East Dulwich, the Notting Hill of the east?

[????]

Yup. Because they have safe, secure, long term, fixed or just inflation linked contracts with owners (who are largely the banks)> You can generally stay forver and are hard to shift even if you stop paying.

Good luck with getting that sort of contract with a private landlord here....or even a public one given the recent law changes

[fazer71]

Property prices will continue to rise due to

1. Not enough homes because of land banking and a rotten (to is core) incompetent slow planning system.

2. Incompetent Council housing system which also restricts supply due to its poor expensive management and under development.

3. A pricing systems which doesn't have a clear formula for valuations i.e. price per sq ft.

4. Little differentiation between qualities of finish. Except at the high end again price per Sqft.

5. Holiday homes in country villages which should be for locals.

6. Poor pension system, why would you put your money into a Pension where the chairman is driven around in a chauffer driven limo they have multi million pound offices and the returns to your pension is below the rate of inflation.

A lending system which allows the rich to increase borrowing into secure assets.

Whilst the borrowing of the poor is allowed to increase only to buy rubbish like iphones or new cars.

A recipe for disaster at some time in the future.

[AlexC]

Ah, the good old EDF. Someone posts something as they are feeling positive about the area that they live in and within minutes the vultures with a chip on their shoulder swoop in to rain on the poster's parade. At least it's now turned into a vaguely intersting political discussion I guess...

[henryb]

To be fair it probably has more in common with Stoke Newington or Tufnell Park. Minus the tube obviously. Although "a bit like Stokey" probably doesn't shift that many houses.

[Lishyloo]

JessieW Wrote: ha ha ha ha ha ha what a ........

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

> I?ve recently had a few real estate agents come

> over to view our flat to rent out. They have all

> said that the rental market here is booming with

> advertising/media types from West London. All of

> them said that they have never seen it this busy.

> I understand, because I am one of them, but am

> curious about how many of us are out there. We

> have some new restaurants in close distance that

> have had rave reviews, (Crooked Well), but also a

> lot of long standing winners? Is Dulwich becoming

> the Notting Hill of the south east? How many of

> you out there are from the west?

[*Bob*]

Yes, we moved here from Notting Hill... when the opportunity to upgrade our pretty 2.4m pastel-fronted mews cottage overlooking Westbourne Grove to a leaky semi with subsidence close to Peckham, we jumped at the chance.

With hard work and - god willing - we hope to be in Catford before the end of the decade.

[henryb]

You can laugh but in the 1950s Notting Hill was considered one of the worst slums in London. Houses were cheap.

[JessieW]

AlexC Wrote:

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

> Ah, the good old EDF. Someone posts something as

> they are feeling positive about the area that they

> live in and within minutes the vultures with a

> chip on their shoulder swoop in to rain on the

> poster's parade. At least it's now turned into a

> vaguely intersting political discussion I guess...

I know, the stereotyping and tearing the OP's to shreds seems to be quite the recurring theme on this forum! An interesting conversation has come from it though, I agree! I've been entertained and amused at the outrage that can come from a post about outside interest in the East Dulwich. I love living here!

[*Bob*]

henryb Wrote:

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

> You can laugh but in the 1950s Notting Hill was

> considered one of the worst slums in London.

> Houses were cheap.

That's a good point, Henry.

Perhaps in half a century of so the grand-fronted villas and mansion blocks of SE22 can realise their true value.

[DJKillaQueen]

Just want to take you up on a couple of points there fazer....

Property prices will continue to rise due to

1. Not enough homes because of land banking and a rotten (to is core) incompetent slow planning system.

There are enough properties accross the country to house everyone. Many of them sit empty though for a variety of reasons.

2. Incompetent Council housing system which also restricts supply due to its poor expensive management and under development.

That's not true either. If councils were allowed to keep 100% of the rents they collect then the day to day maintenance costs would be covered. The government creams off a % of all council rents and then gives some back as 'housing subsidy' which perpetuates the myth that council housing is subsidised, which it doesn't need to be. Capital building does requires loans though which have to be paid back with interest, and this gets some councils into trouble where they are still paying for loans taken to build homes they are now demolishing because of poor construction and design in the 60s.

Add to that, that under Thatcher councils were not allowed to use the proceeds from 'right to buy' to build new homes. 'Right to buy' is the sole reason for a shortage of social hosuing. Labour tried to stem it by reducing the level of discount a tenant could receive from the market price. This is something Cameron intends to reverse....the result sadly will only be further depletion of social housing stock at well below market value. Immoral imo and completely stupid. Surely even Cameron can understand that poperty is outstripping salaries to a point that soon half the workforce will need HB top ups (it's currently a quarter of all those in work which is ludicrous).

6. Poor pension system, why would you put your money into a Pension where the chairman is driven around in a chauffer driven limo they have multi million pound offices and the returns to your pension is below the rate of inflation.

The pensions fiasco is I think at the heart of government thinking on this as you know. Increasing numbers of private sectors workers have no pension. I am one of them (having worked out a long time ago that it would be a waste of money). Public sector workers enjoy special returns from their cheaper pension schemes that public sector workers (reliant on private pension schemes) don't. That causes a clash that is only going to get worse, as private sector tax payers refuse to fund public sector pension schemes. The government knows it is in for a rocky ride over it.

A recipe for disaster at some time in the future.

Couldn't agree more but whilst the country is run by people who are never touched by the consequences of the most detrimental decisions they make, I don't expect anything to change.

Alex it has nothing to do with having a chip on any shoulder. It is about people not looking down on other areas (like Peckham) because those living in them are less fortunate. We are not born onto a level playing field. In London lots of people have benefitted from being born into a family that could afford to send them to public school, help buy them their first home etc. Equally plenty of people, who irregardless of how talented they are or how hard they work will never have any help in that respect because of the demographic they were born into. All the data backs up that argument regarding social mobility and background. It's just that some of us choose to see it and and others don't look beyond their own lives.

I'm glad you are entertained Jessie....(something tells me you are not new to the area or the forum at all though).....just hope the housing market doesn't implode and you find yourself scrambling for some social housing in Peckham.......

[dulwichgirl2]

I'd say ED is increasingly like Fulham actually. It has few similarities with NH in my view but the types of houses, family occupancy, earning power, interests and ability to sustain scented candle shops are all reminiscent of early days sw6.

[fazer71]

I take your points but I don?t know enough

1.

True to an extent but there aren?t enough homes available in the areas of high demand most of the empty homes are in areas people don?t want to live, usually because there isn?t any work in those areas.

2.

I wasn?t talking about the rents and government dabbling though that is an issue.

It?s about the waste and poor management which costs more than it should so leaving less for improving or building.

3.

Is social housing a good thing?

Why does a government need to provide any housing?

Wouldn?t it be better if the government just set out a framework which would allow the market to provide housing in a fair an affordable way?

Perhaps through implementing lending rules to restrict some and to allow others at all levels giving all the opportunity to buy their own homes if they work and pay taxes rather than subsidise the poor shouldn?t they be facilitated?

No social housing supporting the market prices would probably be lower.

I think it would be better to regulate the lending market probably by giving less lending to the wealthy and more to those who deserve it i.e. tax paying workers lower down the pay scale.

6.

The current pensions system has failure built in because of the running costs and will never work.

Capitalism is in its financial infancy and there?s a long way to go?.

A complete balanced financial solution would need to regulate lending and link it to the tax system.

Possibly along the lines of??

If you don?t pay tax you can?t borrow.

If you do pay tax then you can borrow in relation to what you pay though less and less the more you earn so the rich can?t get stupidly rich.

After all it?s the tax man (government (us)) who will bail out the bad loans.

There?s no reason this wouldn?t work but would require major changes eventually it?s where we will end up. Otherwise it?s boom and bust every few years and housing bubble every other.

Markets do work but they need basic rules to keep them under control.

[motorbird83]

I know a few people from Nottinghill who have moved here. Though I know more who have come over from Clapham. One of my friends from Clapham was thinking of buying here (she was renting before) but decided it was too expensive and went to Earlsfield, which apparently is becoming all the rage with professionals looking to start a family :)

[Fenton]

I personally can't see the similarities.

NH has much greater cultural diversity, a younger population, more clubs/pubs which attract the youth and dare I say it more colourful and vibrant people.

ED and the surrounding areas are mainly just residential areas with no real history of being a cultural centre. Could you imagine an East Dulwich carnival ;o)

ED is lucky to have a fairly quiet high street, with great potential that has not been taken advantage of.

Can you really call North Cross Road market a major market that would attract the masses? Is there anything on LL that would make people travel across London to get to?

[Fenton]

If we want to turn ED into a NH lets turn the hospital into an art centre, with a live music venue bring some spice to the place

[Jeremy]

But that's the point, Fenton... most of us living here don't want to turn it into anything. ED isn't perfect - there's always room for improvement, and I realise that for some people SE22 was a compromise. But I still don't like the idea of people moving here in the hope that it will turn into something else.

[maxxi]

After that awful, AWFUL bloody film didn't EVERYBODY want to move out of Notting Hill?

We should be thankful TREACLE didn't have the same effect.

*ticks off another thread with said film mentioned in it*

[sambobia]

AlexC Wrote:

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

> Ah, the good old EDF. Someone posts something as

> they are feeling positive about the area that they

> live in and within minutes the vultures with a

> chip on their shoulder swoop in to rain on the

> poster's parade.

Spot on...and splendid metaphors -- vultures, chips, rain etc -- to boot.

For my money, ED is great as it is.

[camberwell_j]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> 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.

Just to chip in on this point, where you seem to be missing something.

You say, and I entirely agree with you, that local employment needs to go up. Yet, the way this will happen is by having the middle classes move into the area.

If there is a market for new shops, bars, restaurants, as there would be with richer people moving in, then those are the small businesses that create jobs. Likewise, the 'trendy' people everyone fears, bring with them new industries. The creative industries, still create jobs. The new media industries in Shoreditch may be full of awful pretentious people, but they are still employers of businesses which are relatively unaffected by the existing economic crisis.

These things happen in the area because of market need, not intervention, and so areas do need the middle classes in to naturally and organically regenerate.

[fazer71]

Totally?

Local economic development is all about bringing wealthy people into an area, they spend and employ the locals and raise standards.

Anyone suggesting keeping an area full of feckless lazy uneducated people is a good thing needs their brain replacing?.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think the assumoption that all poor areas are full of the feckless, lazy and uneducated is also unfair. The term 'idle rich' comes to mind in reply to that.

There used to a time when we had manual and unskilled jobs in abundance......provided for by industry with in house training and apprenticeships. Now we expect every person to have a fistfull of GSCE's just to work in McDonalds. A person even needs accreditation to be a labourer on a building site. This is disenfranchising exactly the kind of people who would have been served by un and semi-skilled industry previously. Those people are never going to find employment in creative industries run by middle class small business holders.

The jobs market has changed, as we have lost industry to other parts of the world and filled our own labour markets with rules and regulations, but the needs of the labour market haven't, because people will always fall into different groups and there will always be a need for those kinds of jobs.

And I think to criticise anyone for being uneducated is unfair too. We aren't all born with equal ability and we certainly don't have access to an equal standard of schooling either. Those living in poorer areas will be left with poorer schools, with bigger class sizes and they also possibly won't have the space and quiet at home for doing homework undisturbed. The issues are complex.

[fazer71]

Yep the issues are complex.

I'd never criticis the uneducated just the feckless ....

[zeban]

Absolutely bloody well 100% agree DJ! well said.

[fazer71]

What is considered (Poor) in the UK these days?

Only having a Nokia phone not an iPhone or Blackberry?

Or is it just having one mobile phone of any make?

Not having more than 2 pairs of shoes?

Not having a car?

Having seen poor people in other countries.

I struggle with using that label here in the UK.

Maybe I?m wrong but do we really have Poor people?

Or do we have people who are not able maintain a job or manage the money they are given by the state or who abuse the NHS through self inflicted damage.

When ever I hear someone saying the ?Poor? in this country it just makes me cringe.

Maybe we need a new word for people who are not quite as wealthy as others I?ve heard (underprivileged) used which might fit the only having a Nokia phone situation.

Or maybe we need a new word

Poorfeks

Or

Feklows

Or

Undermids

Or

Feklazy

Maybe I?m wrong and it?s a relative word which still applies?

[motorbird83]

You have a point?the poor here are certainly better off than in the US (where I am from) and there is a much greater sense of entitlement (among all classes) than is found in most of the world outside of Europe.

I have only been living here 7 years, but the underprivileged here seem to be subtly cut-off through a lack of quality education and more importantly a lack of expectations for what their lives can be. Your comment got me thinking and I guess the best ways to tackle this form of urban and social decay is through improving the quality of education for the less advantaged and eliminating large pockets of poverty.

I don?t necessarily agree that the only way to improve the economy of an area is to move in the middle classes-- it?s more complicated than that. The reason I think you need to eliminate large pockets of poverty (like the huge estate in Elephant) is that places like that normalize poverty and I think potentially kills ambition for those who live completely surrounded by that reality. Making sure that each area of London takes its fair share of social housing so that no area is a ?poverty ghetto? solves multiple problems?improves the quality of education for the poor, increases general expectations about what is possible thus hopefully improving ambition and social mobility, ensures that all areas are mixed economically and socially etc.

The government seems to be making strong efforts to do just that including housing people on benefits in ordinary housing in local areas rather than ghettoizing them in estates. The only reason I can see the strategy failing is that class mentality is so deeply engrained in this country that people seem to take for granted that certain things / opportunities are just not meant for them because of their background and so don?t strive to be better or improve their lot in life. Trying to improve you station here is almost taboo or vulgar where in the US it?s the dream!