New Stadium Details And Discussions

Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
19,424
We will, I edited my previous post to clarify my position on this.
That said there's going to be a lot of money spent on this I expect the council's position on this is that the investment going into the regeneration of Tottenham specifically but Haringey in general is absolutely enormous and I'm not sure how a council can spend or even raise that kind of money without a partnership with someone.
Well that’s part of the end game of the Cameron-Osborne project. Strip away council funding so they have to sell to and partner with the private sector. It’s essentially just an extension of Thatcherism - strip back the state to the barest minimimum and let the market take over. Whether you think that’s a good thing or not - it’s definitely happening.
 
Last edited:

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
17,876
Well that’s part of the end game of the Cameron-Osborne project. Strip away council funding so they have to sell to and partner with the private sector. It’s essentially just an extension of Thatcherism - strip back the state to the barest minimimum and let the market take over. Whether you think that’s a good thing or not - it’s definitley happening.
Sorry to disappoint you but I really can't argue the merits of Thatcher, Cameron and Osborne.
 

southlondonyiddo

My eyes have seen some of the glory..
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
7,855
Well that’s part of the end game of the Cameron-Osborne project. Strip away council funding so they have to sell to and partner with the private sector. It’s essentially just an extension of Thatcherism - strip back the state to the barest minimimum and let the market take over. Whether you think that’s a good thing or not - it’s definitley happening.

Like those ****s are currently trying to do with our NHS
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
11,393
It's difficult to know where to start: there's just an inundation of posts on the past two pages and nearly every one makes some good points and then is glaringly wrong on other points.

This is my field and I'm not beholden to anyone, because I'm an independent consultant who has worked in all sides of affordable housing, regeneration and development over a 30-year period.

That's not to say I don't have strongly held opinions - I do, but my opinions are the old-fashioned type: they're based on hard experience, hard facts and a large dollop of scepticism for the motives of all sides.

When I can find some time, I'll try to set down what the conflicting sides aren't making clear, add some historical context and draw some conclusions about the Haringey regeneration scheme. I can't do that now.

Broadly speaking, Chakrabortty's article is accurate, insofar as it concentrates on the politics. It isn't really about the merits or demerits of the local development plans, it's about the motivations of people who want to trash Momentum and, by proxy, Corbyn. He's got that right.

But most of the posts above responding to it are discussing the development plans themselves and how they will affect the local community - and there are a lot of misapprehensions on show.

Later, when I have a spare half-hour...
 

sherbornespurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
2,224
On what evidence is it possible to suggest that these residents won't be given new homes? You may think there have been other cases but in this instance there is no reason to believe that will happen and to therefore suggest murky business based on articles like the guardian one and the lies of those that object to it is wrong.
Haringey's plan is to entrust the developer with a major share of its housing strategy for at least 10 years, the same developer (Lendlease) who partnered Southwark council in its “regeneration” of the Heygate estate. It bulldozed nearly 1,200 social homes and guess how many were replaced in total? Just 82.

Read the article: "......every resident of an estate bulldozed by the HDV will be able to return once it’s rebuilt. Yet the actual HDV policy passed by Haringey cabinet this summer has enough escape clauses to keep David Blaine happy. Leaseholders get a worse deal; housing association tenants enjoy no such certainty and council estates that will be knocked down later are totally exempt from these guarantees. Whatever Haringey claims is council policy, its own legal advice states: “The HDV will comply with [council policy] subject to certain exclusions".

Another council document states “The HDV Business Plan (is to) prioritise a single move for residents rather than Right of Return.” Meaning that whatever the public promises may be, when an individual is moved from their home, returning to their previous location really isn’t a priority for the council.

This whole business is based on the myth of 'supply-side' economic nonsense. ie it is impossible to do anything without speculative money involved.
Here's how it goes: starve local councils of funds which then forces them to sell off as many public assets to private investors as possible.
Economically cleanse the area by buy-to-let absent landlords with money exiting the country to foreign investors. Result: gentrification on the back of increased land and housing values while poorer citizens congregate in ghettos.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
17,876
Haringey's plan is to entrust the developer with a major share of its housing strategy for at least 10 years, the same developer (Lendlease) who partnered Southwark council in its “regeneration” of the Heygate estate. It bulldozed nearly 1,200 social homes and guess how many were replaced in total? Just 82.

Read the article: "......every resident of an estate bulldozed by the HDV will be able to return once it’s rebuilt. Yet the actual HDV policy passed by Haringey cabinet this summer has enough escape clauses to keep David Blaine happy. Leaseholders get a worse deal; housing association tenants enjoy no such certainty and council estates that will be knocked down later are totally exempt from these guarantees. Whatever Haringey claims is council policy, its own legal advice states: “The HDV will comply with [council policy] subject to certain exclusions".

Another council document states “The HDV Business Plan (is to) prioritise a single move for residents rather than Right of Return.” Meaning that whatever the public promises may be, when an individual is moved from their home, returning to their previous location really isn’t a priority for the council.

This whole business is based on the myth of 'supply-side' economic nonsense. ie it is impossible to do anything without speculative money involved.
Here's how it goes: starve local councils of funds which then forces them to sell off as many public assets to private investors as possible.
Economically cleanse the area by buy-to-let absent landlords with money exiting the country to foreign investors. Result: gentrification on the back of increased land and housing values while poorer citizens congregate in ghettos.
Enough escape clauses to keep david blain happy, I won't bother listing them though, so just a snappy line then really.
The point people are missing is that the residents aren't being "chucked out of their homes and their estate being bulldozed" that is a complete rejection of the residents wishes, the point is that the residents said knock it down we don't want to live here, it is not fit for purpose.
The article chooses to just ignore that truth and since he took much of his information from the people looking to be the new council it is pretty clear they will choose to do the same and all the time pretending to be doing the best for them, I wouldn't trust them to take into account the residents wishes for one minute..
 

Dunc2610

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
210
If they have it’s not working, the car park in the basement has 2 inches of water on the floor for the last month
You won't have any temp waterproofing in the car parks, they're wet zones and will have their own drainage, providing it's been kept clear of debris lol
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
660
If they have it’s not working, the car park in the basement has 2 inches of water on the floor for the last month
On this basis i would say it is working as no form of temporary waterproofing can cope with the water that collects at ground and below ground whislt the site is still open. No contractor would carry out any finishes at these levels until all the groundworks and drainage are fully complete. The temporary waterproofing are for M&E and finishing trades above ground floor only
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
11,393
Haringey's plan is to entrust the developer with a major share of its housing strategy for at least 10 years, the same developer (Lendlease) who partnered Southwark council in its “regeneration” of the Heygate estate. It bulldozed nearly 1,200 social homes and guess how many were replaced in total? Just 82.

Read the article: "......every resident of an estate bulldozed by the HDV will be able to return once it’s rebuilt. Yet the actual HDV policy passed by Haringey cabinet this summer has enough escape clauses to keep David Blaine happy. Leaseholders get a worse deal; housing association tenants enjoy no such certainty and council estates that will be knocked down later are totally exempt from these guarantees. Whatever Haringey claims is council policy, its own legal advice states: “The HDV will comply with [council policy] subject to certain exclusions"...
I think most of your post is spot-on, especially the bits about privatisation and supply-side economics, but this is exactly what I am referring to when I say that both sides in this nationwide wrangle use spin and bullshit mercilessly.

Anti-development campaigners always, always, always refer to [old, poor-standard, socially-problematic and expensive-to-maintain] housing being "bulldozed", because it sounds brutal. It's a close kin to the ghastly bullshit cliché "concreting over the countryside" that we invariably read whenever anyone proposes building new homes, especially new affordable homes, anywhere near where wealthy Tory voters live.

They aren't being "bulldozed", they're being demolished to make way for replacement housing. "Bulldozed" is always chosen because it has an echo of the people being bulldozed, i.e. bullied. It's spin.

Housing needs to be torn down and replaced. It's a fact. In principle, development isn't "good" or "bad", it's just a necessity. Using emotive words to undermine necessary change takes the attention away from the important point, which is: what quality of housing going to replace it and who will be able to afford to live there?
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
11,393
Another example of half-right, half wrong:

Enough escape clauses to keep david blain happy, I won't bother listing them though, so just a snappy line then really.
The point people are missing is that the residents aren't being "chucked out of their homes and their estate being bulldozed" that is a complete rejection of the residents wishes, the point is that the residents said knock it down we don't want to live here, it is not fit for purpose.
Quite right, but also not really what Chakrabortty was writing about. As I said, he isn't focusing on the development itself, he's interested in the reasons behind the political wrangle and what the ulterior motives are.

The article chooses to just ignore that truth and since he took much of his information from the people looking to be the new council it is pretty clear they will choose to do the same and all the time pretending to be doing the best for them, I wouldn't trust them to take into account the residents wishes for one minute..
That's founded on nothing and it's not so. The "new council" is likely to be composed of exactly the people who are so obsessed with "taking into account the residents' wishes" that they will paralyse necessary development because a few obsessed Luddites don't like the fact that they lost the vote to demolish the estate.

And we haven't even got to the key question, which is the latitude to avoid affordable housing that Kober's group are allowing Lendlease to bully them into. That's the underlying issue with what so-called "regeneration" has become over the past 10-15 years: mega-developers hoovering up valuable land by promising affordable housing that they have no intention of delivering and then blackmailing, bribing, undermining and bullying the local authority until they get their way.

I know all about this: I know all the tricks, because I actually write viability assessments for developers. It's an area I'm actively trying to get out of in favour of other work, for all the reasons I scarcely have to explain.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
17,876
Another example of half-right, half wrong:



Quite right, but also not really what Chakrabortty was writing about. As I said, he isn't focusing on the development itself, he's interested in the reasons behind the political wrangle and what the ulterior motives are.



That's founded on nothing and it's not so. The "new council" is likely to be composed of exactly the people who are so obsessed with "taking into account the residents' wishes" that they will paralyse necessary development because a few obsessed Luddites don't like the fact that they lost the vote to demolish the estate.

And we haven't even got to the key question, which is the latitude to avoid affordable housing that Kober's group are allowing Lendlease to bully them into. That's the underlying issue with what so-called "regeneration" has become over the past 10-15 years: mega-developers hoovering up valuable land by promising affordable housing that they have no intention of delivering and then blackmailing, bribing, undermining and bullying the local authority until they get their way.

I know all about this: I know all the tricks, because I actually write viability assessments for developers. It's an area I'm actively trying to get out of in favour of other work, for all the reasons I scarcely have to explain.
I'll take your point Davidmatzdorf but I'm not sure what your bit about the new council, are you saying they will stop the develoment or that they don't want to demolish the estate?
 
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
19,424
And we haven't even got to the key question, which is the latitude to avoid affordable housing that Kober's group are allowing Lendlease to bully them into. That's the underlying issue with what so-called "regeneration" has become over the past 10-15 years: mega-developers hoovering up valuable land by promising affordable housing that they have no intention of delivering and then blackmailing, bribing, undermining and bullying the local authority until they get their way.

I know all about this: I know all the tricks, because I actually write viability assessments for developers. It's an area I'm actively trying to get out of in favour of other work, for all the reasons I scarcely have to explain.
I appreciate this is your vocation, and I prefaced my first post on the subject by saying I don’t know enough of the detail of the HDP, only the history of developers in London consistently failing to deliver social housing when they’ve got the land on the proviso they do just that.

I really hope Levy isn’t too heavily involved in this. I think he’s a genuinely decent man, and what he’s done with the Spurs Foundation since owning the club is something we should all be proud of. But when it comes to making deals he’s got a real cut-throat side, and I hope the poorer local residents don’t all get pushed out as a consequence.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
11,393
I'll take your point Davidmatzdorf but I'm not sure what your bit about the new council, are you saying they will stop the develoment or that they don't want to demolish the estate?
I don't know. I'm going to have to read more about this - and probably do some fishing with local Labour people - before I start making pronouncements about a specific development I'm not very familiar with. I have plenty to say about "regeneration", why it started as a good idea and how it's been bent out of shape, but I haven't had anything directly to do with the HDV, so I'm not au fait with the details.

My impression is that the new councillors' intention is to stop the HDV, if the council isn't already contractually-committed (again, I don't know if it is too late for them to do this).

My previous experience is that these "stop the scheme!" campaigns are often driven by people who lost a regeneration vote and are determined to ignore that. If so, then the new councillors may be pressurised to reverse the decision to demolish the existing estates.

I've become very cynical about this whole area. The underlying "fake news" problem here is that both sides are generally ... well ... full of shit. On one hand, you have a big-money developer promising all sorts of stuff to a local authority that they have no intention of delivering. On the other hand, you have a group of NIMBYs unwilling to see any change to the status quo, sometimes because they aren't being offered as much money as they think is fair to relinquish their current housing (think "Archway Steel").

What gets lost in the shouting is (a) the people who just want a better place to live locally at an affordable rent and (b) the pressing need to replace old, expensive-to-maintain, inferior and environmentally-unsustainable housing with new. There are very few of us left in affordable housing who are strongly pro-development and strongly in favour of rehousing all local residents in properly-affordable housing, at the expense of developers' profits.

If you want to point at a reason for the whole fucking mess, don't blame Haringey Council. The problem goes right back to the termination of the system of capital grants that subsidised 40%-60% of the cost of new affordable housing, when the Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition took over in 2010. It was a system that worked: housing associations were building large quantities of properly-affordable housing in mixed-class developments.

The removal of capital grants coincided with the removal of the firm requirement that all new residential developments should provide 40%-50% affordable housing [EDIT: and an increase in "affordable" rents from 40%-60% of market levels to 80%]. Prior to these changes, developers worked with housing associations and local authorities to develop affordable housing, but you knew how much affordable housing was going to be required and the power balance was broadly equal between developer and council/HA. Now "regeneration" has just become a scam for developers to get their hands on incredibly valuable development land for very little money and develop luxury flats to sell to money-laundering overseas oligarchs. That's not an exaggeration for effect, that's what the London "luxury" property market is all about.

I'm past trying to solve this mess and I'm actually in the process of trying to walk away from it, but I've got a very clear idea of what's gone wrong.
 
Last edited:

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
33,334
I don't know. I'm going to have to read more about this - and probably do some fishing with local Labour people - before I start making pronouncements about a specific development I'm not very familiar with. I have plenty to say about "regeneration", why it started as a good idea and how it's been bent out of shape, but I haven't had anything directly to do with the HDV, so I'm not au fait with the details.

My impression is that the new councillors' intention is to stop the HDV, if the council isn't already contractually-committed (again, I don't know if it is too late for them to do this).

My previous experience is that these "stop the scheme!" campaigns are often driven by people who lost a regeneration vote and are determined to ignore that. If so, then the new councillors may be pressurised to reverse the decision to demolish the existing estates.

I've become very cynical about this whole area. The underlying "fake news" problem here is that both sides are generally ... well ... full of shit. On one hand, you have a big-money developer promising all sorts of stuff to a local authority that they have no intention of delivering. In the other hand, you have a group of NIMBYs unwilling to see any change to the status quo, sometimes because they aren't being offered as much money as they think is fair to relinquish their current housing (think "Archway Steel").

What gets lost in the shouting is (a) the people who just want a better place to live locally at an affordable rent and (b) the pressing need to replace old, expensive-to-maintain, inferior and environmentally-unsustainable housing with new. There are very few of us left in affordable housing who are strongly pro-development and strongly in favour of rehousing all local residents in properly-affordable housing, at the expense of developers' profits.

If you want to point at a reason for the whole fucking mess, don't blame Haringey Council. The problem goes right back to the termination of the system of capital grants that subsidised 40%-60% of the cost of new affordable housing, when the Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition took over in 2010. It was a system that worked: housing associations were building large quantities of properly-affordable housing in mixed-class developments.

The removal of capital grants coincided with the removal of the firm requirement that all new residential developments should provide 40%-50% affordable housing. Prior to that, developers worked with housing associations and local authorities to develop affordable housing, but you knew how much affordable housing was going to be required and the power balance was broadly equal between developer and council/HA. Now "regeneration" has just become a scam for developers to get their hands on incredibly valuable development land for very little money and develop luxury flats to sell to money-laundering overseas oligarchs. That's not an exaggeration for effect, that's what the London "luxury" property market is all about.

I'm past trying to solve this mess and I'm actually in the process of trying to walk away from it, but I've got a very clear idea of what's gone wrong.
Thanks david, very informative.
 

Flashspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
5,478
That estate "bulldozed" by HDV is that the one in which the residents had a vote and pretty well unanimously voted to bulldoze the estate? Those residents that HDV will chuck out of their homes, are they the ones that voted pretty well unanimously to leave their homes to be able to reurn to better ones as they are built?
There is a definitive fundamental difference between chucking people out of their homes then bulldozing their estate and having a consultation exercise and a democratic vote among those residents to ask what they wanted to be done and following their decision.That article is typical of a lazy journalist who has come into the situation half way through without even bothering to research the facts and who just takes what he wants from it to suit himself, another way of putting it is that it's a pack of lies.
The journalist writes for the Guardian. Shite rag with a massive agenda. Enough said.
 

Speedy

Active Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
642
The journalist writes for the Guardian. Shite rag with a massive agenda. Enough said.
Funnily enough, Trump in one of his books says that his trick, his key to success is that journalists don’t actually know what they are writing about. They can write fantastic things very quickly to deadlines using the information which is easily available, but the depth is actually lacking; they write and move on to the next totally different subject. Sitting down to a New Yorker feature article is actually time consuming and nobody has time to read a book a day. And so we have the media.
 

Phischy

The Spursy One
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
957
Funnily enough, Trump in one of his books says that his trick, his key to success is that journalists don’t actually know what they are writing about. They can write fantastic things very quickly to deadlines using the information which is easily available, but the depth is actually lacking; they write and move on to the next totally different subject. Sitting down to a New Yorker feature article is actually time consuming and nobody has time to read a book a day. And so we have the media.
This is true, any time a major newspaper writes about the Financial Services (my) industry, there are always fundamental mistakes and misunderstandings as it's not their field. I am certain it happens across the board.
 
Top