time (which is still probably less shoddily built than now) but I doubt that many were beyond fixing. But being at the bottom end of the social heap they'll get some of the blame for the problems that go along with that. As a model for low-rise, high-density housing, they do a better job than anything anyone's come up with since.

Victorian housing did vary quite a bit in quality. The ones in London and the South Wales valleys seem to have been of a good quality, a lot of the ones up North do seem quite shoddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ebull said:

Judging by the pics, the headspace above the bed is about/under  a meter [doors are usually under 2m] and some will bang their head when they sit up. Where's the toilet and shower - down the hall for 900-1200/mo ???

How is this not modern slavery? I bought a flat in Peru a few years ago. Not prime-expensive area, more professional-middle class. There's a maids room in that flat with ensuite shower-toilet. Usual for youth to come down from the jungle and mountains and live-in. There's what we call the third world and then there's us. Of course our youth get a different deal.

I'd have been happy with that as student accommodation (would need a desk where the sofa is) when I was at university, but student accommodation cost an awful lot less too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the master bedroom in a massive 4 story Edwardian semi detached townhouse in Liverpool as a student in 1998. There was a shared kitchen and lounge, 3 bathrooms and 10 rooms let. 

It was sold in 1999 for about 70 grand. My Dad nearly bought it - should have!

Then I moved to a self contained 1 bed flat in a Victorian terrace with my girlfriend.

Our rent for the latter was £35 each per week + bills.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/01/2018 at 1:18 PM, Riedquat said:

If you take into account the capabilities of the day the Victorian "slums" weren't as bad (on the whole, some certainly suffered though) as cheap and nasty modern developments. With modern amenities added and decent maintenance the typical Victorian terrace isn't too bad a place, and they made much better use of space (although didn't have car accommodation to worry about).

I don't think of Victorian terraces as necessarily being slums.  The 'court' housing was much worse, umpteen families packed around a courtyard with one cold outside tap and one privy between them.  

There was a programme featuring those not long ago - maybe by the same bloke who wrote the article.  One existing 'court' was shown as a historical relic, but most of them are long gone.  The Vict. terraced houses in the programme did usually have their own cold tap indoors, and their own privy out the back, so at the time a great improvement on  the old court housing. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Castlevania said:

Victorian housing did vary quite a bit in quality. The ones in London and the South Wales valleys seem to have been of a good quality, a lot of the ones up North do seem quite shoddy.

Certain areas  benefitted from cheap access to quality materials from local quarries such as stone and slate. The build quality in some areas of the north is exceptional especially when you have a stone and brick skin (Wales/ Pennines) as opposed to a double brick skin as in the south which is a recipe for damp and condensation problems. London property has probably benefitted from more refurbishment masking initial design faults. Also most of the surviving stock is homes for the gentry and not the low quality homes for the workers of the Victorian era,  in areas to the east  this has been mostly cleared. 

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before on here, but the historical mean in the UK is for the majority of the population to rent a craphole from a tiny elite of landowners.

Ten years from now you'll all be doffing your caps to a man in a top hat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 407 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.