The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[Xela]

52 minutes ago, PaulC said:

 Part of me thinks this might have been a sinister ploy by some rich property developers to get rid of the "scum" from this affluent area. 

I think that is a bit extreme. There has been evidence so far to suggest arson. Seems to have been a faulty electrical appliance from reports. The horrific thing is that a faulty fridge on the 4th floor may have caused the whole tower block to burn 

 

[snowychap]

31 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Telling the poor to move to Cornwall

I hear St Ives is nice.

[Xela]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

Both my daughters and their partners want to buy. They all have decent jobs, but not money enough to save a deposit, and zero chance of getting a mortgage. There are plenty of available houses that they'd buy, but they're in a poverty trap. 

Off topic but have they looked into the various 'Help to Buy' schemes?

 

[Rugeley Villa]

54 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Ruge there are over 1,400,000 empty homes already. New build blocks of flats are bought up by the rich off plan and lay empty for years as investments.

How many more should we build?

Will another million fix it? 

This is why we now have to talk about 'affordable homes'. You know, the starter flat with one open kitchen diner and one bedroom that you can buy for £145,000 or the starter family home you can buy for just £330,000. We have to talk about affordable homes now, because a million properties are now actually just investment vehicles for the pensions of the rich. They aren't homes you're looking at when you walk around Maida Vale or Little Venice. They are high yield investment portfolio opportunities.

Telling the poor to move to Cornwall as one cretin has done is just so **** offensive. How much Cornish housing stock has been bought up as second or third homes for the holiday season?

I'll tell you what though, I can guarantee all those tens of thousands of investment properties have decent fire alarms. Can't risk a poor return on investment.

 

 

 

That many homes empty, I didn't know that.

[mjmooney]

40 minutes ago, Xela said:

Off topic but have they looked into the various 'Help to Buy' schemes?

 

Yes. It has to be a newbuild. Why? 

And for a typical £200 grand house, they'd still need to find 10 grand for a 5% deposit. 

[magnkarl]

All major capitals in Europe have this sort of problem. Add in 8.6 million people living in London because it's London and you've got a perfect storm. For many people London is a tourist destination as much as our capital, which is why they have a second home or invest there. The market is driven by an almost insatiable thirst from young people around Europe, the world and the UK to go there. Investment in property is one of the reasons why property is expensive in London, but there are also a hell of a lot of other factors. It's too easy to point the finger at the rich and people investing when our country as a hole is terribly unbalanced on the account of London. 

When I said Cornwall I was clearly not talking about St. Ives and other coastal holiday destinations. Cornwall has some of the cheapest property markets in the country if you look in the right place. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative that everyone should live where they want, be that Kensington, Isle of Wight, St Tropez or whatever. I've lived in a lot of more affordable areas before I got to live where I currently am, that has nothing to do with social cleansing or whatever people will call it. It's called life. Everyone isn't born into a family full of money and my black country parents are perfect examples of that. It isn't a human right to live in Kensington, it is however a human right to have a safe and proper house - which is the problem here.

If I had an extra £400k lying around I would also invest them in property - because that is the wise thing to do in our current market. The fact that a lot of people seem to have a hate for people investing wisely due to London being a pressure boiler full of housing needs I don't quite get. No one is breaking any laws and if this were the case I'd be angry too. Some people will have you believe that all empty flats in London are owned by mafia, kleptokrats etc when in fact a lot of them are owned by older people who saved their whole lives to be able to invest. There's no proof of any of those empty claims except for the odd house in Mayfair and Chelsea, but it is by far not the rule for who owns these houses.

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by magnkarl

[LakotaDakota]

11 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Use aggressive taxation to redirect the market where it is failing the people. A severe 'empty home' tax linked to the value of the property should sort out the problem quick smart, to the benefit of the wider community

Surely people would just put a relative/employee in there for a couple of days per week to avoid this.

[Xela]

12 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Yes. It has to be a newbuild. Why? 

And for a typical £200 grand house, they'd still need to find 10 grand for a 5% deposit. 

Just wondered as I know the scheme has assisted a few people at my work get on the ladder. They're not fans of new builds but its a step on the ladder and you can move on in a few years into something more suitable. The hardest part is actually getting your foot on that rung. 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

2 hours ago, mjmooney said:

This mantra really boils my piss. BUILDING MORE HOUSES IS NOT, NOT, NOT 'THE ANSWER'. The only thing it's good for is the building industry. 

It's happening all around where I live. Huge new estates going up on green belt land. Are they 'affordable, first time buyer' homes? Are they ****. They're 4 and 5 bedroom jobs, costing 3, 4, 5 hundred grand. There are some smaller ones, but they are still totally unaffordable by young people - they are getting bought up by buy-to-let landlords, to turn themselves a nice little profit. 

And the roads around here are very close to gridlock (not just at rush hour, all **** ing day). The new estates are throwing hundreds more cars into the chaos on a daily basis. It's madness. 

Both my daughters and their partners want to buy. They all have decent jobs, but not money enough to save a deposit, and zero chance of getting a mortgage. There are plenty of available houses that they'd buy, but they're in a poverty trap. 

Stop this crap about building houses, and start addressing the real problems - low paid jobs (don't get me started on zero hours contract), banks who will only lend to the already rich, lack of investment in existing properties, not enough use of brown field sites, no social housing. The system is broken, and it's about time we kicked out the bastards responsible and got our priorities right. 

Construction is one of the better paying industries with certain sectors delivering careers not 'jobs'. We also desperately need more homes despite your opinion that we don't. That includes tackling the empty homes problem. 

However, we need the right type of homes and a market which delivers a more diverse housing stock. Well exampled by how many families are living in studios/shared flats.

That isn't achieved by opposing housebuilding - in fact that attitude over the last 20 years has made things many times worse - neither is it achieved by tarring the whole industry with the same brush. 

You nailed it when you said huge estates. It's the biggest housebuilders building 80% of the market and competing against....nobody. Local/regional builders used to build 65%+ of the market but opposition and regulation has squeezed out their opportunities. Now even Housing Associations struggle with the financial risk of development. You can thank local government for that. 

Wages need to rise but then the price of housing would too. You need wages and appropriate supply to increase so that increased salaries are complemented by more affordable housing.

[HanoiVillan]

24 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

When I said Cornwall I was clearly not talking about St. Ives and other coastal holiday destinations. Cornwall has some of the cheapest property markets in the country if you look in the right place. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative that everyone should live where they want, be that Kensington, Isle of Wight, St Tropez or whatever. I've lived in a lot of more affordable areas before I got to live where I currently am, that has nothing to do with social cleansing or whatever people will call it. It's called life. Everyone isn't born into a family full of money and my black country parents are perfect examples of that. It isn't a human right to live in Kensington, it is however a human right to have a safe and proper house - which is the problem here.

This is just bizarre. This topic is about the fire, right? The people who died in the fire? You say 'it isn't a human right to live in Kensington' and I don't know anyone who has argued otherwise, but these people were already living in Kensington before their badly-refurbished tower block burned to a crisp. 

As to the notion of moving all of the Syrian refugees, young immigrant families, taxi drivers and office cleaners who live in these apartment buildings to Redruth or wherever and then just hoping they make a decent fist of it, *bitter laugh*. 

[Rugeley Villa]

26 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Construction is one of the better paying industries with certain sectors delivering careers not 'jobs'. We also desperately need more homes despite your opinion that we don't. That includes tackling the empty homes problem. 

However, we need the right type of homes and a market which delivers a more diverse housing stock. Well exampled by how many families are living in studios/shared flats.

That isn't achieved by opposing housebuilding - in fact that attitude over the last 20 years has made things many times worse - neither is it achieved by tarring the whole industry with the same brush. 

You nailed it when you said huge estates. It's the biggest housebuilders building 80% of the market and competing against....nobody. Local/regional builders used to build 65%+ of the market but opposition and regulation has squeezed out their opportunities. Now even Housing Associations struggle with the financial risk of development. You can thank local government for that. 

Wages need to rise but then the price of housing would too. You need wages and appropriate supply to increase so that increased salaries are complemented by more affordable housing.

The amount of bovis homes developments we have is unreal. 9/10 they are huge estates too. Over the last 3 or 4 years the building has really took off again which is great for people like me.

[lapal_fan]

My first house I bought for 90k with a 10k deposit.

We took 6 months to strip it, but basic everything in it and paint it magnolia. Changed a tiny kitchen and dining room into a big kitchen diner.

I sold it last July for 130k 5 years later.

My new house  (1935 traditional semi) is on a nice little road, overlooking acres and acres of protected green belt. It cost me 175,000 and wasn't desperate for anything, but it had a nice kitchen/living room extension.   The garden is gorgeous for it's size.

No-one needs to spend 200k on their first house, if they do, they're looking in the wrong place.

I absolutely love my new house, and shall be there for the foreseeable. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

I hear St Ives is nice.

Joking aside, Cornwall, apart from high property prices (as @chrisp65 alludes to), due to all the holiday homes is also really struggling in terms of jobs and wages. Yes a lot of it is beautiful, but it's mostly poor and expensive.

[ml1dch]

11 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

 

No-one needs to spend 200k on their first house, if they do, they're looking in the wrong place.

So someone who lives in London and its outskirts, Edinburgh, Bath, Oxford, York or Cambridge and requires more than a single bedroom - where are the right places that person should be looking?

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, LakotaDakota said:

Surely people would just put a relative/employee in there for a couple of days per week to avoid this.

Some people could game the system if they thought it was worth it to them. 

They might find it is just easier to rent it out and earn that income rather than put a an employee/relative. 

I suspect for a foreign National with no ties to the country the rental option might also be less hassle then finding a relative. 

[LondonLax]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

Joking aside, Cornwall, apart from high property prices (as @chrisp65 alludes to), due to all the holiday homes) is also really struggling in terms of jobs and wages. Yes a lot of it is beautiful, but it's mostly poor and expensive.

There is the same debate in Australia (and Canada, and New Zealand). The house prices in the cities are out of reach of the first home buyer. You need to already have an asset in the game in order to take part. 

Property is cheap only in places where there is no prospect of finding a job capable of serving a mortgage.

It is a result of globalisation and the race to solid assets after the financial crisis. 

[Genie]

2 hours ago, Xela said:

Off topic but have they looked into the various 'Help to Buy' schemes?

 

Or shared ownership.

My first house was a 50% share of a £120k 2 bed semi. I made enough on that to put down a deposit on a 3 bed semi (100% ownership). From there I moved to my current place which is a 4 bed detached.

Obviously no idea about people on here's circumstances but I've seen plenty of friends/family complaining about not being able to get on the ladder because they want to join it half way up not willing to do a stint on the bottom rung.

[PaulC]

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

Or shared ownership.

My first house was a 50% share of a £120k 2 bed semi. I made enough on that to put down a deposit on a 3 bed semi (100% ownership). From there I moved to my current place which is a 4 bed detached.

Obviously no idea about people on here's circumstances but I've seen plenty of friends/family complaining about not being able to get on the ladder because they want to join it half way up not willing to do a stint on the bottom rung.

me too through a housing association. Arent there housing associations still doing this. 

[Ingram85]

33 minutes ago, PaulC said:

me too through a housing association. Arent there housing associations still doing this. 

I think its more that a lot of people don't trust these government type schemes, that the risks are huge and that there are hidden catches somewhere waiting to catch you out. 

The real issue is that these weird schemes even exist. Creating remedies to problems that shouldn't exist in the first place. As Mooney said earlier, to most working class people an affordable property is sub £100k and I don't mean a run down hole either. We need nice, comfy, small properties.

The hardest part for me is the deposit, Im on my own on a modest monthly wage but with my rent and bills I cant save substantially near enough to get a deposit anytime soon, I could afford the monthly mortgage repayments easily, they would be the same as or less than my rent, but getting that deposit is pretty much going to take me 5+ years and the banks aren't willing to help. Short of a loaded relative dying, I have no chance and I don't trust those schemes. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Ingram85

[chrisp65]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

All major capitals in Europe have this sort of problem. Add in 8.6 million people living in London because it's London and you've got a perfect storm. For many people London is a tourist destination as much as our capital, which is why they have a second home or invest there. The market is driven by an almost insatiable thirst from young people around Europe, the world and the UK to go there. Investment in property is one of the reasons why property is expensive in London, but there are also a hell of a lot of other factors. It's too easy to point the finger at the rich and people investing when our country as a hole is terribly unbalanced on the account of London. 

When I said Cornwall I was clearly not talking about St. Ives and other coastal holiday destinations. Cornwall has some of the cheapest property markets in the country if you look in the right place. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative that everyone should live where they want, be that Kensington, Isle of Wight, St Tropez or whatever. I've lived in a lot of more affordable areas before I got to live where I currently am, that has nothing to do with social cleansing or whatever people will call it. It's called life. Everyone isn't born into a family full of money and my black country parents are perfect examples of that. It isn't a human right to live in Kensington, it is however a human right to have a safe and proper house - which is the problem here.

If I had an extra £400k lying around I would also invest them in property - because that is the wise thing to do in our current market. The fact that a lot of people seem to have a hate for people investing wisely due to London being a pressure boiler full of housing needs I don't quite get. No one is breaking any laws and if this were the case I'd be angry too. Some people will have you believe that all empty flats in London are owned by mafia, kleptokrats etc when in fact a lot of them are owned by older people who saved their whole lives to be able to invest. There's no proof of any of those empty claims except for the odd house in Mayfair and Chelsea, but it is by far not the rule for who owns these houses.

 

people

have

died

You do get this don't you? You've seen the start of the thread yeah? People burned to death.

People have died in a tower block and you want a conversation about shipping the poor out of town away from tourists and property investments.

you've even used the phrase:

Quote

It isn't a human right to live in Kensington

Well it sure as **** is a human right not to burn to death on the 24th floor. 

The sum total of your response begins to read like you think the dead were at fault for living quite close to a nice area? I know you can't mean that, because I think that would be beyond the most crass view imaginable.