Battersea Power Station Project

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260042/Battersea-Power-Station-Inside-planned-penthouse-flats-cost-cool-6m-each.html

When some of our young cannot even afford to get on the bottom rung of the housing ladder isn't a project like this simply a disgrace?

[ummmm]

Why? It will create 25,000 new jobs.

[jackthehat]

There will be 9 £6m penthouses out of 3,400 new homes.
The DM omits to say quite for how much the more affordable houses will be priced...

[ummmm]

338,000 isn't extortionate in London.

[McMouse]

For London these are quite reasonable prices and I'm sure the properties will be sold off plan the moment details are available.

[New Judge]

It may seem a disgrace, aog, but if that development did not take place (and the luxury apartments were not built) it would not help youngsters get a foot on the ladder. The plain fact of the matter is that, as far as housing goes (and in many other areas which need not concern us here), the UK is living way beyond its means. There is a huge shortage of housing stock both "affordable" (a misnomer if ever there was one) and otherwise.

The population is increasing way beyond the nation's ability to house the new bodies and no government policy seeks to change that. Constructing these "unaffordable" developments may not provide housing for youngsters but it may provide jobs to help them.

[Bazile]

//When some of our young cannot even afford to get on the bottom rung of the housing ladder isn't a project like this simply a disgrace? //

Disgrace - why ?

If you have the money to offord one of the appartments and the project is privately funded ( no contribution from the government ) , then why not .

What is a disgrace is the government's lack of action in providing / policies to enable good affordable housing for people , young / middle aged / old .

I must say that is a fantastic view out of that appartment ; even though i cannot see the attraction of city living

[Gromit]

The Malaysian property developers have bought the site with their own funds and are to develop it. No public money will be used. The private apartments built will be sold on the open market to people who can afford them. So far I cannot see a downside to that plan.

You are not advocating a nanny state intervention are you AOG? Do you want to prevent private money being invested into the capital.

There are many reasons for high prperty prices in London, mainly due to there not being enough property to go round. And you are moaning when more property is being developed?

[jno]

river views are very expensive today. 30 years ago nobody wanted them and you could probably bought Battersea Power Station for a fiver and a box of fags.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// There are many reasons for high prperty prices in London, mainly due to there not being enough property to go round. And you are moaning when more property is being developed? ///

These properties will most likely be bought by wealthy foreigners, from the Middle and Far East.

I would have thought that with you being a devout Socialist, you would have been more sympathetic to the Government using this site to build much needed social housing?

[VHG]

I believe the suites on the upper floors of the Shard are 50 million EACH.

[friedgreentomato]

Does the government own the powerstation - apologies if this is in the article I am unable to open the document.

[Hopkirk]

It's about time something was done - it looks an embarrassing disgrace at the moment.

Mind you, there have been so many plans for the place that never happen that I am not holding my breath.

The joke is that they will have to take down the existing chimneys and put replicas in their place - the existing ones are crumbling and beyond hope.

[Hopkirk]

No FGT, it is not government owned.

It has been variously Hong Kong and Irish owned. The current owners are Malaysian.

[friedgreentomato]

Thank you Hopkirk, so I am confused then as to why the OP thinks that a profit making organisation should build affordable housing?

[jno]

the usual rule is that council are entitled to demand of developers that low-cost housing be included in big developments. Some do, some don't. In London, Boris and Ken seem to have been a bit lax about using their powers, as both are chiefly interested in skyscrapers.

I don't know if £338,000 studios are seen as low-cost, but they are not humungously expensive by London standards. jno jnr paid about £250,000 for one, miles from the river or any view at all.

[woofgang]

The building is falling apart, the site floods, its a listed building that needs care and protection. I would think that Wandsworth are desperate for a scheme to work on that site as it is currently a rat ridden eyesore. The developed site will employ people, generate council tax (and how!) and business rates and get rid of an eyesore. What's not to like?

[sp1814]

AOG

There needs to be housing stock at the top end of the market in order for chains to work.

Some of those buying at the top end, will be selling property to those in 'the middle', who will sell their properties to those at the lower end and so on.

I understand your point about the lack of affordable housing in London, but to be honest, I can't ever remember a time when there was a surplus of affordable private housing in London.

[anotheoldgit]

friedgreentomato

/// so I am confused then as to why the OP thinks that a profit making organisation should build affordable housing? ///

Not difficult, the London Authority could have made a compulsory purchase when the building ceased to be a power station, and then built affordable housing, thus creating jobs and in turn housing the homeless.

[friedgreentomato]

But the building ceased to be a power station years ago!!!

Houses are always expensive in the city and it is more to do with mortgages that are stopping 'our' young getting on the housing ladder that and some are too lazy to leave home!!