to think that just because I can't afford to live in the most expensive part of town....

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

... I have not been 'socially cleansed' and do not live in a ghetto? Proposal today to sell off expensive social housing and replace with a higher quantity of newly-built, cheaper social housing article here seems to make a lot of sense. Why the emotive language?

How will it work in reality though?

When I first moved here (many years ago) there were parts of Notting Hill/Westbourne Grovw you wouldn't walk through without a rottweiler and a big stick (there still are btw). Now it has become very very very expensive, as have other parts of town over time. Will the council assess house prices and move people accordingly?

It's not the social tenants houses fault, that some areas have become the 'place' to live.

Social house tenants*

I don't think the plan is to move anyone out. But if an expensive, larger/older property comes free, rather than move another family in, they sell it and build two or three new places in a less expensive location.

So will the social housing ghettos areas have the same facilities as the naice part?

That article makes me nervous the new housing would be awful. If they start off saying it should not be better than other non-socially-housed properties, sorry, the cynic in me thinks it'll end up being squalid.

Some kinds of housing manage to be relatively high density and also nice to live in. Others don't. I worry they'd build nasty, cheap boxes.

I thought in some areas there was already a problem with overcrowding in council houses.

I don't see at all why you should start off intending to build council homes that are deliberately less good than everyone else's houses.

They wouldn't be less good than everyone else's, they just wouldn't be above average, according to the article.

I agree with freddos. Why would there be a 'ghetto' just because the residents of an area happen to be socially housed?

I would imagine when the houses were built, it wasn't the most expensive part of town.

Re facilities.... IME 'nice areas' are not gated islands several miles away from everyone else, they're relatively close by. In London it can be the next street or postcode. Maybe not quite close enough to get into a particular school or whatever but that's a whole other argument about the silliness of the catchment system.

'Doin has made the assumption, as others automatically do, that HA tenents are unemployed'

D0oin has not made any such assumption.

I did actually mention low income families.

I am well aware that social housing is not just for the unemployed.

No, that's not actually what it says freddos. It says they should not be better than 'most' people get - ie., they should be worse than the majority.

I know I am being cynical to assume they will be awful, but I think social housing works best when people set out to build something decent.

I also think it is very short sighted to deliberately build poor-quality housing when you also have a policy of selling it off if the area becomes expensive. Surely they will end up spending more on it when it needs repairing?

LRD, 'nasty, cheap boxes'. Yes, the new housing would almost certainly fit this description. As does the vast majority of new build private housing on this cash strapped island we live on.

Will the new housing be built to Victorian terraces house proportions? Of course not. Only millionaires can afford to buy non-shoebox new build accommodatuion

I don't see anything about poor-quality. We all know parts of our home towns where the same size house sells for much more or less than one on the other side of town. New-builds have all kinds of rules and regs applicable these days as well. They have to be a certain room-size, energy efficient etc. So you could end up with a nicely-built, brand new, low-bill home just in a slightly less fashionable spot.... rather than something flung up in the 1970's with paper walls etc.

the new council housing that was built here over the last few years are just the same houses that were built on a private estate and all quite small tbh, the only difference in them was the council houses gardens were a bit smaller just the same houses, In scotland all builders have to turn over a percentage of their houses to social housing , Housing assoc run them

morris - no, not true. There are new builds near me which manage to be relatively high density and still look nice and build with what looks like decent quality.

I don't know if these new builds would be poor quality, but as I say, being cynical, I think that is what you get when you set out to build homes that are worse than what most people live in.

I am glad to hear what you say, though, cogito, maybe I am being too much of a cynic.

My house was shared ownership when we bought it. We had a housing association that owned the other half.

The estate we live on is mixed between 'social' housing (shared ownership) and 'normal' housing (which includes half million pound housing). That was the only way the local council would agree to granting planning permission. Its a nice area and unlike most new build estates, its extremely well planned and designed and there is a surprising amount of space between properties to preserve privacy for all. But because it has shared ownership housing, I've had people tell me its got a reputation as a 'council estate'. Which if you knew the area and saw the estate is beyond laughable. Every guest we've ever had visit has commented on how nice it is and how surprised they are that it didn't match their expectations. It just highlights snobbery and ignorance tbh.

You can build social housing as part of mixed estates - you can make it part of planning applications - it needs to be a more widespread condition of planning permission. In fact its a really good idea to build social housing alongside stock supposed to be for general sale as you can get a good deal from builders who want to make a profit from private housing. If you have an estate with lots of people who care about their surroundings because they have a vested interest in their property, it helps to make sure the area is nicer. And it also starts to break down this stigma and snobbery attached to social housing.

It you completely separate private and social housing of any type it is going to lead to problems. Its not rocket science to work out.

Cogito Where would this less expensive places be in relation to the public services we all need whether we can afford to live in £1 million pound houses or not? Or £3 million houses which aren't unusual or particularly remarkable in parts of London.

Would you be able to fit a number of homes suitable for a key worker with children on it? Would the time and cost of them commute between home and work make it attractive to middle-aged people with families holding down key jobs or do you think they might go somewhere else?

Sorry for the 'this' and 'them' btw. Am about to leave. Not ignoring you or this trhead.

I did actually mention low income families.

Low income doesn't come into it, in some areas.

I post regulary that we do not have this problemin Liverpool, that London has.

I have boarded up three bed with gardens, parking, new kitchens and bathrooms, for £70 a week.

I am a SW, my neighbours DH is an engineer, the other side i have a phsyc nurse and her partner is a security guard-no children.

There is a good mix on my estate of reasonable income families and benefit claimants.

Our houses would not pass inspections by surveyors, though, this should have been tackled long ago, but the tory policy of the 80's of leaving Councils cash strapped in regards to housing, caused a lot of problems.

What people find annoying is that policies are suggested that will work in London and the surrounding areas, but then are implemented in the likes of Liverpool/Merseyside and they do not work and are often very damaging.

'not be better than most' or 'not be better than average' - sounds like pretty much the same thing to me!

I thought that all new built estates had to contain a certain percentage of social housing nowadays? I could be wrong. But if I'm not, then it's things like that that prevent whole areas becoming rough.

But, um, 'most' means the majority. 'Average' doesn't mean majority.

Of course they're not the same thing!

No, average doesn't. But for average to be average theres going to be as many below average as there are above average, which still means quite a lot!

No, there really don't.

It's perfectly possible for a lot of houses to be average.