'Sheffield Gardens' — £55million Development On Meadow Street

[ECCOnoob]

9 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Yes, you have a point, but affordable housing is what's in short supply.

 

I was hoping that with 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms available, there would be something for all pockets. Poor people have to live somewhere too. If everything is unaffordable it puts the onus back on the council to provide suitable housing and they are having difficulty with that as the long waiting lists attest.

 

They need a bit of help from the private builders.

But again, what's that supposed to mean? 

 

The one bedroom ones will be cheaper than the two bedrooms with the three bedrooms being the most expensive. 

 

If someone wants one but can't quite stretch through a two-bedroom, they have a choice to go for a smaller one bedroom one or find somewhere else. 

 

Just like my purse doesn't stretch to a eight-bedroom mansion so I have to make do with my smaller three-bedroom semi.

 

If you are seriously suggesting that a private developer spending their private investment money to build properties on premium land in a city centre should then be somehow forced to sell a portion of it to people who otherwise couldn't afford to get one, I totally disagree. Why should they?    They're a  business not a charity. 

 

Mandatory provision of housing is a state responsibility. If the council wanted to force some clauses upon the developer of this present scheme, they could have done so in the planning application or the terms of permission or granted them some public funding to compensate the cost of it or build it themselves directly from public funds for specific public housing purposes.   Other than that, it should be up to private business what they want to build and sell it at what the market will dictate. 

 

Don't see Gucci being forced to sell off half of their stock discounted just so 'poor people' can access it?    Waitrose don't get compelled by the government to dedicate 4 or 5 aisles of food at poundland prices just to accommodate those who can't afford market rate for their gugs

 

Everyone who buys or rents a house (unless they are extremely privileged or lucky) generally finds it one of the most expensive purchases they ever make. Most people I know including myself have all had to start somewhere and struggle and scrimp and save to get a deposit and afford the mortgage or the rent

 

This is not a new story. It's life.  None of that is the fault of private businesses.

[GabrielC]

Every city is starting to look the same. I bet that building design can be found in Manchester and other cities though out the country there are no regional differences . Sheffield has demolished buildings that could have been reused and kept the character of the area. Not everything that is new and shiny is good and old is bad the same thinking was done in the 1960s with good intentions that turned into a nightmare. 

 

I'm not against modern design but the danger is we are just building boxes that might only last 30 years max with building materials been expensive cost cutting will happen as companies try to stay in budget the residents could end  up with large maintenance bills as a result.

[Longcol]

4 minutes ago, GabrielC said:

Every city is starting to look the same. I bet that building design can be found in Manchester and other cities though out the country there are no regional differences . Sheffield has demolished buildings that could have been reused and kept the character of the area. Not everything that is new and shiny is good and old is bad the same thinking was done in the 1960s with good intentions that turned into a nightmare. 

 

I'm not against modern design but the danger is we are just building boxes that might only last 30 years max with building materials been expensive cost cutting will happen as companies try to stay in budget the residents could end  up with large maintenance bills as a result.

Pray tell the differences between terraces from Manchester and Sheffield from say 1900, or high street  shops from the 50's and 60's, post war suburbs etc.

 

Main difference I'ne noticed over the years was maybe brick colour - although hardly when most cities were uniformly black due to smoke up to at least the early 70's.

 

 

[Planner1]

14 hours ago, Anna B said:

Ok. I was just wondering if they would be affordable.

Read the OP

 

Says it is a build to rent development.

[Anna B]

22 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

But again, what's that supposed to mean? 

 

The one bedroom ones will be cheaper than the two bedrooms with the three bedrooms being the most expensive. 

 

If someone wants one but can't quite stretch through a two-bedroom, they have a choice to go for a smaller one bedroom one or find somewhere else. 

 

Just like my purse doesn't stretch to a eight-bedroom mansion so I have to make do with my smaller three-bedroom semi.

 

If you are seriously suggesting that a private developer spending their private investment money to build properties on premium land in a city centre should then be somehow forced to sell a portion of it to people who otherwise couldn't afford to get one, I totally disagree. Why should they?    They're a  business not a charity. 

 

Mandatory provision of housing is a state responsibility. If the council wanted to force some clauses upon the developer of this present scheme, they could have done so in the planning application or the terms of permission or granted them some public funding to compensate the cost of it or build it themselves directly from public funds for specific public housing purposes.   Other than that, it should be up to private business what they want to build and sell it at what the market will dictate. 

 

Don't see Gucci being forced to sell off half of their stock discounted just so 'poor people' can access it?    Waitrose don't get compelled by the government to dedicate 4 or 5 aisles of food at poundland prices just to accommodate those who can't afford market rate for their gugs

 

Everyone who buys or rents a house (unless they are extremely privileged or lucky) generally finds it one of the most expensive purchases they ever make. Most people I know including myself have all had to start somewhere and struggle and scrimp and save to get a deposit and afford the mortgage or the rent

 

This is not a new story. It's life.  None of that is the fault of private businesses.

The bottom line is we have a lot of homeless people who quite simply cannot afford to rent or buy anything and end up on the street. Some of these are working hard in low waged jobs and still can't even afford a room in a shared house, such is the increase in rents.

 

Cheap houses are being bought up by property developers and 'improved', 'gentrified' so that higher rents can be obtained. Builders prefer to build high end properties as the profits are greater. Nothing wrong with that in a free market economy, but where does it leave the working poor of which there are many (and growing.) Where are they supposed to live?

 

You're right....It's no longer 'a new story,' and yes, 'it's life.'

But does that make it acceptable? Especially as the problem is growing worse exponentially, and will affect more and more people going further up the social scale? 

 

The cost of living crisis is very real (more real for some than others) and shows no sign of abating. It's not just about the price of food, everything is out of kilter. Wages are not keeping up with prices and so poverty Increases. Improve wages to keep up with prices and inflation takes off. So whats the answer? This problem hasn't occurred overnight and has been in the pipeline for many years. Neither is it a surprise, many were warning of it years ago and were ignored.

 

Now we are reaping the results of a 'free market economy:'  unbridled, uncontrolled capitalism, which is all set to continue indefinitely with more and more victims falling by the wayside. We are all set for a perfect storm unless the politicians and major players get a grip, which they show no sign of doing. We will sink into a third world economy - but of course that's just fine-  as long as you're one of the few on the winning side. 

 

That's life.....

[ECCOnoob]

7 hours ago, Anna B said:

The bottom line is we have a lot of homeless people who quite simply cannot afford to rent or buy anything and end up on the street. Some of these are working hard in low waged jobs and still can't even afford a room in a shared house, such is the increase in rents.

 

Cheap houses are being bought up by property developers and 'improved', 'gentrified' so that higher rents can be obtained. Builders prefer to build high end properties as the profits are greater. Nothing wrong with that in a free market economy, but where does it leave the working poor of which there are many (and growing.) Where are they supposed to live?

 

You're right....It's no longer 'a new story,' and yes, 'it's life.'

But does that make it acceptable? Especially as the problem is growing worse exponentially, and will affect more and more people going further up the social scale? 

 

The cost of living crisis is very real (more real for some than others) and shows no sign of abating. It's not just about the price of food, everything is out of kilter. Wages are not keeping up with prices and so poverty Increases. Improve wages to keep up with prices and inflation takes off. So whats the answer? This problem hasn't occurred overnight and has been in the pipeline for many years. Neither is it a surprise, many were warning of it years ago and were ignored.

 

Now we are reaping the results of a 'free market economy:'  unbridled, uncontrolled capitalism, which is all set to continue indefinitely with more and more victims falling by the wayside. We are all set for a perfect storm unless the politicians and major players get a grip, which they show no sign of doing. We will sink into a third world economy - but of course that's just fine-  as long as you're one of the few on the winning side. 

 

That's life.....

What has any of that crap got to do with a private developer investing their private money into building something on private land. 

 

It is THE STATE who has responsibility for mandatory housing for those in genuine destitution, not private business. 

 

Stop turning every thread into one of your anti-capitalist,  anti-corporation, anti-neoliberalism rants.

[Padders]

28 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

 

Stop turning every thread into one of your anti-capitalist,  anti-corporation, anti-neoliberalism rants.

Now then Mr. Noob.

First of all can I say that I enjoy your posts, always worth reading.

But you do tend to lecture people.

Now Anna always gives a point of view which rightly or wrongly I usually agree with...

Anna never "Rants" is always polite and very sensible in what she posts..

Please give Anna the respect she deserves.

 

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, Padders said:

Now then Mr. Noob.

First of all can I say that I enjoy your posts, always worth reading.

But you do tend to lecture people.

Now Anna always gives a point of view which rightly or wrongly I usually agree with...

Anna never "Rants" is always polite and very sensible in what she posts..

Please give Anna the respect she deserves.

 

Wow Padders, thankyou!

[Delbow]

On 18/04/2024 at 14:08, RollingJ said:

OK - as it seems I'm being followed around on here, I shall stick to commenting on things where I have solid data - clearly 'alternative' views are not welcome by some.

I don't think someone replying to two of your posts consulted constitutes being followed around. If you're going to make fairly bold statements (nothing wrong with doing that), expect a bit of push back.