£10m boost for Sheffield estate

[muckymurphy 10]

there are yet more humps now to be installed in shiregreen and norwood areas. why dont they skim the road surface on herries road alongside the hospital, there are more than enough humps and severe potholes in that area, they could just transplant them. they calm the traffic much better than the intentional installations.

[brianthedog 10]

Come to think of it the people living in the poorer wards contribute much more per metre squared of the ward, they may have lower council tax, but much higher population density.

 

So a higher population density than Hunters Bar or Nether Edge (mainly terraced housing). And lets consider the percentage of houses paying the full council tax (without subsidy) as a final factor.

[scottf 21]

I wonder when they will cme and sort out the streetlighting in broomhill then- its shocking in areas.

 

then again- i guess were not in a 'deprived' area so ill not hold my breath.

[Phylis 10]

And how the hell do the residents mess up the streets and footpaths?

 

Litter, smashed bus stops, parking on grass verges, graffitti..... (should i go on or have you got the idea yet). Shiregreen is a sh*t hole and really just wants knocking down and starting again. £70 million is not going to sort out this estate it will still degenerate into its current state in a matter of years.

[BLADE8T1 10]

Litter, smashed bus stops, parking on grass verges, graffitti..... (should i go on or have you got the idea yet). Shiregreen is a sh*t hole and really just wants knocking down and starting again. £70 million is not going to sort out this estate it will still degenerate into its current state in a matter of years.

 

whats this got to do with the original thread? which was 10 million investment in shiregreens paths and roads,all those ive highlighted from your comments have sweet FA to do with the thread,and in particular what I have said(should I go on or do you get the idea?!!!!!)

patronising little prat!

try reading properly or not at all!.

oh and for your info.I have lived in shiregreen for 10 years with not one bit of trouble,neither have I ever caused trouble i.e smashed any bus stops ,or grafiti vandalism or even parke my car on the grass.in fact,,your not even worth the rest of this,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[TeaFan 10]

Why do the ****-hole estates always get loads of money spent on them when it's the residents which make it an unpleasant place to live?

 

I can recommend a book called 'Estates' by Lyndsey Hanley who has lived on estates all her life. She has a good look at the history of social housing, and makes the point that in the 1930s getting a council house (and they were nearly all houses rather than flats then) was a sign of socially upward mobility. From this time until the late 1970s estates seem to have been fairly diverse in that you had skilled workers and unskilled workers living side by side, and crucially there was pretty much full employment.

 

From her point of view, things started to go wrong from the late 1970s onwards, when de-industrialisation meant more unemployment particularly among the less skilled workers, and the right to buy policy meant that the better paid could buy their properties and then ultimately sell them and move on, often selling to landlords who rent them out privately. The effect of this has been that the low-skilled have been left on some estates as the more affluent have moved out, along with a transient population on 6 month tenancies. Low employment, low wages, lack of positive role models, low ambition, bad schools. It's hardly surprising that some estates become desperate - not that I'm saying that about Shiregreen, it's more of a general point.

 

And spending some money on ****-hole estates, as you put it, can make a huge difference. Broadwater Farm in Tottenham, London, is a good example of a terrible estate turned around. So it can't be all about the people, can it? People are to some extent shaped by their environment, yes?

[brianthedog 10]

I can recommend a book called 'Estates' by Lyndsey Hanley who has lived on estates all her life. She has a good look at the history of social housing, and makes the point that in the 1930s getting a council house (and they were nearly all houses rather than flats then) was a sign of socially upward mobility. From this time until the late 1970s estates seem to have been fairly diverse in that you had skilled workers and unskilled workers living side by side, and crucially there was pretty much full employment.

 

From her point of view, things started to go wrong from the late 1970s onwards, when de-industrialisation meant more unemployment particularly among the less skilled workers, and the right to buy policy meant that the better paid could buy their properties and then ultimately sell them and move on, often selling to landlords who rent them out privately. The effect of this has been that the low-skilled have been left on some estates as the more affluent have moved out, along with a transient population on 6 month tenancies. Low employment, low wages, lack of positive role models, low ambition, bad schools. It's hardly surprising that some estates become desperate - not that I'm saying that about Shiregreen, it's more of a general point.

 

And spending some money on ****-hole estates, as you put it, can make a huge difference. Broadwater Farm in Tottenham, London, is a good example of a terrible estate turned around. So it can't be all about the people, can it? People are to some extent shaped by their environment, yes?

 

My Gran was the envy of her family when she got her council house in 1948. Her mother thought she was pulling her leg when she told her it had an inside toilet. She was very proud of it - and still is.

 

I couldn't agree more that people are shaped by their environment. However, for every example of investment in an estate bring about a positive change to the residents I'm sure there's at least 10 where it's done nothing.

[TeaFan 10]

My Gran was the envy of her family when she got her council house in 1948. Her mother thought she was pulling her leg when she told her it had an inside toilet. She was very proud of it - and still is.

 

I couldn't agree more that people are shaped by their environment. However, for every example of investment in an estate bring about a positive change to the residents I'm sure there's at least 10 where it's done nothing.

 

I think there is a fundamental problem with large estates which are nearly all social housing, mainly because these days social housing is reserved for the most needy. Therefore you get whole estates of the most needy, which can't be good. No government in living memory has really addressed this; we desperately need a lot more social housing because the market has failed to provide enough, but we need mixed estates, not massive estates of social housing. Some existing estates could do with wholesale demolition and remodelling, but until there's enough housing for those displaced to go into, it can't be done.

[Phylis 10]

whats this got to do with the original thread? which was 10 million investment in shiregreens paths and roads,all those ive highlighted from your comments have sweet FA to do with the thread,and in particular what I have said(should I go on or do you get the idea?!!!!!)

patronising little prat!

try reading properly or not at all!.

oh and for your info.I have lived in shiregreen for 10 years with not one bit of trouble,neither have I ever caused trouble i.e smashed any bus stops ,or grafiti vandalism or even parke my car on the grass.in fact,,your not even worth the rest of this

 

What i highlighted has a lot to do with the problem. Why spend £10 million on an area that is not willing to help itself. Unless you hadnt noticed £10 million is not pocket money. It would be better spent providing job oppurtunities for the almost 3 million unemployed.

 

You must be one of the lucky ones if you have had no problems in 10 years and nowhere did i state it was you that had specifically caused the problems in the area.

 

Resurfacing a road and a footpath is not going to rectify the deep seated problems in the area. It will take an awful lot more than that. The money will be better spent elsewhere.

[chem1st 10]

Be better spent replacing demolished homes. Bring on the tower blocks of the future!

[Ms Macbeth 73]

I can recommend a book called 'Estates' by Lyndsey Hanley who has lived on estates all her life. She has a good look at the history of social housing, and makes the point that in the 1930s getting a council house (and they were nearly all houses rather than flats then) was a sign of socially upward mobility. From this time until the late 1970s estates seem to have been fairly diverse in that you had skilled workers and unskilled workers living side by side, and crucially there was pretty much full employment.

 

From her point of view, things started to go wrong from the late 1970s onwards, when de-industrialisation meant more unemployment particularly among the less skilled workers, and the right to buy policy meant that the better paid could buy their properties and then ultimately sell them and move on, often selling to landlords who rent them out privately. The effect of this has been that the low-skilled have been left on some estates as the more affluent have moved out, along with a transient population on 6 month tenancies. Low employment, low wages, lack of positive role models, low ambition, bad schools. It's hardly surprising that some estates become desperate - not that I'm saying that about Shiregreen, it's more of a general point.

 

I'm going to get that book, sounds really interesting. I'm in agreement with what you've said about the changes - although I wasn't born til the 1940s, I visited my maternal granny in her council flat from then til she died in the 60s. The first home she'd had with an indoor bathroom! My OH was brought up in the 50s/60s on a large new council estate in Scotland, his father had moved north because of his job, and got rehoused (along with many of their neighbours) as a key worker. That estate started off being tenanted mainly with people in skilled occupations, but as people moved out either into either owner occupancy or more desirable locations, the customer base changed. And as you point out RTB had a huge knock on effect. Also as government priorities changed, so lettings policies have had to change, leading to large concentrations of poverty and deprivation on some estates.

 

When I was young there was also quite a variation in who lived in what council housing, some of my teachers lived on a small estate (with central heating - in the 50s!) near where I was brought up, everyone who lived there appeared to be in white collar occupations.

 

My OH & I got a new high rise council flat in the late 1960s that we lived in for about 18 months before we moved down here. It was fantastically well equipped, the kitchen had double sinks and a drying cupboard. There were washing machines for the tenants underneath the flats, and we had electric central heating! The tradition of housing families in flats in Scotland was the downfall of many of those 'multis' as they were called. All of the 6 blocks on that estate lasted approx 30 years before they were demolished, due to ASB, vandalism and general unpopularity of that type of accommodation with families.

 

Then we moved to South Yorkshire, in 1970, and had to rent privately. The upside was - in those days it was cheaper than our council flat had been! Getting a council house in those days depended on being on the list for a very long time - not much chance if you were incomers like us! Anecdotal stuff, but it was my reality. Nothing to do with Shiregreen, sorry, but a bit of housing history.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Ms Macbeth

[terrellmyers 10]

why did shiregreen get the nod for the money over other areas?