Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SteveUK1978 Wrote:

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

> Really interesting - thanks for posting.

>

> Turned out the modern, safe, light and airy

> housing blocks didn't stand the test of time

> compared the the dirty, dark victorian properties!



Not sure I agree, many of these blocks still stand and house lots of people. My parent's Victorian house in ED only got an indoor toilet about 1975.


Basically there's an element of snobbery in people being so desperate to live in a Victorian house.

Otta Wrote:


>

> Not sure I agree, many of these blocks still stand

> and house lots of people. My parent's Victorian

> house in ED only got an indoor toilet about 1975.

>

> Basically there's an element of snobbery in people

> being so desperate to live in a Victorian house.


The "new" blocks that still stand are roughly 50 years old. It is unlikely they will see another 50 years. The victorian houses are roughly 150 years old and will likely see another 150 years. Not much to agree or disagree on in terms of which ones have stood the test of time.

much of the ED 19c housing stock is a pretty poor example of the era - you may be fond of your 750K semi with side return , but the chances are it has virtually no foundation & some well flimsy internal stuff going on eg crap joist fitment & no tying in. the stock in the area was virtually no different in concept than any other large scale speculative design of later times.

Well said miga.



There were some horrid looking estates (Haygate I'm looking at you), but equally there was no need to knock it down, Southwark could have updated it for less money than they've had to spend on the shambolic arrangements with Lend Lease. But at the end of the day it was unsightly, and knocking it down gave them the perfect chance rid the borough of those unsightly residents.


Personally I hate the Barbican, but I know poeple that think it's wonderful. Different folks and all that. But in terms of interior, give me a large open spacious flat over a pokey victorian or 1930s house any day.


I used to think having a garden was important to me, but had one for 5 years until last Feb, rarely used it, and haven't missed it at all except for no birthday BBQ.

miga Wrote:

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

> The refurbishing and redoing of Victorian terraces

> has been in fashion how long? Maybe 30 years (if

> you were a pioneer)?


Probably nearer 50+ years. The Camberwell Society has been around for 45 years and came into existence in response to the first group of people trying to renovate and save the houses on Camberwell Grove. They'd been doing this since the late 50s/ early 60s. I'd consider them pioneers.



> There is already a fashion groundswell of redoing

> ex-LA flats in era-appropriate ways, and "mid

> century modern" has been a popular phrase for a

> few years too.


Isn't this more to do with the amount of ex-LA flats which are now in private hands? They are also more affordable for younger first time buyers, so the groundswell is as much financial as fashion. Leaving aside the private ownership debate, this level of maintenance will help secure their future.


I agree about a matter of taste, but many "pokey" (Otta's word) Victorian house these days are opened up into bright modern spaces. As prices rise and we all try and get best use of space, this will increase too.

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • The tenant's business has already failed. If the landlord doesn't accept it, they can have a vacant property, stand in the queue of creditors, and get paid little or nothing. It's a gamble that the restructuring will work and the tenant will start paying rent again. Commercial properties are often hard to let. 🤷
    • An inquiry will put a huge amount of time and resource into looking at what happened in the past and why it happened and who was responsible and, in a year or two maybe more, a report will be produced and actions may or may not be taken, some of those responsible for bad decisions will already have resigned and moved on.   Given that we now already understand some of the issues that allowed this awful behaviour to continue unchallenged, my concern is less about whether there is an inquiry to examine what happened in the past but about what is being done right now to protect girls and young women from predatory and exploitative men in whatever race or identity they come in. Inquiries examine the past but don't necessarily solve problems and they certainly don't come up with conclusions quickly which is why they can often feel hollow.  I'd rather see perpetrators and those that let the perpetrators actually with impunity, actually being prosecuted and an inquiry won't do that.  I suspect that's why some MPs voted against an inquiry. But do feel free to give me examples of inquiries that really made a difference and actually changed things in a timely and effective way.      
    • In recent consultation on further ED CPZ the majority of respondents were against. Fully appreciate you may not live on a road proposed for CPZ. If you are close to that area it is likely you will be affected by parking displacement if the CPZ goes in. I was just curious what James Barber's position on this is? Perhaps he'll come on here and let us know. He was always really good at visiting the forum.
    • huh  angry not at AII i think its  awsome to name n shame them  . as for me being right wing im very proud of it . does that mke yyou mad n get your BIood presure riseing?  sureIy you dont support chiId grooming or do you  ? i mean tommy robinson did teII you This was happening many yeras ago and of course there reaction was the same as yours .IabIed right wing and racist. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...