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?

They wanted a bigger property (kids getting older, wanting more room) but the only offers were in areas with much poorer quality schooling, and generally more down & out environments.

Of course this person didn't want to have to move miles from friends & family support networks, & current schools & accept poorer quality schools & grotty neighbourhoods.

outraged did you miss this bit?

Because it sounds a lot like being squeezed out to me.

creighton, the only council I've heard of who has built council homes out of their geographical area is the Corporation of London, who have some council flats in Hackney and Southwark (which were built decades ago). So yes, miles away from the City, but certainly not as far as Kent or Hampshire. I know of a few London boroughs which have plans going through for affordable housing (not necessarily council, but HA or shared ownership) in their own boroughs, so they clearly are finding the land to build on.
There are no proposals I've heard of where London councils are planning to build council flats outside of their own boroughs or indeed outside of London. Can you link to any?

limitedperiodonly so they basically likey every one else who works who wants a bigger home either work harder and try and get paid more so you can move up or move to a cheaper area and suffer bad schools and social issues for a bigger home or move to the sticks

I feel their should be a banner at the housing

Weclome to world of the working

also erks me when people feel entilted to a bigger home because they have decied to have more children as if any working person would get a bigger home just because they want more chikdren

Sorry, but that doesn't sound like being squeezed out to me.

It sounds like someone who wanted it all but with bells on. Like most people, tennants and owners, this person had a choice. Live in a smaller house that they can afford in the area they want, or live in a house that they like but in an area that's not so nice.

It's not being squeezed out at all. That implies that there is some pressure from somewhere to move from where they have, when the reality is the only pressure is coming from themselves because of what they want.

Same applies for home owners and private renters too though doesn't it? Many people have to weigh up the options of having another child and living in a larger house in a less salubrious area, or whether to stick with one child and live somewhere more desirable.

We do need to apply some common sense here. We stopped at 2 children because having more would have tipped us into having to move into a larger house in a less pleasant area. We weighed it up and made a judgement. If we'd gone for more kids, it would have been absurd to moan that we were being 'squeezed out'.

Outraged I do have a problem with areas that are more socially diverse than you might expect becoming less socially diverse and I think this is exactly why people are talking about social cleansing and people being pushed out. I am not very comfortable with the idea of facilitating wealthy enclaves and social housing enclaves. Heck, we've seen enough assumptions about social housing tenants on this thread to suggest to me that more mixing not less might be a good thing.

Additionally, the reality is that most of the replacement properties will be further out and so some of the less well off workers will potentially face higher commuting costs (and I bet their rent won't go down to compensate).

I don't see why these areas would become less socially diverse.

As is often pointed out, people in social housing work and pay tax and aren't really any different to anyone else that rents privately or pays a mortgage.

The social mix really wouldn't change that much I don't think.

Yes, some less well off workers would have to pay more in commuting costs, but that is already the situation for private tennants and owners. Social housing tenants have no need to be exempt from that. No, I don't suppose their rent will go down, but then nor will a private LL give a rent reduction because of where the tenants job is, nor will the bank give someone a mortage reduction because of where their customers job is.

Janey has it spot on.

atlantic much of the building is now being done by housing associations that spread across a wide area. Notting Hill housing is building in Hounslow, Havering, Lambeth, Newham etc
www.nottinghillhousing.org.uk/about-us/building-new-homes/our-developments

"Someone on MN ... . lved in a smarter area of WMidlands but in council housing. They wanted a bigger property (kids getting older, wanting more room) but the only offers were in areas with much poorer quality schooling, and generally more down & out environments."

IMO it talk like this that fuels the resentment - I'm in the W midlands and as buyers we had to make this choice - as have many many others.

We've always worked hard to better ourselves - but struggle. FFS - to get a decent schooling and better services we'll have to move to a much smaller house.

I have sympathy with idea that transport costs and additional cost to access services for people with additional issues and less income than us would be extremely difficult as we struggle but really that example doesn't encourage that thinking.

Outraged because people can't afford the private rents in some of those areas unless they are in very well paid jobs. If you get rid of the social housing, you won't have a bus driver living down the road you will just have a cosy little world of lawyers, accountants and the like.

I don't think that true - a lot of people on good wages are struggling to buy in nice areas.

I think you'll get yet more age segregation - as people who bought before prices went up live in the nice areas and everyone else scrambled for the best they can afford.

Well, lawyers and accountants need somewhere to live as much as bus drivers.

As long as the bus driver is allocated adequate housing, I really don't see the problem. He will just live near other perfectly nice bus drivers and others who are on a simelar wage. Nowt wrong with that.

Xayide I am talking from actual knowledge of the part of London I live in. Some of DH's friends are bus drivers by the way and they wouldn't be able to afford to rent in the area if they weren't in social housing. The only people who can afford to rent are young professional couples.

Much of the property in the area is in the rented sector as buying is difficult in central London.

I think of an area in Norwich, on the edge of Golden triangle, near the inner ring road & where the old hospital used to be? If you know Norwich, you know the area.

Would be prime for selling up to developers. Great access (walking distance) to city centre & already on edge of hot student-housing area. Some of it has already gone into private market (right to buy).

The local school (Bignold, lovely atmosphere, huge emphasis on treating children as individuals with unique qualities, not test-takers) would change hugely if the social-housing tenants moved out. It's already a heavily student-University surrounding area (tiny terraces renting out for a fortune). I bet the school would shrink as yet more students & yuppies moved in. They couldn't afford to live there & have so many children, so fewer would have children at all.

Some would say parts of the area are a dump so just as well to lose that social class & their influence; that's why I hear this policy as so elitist. I foresee gentrification pushing out social diversity. And where would these worse-off people with limited income for transport move? Into the dump areas of Norwich (Larkman, Mile Cross), which already are over-burdened with low income families & social problems. Or even further out from town. Further from public transport, jobs, resources & amenities.

Outraged I am tempted to buy you a spoon as your last post comes over as stirring.

Isn't this the sort of housing policy that Paris has followed, come to think of it? Paris famous for it's dodgy outer suburbs, dense with poverty, immigrants & social problems? And worse, far from jobs & many hours commute from decent jobs. Limited local tangible examples for the suburb children to see of aspiration & self-made success?

Really? Why?

I thought it would be the opposite of stirring to point out that if everyone gets what they need then there isn't really a problem.

For that to make sense lljkk, then you would have to be saying that the people who move are generally immigrants, those living in poverty or those who have social problems, and it's just not like that.

Most social housing tennants are like the aforementioned bus driver.

Mrbojangles and outraged You don't have to tell me about the world of work or the concept of wanting everything with bells on.

I moved into a grotty area which in the 20 years we've lived here has become extremely desirable and expensive. Luck, good planning - or a bit of both.

We also earn a decent amount of money, not necessarily because we work hard, though we do, but because the jobs we chose are well-paid.

Many of my neighbours are similar, but lots of them are also from families with roots here, many of whom enjoyed right-to-buy. I like it.

However, no matter how undoubtedly wealthy everyone in my street is none of us earns enough to pay for full private health care, the best education and transport, and shops and businesses staffed by local people doing ordinary jobs, a mix of entertainment that's not geared to young single people or old, very rich people, or people who have to go home after work leaving the place dead and rather dangerous of an evening etc.

Those things are very desirable but they're far from being luxuries. Or, perhaps I should say, they shouldn't be.

I don't really understand what point you are trying to make there limited. Your situation sounds completly normal.

I like a large section of the UK population don't live in London and this policy is suggested for all councils according to the article.

Here people on good incomes like professionals have to chose less good neighbors where they live beside people who bought much earlier on much lower incomes. Causing a increase in diversity if anything.

Where I grew up families can't buy usually and the population as a result is aging causing its own issues.

The cheap land here is considerable distance from main employment areas and transport is expensive meaning a policy of selling of council housing in mu town more expensive areas and building on the cheap land will lead to higher living cost for the housed people.

I would have though the professional renters in the neighbor in London you know would at some point have to buy in other areas perhaps in less good areas increasing diversity in those areas - but I don't know.

lljkk, the old hospital is now luxury flats.

Mr. Bojangles, stop assuming that everyone in social housing is on benefits.

Outraged, you know me from previous discussions and I know your heart is in the right place, but what you have described with the bus driver is exactly what has been posited on this thread, social cleansing and social engineering.
The idea is that all people from all walks of life should live together, not the bus drivers in one road, the refuse collectors in another.

Don't you outraged?

But you said earlier that we all had to learn to compromise by living in a smaller house in our preferred area or moving somewhere grottier for more accommodation.

I thought I'd just explained that I didn't have to do that and don't accept that it's so unreasonable to expect not to have to.

Plus the bit you forgot to address about the value of having fabulous public services on your doorstep which save you time, money and stress.

But it's great that you agree with me totally.

I just think terms like social engineering and social cleansing are quite harsh ways to describe people living in areas that they can afford.

I don't think that people from different jobs all have to live on the same street for there to be positive and heathy communities.

I live in a very large villiage. There are areas that are almost exclusively council, there are your bog standard (often ex council) semis, there are lots of houses that have eye watering prices when they come up on rightmove, there is a settled traveling community, and everything in between. I don't think it matters that the travellers live in one area and the high flying professionals all live in another. There is only five minutes walk between the two, and it's a lovely, thriving villiage community, where people from all the different areas just get together in one of the local pubs.