New Stadium Details And Discussions

Discussion in 'The New Stadium' started by fozzi44, Nov 4, 2008.

  1. worcestersauce

    worcestersauce "I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope

    Messages:
    15,532
    Ratings Received:
    +13,897 / 328 / -76
    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.
     
  2. danielneeds

    danielneeds Kick-Ass

    Messages:
    18,271
    Ratings Received:
    +23,128 / 450 / -116
    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: Jan 3, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 4
  3. worcestersauce

    worcestersauce "I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope

    Messages:
    15,532
    Ratings Received:
    +13,897 / 328 / -76
    Sorry to disappoint you but I really can't argue the merits of Thatcher, Cameron and Osborne.
     
  4. southlondonyiddo

    southlondonyiddo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,258
    Ratings Received:
    +3,536 / 370 / -174

    Like those ****s are currently trying to do with our NHS
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. cider spurs

    cider spurs Active Member

    Messages:
    632
    Ratings Received:
    +1,324 / 23 / -14
    Computer says no.
     
  6. davidmatzdorf

    davidmatzdorf Front Page Gadfly

    Messages:
    10,462
    Ratings Received:
    +14,449 / 453 / -385
    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...
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. sherbornespurs

    sherbornespurs Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,940
    Ratings Received:
    +2,767 / 54 / -35
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. dondo

    dondo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,334
    Ratings Received:
    +6,113 / 485 / -127

    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
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. worcestersauce

    worcestersauce "I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope

    Messages:
    15,532
    Ratings Received:
    +13,897 / 328 / -76
    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..
     
  10. Dunc2610

    Dunc2610 Member

    Messages:
    68
    Ratings Received:
    +102 / 7 / -1
    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
     
  11. FibreOpticJesus

    FibreOpticJesus Active Member

    Messages:
    566
    Ratings Received:
    +755 / 88 / -43
    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
     
  12. davidmatzdorf

    davidmatzdorf Front Page Gadfly

    Messages:
    10,462
    Ratings Received:
    +14,449 / 453 / -385
    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?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. davidmatzdorf

    davidmatzdorf Front Page Gadfly

    Messages:
    10,462
    Ratings Received:
    +14,449 / 453 / -385
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. worcestersauce

    worcestersauce "I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope

    Messages:
    15,532
    Ratings Received:
    +13,897 / 328 / -76
    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?
     
  15. danielneeds

    danielneeds Kick-Ass

    Messages:
    18,271
    Ratings Received:
    +23,128 / 450 / -116
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. davidmatzdorf

    davidmatzdorf Front Page Gadfly

    Messages:
    10,462
    Ratings Received:
    +14,449 / 453 / -385
    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: Jan 4, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 21
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. Lilbaz

    Lilbaz Just call me Baz

    Messages:
    26,978
    Ratings Received:
    +40,535 / 751 / -243
    Thanks david, very informative.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  18. Flashspur

    Flashspur Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,959
    Ratings Received:
    +6,136 / 353 / -138
    The journalist writes for the Guardian. Shite rag with a massive agenda. Enough said.
     
    • Agree x 5
    • Disagree x 4
    • Funny x 1
    • Friendly x 1
    • Doh! x 1
  19. Speedy

    Speedy Active Member

    Messages:
    578
    Ratings Received:
    +739 / 50 / -18
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Doh! Doh! x 1
  20. Phischy

    Phischy The Spursy One

    Messages:
    852
    Ratings Received:
    +855 / 11 / -10
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3

Share This Page