Posted by: Bob Millar, Shawlands on 11:17am Thu 14 Aug 08
£83 million
1340 houses
So that's £61,940 per house.
I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000
£83 million
1340 houses
So that's £61,940 per house.
I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 11:22am Thu 14 Aug 08
Looks like a second run of same story ( in my opinion)
Check yesterdays story ; (Wed 13 Aug) ;[bold]"£83m drive to build 1400 homes!"[/bold]
http://www.eveningti
mes.co.uk/news/displ
ay.var.2424023.0.0.p
hp
As I said before:
I'm of the belief that it was reported around 10 days ago that Glasgow Harbour were selling off some of their stock to the housing association/s.
If this is indeed the case, then it just proves how vastly overpriced these properties are in the first place, even for the area their in.
You can bet that as new housing going up now fails to get interest from buyers as quickly or easily that they may also be forced into selling to social housing / housing associations at a reduced amount.
The need for this kind of common sense logic is crucial, especially as the balance of private v publically affordable houses is badly out of sink, and needing stabilised.
Lets just hope that through time social housing will no longer be a luxury where some people have to wait so long on a waiting list for a roof over their heads.
If Glasgow can eradicate homelessness by 2014 I would be very happy. But, realistically, until the problem is acknowleged by our politicians for funding to be allocated it will continue to be one of these no go areas, where sadly, it remains [italic]"out of sight, out of mind."[/italic]
Looks like a second run of same story ( in my opinion)
Check yesterdays story ; (Wed 13 Aug) ;
"£83m drive to build 1400 homes!"
http://www.eveningti
mes.co.uk/news/displ
ay.var.2424023.0.0.p
hp
As I said before:
I'm of the belief that it was reported around 10 days ago that Glasgow Harbour were selling off some of their stock to the housing association/s.
If this is indeed the case, then it just proves how vastly overpriced these properties are in the first place, even for the area their in.
You can bet that as new housing going up now fails to get interest from buyers as quickly or easily that they may also be forced into selling to social housing / housing associations at a reduced amount.
The need for this kind of common sense logic is crucial, especially as the balance of private v publically affordable houses is badly out of sink, and needing stabilised.
Lets just hope that through time social housing will no longer be a luxury where some people have to wait so long on a waiting list for a roof over their heads.
If Glasgow can eradicate homelessness by 2014 I would be very happy. But, realistically, until the problem is acknowleged by our politicians for funding to be allocated it will continue to be one of these no go areas, where sadly, it remains
"out of sight, out of mind."
Posted by: BeeSee on 11:49am Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Bob Millar[/bold] wrote:
£83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000[/quote] Does'nt matter if it does cost £61,940 the scum who occupy these houses will wait a year then buy it for about £8,500 under right to buy (even though they've never paid a penny of the rent, ever !) this is why investment in quality social housing is at an all time low, as housing association's cant justify the spend knowing they'll lose money on them.
Still why bother caring, when the social give you the house for nothing, pay your council tax, give you money for kids you cant afford, then you get to moan about the cost of electricity and gas whilst you smoke 40 fags a day and have a TV/DVD/PS3 in every room for Kylie, Courtney and Jordan.
Bob Millar wrote:
£83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000
Does'nt matter if it does cost £61,940 the scum who occupy these houses will wait a year then buy it for about £8,500 under right to buy (even though they've never paid a penny of the rent, ever !) this is why investment in quality social housing is at an all time low, as housing association's cant justify the spend knowing they'll lose money on them.
Still why bother caring, when the social give you the house for nothing, pay your council tax, give you money for kids you cant afford, then you get to moan about the cost of electricity and gas whilst you smoke 40 fags a day and have a TV/DVD/PS3 in every room for Kylie, Courtney and Jordan.
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 11:52am Thu 14 Aug 08
This is good news , but not to put the kybosh on this, the low cost ownership schemes are a disaster. There are reports down south that when a tenant wants to sell their share of thier ownership home, the housing assocaition has first right to buy it. This can cause insane delays, in a already volatile market. I would say to anyone out there thinking about buying a low cost percentage ownership home, [bold]dont do it[/bold] .
This is good news , but not to put the kybosh on this, the low cost ownership schemes are a disaster. There are reports down south that when a tenant wants to sell their share of thier ownership home, the housing assocaition has first right to buy it. This can cause insane delays, in a already volatile market. I would say to anyone out there thinking about buying a low cost percentage ownership home,
dont do it .
Posted by: bluey, glasgow on 11:55am Thu 14 Aug 08
Would they have needed this kind of spend for this kind of activity if they had maintained their existing stock of social housing and not let it go to rack and ruin?
I'm thinking of the large number of high-rises that have already been demolished and those that are scheduled for demolition over the next few years that collectively housed thousands of people, perhaps 10,000 + residents across them.
If the tenants and infrastructure were better managed, they wouldn't have been de-commissioned.
Historic threads have had posters that indicated that if they were better repaired, had a good concierge system and had been a bit more selective of the tenants they allocated them to, they wouldn't have ended up as damp crime dens inhabited by a transient community that had a high number of alcoholics and junkies residing in them.
Would they have needed this kind of spend for this kind of activity if they had maintained their existing stock of social housing and not let it go to rack and ruin?
I'm thinking of the large number of high-rises that have already been demolished and those that are scheduled for demolition over the next few years that collectively housed thousands of people, perhaps 10,000 + residents across them.
If the tenants and infrastructure were better managed, they wouldn't have been de-commissioned.
Historic threads have had posters that indicated that if they were better repaired, had a good concierge system and had been a bit more selective of the tenants they allocated them to, they wouldn't have ended up as damp crime dens inhabited by a transient community that had a high number of alcoholics and junkies residing in them.
Posted by: fredo, paisley on 12:01pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Bob Millar[/bold] wrote:
£83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000[/quote] i would say your wrong because we have been living in a false housing market for too long and you can build a three bedroom house for£61.940 i know because i have done it for less and it was luxury these builders have been rippin the public for to long and i hope they all go to the wall another reason they can build for that price is the land is already paid for take a walk down that glasgow harbour and see what the yuppies get for there £120.000 plus not a lot they are part of the reason the market is so inflated my house price has quadrupled in 4 years.IFwe get back to reality then every body would be able to afford a half decent house
Bob Millar wrote:
£83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000
i would say your wrong because we have been living in a false housing market for too long and you can build a three bedroom house for£61.940 i know because i have done it for less and it was luxury these builders have been rippin the public for to long and i hope they all go to the wall another reason they can build for that price is the land is already paid for take a walk down that glasgow harbour and see what the yuppies get for there £120.000 plus not a lot they are part of the reason the market is so inflated my house price has quadrupled in 4 years.IFwe get back to reality then every body would be able to afford a half decent house
Posted by: FMJ, Glasgow on 12:19pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote]I'm of the belief that it was reported around 10 days ago that Glasgow Harbour were selling off some of their stock to the housing association/s.[/quote]
That'll please everyone who spent a fortune on flats in what they thought was going to be a 'nice' development. I know the majority of social housing tenants are decent, respectable people you'd be glad to have as a neighbour, but there is a significant minority who aren't.
What's the point in working hard and paying over the odds to get away from anti-social behaviour when the authorities will just move it in next to you a couple of years later?
By all means give people access to quality rented housing in decent areas - but give it to the ones who've earned it by proving they are good neighbours. There must be dozens of decent families in social housing utterly sick because the junkie up the road got a better home than they did because of 'need'.
Putting druggies and alkies in a nice development doesn't inspire them to improve - it just gives them a better quality of stuff to steal from people who are probably easier to intimidate. Give the chances to those who deserve them.
I'm of the belief that it was reported around 10 days ago that Glasgow Harbour were selling off some of their stock to the housing association/s.
That'll please everyone who spent a fortune on flats in what they thought was going to be a 'nice' development. I know the majority of social housing tenants are decent, respectable people you'd be glad to have as a neighbour, but there is a significant minority who aren't.
What's the point in working hard and paying over the odds to get away from anti-social behaviour when the authorities will just move it in next to you a couple of years later?
By all means give people access to quality rented housing in decent areas - but give it to the ones who've earned it by proving they are good neighbours. There must be dozens of decent families in social housing utterly sick because the junkie up the road got a better home than they did because of 'need'.
Putting druggies and alkies in a nice development doesn't inspire them to improve - it just gives them a better quality of stuff to steal from people who are probably easier to intimidate. Give the chances to those who deserve them.
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 12:26pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest.
The sum of money does not represent the actual cost of construction, (no not the market valuation on completion, the cost of construction), rather it is the level of public funding provided to assist with housing provision. The unit cost will vary from scheme to scheme, but the level of grant is likely to average around 60- 65% of construction cost, the balance being funded by the housing association through borrowing levered in on projected rental income and/or capital contribution from reserves.
Also, you might well find a private developer or individual who can build for £64k but that is construction cost - not market value. Further, housing associations have to build to far higher standards than mass builders - a requirement driven by government regulation and the need to meet stringent lifetime projections for future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse.
I hope that helps some of you out there - luxury dwellers or not.
Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest.
The sum of money does not represent the actual cost of construction, (no not the market valuation on completion, the cost of construction), rather it is the level of public funding provided to assist with housing provision. The unit cost will vary from scheme to scheme, but the level of grant is likely to average around 60- 65% of construction cost, the balance being funded by the housing association through borrowing levered in on projected rental income and/or capital contribution from reserves.
Also, you might well find a private developer or individual who can build for £64k but that is construction cost - not market value. Further, housing associations have to build to far higher standards than mass builders - a requirement driven by government regulation and the need to meet stringent lifetime projections for future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse.
I hope that helps some of you out there - luxury dwellers or not.
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 12:31pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Bob Millar[/bold] wrote: £83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000[/quote] Does'nt matter if it does cost £61,940 the scum who occupy these houses will wait a year then buy it for about £8,500 under right to buy (even though they've never paid a penny of the rent, ever !) this is why investment in quality social housing is at an all time low, as housing association's cant justify the spend knowing they'll lose money on them. Still why bother caring, when the social give you the house for nothing, pay your council tax, give you money for kids you cant afford, then you get to moan about the cost of electricity and gas whilst you smoke 40 fags a day and have a TV/DVD/PS3 in every room for Kylie, Courtney and Jordan.[/quote] You haven' been reading the papers sunshine; RTB has been reduced for new properties / tenancies, and the SNP Scottish Gov't is looking to further cut back on RTB.
BeeSee wrote:
Bob Millar wrote: £83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000
Does'nt matter if it does cost £61,940 the scum who occupy these houses will wait a year then buy it for about £8,500 under right to buy (even though they've never paid a penny of the rent, ever !) this is why investment in quality social housing is at an all time low, as housing association's cant justify the spend knowing they'll lose money on them. Still why bother caring, when the social give you the house for nothing, pay your council tax, give you money for kids you cant afford, then you get to moan about the cost of electricity and gas whilst you smoke 40 fags a day and have a TV/DVD/PS3 in every room for Kylie, Courtney and Jordan.
You haven' been reading the papers sunshine; RTB has been reduced for new properties / tenancies, and the SNP Scottish Gov't is looking to further cut back on RTB.
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 12:36pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]bluey[/bold] wrote:
Would they have needed this kind of spend for this kind of activity if they had maintained their existing stock of social housing and not let it go to rack and ruin? I'm thinking of the large number of high-rises that have already been demolished and those that are scheduled for demolition over the next few years that collectively housed thousands of people, perhaps 10,000 + residents across them. If the tenants and infrastructure were better managed, they wouldn't have been de-commissioned. Historic threads have had posters that indicated that if they were better repaired, had a good concierge system and had been a bit more selective of the tenants they allocated them to, they wouldn't have ended up as damp crime dens inhabited by a transient community that had a high number of alcoholics and junkies residing in them. [/quote] hit the nail on the head - past mismanagement has caught up with lod dinosaur Labour Cooncillors who let housing deteriorate around them whilst buying votes from tenants by telling them"we are keeping your rents low in your interests". Meanwhile back at the housing office the officers are trying to tell the cooncillors that there isn't enough rent to pay for proper repairs anmd maintenance.
Aye, those were the days!
bluey wrote:
Would they have needed this kind of spend for this kind of activity if they had maintained their existing stock of social housing and not let it go to rack and ruin? I'm thinking of the large number of high-rises that have already been demolished and those that are scheduled for demolition over the next few years that collectively housed thousands of people, perhaps 10,000 + residents across them. If the tenants and infrastructure were better managed, they wouldn't have been de-commissioned. Historic threads have had posters that indicated that if they were better repaired, had a good concierge system and had been a bit more selective of the tenants they allocated them to, they wouldn't have ended up as damp crime dens inhabited by a transient community that had a high number of alcoholics and junkies residing in them.
hit the nail on the head - past mismanagement has caught up with lod dinosaur Labour Cooncillors who let housing deteriorate around them whilst buying votes from tenants by telling them"we are keeping your rents low in your interests". Meanwhile back at the housing office the officers are trying to tell the cooncillors that there isn't enough rent to pay for proper repairs anmd maintenance.
Aye, those were the days!
Posted by: Bob Millar, Shawlands on 1:28pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Smeeagain[/bold] wrote:
Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest. The sum of money does not represent the actual cost of construction, (no not the market valuation on completion, the cost of construction), rather it is the level of public funding provided to assist with housing provision. The unit cost will vary from scheme to scheme, but the level of grant is likely to average around 60- 65% of construction cost, the balance being funded by the housing association through borrowing levered in on projected rental income and/or capital contribution from reserves. Also, you might well find a private developer or individual who can build for £64k but that is construction cost - not market value. Further, housing associations have to build to far higher standards than mass builders - a requirement driven by government regulation and the need to meet stringent lifetime projections for future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. I hope that helps some of you out there - luxury dwellers or not.[/quote] [quote]Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest.[/quote]
At what point did I refer to "tenant scum"?
Smeeagain wrote:
Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest. The sum of money does not represent the actual cost of construction, (no not the market valuation on completion, the cost of construction), rather it is the level of public funding provided to assist with housing provision. The unit cost will vary from scheme to scheme, but the level of grant is likely to average around 60- 65% of construction cost, the balance being funded by the housing association through borrowing levered in on projected rental income and/or capital contribution from reserves. Also, you might well find a private developer or individual who can build for £64k but that is construction cost - not market value. Further, housing associations have to build to far higher standards than mass builders - a requirement driven by government regulation and the need to meet stringent lifetime projections for future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. I hope that helps some of you out there - luxury dwellers or not.
Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest.
At what point did I refer to "tenant scum"?
Posted by: colin mcmillan on 1:59pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Bob Millar[/bold] wrote:
£83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000[/quote] Does'nt matter if it does cost £61,940 the scum who occupy these houses will wait a year then buy it for about £8,500 under right to buy (even though they've never paid a penny of the rent, ever !) this is why investment in quality social housing is at an all time low, as housing association's cant justify the spend knowing they'll lose money on them.
Still why bother caring, when the social give you the house for nothing, pay your council tax, give you money for kids you cant afford, then you get to moan about the cost of electricity and gas whilst you smoke 40 fags a day and have a TV/DVD/PS3 in every room for Kylie, Courtney and Jordan.[/quote] I don't know who you think you are but you have got a cheek!I will be owning one of those new homes after spending 16 years in the multi storeys, I have also worked and payed my rent and council tax through all of that time. As for the right to buy that has been recinded for these homes so there will be homes for others in the future. Before you pass judgement on others get your facts straight.
BeeSee wrote:
Bob Millar wrote:
£83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000
Does'nt matter if it does cost £61,940 the scum who occupy these houses will wait a year then buy it for about £8,500 under right to buy (even though they've never paid a penny of the rent, ever !) this is why investment in quality social housing is at an all time low, as housing association's cant justify the spend knowing they'll lose money on them.
Still why bother caring, when the social give you the house for nothing, pay your council tax, give you money for kids you cant afford, then you get to moan about the cost of electricity and gas whilst you smoke 40 fags a day and have a TV/DVD/PS3 in every room for Kylie, Courtney and Jordan.
I don't know who you think you are but you have got a cheek!I will be owning one of those new homes after spending 16 years in the multi storeys, I have also worked and payed my rent and council tax through all of that time. As for the right to buy that has been recinded for these homes so there will be homes for others in the future. Before you pass judgement on others get your facts straight.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 2:03pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]bluey[/bold] wrote:
Would they have needed this kind of spend for this kind of activity if they had maintained their existing stock of social housing and not let it go to rack and ruin? I'm thinking of the large number of high-rises that have already been demolished and those that are scheduled for demolition over the next few years that collectively housed thousands of people, perhaps 10,000 + residents across them. If the tenants and infrastructure were better managed, they wouldn't have been de-commissioned. Historic threads have had posters that indicated that if they were better repaired, had a good concierge system and had been a bit more selective of the tenants they allocated them to, they wouldn't have ended up as damp crime dens inhabited by a transient community that had a high number of alcoholics and junkies residing in them. [/quote] If you had paid more attention to the way some of these open prisons for housing schemes were built, it may suggest why they were demolished, if you have ever lived in one you will have noticed how grotty these places were, the situation with de-populating the city in half may have suggested that the council lost money and hence they had no money for repairs, but of course it was their own fault.
If progress is all about housing people in non-economic prison camps, then go and vote labour!
bluey wrote:
Would they have needed this kind of spend for this kind of activity if they had maintained their existing stock of social housing and not let it go to rack and ruin? I'm thinking of the large number of high-rises that have already been demolished and those that are scheduled for demolition over the next few years that collectively housed thousands of people, perhaps 10,000 + residents across them. If the tenants and infrastructure were better managed, they wouldn't have been de-commissioned. Historic threads have had posters that indicated that if they were better repaired, had a good concierge system and had been a bit more selective of the tenants they allocated them to, they wouldn't have ended up as damp crime dens inhabited by a transient community that had a high number of alcoholics and junkies residing in them.
If you had paid more attention to the way some of these open prisons for housing schemes were built, it may suggest why they were demolished, if you have ever lived in one you will have noticed how grotty these places were, the situation with de-populating the city in half may have suggested that the council lost money and hence they had no money for repairs, but of course it was their own fault.
If progress is all about housing people in non-economic prison camps, then go and vote labour!
Posted by: leesome, Glasgow on 2:07pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Bob Millar[/bold] wrote:
£83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000[/quote] The cost of a house is in the land, when your gifting that to a housing association that has already attempted to sell gifted property, you have to ask if GCC have learned any lessons.
As for Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 12:26pm today.
Have you ever visited a GHA refurbished property? The standards are in certain trades non-visable. That means. any-one with eye-sight could see that the GHA has no standards -no domestic building standards are being enforced... More hot air from Labour, regulations require people, those whom work do require funds, end result is enforcement and actual standards, not written ideology...
Bob Millar wrote:
£83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000
The cost of a house is in the land, when your gifting that to a housing association that has already attempted to sell gifted property, you have to ask if GCC have learned any lessons.
As for Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 12:26pm today.
Have you ever visited a GHA refurbished property? The standards are in certain trades non-visable. That means. any-one with eye-sight could see that the GHA has no standards -no domestic building standards are being enforced... More hot air from Labour, regulations require people, those whom work do require funds, end result is enforcement and actual standards, not written ideology...
Posted by: Bob Millar, Shawlands on 3:12pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote]
The cost of a house is in the land,
[/quote]
The land's not worth much though ;-)
The cost of a house is in the land,
The land's not worth much though ;-)
Posted by: victor meldrew, condorrat on 3:13pm Thu 14 Aug 08
BeeSee has a valid point, albeit a bit OTT. The RTB should only have applied to tenants who have been in house a min of fifteen yrs, and that rent should have been taken into consideration.And NO rtb for people who get rent paid by gov't.
BeeSee has a valid point, albeit a bit OTT. The RTB should only have applied to tenants who have been in house a min of fifteen yrs, and that rent should have been taken into consideration.And NO rtb for people who get rent paid by gov't.
Posted by: fredo, paisley on 3:19pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Bob Millar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Smeeagain[/bold] wrote: Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest. The sum of money does not represent the actual cost of construction, (no not the market valuation on completion, the cost of construction), rather it is the level of public funding provided to assist with housing provision. The unit cost will vary from scheme to scheme, but the level of grant is likely to average around 60- 65% of construction cost, the balance being funded by the housing association through borrowing levered in on projected rental income and/or capital contribution from reserves. Also, you might well find a private developer or individual who can build for £64k but that is construction cost - not market value. Further, housing associations have to build to far higher standards than mass builders - a requirement driven by government regulation and the need to meet stringent lifetime projections for future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. I hope that helps some of you out there - luxury dwellers or not.[/quote] [quote]Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest.[/quote] At what point did I refer to "tenant scum"? [/quote] NEITHER DID I MENTION TENANT SCUM MR KNOW ALL THE COUNCIL YOUR ON ABOUT ARE TO BUSY PAYIN LARGE BACKHANDERS AND PAYIN AWAY ABOVE THE ODDS FOR ANYTHING THEY NEVER GET VALUE FOR MONEY AND YOU NOTHING ABOUT BUILDING HOUSES AS YOUR COMENTS ABOUT HIGHER STANDARDS ARE ARE A LOT OF CODSWALLOP AS YOUR STRINGENT LIFETIME PROJECTIONS For future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. THE PUBLIC PURSE ALWAYS GETS RIPPED OF BECAUSE OF ALL THE RED TAPE AND ALL THE BALLONS WHO HAVE JOBS THAT SHOULD NOT EXIST GO INTO ANY COUNCIL OFFICE AND YOU WILL SEE THEM ALL SITTING ON £100 CHAIRS DRINKING COFFEE LAZY PEOPLE WHO BLEED THE PUBLIC PURSE
Bob Millar wrote:
Smeeagain wrote: Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest. The sum of money does not represent the actual cost of construction, (no not the market valuation on completion, the cost of construction), rather it is the level of public funding provided to assist with housing provision. The unit cost will vary from scheme to scheme, but the level of grant is likely to average around 60- 65% of construction cost, the balance being funded by the housing association through borrowing levered in on projected rental income and/or capital contribution from reserves. Also, you might well find a private developer or individual who can build for £64k but that is construction cost - not market value. Further, housing associations have to build to far higher standards than mass builders - a requirement driven by government regulation and the need to meet stringent lifetime projections for future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. I hope that helps some of you out there - luxury dwellers or not.
Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest.
At what point did I refer to "tenant scum"?
NEITHER DID I MENTION TENANT SCUM MR KNOW ALL THE COUNCIL YOUR ON ABOUT ARE TO BUSY PAYIN LARGE BACKHANDERS AND PAYIN AWAY ABOVE THE ODDS FOR ANYTHING THEY NEVER GET VALUE FOR MONEY AND YOU NOTHING ABOUT BUILDING HOUSES AS YOUR COMENTS ABOUT HIGHER STANDARDS ARE ARE A LOT OF CODSWALLOP AS YOUR STRINGENT LIFETIME PROJECTIONS For future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. THE PUBLIC PURSE ALWAYS GETS RIPPED OF BECAUSE OF ALL THE RED TAPE AND ALL THE BALLONS WHO HAVE JOBS THAT SHOULD NOT EXIST GO INTO ANY COUNCIL OFFICE AND YOU WILL SEE THEM ALL SITTING ON £100 CHAIRS DRINKING COFFEE LAZY PEOPLE WHO BLEED THE PUBLIC PURSE
Posted by: bluey, glasgow on 4:09pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]bluey[/bold] wrote: Would they have needed this kind of spend for this kind of activity if they had maintained their existing stock of social housing and not let it go to rack and ruin? I'm thinking of the large number of high-rises that have already been demolished and those that are scheduled for demolition over the next few years that collectively housed thousands of people, perhaps 10,000 + residents across them. If the tenants and infrastructure were better managed, they wouldn't have been de-commissioned. Historic threads have had posters that indicated that if they were better repaired, had a good concierge system and had been a bit more selective of the tenants they allocated them to, they wouldn't have ended up as damp crime dens inhabited by a transient community that had a high number of alcoholics and junkies residing in them. [/quote] If you had paid more attention to the way some of these open prisons for housing schemes were built, it may suggest why they were demolished, if you have ever lived in one you will have noticed how grotty these places were, the situation with de-populating the city in half may have suggested that the council lost money and hence they had no money for repairs, but of course it was their own fault. If progress is all about housing people in non-economic prison camps, then go and vote labour![/quote] I have lived in social housing in glasgow in Maryhill (not a high rise but a 9 storey flat). I was allocated a flat in poor condition after the previous tenant who had dementia went into a care home, complete with bare floors, drafty windows, manky bath and nicotine stained walls.
It wasn't the level of decoration that depressed me as I lovingly cleaned and painted it, the building was relatively sound and repairs were sorted fairly quickly.
The downside was spit and pee in the lift, neds and grafitti in the stairwell, drunks sleeping on the landing, an alcoholic neighbour on one side who pestered me when he was drunk (later replaced with a mentally ill lady who shouted and screamed through the walls through the night), a dope smoking fiend on the other side (who left his radio on full blast to deter burglars when he was out, sometimes for a full week!), plus the alcoholic tenant below.
So I don't dispute that the architecture and infrastructure is important and that there have been physical design failures.
But my experience is that it's about the management of the tenants. It was largely the tenants that made my tenancy miserable and who degraded the environment with anti-social behaviour. It's this type of thing that empties out a building and leads to high turnover.
Remember that the origins of social housing in Victorian times were that it was designed for the decent working class - allocation was selective and not the statutory entitlement that it's evolved into.
The Missing City wrote:
bluey wrote: Would they have needed this kind of spend for this kind of activity if they had maintained their existing stock of social housing and not let it go to rack and ruin? I'm thinking of the large number of high-rises that have already been demolished and those that are scheduled for demolition over the next few years that collectively housed thousands of people, perhaps 10,000 + residents across them. If the tenants and infrastructure were better managed, they wouldn't have been de-commissioned. Historic threads have had posters that indicated that if they were better repaired, had a good concierge system and had been a bit more selective of the tenants they allocated them to, they wouldn't have ended up as damp crime dens inhabited by a transient community that had a high number of alcoholics and junkies residing in them.
If you had paid more attention to the way some of these open prisons for housing schemes were built, it may suggest why they were demolished, if you have ever lived in one you will have noticed how grotty these places were, the situation with de-populating the city in half may have suggested that the council lost money and hence they had no money for repairs, but of course it was their own fault. If progress is all about housing people in non-economic prison camps, then go and vote labour!
I have lived in social housing in glasgow in Maryhill (not a high rise but a 9 storey flat). I was allocated a flat in poor condition after the previous tenant who had dementia went into a care home, complete with bare floors, drafty windows, manky bath and nicotine stained walls.
It wasn't the level of decoration that depressed me as I lovingly cleaned and painted it, the building was relatively sound and repairs were sorted fairly quickly.
The downside was spit and pee in the lift, neds and grafitti in the stairwell, drunks sleeping on the landing, an alcoholic neighbour on one side who pestered me when he was drunk (later replaced with a mentally ill lady who shouted and screamed through the walls through the night), a dope smoking fiend on the other side (who left his radio on full blast to deter burglars when he was out, sometimes for a full week!), plus the alcoholic tenant below.
So I don't dispute that the architecture and infrastructure is important and that there have been physical design failures.
But my experience is that it's about the management of the tenants. It was largely the tenants that made my tenancy miserable and who degraded the environment with anti-social behaviour. It's this type of thing that empties out a building and leads to high turnover.
Remember that the origins of social housing in Victorian times were that it was designed for the decent working class - allocation was selective and not the statutory entitlement that it's evolved into.
Posted by: raypaterson, Glasgow on 4:21pm Thu 14 Aug 08
bluey, couldn't agree more. My late mum always said that slums are usually caused by people. We were brought up in what would today be regarded as a 'deprived area', yet our close was spotless. All the tenants took turns at cleaning and washing the entrance, and even polishing the tiles on the close walls.
The bin shelters were regularly scrubbed by my mum and all the tenants took great pride in 'brassoing' the door knobs and nameplates. Nowadays many people cry 'it's the cooncil joab no mine'...
bluey, couldn't agree more. My late mum always said that slums are usually caused by people. We were brought up in what would today be regarded as a 'deprived area', yet our close was spotless. All the tenants took turns at cleaning and washing the entrance, and even polishing the tiles on the close walls.
The bin shelters were regularly scrubbed by my mum and all the tenants took great pride in 'brassoing' the door knobs and nameplates. Nowadays many people cry 'it's the cooncil joab no mine'...
Posted by: victor meldrew, condorrat on 5:02pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Bluey and raypaterson, you are spot-on! I'm old enough to remember when decent working-class people [like my mother] kept closes etc. spotless.
The trouble is now we have too many 'underclass' people to cope with, and the council should evict them, - but where would you put them?
Bluey and raypaterson, you are spot-on! I'm old enough to remember when decent working-class people kept closes etc. spotless.
The trouble is now we have too many 'underclass' people to cope with, and the council should evict them, - but where would you put them?
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:16pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]victor meldrew[/bold] wrote:
Bluey and raypaterson, you are spot-on! I'm old enough to remember when decent working-class people [like my mother] kept closes etc. spotless. The trouble is now we have too many 'underclass' people to cope with, and the council should evict them, - but where would you put them?[/quote] If by chance that a certain fellow who uses the tag yerauldda comes on, he will they say that they should all be melted which as we know isn't the logical answer.
Of course, being only 34 I remember not so long ago in Castlemilk that closes were spotless even if the houses were damp and the window frames were rotten - talking 1979 here, went to London - completely opposite side of the wire to what I lived in previously and then went back to Castlemilk in 1985 - what a transformation - almost every building south of Dougrie Road was empty (Birgidale, Bogany, Ballantay etc) - it was like moving from LA to Bosnia.
Remember folks, people were beginning to lose respect in the 70's, not only for authority but also for where they lived as well as their neighbours.
I know why this happened, others may not want to admit it or probably don't want to know - tis a shame because it could enlighten your attitude on the problem which is almost as old as me.
victor meldrew wrote:
Bluey and raypaterson, you are spot-on! I'm old enough to remember when decent working-class people kept closes etc. spotless. The trouble is now we have too many 'underclass' people to cope with, and the council should evict them, - but where would you put them?
If by chance that a certain fellow who uses the tag yerauldda comes on, he will they say that they should all be melted which as we know isn't the logical answer.
Of course, being only 34 I remember not so long ago in Castlemilk that closes were spotless even if the houses were damp and the window frames were rotten - talking 1979 here, went to London - completely opposite side of the wire to what I lived in previously and then went back to Castlemilk in 1985 - what a transformation - almost every building south of Dougrie Road was empty (Birgidale, Bogany, Ballantay etc) - it was like moving from LA to Bosnia.
Remember folks, people were beginning to lose respect in the 70's, not only for authority but also for where they lived as well as their neighbours.
I know why this happened, others may not want to admit it or probably don't want to know - tis a shame because it could enlighten your attitude on the problem which is almost as old as me.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:20pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]bluey[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]bluey[/bold] wrote: Would they have needed this kind of spend for this kind of activity if they had maintained their existing stock of social housing and not let it go to rack and ruin? I'm thinking of the large number of high-rises that have already been demolished and those that are scheduled for demolition over the next few years that collectively housed thousands of people, perhaps 10,000 + residents across them. If the tenants and infrastructure were better managed, they wouldn't have been de-commissioned. Historic threads have had posters that indicated that if they were better repaired, had a good concierge system and had been a bit more selective of the tenants they allocated them to, they wouldn't have ended up as damp crime dens inhabited by a transient community that had a high number of alcoholics and junkies residing in them. [/quote] If you had paid more attention to the way some of these open prisons for housing schemes were built, it may suggest why they were demolished, if you have ever lived in one you will have noticed how grotty these places were, the situation with de-populating the city in half may have suggested that the council lost money and hence they had no money for repairs, but of course it was their own fault. If progress is all about housing people in non-economic prison camps, then go and vote labour![/quote] I have lived in social housing in glasgow in Maryhill (not a high rise but a 9 storey flat). I was allocated a flat in poor condition after the previous tenant who had dementia went into a care home, complete with bare floors, drafty windows, manky bath and nicotine stained walls. It wasn't the level of decoration that depressed me as I lovingly cleaned and painted it, the building was relatively sound and repairs were sorted fairly quickly. The downside was spit and pee in the lift, neds and grafitti in the stairwell, drunks sleeping on the landing, an alcoholic neighbour on one side who pestered me when he was drunk (later replaced with a mentally ill lady who shouted and screamed through the walls through the night), a dope smoking fiend on the other side (who left his radio on full blast to deter burglars when he was out, sometimes for a full week!), plus the alcoholic tenant below. So I don't dispute that the architecture and infrastructure is important and that there have been physical design failures. But my experience is that it's about the management of the tenants. It was largely the tenants that made my tenancy miserable and who degraded the environment with anti-social behaviour. It's this type of thing that empties out a building and leads to high turnover. Remember that the origins of social housing in Victorian times were that it was designed for the decent working class - allocation was selective and not the statutory entitlement that it's evolved into. [/quote] [quote]a dope smoking fiend[/quote]
That'll include those who wear collars as well - because as recent hiastory shows, they seem to be fiends as well.
[quote]So I don't dispute that the architecture and infrastructure is important and that there have been physical design failures.[/quote]
That and a few other things which made people lose the respect for themselves, where they lived and most importantly, for each other!
Welcome to Glasgow - The city that famous for a Tory and Labour underclass which they both created.
bluey wrote:
The Missing City wrote: bluey wrote: Would they have needed this kind of spend for this kind of activity if they had maintained their existing stock of social housing and not let it go to rack and ruin? I'm thinking of the large number of high-rises that have already been demolished and those that are scheduled for demolition over the next few years that collectively housed thousands of people, perhaps 10,000 + residents across them. If the tenants and infrastructure were better managed, they wouldn't have been de-commissioned. Historic threads have had posters that indicated that if they were better repaired, had a good concierge system and had been a bit more selective of the tenants they allocated them to, they wouldn't have ended up as damp crime dens inhabited by a transient community that had a high number of alcoholics and junkies residing in them.
If you had paid more attention to the way some of these open prisons for housing schemes were built, it may suggest why they were demolished, if you have ever lived in one you will have noticed how grotty these places were, the situation with de-populating the city in half may have suggested that the council lost money and hence they had no money for repairs, but of course it was their own fault. If progress is all about housing people in non-economic prison camps, then go and vote labour!
I have lived in social housing in glasgow in Maryhill (not a high rise but a 9 storey flat). I was allocated a flat in poor condition after the previous tenant who had dementia went into a care home, complete with bare floors, drafty windows, manky bath and nicotine stained walls. It wasn't the level of decoration that depressed me as I lovingly cleaned and painted it, the building was relatively sound and repairs were sorted fairly quickly. The downside was spit and pee in the lift, neds and grafitti in the stairwell, drunks sleeping on the landing, an alcoholic neighbour on one side who pestered me when he was drunk (later replaced with a mentally ill lady who shouted and screamed through the walls through the night), a dope smoking fiend on the other side (who left his radio on full blast to deter burglars when he was out, sometimes for a full week!), plus the alcoholic tenant below. So I don't dispute that the architecture and infrastructure is important and that there have been physical design failures. But my experience is that it's about the management of the tenants. It was largely the tenants that made my tenancy miserable and who degraded the environment with anti-social behaviour. It's this type of thing that empties out a building and leads to high turnover. Remember that the origins of social housing in Victorian times were that it was designed for the decent working class - allocation was selective and not the statutory entitlement that it's evolved into.
a dope smoking fiend
That'll include those who wear collars as well - because as recent hiastory shows, they seem to be fiends as well.
So I don't dispute that the architecture and infrastructure is important and that there have been physical design failures.
That and a few other things which made people lose the respect for themselves, where they lived and most importantly, for each other!
Welcome to Glasgow - The city that famous for a Tory and Labour underclass which they both created.
Posted by: william murray, barrowfield on 5:25pm Thu 14 Aug 08
I reply with anger at some of the comments made
by some people,I live in a so-called deprived aera we have our fair share of tennants with addiction problems I-E drugs/alcohol,to mention
but a few,But can i point out not all of them are the type of anti-social tenants some of your readers disribe,Everybody is entilted to a
wind and watertight house.So maybe that is why
the scotish goverment and glasgow city council
and G.H.A are investing money into these so called Anti social housing eastates.GOOD LUCK
G.H.A/GCC/SNP GOVERMENT.
I reply with anger at some of the comments made
by some people,I live in a so-called deprived aera we have our fair share of tennants with addiction problems I-E drugs/alcohol,to mention
but a few,But can i point out not all of them are the type of anti-social tenants some of your readers disribe,Everybody is entilted to a
wind and watertight house.So maybe that is why
the scotish goverment and glasgow city council
and G.H.A are investing money into these so called Anti social housing eastates.GOOD LUCK
G.H.A/GCC/SNP GOVERMENT.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:34pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]william murray[/bold] wrote:
I reply with anger at some of the comments made by some people,I live in a so-called deprived aera we have our fair share of tennants with addiction problems I-E drugs/alcohol,to mention but a few,But can i point out not all of them are the type of anti-social tenants some of your readers disribe,Everybody is entilted to a wind and watertight house.So maybe that is why the scotish goverment and glasgow city council and G.H.A are investing money into these so called Anti social housing eastates.GOOD LUCK G.H.A/GCC/SNP GOVERMENT.[/quote] William, my extended family lived in the Barrowfield (or Camlachie) as it has been re-branded. Seeing it with my own eyes through the 80's, people deserved better much like the people who were taken out the bustling towns of Inner City Glasgow and put into redundant outlying areas of the city which served no purpose except to eat and sleep. Look at what they places had become, they no longer exist in their original form, the whole council house thing was a failure, couldn't work in Glasgow - it may have if employment was sustained, but it wasn't so people went nuts as other posters would put it, thuis the schemes nosedived in a short space of time.
william murray wrote:
I reply with anger at some of the comments made by some people,I live in a so-called deprived aera we have our fair share of tennants with addiction problems I-E drugs/alcohol,to mention but a few,But can i point out not all of them are the type of anti-social tenants some of your readers disribe,Everybody is entilted to a wind and watertight house.So maybe that is why the scotish goverment and glasgow city council and G.H.A are investing money into these so called Anti social housing eastates.GOOD LUCK G.H.A/GCC/SNP GOVERMENT.
William, my extended family lived in the Barrowfield (or Camlachie) as it has been re-branded. Seeing it with my own eyes through the 80's, people deserved better much like the people who were taken out the bustling towns of Inner City Glasgow and put into redundant outlying areas of the city which served no purpose except to eat and sleep. Look at what they places had become, they no longer exist in their original form, the whole council house thing was a failure, couldn't work in Glasgow - it may have if employment was sustained, but it wasn't so people went nuts as other posters would put it, thuis the schemes nosedived in a short space of time.
Posted by: bluey, glasgow on 8:21pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]william murray[/bold] wrote:
I reply with anger at some of the comments made by some people,I live in a so-called deprived aera we have our fair share of tennants with addiction problems I-E drugs/alcohol,to mention but a few,But can i point out not all of them are the type of anti-social tenants some of your readers disribe,Everybody is entilted to a wind and watertight house.So maybe that is why the scotish goverment and glasgow city council and G.H.A are investing money into these so called Anti social housing eastates.GOOD LUCK G.H.A/GCC/SNP GOVERMENT.[/quote] I totally agree with you that only a minority of social housing tenants behave in an anti-social way.
I agree with you that only a small minority of tenants that suffer from addictions behave anti-socially.
I also agree with you that people should be housed in decent housing.
What is frustrating is that the impact of these minority on their fellow tenants is VAST and they are a disproportionate contributer of the type of nuisance that drives out considerate tenants - abuse, litter, dumping, graffitti, noise, crime, etc.
This causes a further degradation of the area (broken window effect) when it becomes a hard to let area and even more vulnerable/disadvant
aged individuals move in (who realistically are more likely to be poor tenants).
So whenever there is an article trumpeting the ending of bad housing and the regeneration with newer stock, I still think that it's as much about the tenants as it is about the fabric of the place.
If you move the tenants I encountered to a new building, it will give them new walls to spray paint, new floors to ****, spit and puke on, new flats to burgle and fresh tenants to shout abuse at.
I am a supporter of social housing but tend to be more pessimistic about the claims of how the regeneration of the stock will raise an area when it's only one part of the equation.
william murray wrote:
I reply with anger at some of the comments made by some people,I live in a so-called deprived aera we have our fair share of tennants with addiction problems I-E drugs/alcohol,to mention but a few,But can i point out not all of them are the type of anti-social tenants some of your readers disribe,Everybody is entilted to a wind and watertight house.So maybe that is why the scotish goverment and glasgow city council and G.H.A are investing money into these so called Anti social housing eastates.GOOD LUCK G.H.A/GCC/SNP GOVERMENT.
I totally agree with you that only a minority of social housing tenants behave in an anti-social way.
I agree with you that only a small minority of tenants that suffer from addictions behave anti-socially.
I also agree with you that people should be housed in decent housing.
What is frustrating is that the impact of these minority on their fellow tenants is VAST and they are a disproportionate contributer of the type of nuisance that drives out considerate tenants - abuse, litter, dumping, graffitti, noise, crime, etc.
This causes a further degradation of the area (broken window effect) when it becomes a hard to let area and even more vulnerable/disadvant
aged individuals move in (who realistically are more likely to be poor tenants).
So whenever there is an article trumpeting the ending of bad housing and the regeneration with newer stock, I still think that it's as much about the tenants as it is about the fabric of the place.
If you move the tenants I encountered to a new building, it will give them new walls to spray paint, new floors to ****, spit and puke on, new flats to burgle and fresh tenants to shout abuse at.
I am a supporter of social housing but tend to be more pessimistic about the claims of how the regeneration of the stock will raise an area when it's only one part of the equation.
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 8:22pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Bob Millar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Smeeagain[/bold] wrote: Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest. The sum of money does not represent the actual cost of construction, (no not the market valuation on completion, the cost of construction), rather it is the level of public funding provided to assist with housing provision. The unit cost will vary from scheme to scheme, but the level of grant is likely to average around 60- 65% of construction cost, the balance being funded by the housing association through borrowing levered in on projected rental income and/or capital contribution from reserves. Also, you might well find a private developer or individual who can build for £64k but that is construction cost - not market value. Further, housing associations have to build to far higher standards than mass builders - a requirement driven by government regulation and the need to meet stringent lifetime projections for future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. I hope that helps some of you out there - luxury dwellers or not.[/quote] [quote]Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest.[/quote] At what point did I refer to "tenant scum"? [/quote] You didn't - careless by me. Unreserved apology to you and Fredo
Bob Millar wrote:
Smeeagain wrote: Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest. The sum of money does not represent the actual cost of construction, (no not the market valuation on completion, the cost of construction), rather it is the level of public funding provided to assist with housing provision. The unit cost will vary from scheme to scheme, but the level of grant is likely to average around 60- 65% of construction cost, the balance being funded by the housing association through borrowing levered in on projected rental income and/or capital contribution from reserves. Also, you might well find a private developer or individual who can build for £64k but that is construction cost - not market value. Further, housing associations have to build to far higher standards than mass builders - a requirement driven by government regulation and the need to meet stringent lifetime projections for future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. I hope that helps some of you out there - luxury dwellers or not.
Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest.
At what point did I refer to "tenant scum"?
You didn't - careless by me. Unreserved apology to you and Fredo
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 8:36pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]leesome[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Bob Millar[/bold] wrote: £83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000[/quote] The cost of a house is in the land, when your gifting that to a housing association that has already attempted to sell gifted property, you have to ask if GCC have learned any lessons. As for Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 12:26pm today. Have you ever visited a GHA refurbished property? The standards are in certain trades non-visable. That means. any-one with eye-sight could see that the GHA has no standards -no domestic building standards are being enforced... More hot air from Labour, regulations require people, those whom work do require funds, end result is enforcement and actual standards, not written ideology... [/quote] Leesome - I didn't mention GHA and my post was concerned with new build construuction; you seem to be focussed on improvemnt and repair works in which case I would agree there is a problem for GHA with lack of management / supervision of contractors - my father experienced this in his flat. To be fair to GHA - I did have several heated discussions on the problems - they inherited a programme of contracts originally commissioned by the Council, before transfer to GHA, and in many ways were landed with a shambles not of their own making.
leesome wrote:
Bob Millar wrote: £83 million 1340 houses So that's £61,940 per house. I doubt they'll get much for the money when the average new build 1 bedroom flat is circa £120,000
The cost of a house is in the land, when your gifting that to a housing association that has already attempted to sell gifted property, you have to ask if GCC have learned any lessons. As for Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 12:26pm today. Have you ever visited a GHA refurbished property? The standards are in certain trades non-visable. That means. any-one with eye-sight could see that the GHA has no standards -no domestic building standards are being enforced... More hot air from Labour, regulations require people, those whom work do require funds, end result is enforcement and actual standards, not written ideology...
Leesome - I didn't mention GHA and my post was concerned with new build construuction; you seem to be focussed on improvemnt and repair works in which case I would agree there is a problem for GHA with lack of management / supervision of contractors - my father experienced this in his flat. To be fair to GHA - I did have several heated discussions on the problems - they inherited a programme of contracts originally commissioned by the Council, before transfer to GHA, and in many ways were landed with a shambles not of their own making.
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 8:39pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]fredo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Bob Millar[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Smeeagain[/bold] wrote: Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest. The sum of money does not represent the actual cost of construction, (no not the market valuation on completion, the cost of construction), rather it is the level of public funding provided to assist with housing provision. The unit cost will vary from scheme to scheme, but the level of grant is likely to average around 60- 65% of construction cost, the balance being funded by the housing association through borrowing levered in on projected rental income and/or capital contribution from reserves. Also, you might well find a private developer or individual who can build for £64k but that is construction cost - not market value. Further, housing associations have to build to far higher standards than mass builders - a requirement driven by government regulation and the need to meet stringent lifetime projections for future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. I hope that helps some of you out there - luxury dwellers or not.[/quote] [quote]Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest.[/quote] At what point did I refer to "tenant scum"? [/quote] NEITHER DID I MENTION TENANT SCUM MR KNOW ALL THE COUNCIL YOUR ON ABOUT ARE TO BUSY PAYIN LARGE BACKHANDERS AND PAYIN AWAY ABOVE THE ODDS FOR ANYTHING THEY NEVER GET VALUE FOR MONEY AND YOU NOTHING ABOUT BUILDING HOUSES AS YOUR COMENTS ABOUT HIGHER STANDARDS ARE ARE A LOT OF CODSWALLOP AS YOUR STRINGENT LIFETIME PROJECTIONS For future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. THE PUBLIC PURSE ALWAYS GETS RIPPED OF BECAUSE OF ALL THE RED TAPE AND ALL THE BALLONS WHO HAVE JOBS THAT SHOULD NOT EXIST GO INTO ANY COUNCIL OFFICE AND YOU WILL SEE THEM ALL SITTING ON £100 CHAIRS DRINKING COFFEE LAZY PEOPLE WHO BLEED THE PUBLIC PURSE [/quote] I have already apologised for the careless post.
However, yoiur screaming, unfounded and misinformed rant is not worthy of a response.
fredo wrote:
Bob Millar wrote: Smeeagain wrote: Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest. The sum of money does not represent the actual cost of construction, (no not the market valuation on completion, the cost of construction), rather it is the level of public funding provided to assist with housing provision. The unit cost will vary from scheme to scheme, but the level of grant is likely to average around 60- 65% of construction cost, the balance being funded by the housing association through borrowing levered in on projected rental income and/or capital contribution from reserves. Also, you might well find a private developer or individual who can build for £64k but that is construction cost - not market value. Further, housing associations have to build to far higher standards than mass builders - a requirement driven by government regulation and the need to meet stringent lifetime projections for future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. I hope that helps some of you out there - luxury dwellers or not.
Bob Millar and Fredo - and anyone else interested enough to read this before they start jumping the gun about tenant scum and the rest.
At what point did I refer to "tenant scum"?
NEITHER DID I MENTION TENANT SCUM MR KNOW ALL THE COUNCIL YOUR ON ABOUT ARE TO BUSY PAYIN LARGE BACKHANDERS AND PAYIN AWAY ABOVE THE ODDS FOR ANYTHING THEY NEVER GET VALUE FOR MONEY AND YOU NOTHING ABOUT BUILDING HOUSES AS YOUR COMENTS ABOUT HIGHER STANDARDS ARE ARE A LOT OF CODSWALLOP AS YOUR STRINGENT LIFETIME PROJECTIONS For future maintenance and energy efficiency. Requirements intended to give longer term sustainability and value for money from the public purse. THE PUBLIC PURSE ALWAYS GETS RIPPED OF BECAUSE OF ALL THE RED TAPE AND ALL THE BALLONS WHO HAVE JOBS THAT SHOULD NOT EXIST GO INTO ANY COUNCIL OFFICE AND YOU WILL SEE THEM ALL SITTING ON £100 CHAIRS DRINKING COFFEE LAZY PEOPLE WHO BLEED THE PUBLIC PURSE
I have already apologised for the careless post.
However, yoiur screaming, unfounded and misinformed rant is not worthy of a response.
Posted by: fredo, paisley on 9:58pm Thu 14 Aug 08
thankyou for your apology but i dont agree with your comments nite nite
thankyou for your apology but i dont agree with your comments nite nite
Posted by: glasgowghirl, glasgow on 11:09am Fri 15 Aug 08
All I can say is that its a total JOKE,I live with my 2 teenage kids , male and female in a 3 apt house a COUP is the best way to describe my living conditions.I have done for the last 4 years and I have to SLEEP on the living room floor because they have DEMOLISHED all the 4 apts where I live and I havent a hope in hell of benefiting from the new houses being built but they can give single young guys brand new 3 apts that are not yet built ITS A TOTAL DISGRACE ! ! ! I feel I have been put into this house and just left too ROT in all honesty !
All I can say is that its a total JOKE,I live with my 2 teenage kids , male and female in a 3 apt house a COUP is the best way to describe my living conditions.I have done for the last 4 years and I have to SLEEP on the living room floor because they have DEMOLISHED all the 4 apts where I live and I havent a hope in hell of benefiting from the new houses being built but they can give single young guys brand new 3 apts that are not yet built ITS A TOTAL DISGRACE ! ! ! I feel I have been put into this house and just left too ROT in all honesty !
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 12:07pm Fri 15 Aug 08
[quote][bold]fredo[/bold] wrote:
thankyou for your apology but i dont agree with your comments nite nite[/quote] Fredo - I think that 22 years working in the planning, construction and management of social rented housing qualifies me quite nicely to pass comment on this thread. You call me a know-all - I was simply trying to provide some basic background to the article; you say I knbow nothing about the building regulations and standards that are applicable in social housing construction - you are wrong.
fredo wrote:
thankyou for your apology but i dont agree with your comments nite nite
Fredo - I think that 22 years working in the planning, construction and management of social rented housing qualifies me quite nicely to pass comment on this thread. You call me a know-all - I was simply trying to provide some basic background to the article; you say I knbow nothing about the building regulations and standards that are applicable in social housing construction - you are wrong.
Posted by: rosscobhoy, Glasgow on 5:58pm Fri 15 Aug 08
Glasgow girl. I was on a housing association waiting list for over 4 years, and was told that as a single guy sleeping on my parents couch, i had next to no chance in getting anything(2 younger brothers and 2 younger sisters with 3 bedrooms between them is apparently not overcrowded enough) so don't give me the rubbish you just gave me!
Glasgow girl. I was on a housing association waiting list for over 4 years, and was told that as a single guy sleeping on my parents couch, i had next to no chance in getting anything(2 younger brothers and 2 younger sisters with 3 bedrooms between them is apparently not overcrowded enough) so don't give me the rubbish you just gave me!
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 12:06am Sat 16 Aug 08
Listen moron... ever stopped to consider wheteher the Housing Association had the size / type of property you were looking for? Similarly, how often does that size / type of property become vacant? Doh!
Listen moron... ever stopped to consider wheteher the Housing Association had the size / type of property you were looking for? Similarly, how often does that size / type of property become vacant? Doh!
Comment | Read Comments (33)
