East Dulwich, the Notting Hill of the east?

[benmorg]

ibilly99 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Qoute fron an Estate Agent that came to value my

> house - the market is on fire at the moment. I

> hadn't thought is is Notting Hillites trading down

> btw the best of the bunch IMHO are

> Haart's,Bushell's and Winkworth's.

It's their job to tell you the market's hot and you'll have no trouble selling.

[Loz]

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Should ED celebrate the arrival of parasitc scum like this ?

Do you even know the meaning of the word 'parasite'? I don't know any advertising/media types myself, but I suspect that they are a pretty normal set of people - some good, some bad, with some successful ones that have probably worked hard to get ahead in their industry.

What ED (or anywhere, for that matter) doesn't need it the type that reads the Guardian comments website, nodding furiously without actually doing any thinking. You know - the deeply prejudiced hate-monger that trots out (pun intended) any old Class Warfare 101 rubbish whether or not the topic at hand warrants it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

-------------------------------------------------------

> ibilly99 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Qoute fron an Estate Agent that came to value

> my

> > house - the market is on fire at the moment.

Was this around the time of the riots? You may have misunderstood his meaning.

[woodrot]

a curse on them and their vile profession. and their shitty fixies.

[fazer71]

We know that pulling down all those Victorian terraces was a terrible mistake.

What was built to replace them was awful.

It?s a pity the stuff being built today isn?t much better it?s well built and insulated but it has zero soul just look at the developments in West Peckham near Camberwell

I just don?t understand why they don?t build using the Parisian horseshoe layout it?s a much more efficient use of land and provides usable courtyard (unlike the open areas found around the modern developments we are seeing, which are not secure and don?t allow for any sort of community feel) it?s all just bland boxes for the occupants to sit in watching TV. A few now have balconies so that?s an advance and some even have underground parking.

But they will never appeal as much or have a community feel that Victorian terraced houses and flats have.

The architecture today is really quite depressing to look at both inside and out.

[benmorg]

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We know that pulling down all those Victorian

> terraces was a terrible mistake.

>

> What was built to replace them was awful.

> It?s a pity the stuff being built today isn?t much

> better it?s well built and insulated but it has

> zero soul just look at the developments in West

> Peckham near Camberwell

>

> I just don?t understand why they don?t build using

> the Parisian horseshoe layout it?s a much more

> efficient use of land and provides usable

> courtyard (unlike the open areas found around the

> modern developments we are seeing, which are not

> secure and don?t allow for any sort of community

> feel) it?s all just bland boxes for the occupants

> to sit in watching TV. A few now have balconies so

> that?s an advance and some even have underground

> parking.

>

> But they will never appeal as much or have a

> community feel that Victorian terraced houses and

> flats have.

>

> The architecture today is really quite depressing

> to look at both inside and out.

Actually the slum clearances I was referring to mostly happened outside London. The main reason Peckham lost its historic streets was WWII bombing. Having said that, Rye Lane is full of architectural gems, but that hasn't made it particularly fashionable.

Next time you go down Camberwell Grove, have a look at the St George development at the north end. They've built authentic looking Georgian terraces and have done a great job in my opinion, though I think the flats are probably a bit boxy and characterless inside, due to the absence of old style chimney breasts and flues.

http://www.camberwell-grove.co.uk/index.cfm?articleID=1

A bit more of that would be nice, but most developers just want to pack in the units to maximise the profit, which means tiny rooms, no outside space and low ceiling height.

[DJKillaQueen]

East Dulwich has no estates? Are you sure? Are you sure crime is always related to poverty and unemployment? You might find greed is behind a lot of crime too....crime committed by people from all demographics it has to be said. The rich steal as much as the poor. Tax avoidance is akin to such as far as I'm concerned as well.

I'm sorry Ben but imo you are using textbook stereotyping and simplistic social history to make an argument that just isn't relevant anymore. To compare today to the 1930's is nonsense. There was no welfare system in 1930 comparable to today and there really were slum dwellings then whereas you'd be hard pressed to find anything resembling a slum in those terms today. Renovation is an important part of quality of life just as overcrowding is detrimental to the quality of life.

If anything....the biggest threat to housing quality is the rididulous protection of the over inflated housing market and those that seek to continue to profit from it at all costs to society. Fast forward five years and we will see increasing numbers of families housed in expensive one room bedsits because greedy landlords and those seeking to expand buy to let protfolios drove house prices and rents up even further and excluded increasing numbers of those on low salaries and benefits from being able to rent anything affordable. So frankly I couldn't give a toss about the gentrification of ED......

Where I do agree with you is in that regeneration needs to be about many things, including regeneration of industry and economy. But I would also add that a cohesive society depends on things outside of that.....outside of the growing gaps between wealthy and poor. Fact is we have a selfish 'all for me' society......and that can be found amongst all demographics. Everyone wants the best for themselves and their children but couldn't care less if the kids and parents next door have access to the same. For me this whole thread is a reflection of that. Who cares if Peckham being a demographically poorer area impacts on house prices in ED? How about caring if the kids in those areas are getting decent schooling instead?

[DJKillaQueen]

But they will never appeal as much or have a community feel that Victorian terraced houses and flats have.

What do you base this on? My estate very definitely has a community feel (it was built in 1930). There are no gangs, drug dealers or control by anti-social types because the residents (many of who are unemployed and/ or on low salaries) take an interest in building the community we want, fronted by a vibrant Tenants Association. It's a myth that a street is somehow more personable than a block of flats for example.

What I find mostly decides if an area has a community or not, is the amount of time individuals have to be part of one. There's no doubt that the fragmentation of extended families over more recent decades, and changes in working hours and technology has had the most impact on this, rather than architecture.

[benmorg]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> East Dulwich has no estates? Are you sure? Are you

> sure crime is always related to poverty and

> unemployment? You might find greed is behind a lot

> of crime too....crime committed by people from all

> demographics it has to be said. The rich steal as

> much as the poor. Tax avoidance is akin to such as

> far as I'm concerned as well.

The heart of ED is Victorian streets, without high-density housing estates. North Peckham is pretty much the opposite.

I agree with much of what you've said, but I still think that regeneration is difficult without a change in the social fabric of an area. Most of the run-down parts of London that have regenerated have done so because the middle classes have moved in and displaced working class residents, social tenants, and so on. With unlimited public funds it's obviously possible to make an area like north Peckham much better for a while, but it won't keep improving unless its economy picks up on its own - which means rich people need to move in and make it trendy.

[Willard]

> Next time you go down Camberwell Grove, have a

> look at the St George development at the north

> end. They've built authentic looking Georgian

> terraces and have done a great job in my opinion,

> though I think the flats are probably a bit boxy

> and characterless inside, due to the absence of

> old style chimney breasts and flues.

>

> http://www.camberwell-grove.co.uk/index.cfm?articl

> eID=1

>

> A bit more of that would be nice, but most

> developers just want to pack in the units to

> maximise the profit, which means tiny rooms, no

> outside space and low ceiling height.

I agree those houses look nice but have you seen the prices? If I had ?1.6 mn to drop on a house, I certainly wouldn't be moving to Camberwell. This is from someone who lived there for 6 years.

ouch

[fazer71]

benmorg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually the slum clearances I was referring to

> mostly happened outside London. The main reason

> Peckham lost its historic streets was WWII

> Next time you go down Camberwell Grove, have a

> look at the St George development at the north

> end. They've built authentic looking Georgian

> terraces and have done a great job in my opinion,

> though I think the flats are probably a bit boxy

> and characterless inside, due to the absence of

> old style chimney breasts and flues.

> A bit more of that would be nice, but most

> developers just want to pack in the units to

> maximise the profit, which means tiny rooms, no

> outside space and low ceiling height.

In Southwark, loads of terraced streets were flattened long after the war.

The St Georges development is one of the better looking ones though it?s still an appalling use of the land and does not provide any secure usable courtyard or garden areas for the occupants. It?s all exposed to the public walking past which means it?ll never be fully utilised you?re unlikely to see kids playing and parents chatting or a community barbeque or other regular events on these areas, as few will feel comfortable standing by the pavement exposed to the world.

It?s a common mistake here in the UK go to France Germany Italy HK etc and they design community courtyards which are secure and away from the prying eyes of all except the inhabitants of the houses or flats which surround the space.

Haussmann was the master of this and in Paris you?ll street after street of apartment buildings built around courtyards which are great for the occupants? quality of life. Here we?re obsessed with showing the world our open spaces which just makes them a no go area for us.

[fazer71]

Willard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree those houses look nice but have you seen

> the prices? If I had ?1.6 mn to drop on a house, I

> certainly wouldn't be moving to Camberwell. This

> is from someone who lived there for 6 years.

>

> ouch

They are around 3,000 sqft so at ?1.6 mil that's ?533 a sq ft avg East Dulwich is about ?475 high end finish ED would be ?600 so not too far off.

But I don't think I could ever live there....

[benmorg]

Willard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Next time you go down Camberwell Grove, have a

> > look at the St George development at the north

> > end. They've built authentic looking Georgian

> > terraces and have done a great job in my

> opinion,

> > though I think the flats are probably a bit

> boxy

> > and characterless inside, due to the absence of

> > old style chimney breasts and flues.

> >

> >

> http://www.camberwell-grove.co.uk/index.cfm?articl

>

> > eID=1

> >

> > A bit more of that would be nice, but most

> > developers just want to pack in the units to

> > maximise the profit, which means tiny rooms, no

> > outside space and low ceiling height.

>

>

> I agree those houses look nice but have you seen

> the prices? If I had ?1.6 mn to drop on a house, I

> certainly wouldn't be moving to Camberwell. This

> is from someone who lived there for 6 years.

>

> ouch

Agree 100%. Maybe the intention is to sell to foreign buyers who will be impressed by the central location, without realising what Camberwell is really like.

[Senor Chevalier]

Also they are pants. The developer is a nightmare apparantly. I know someone that bought one of the townhouses. 2 years on and still snagging problems. Damp issue and the latest is that the whole ground floor now needs to be taken up and resealed (again). Apparantly at one point some had (in desperation) hung a bed sheet out of the window on which they had painted "No hot water for 5 days and counting - buyers beware".

Bland, developer rubbish with corners cut to maximise profit. So spare a thought for the poor fools that stumped up...

[Willard]

Senor Chevalier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Apparantly at one point

> some had (in desperation) hung a bed sheet out of

> the window on which they had painted "No hot water

> for 5 days and counting - buyers beware".

>

That certainly tells a story.

[DJKillaQueen]

I still think that regeneration is difficult without a change in the social fabric of an area. Most of the run-down parts of London that have regenerated have done so because the middle classes have moved in and displaced working class residents, social tenants, and so on. With unlimited public funds it's obviously possible to make an area like north Peckham much better for a while, but it won't keep improving unless its economy picks up on its own - which means rich people need to move in and make it trendy.

Whilst I broadly agree with your point regarding regeneration and economy I don't agree that it requires the displacement of poor and working class people by wealthier and middle-class people to happen. What people need are jobs, and decently paid ones. London is a unique case because of it's diversity and being a capaital city. In other towns and cities around the country there is no monbile middle class in great enough numbers to gentrify areas that formerly were served for employment by the local factory or dock or mine. And displacement isn't actually adding anything to the economy at all....merely changing the economy on a local level. The poor and unemployed are just poor and unemployed somewhere else.

And given that the main drive for the middle class moving into those areas is property prices it could be argued that there is no net gain to the local economy either as yet another area becomes unaffordable to most to live in, in time. So for me...that is not the answer to anything. Far more effort should be put into generating employment and helping those to get out of poverty, some of whom with the right help might want to set up small businesses and work for themselves as well. The setting up of a small business helps the local economy far more than filling the pockets of an individual who wants to make a fast profit on a property price I think. But at the same time, a small business needs customers to sell to, so the best and most self sufficient kind of local economy seems to me to be one where all kinds of people can afford to live.

[HelBel65]

For what it's worth, I think a far more accurate description of ED is the Crouch End of the South. Or CE is the ED of the North. Both much more down to earth and real than the likes of Notting Hill. More affordable too (though still pricey). I made the move South a year ago and have enormous affection for both - as a Crouchender at heart, I feel very at home here :)

[DJKillaQueen]

Haussmann was the master of this and in Paris you?ll street after street of apartment buildings built around courtyards which are great for the occupants? quality of life. Here we?re obsessed with showing the world our open spaces which just makes them a no go area for us.

I agree with this. But Paris has it's suburban 60's tower block estates too....and fell into the same pit as the rest of Europe. What was supposed to be cheap and easily built housing has proved to be anything but in the long run.

In the UK, developers have the smallest minimum requirements regarding room size in Europe and all of them put profit ahead of quality. The flat I live in is 80 years old and as solid as the day it was built. Can't see anything built these days lasting even 50 years without need for major work.

[fazer71]

Yep true France did the same as others in the 60?s and 70?s.

All the Victorian brick built stuff is easily maintained if a little expensive when it?s required but then it?s good again for another 100 years whereas this new stuff made of concrete and timber is just pull down and start again impossible to maintain.

So which system is more environmentally friendly?

I see the scaffolding is up on the flats opposite goose green it?s only been a few years and it looks the exterior is cracking up already.

As they say pay cheap pay twice.

Most people don't have a clue about quality. Only in germany are buyers clued up.

[Evie]

Whilst I agree with most of the issues that have been said regarding architecture, demographics, social mobility and cohesion what I think has been overlooked are the demographics and social mobility etc of some of those people who have renovated properties some to an excellent standard in East Dulwich whilst helping to improve the local area and helping keep local people in employment. I am not from London, I have lived on a council estate in Brixton for 6 years, I also went to University later in life and worked all hours to get me through it, I did not buy property till even later in life so treasured it when I did, I was single and did it all on my own, designed the interior, financed it, managed it, I spent a lot of my hard earned money, time and energy and employed local tradesmen and bought materials from local shops so why should I not benefit from this financially? Not all people who live in expensive properties are selfish, irresponsible, middle class, married to rich men, yummy mummies with no concern or regard for what is going on in the rest of London and possibly they are now suffering from the recession too.

[DJKillaQueen]

No one says you shouldn't see an increse in equity....but an increase that outstrips every other business sector and is inpenetrable by recession? Can you not see where that is going to lead? Housing should never have been allowed to become the gravy train it did and the only real winners are those who bought in the 80's and before. They are also the ones who moan hardest when told they should use their equity to pay for their old age.

You obviously bought something because you wanted a home first....but there a many people who work as hard as you have worked that will never get on any kind of property ladder. And in the future it will be impossible for increasing numbers of people while rents will continue to soar. And it will be your taxes that pay for the shortfall in affordable homes and rents.

No government hall the balls to meddle with it of course because they know pensions are going to worthless in the future and are happy to let property become equity in place of pensions. Nice if you have it.... But a breaking point will come...ho many homeless it will take to see that breaking point is unknown but things can not continue as they are doing so.

[????]

...inflation is the other way of 'dealing' with it DJ. You're right, that prices haven't really fallen nominally seems nearly beyond logic (altough in London the explanations are clear) but in real terms we are down a 'bit'. The 80s boom ended nearly 25 years ago it will interesting how many people will be able to clear off their Full Term mortgages over the next couple of years, most will be fine but a fair few will have used that increased equity to fund their lifestyles and the pipers gonna call.

[DJKillaQueen]

I totally agree quids and that is something we are already seeing with the 50 plus age group, some of whom took early retirement funded by equity on their homes. It's not an easy thing to address either. I think were are so far gone down the road that the impact of doing anything is going to adversely affect too many people.

I've always argued for measures that slow down growth and still think that would be the best way to go. It won't help solve the problems in the short term, but over time should address the gap between salaries and rent/house prices and without adversely affecting the value of homeowners.

[Huggers]

spotted walking along East Dulwich Road by Goose Green last night, two of the 'cast' of Made In Chelsea.

[MrBen]

Home ownership here seems more of an obsession than elsewhere. What's actually wrong with renting? It tales ownership / prices and thirst for equity accumulation out of the equation. And it works just fine for the Germans and the Swedes....