How much would you pay to live in Parkhill?

[BHRemovals]

Most peoplein sheffield wouldnt get a mortgage for one

[theripsaw]

Buy now and live on part of a building site for the next 10 years (according to the Guardian article)?? Difficult to re-sell with a constant trickle of brand new ones coming to the market.

I suppose you could rent it for say £400 a month which gives a return of c4.8% at 90k.

Deal of the century it aint.

I reckon if I could get one for 60k I'd think I got a reasonable deal.

[Proximus]

A repetitive strain injury from filling out Sheffield Homes' bidding forms is not a laughing matter

 

With complete respect to you this is obviously a subject that you feel massively passionate about, would you care to fill us in on your situation and why the negative views on everything property related in Sheffield?

 

In view of the Parkhill Development surely its a good thing? as someone said earlier It's people that can spoil a place, not the place itself. I struggle to see what's wrong with the place. Surely if a young couple - graduates for example -want to get on the property ladder and want to live centrally and in an area that has good transport links, facilities and cheap overheads, surely this place is ideal? The issue of not having some lowlife's dumped into the flat next door as this isn't any longer a council housing facility would only seek to strengthen the pull factor of a development like this? As yourselves; is this worse than how it was 10 years ago or better? Personally I would say better.

[chem1st]

With complete respect to you this is obviously a subject that you feel massively passionate about, would you care to fill us in on your situation and why the negative views on everything property related in Sheffield?

 

In view of the Parkhill Development surely its a good thing? as someone said earlier It's people that can spoil a place, not the place itself. I struggle to see what's wrong with the place. Surely if a young couple - graduates for example -want to get on the property ladder and want to live centrally and in an area that has good transport links, facilities and cheap overheads, surely this place is ideal? The issue of not having some lowlife's dumped into the flat next door as this isn't any longer a council housing facility would only seek to strengthen the pull factor of a development like this? As yourselves; is this worse than how it was 10 years ago or better? Personally I would say better.

There is no ladder.

 

Everyone should have a right to a home, if the state will not provide affordable housing, then people have the natural right to seize land and build their own, be it slum housing, or relatively nice housing.

 

As it stands, people are being farmed for rent, particularly amongst my generation, and enough is enough. We can't access council housing, we can't afford private housing due to it being overpriced (the prices being kept high by government interference).

 

We have no job security, no security of tenure. I'm not so fussed about property ownership, as all a man needs is the ability to place a roof over his and his families head for the duration of his life, landed property is a scam, a deceit, a robbery of the people.

 

Park hill sums up all that is wrong with housing policy in the UK.

 

This building of 1000 dwellings was built for £2million but 50 years ago, for the people to replace the slum housing. It was built in a manner in which communities were kept together.

Today it has been given away to the private sector with many millions of taxpayers money to help them stick on a bit of cheap cladding, and then sell it on for private profit. Communities have been split up, the building is only there to make profit, not to provide housing for the people.

 

The building should be destroyed, because what it now represents is sickening. It would be better if it were replaced with slums.

 

Where will the people of this city live, this was once housing for the poor. It will still be housing for the poor, but housing benefit shall be paid unto private landlords. And the poor kept in poverty.

 

No wonder this country is in such a state.

 

Property owning democracy, don't make me laugh.

[kimismum]

So you want to buy a nice flat in town for you/and your family. You might need 1, 2, 3 or so bedrooms.

 

There's a 1000 to choose from, at Parkhill.

 

How much would you be prepared to pay and for what.

 

£1

£25 000?

£50 000?

£100 000?

£200 000?

£1 million?

 

i would want paying to live there!

[trans]

Disappointed that you havn't put how much they would pay me. You can't improve on a dump.

 

The do googers get it wrong again.

 

Or as the guy from Urban Splash said" Itr's not your normal building site"

Edited September 2, 2011 by trans

[samstar999]

There is no ladder.

 

Everyone should have a right to a home, if the state will not provide affordable housing, then people have the natural right to seize land and build their own, be it slum housing, or relatively nice housing.

 

As it stands, people are being farmed for rent, particularly amongst my generation, and enough is enough. We can't access council housing, we can't afford private housing due to it being overpriced (the prices being kept high by government interference).

 

We have no job security, no security of tenure. I'm not so fussed about property ownership, as all a man needs is the ability to place a roof over his and his families head for the duration of his life, landed property is a scam, a deceit, a robbery of the people.

 

Park hill sums up all that is wrong with housing policy in the UK.

 

This building of 1000 dwellings was built for £2million but 50 years ago, for the people to replace the slum housing. It was built in a manner in which communities were kept together.

Today it has been given away to the private sector with many millions of taxpayers money to help them stick on a bit of cheap cladding, and then sell it on for private profit. Communities have been split up, the building is only there to make profit, not to provide housing for the people.

 

The building should be destroyed, because what it now represents is sickening. It would be better if it were replaced with slums.

 

Where will the people of this city live, this was once housing for the poor. It will still be housing for the poor, but housing benefit shall be paid unto private landlords. And the poor kept in poverty.

 

No wonder this country is in such a state.

 

Property owning democracy, don't make me laugh.

 

Brilliant post

[alchresearch]

we can't afford private housing due to it being overpriced (the prices being kept high by government interference).

 

http://www.artfullodger.co.uk/46-lyoyd-street-i34079.html

 

1 bedroom terraced, £375 a month, and there's plenty more terraced houses for rent from £300.

 

I wouldn't call that overpriced. Or is it a case of wanting something cheap in a nice area?

 

And what's the "government interference" you speak of?

[chem1st]

And what's the "government interference" you speak of?

Where do I start!

 

Pathfinder demolition.

Right to buy.

Privatisation of council housing via HAs (and the inflated wages and multiplication of CEOs).

Planning permission.

Lack of council house building.

SMI

Housing benefit

Lowering of interest rates (destroying our currency and pensioner's savings, not to mention the value of labour over here due to globalisation)

Rising rents in the social sector due to government forumla of RPI+0.5% rent increase.

B2L tax breaks

Etc.

Etc.

 

All destroying the housing standard of our youth.

[Proximus]

RE your post Chem1st:

 

Everyone does have the right to a home? This isn't a communist state where everyone is given the same, it sounds like that is really what you're wanting out of the state. No one is denied the right to a home.

 

Get over Park Hill! It failed as a social housing project simply because this type of building is not conducive to that type of market. Old and young thrown together and the consideration that "Everyone has the right to a council property" meant that a vacant flat next door to a young familly/considerate neighbour/elderly person was quickly filled with someone who has just plopped out of prison or rehabilitation or other unfortunate situation could be housed next door. Park Hill has now been handed to the private sector and supply and demand will dictate whether as a private venture it will work. Either way if it doesn't it will be the owners risk, not the councils mess.

 

Councils have had many years now to look at social housing and the way in which it is put together. Projects such as Park Hill and Cumbernauld (in scotland) that were hailed as revolutionary in their time had their individual failures and now councils are having to focus on building "communities" rather than just places.

 

What a stupid thing to suggest "It would be better if it were replaced with slums" - How would that be better? Then you'd be saying that the Gov't had failed us as they shouldn't put us in a position where we would be living in slums in this day and age!