Curse of gentification

[Loz]

Angelina Wrote:

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

> I agree, Joe. losing the character of a place is a

> cost of gentrification. Just look at Brixton - an

> entire culture has all but disappeared. And while

> it may be good as it is, that's subjective.

Although in Brixton's case, it has arguably re-gentrified. It was really very middle-class up until WW2, which you can see in buildings like Morleys and the Ritzy.

[Nigello]

You could argue that the "culture" of Brixton has disappeared several times over the past century, so there is no reason why it shouldn't change again, like SE15/22/23 and all the other 'burbs that are not already "up there" like SE21. Things change, money talks, people move around more....C'est la vie.

[adonirum]

DF, I go back even further and you are quite right, crime has never been so prevalent so I agree not safer, but I feel the changes have been for the better and therefore it is a nicer place on the whole. Vast increases in crime have come hand-in-hand with ED's new(ish) found affluence, pretty much like anywhere else really, scumbags looking for easy rich pickings.

[JoeLeg]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> You could argue that the "culture" of Brixton has

> disappeared several times over the past century,

> so there is no reason why it shouldn't change

> again, like SE15/22/23 and all the other 'burbs

> that are not already "up there" like SE21. Things

> change, money talks, people move around

> more....C'est la vie.

All of that is true, things like this are part and parcel of the ever-changing nature of conurbations.

But sometimes, I hope you'd agree, the culture being lost is a vibrant, entertaining and interesting one; despite its flaws and troubles (and I'm not blind to them by any means) Brixton was always somewhere I felt lucky to live near. What it's being replaced with is somewhat anodyne and frankly dull. Yes, the street crack dealers have gone, and with them the harm they bought, but so has much else. Gentrification is inevitable, there no law against it, and it has tremendous benefits, but I hope in the future we find a better way of doing it. A lot of culture and history has gone.

[snowy]

Joe, I think you'll find that the street dealers are still there; just that technology has hidden then a little!

[Nigello]

I think "vibrant" and "diversity" are - by dint of overuse/misuse - becoming empty words, ones that people parrot without being able to really understand them. Culture is everywhere, it just may not be your cup of tea, or you may not be able to/fussed to find it. How do you know that those who are "coming in" are not providing new avenues for fresh cultural pursuits? Lots happens but we are not aware of most of it because we simply have no interest in or knowledge of it.

[JohnL]

snowy Wrote:

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

> Joe, I think you'll find that the street dealers

> are still there; just that technology has hidden

> then a little!

Stand on the street corner or at the bar and watch :)

I have nicknames for them.

[paulu1973]

I'm sick of this gentrification label. It assumes that the 'rich' move into an area and get rid of the so called 'soul' of the community. You'll find a lot of people move into areas because they see a future and want to be part of the tapestry, yet the very thing that attracts them they get ostracised by muppets such as dulwich fox wishing for the good old days. Stores come and go all the time...even in the 'good old days' there were always favourites that close down.

Rather than just blaming gentrification, why not shop more in those stores you love

[JohnL]

paulu1973 Wrote:

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

> I'm sick of this gentrification label. It assumes

> that the 'rich' move into an area and get rid of

> the so called 'soul' of the community. You'll find

> a lot of people move into areas because they see a

> future and want to be part of the tapestry, yet

> the very thing that attracts them they get

> ostracised by muppets such as dulwich fox wishing

> for the good old days. Stores come and go all the

> time...even in the 'good old days' there were

> always favourites that close down.

>

> Rather than just blaming gentrification, why not

> shop more in those stores you love

I don't think the problem with gentrification is where we are

now - it's the endgame (whatever that is).

The article below from 2016 can be updated, we have foxtons now,

we still have a few fried chicken places but loads more pizza places,

loads of flats being built, coffee houses (nice small ones).

So we're in the nice phase but as the OP states some people being forced

out already .

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/24/the-bubble-that-turned-into-a-tide-how-london-got-hooked-on-gentrification

[DulwichFox]

paulu1973 Wrote:

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

> I'm sick of this gentrification label. It assumes

> that the 'rich' move into an area and get rid of

> the so called 'soul' of the community. You'll find

> a lot of people move into areas because they see a

> future and want to be part of the tapestry, yet

> the very thing that attracts them they get

> ostracised by muppets such as dulwich fox wishing

> for the good old days. Stores come and go all the

> time...even in the 'good old days' there were

> always favourites that close down.

>

> Rather than just blaming gentrification, why not

> shop more in those stores you love

Nice to see that on your very first post you start by insulting people.

I'm Honoured you have singled The Fox out. So last year.

Take note, I The Fox did not start this thread, but no such insults to Original Poster.

DF

[JoeLeg]

paulu1973 Wrote:

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

> I'm sick of this gentrification label. It assumes

> that the 'rich' move into an area and get rid of

> the so called 'soul' of the community. You'll find

> a lot of people move into areas because they see a

> future and want to be part of the tapestry, yet

> the very thing that attracts them they get

> ostracised by muppets such as dulwich fox wishing

> for the good old days. Stores come and go all the

> time...even in the 'good old days' there were

> always favourites that close down.

>

> Rather than just blaming gentrification, why not

> shop more in those stores you love

There's so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start...

[JoeLeg]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I think "vibrant" and "diversity" are - by dint of

> overuse/misuse - becoming empty words, ones that

> people parrot without being able to really

> understand them. Culture is everywhere, it just

> may not be your cup of tea, or you may not be able

> to/fussed to find it. How do you know that those

> who are "coming in" are not providing new avenues

> for fresh cultural pursuits? Lots happens but we

> are not aware of most of it because we simply have

> no interest in or knowledge of it.

Some good points that provoke thought, but I still disagree with much of your view. However, were moving into the realms of the subjective now and I have no desire to start an argument over differing points of view, to which we are all entitled.

[JohnL]

OK

Here's a critical articles on Gentrification (I dwelt on nice things above)

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/24/gentrification-kings-cross-forces-people-from-housing-crisis

remember "But eventually, you too are likely to be priced out and displaced."

[Earl Aelfheah]

There are problems with the lack of affordable housing and high rents. But it's too easy to blame these problems on 'incomers'.

[alex_b]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I don't understand why people who have moved into

> an area aren't considered 'part of the community'.

> After how long are they designated part of the

> community?

In the West Country where I'm originally from it's about three generations even if you only move from the next village over! 'Those London types' are never really from round 'ere.

More seriously it is a reasonable question, especially as London is so big that it's hard to quantify what makes someone an incomer.

[Loz]

alex_b Wrote:

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

> More seriously it is a reasonable question,

> especially as London is so big that it's hard to

> quantify what makes someone an incomer.

Generally it comes down to "more money than me".

[Blah Blah]

I think the issue with gentrification is not so much the ebb, flow and evolution of an area, but the speed with which the change is happening at the moment. I was trying to think of when there was last anything on this scale of change. The mass building programmes of the late 60's early 70's perhaps?

[herne hilly]

I have to agree with Blah Blah - its how fast this "gentrification" or cleansing or what ever you want to call it has evolved.

Would say up to about the early 2000s - everyone had the chance to get a foot on the property ladder, no matter who you were - postman, shop worker, teacher etc. Where now to be it seems you have to be in a couple, both with high flying city jobs to be living in the SE21/22/24 area.

The local shops were run independently. No one had a coffee addiction or intolerance to gluten or lactose.

But times change and all those little local shop owners are at retiring age or can't afford the rents, so in swoop the chains. Plus all the flats being built with a supermarket chain underneath.

I'm starting to feel like the only pauper in the village. I just guess slowly , we will turn into the hampstead/primrose hill of the south.

[Seabag]

I'm sure the Fox isn't complaining about the value of his mortgage free house increasing.

Gentrification adds value, i'm sure we wouldn't want degradation in ED would we?

[DulwichFox]

Seabag Wrote:

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

> I'm sure the Fox isn't complaining about the value

> of his mortgage free house increasing.

>

> Gentrification adds value, i'm sure we wouldn't

> want degradation in ED would we?

House prices across London have fallen by 0.6% in the last quarter Nationwide B.S. and are estimated to fall further.

When I had my first Mortgage 1980 ..?15,000, interest rates were 15% and rose to 17% for a short period.

Paying ?370 P/M Wages ?400 p/m I had ?30 per month to live on.

Now With savings I get no interest so I am like many other older savers are effectively paying for

new home owners mortgages. I have lost >?90,000 since 2008.

So NO I am NOT happy.

Fox

[Seabag]

Cash in Foxy, buy a small flat somewhere.

Think of all that lovely equity, you must have easily about a 3/4 of million quid in that gaff of yours.

[Seabag]

However, you must take the downturn on the chin FOXTER as you were one of the yes to Brexit voters.

You and your ilk can't have the cake and eat it. So no more grumbling please, though BoJo is still sure you'll get your ?350million a week for the NHS, so that's great no?

But as I as I said, you're sitting on a pile. Why not sell and cash in.

[rendelharris]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> When I had my first Mortgage 1980 ..?15,000,

> interest rates were 15% and rose to 17% for a

> short period.

> Paying ?370 P/M Wages ?400 p/m I had ?30 per month

> to live on.

>

> Now With savings I get no interest so I am like

> many other older savers are effectively paying for

>

> new home owners mortgages. I have lost >?90,000

> since 2008.

>

> So NO I am NOT happy.

>

> Fox

And you've made, what, ?700,000+ since 1980? ?19k a year average. I'd say the glass is at least half full. And you're not paying for other people's mortgages, interest rates are interest rates which are determined by the world and domestic economic environment, they don't steal from you and give it to new mortgagees! Count your blessings, you had to pay a vast proportion of your income in mortgage payments, to buy your house now someone on an averageish income would need about three times their income every month to afford it

[Blah Blah]

I agree with Seabag. Someone sitting in a home they bought decades ago is not in a poor position. And you should also consider yourself lucky to have savings too DF. Todays young people can neither save nor buy because of the cost of rents and then starting cost of property. We bought our home in 2001 and consider ourselves lucky, but as someone says above, we needed two salaries to do it. We have two children and have no idea how they are ever going to buy a home, and fully expect we will have to use our savings to help them. They again will be of the lucky few. The downturn in prices is the first in a very long time and is being attributed to a lack of overseas investors. Maybe that is one good impact from the Brexit vote. The housing market in London has been artificially inflated for decades and can't go on like that.

[Blah Blah]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

Count

> your blessings, you had to pay a vast proportion

> of your income in mortgage payments, to buy your

> house now someone on an averageish income would

> need about three times their income every month to

> afford it

The latest data now shows that average house prices are EIGHT times the average salary. Back in the early 80's, mortgages were I think restricted to 2.5 times salary. DF has nothing whatsoever to complain about.