Over A Quarter Of A Million For A Park Hill Flat

[Bargepole23 337]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

From someone I know who has dealing with Park Hill flats.

 

He tells me that a lot of the sales are not from actual buyers for a live in residence (trendy rich people) but from investors buying them to let out. 

Do you need to be rich to buy a property for 250k? To be honest, I don't think people buying flats for letting out is inside info, more like common knowledge.

[*_ash_* 88]

This is one thing I actually changed my mind on. Not many people do, but I have an open mind.

 

I originally said keep the back building and refurbish that, so some history remains.

 

However, having been in quite a few of them (when deliverying) they are actually really nice inside. Especially on the front, great views if your lounge/balcony is on the front.  

 

But 250k? No thanks (and I can't stand heights!) - but the market dictates what something is worth. If people pay that money, then it is worth it, simple as that. 

 

I think as it is, I would perhaps pay 100 - 120 for a 2 bed one is about the right price, but  I'd say worth more if it was a gated estate. As it is, the area still has too many people 'hanging around' outside. 

[Anna B 1,414]

It's called 'Gentrification;' tarting up a formerly poor area so the landlord can get top dollar for it.

All well and good, but where are the poorer people supposed to go? Or are they just expected to live on the streets?

 

[*_ash_* 88]

7 minutes ago, Anna B said:

It's called 'Gentrification;' tarting up a formerly poor area so the landlord can get top dollar for it.

All well and good, but where are the poorer people supposed to go? Or are they just expected to live on the streets?

 

You are the most negative person I have ever known. Have you ever said anything positive about anything?

 

"All well and good, but where are the poorer people supposed to go? Or are they just expected to live on the streets?"

Were the people who lived there kicked out into the street? Yes or No?

 

 

[*_ash_* 88]

When they were done up you could buy one for 95k, I saw it, because I looked at one. 

 

Seemed reasonable to me, but the parking and lack of security put me off, and the height, but because they are popular, the price goes up. 

 

What is your answer to solve things? Nothing. You never answer anything. The people not working around here, treat their properties like ****, and still not happy. 

 

What's your solution? Share your wisdom Anna!

[Martin C 81]

7 minutes ago, *_ash_* said:

When they were done up you could buy one for 95k, I saw it, because I looked at one. 

 

Seemed reasonable to me, but the parking and lack of security put me off, and the height, but because they are popular, the price goes up. 

 

What is your answer to solve things? Nothing. You never answer anything. The people not working around here, treat their properties like ****, and still not happy. 

 

What's your solution? Share your wisdom Anna!

Eagerly following this thread for replies and any alternatives or solutions (that don't involve any further drain on the hard-working taxpayer to support those who are "less keen to work". 

Well said Ash.

[bogeyman101 10]

11 hours ago, apelike said:

From someone I know who has dealing with Park Hill flats.

 

He tells me that a lot of the sales are not from actual buyers for a live in residence (trendy rich people) but from investors buying them to let out. 

I wonder if the investors are local people who think they are onto a good thing, or the increasingly mentioned Londoners buying up cheap northern housing? 

 

 

7 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

This is one thing I actually changed my mind on. Not many people do, but I have an open mind.

 

I originally said keep the back building and refurbish that, so some history remains.

 

However, having been in quite a few of them (when deliverying) they are actually really nice inside. Especially on the front, great views if your lounge/balcony is on the front.  

 

But 250k? No thanks (and I can't stand heights!) - but the market dictates what something is worth. If people pay that money, then it is worth it, simple as that. 

 

I think as it is, I would perhaps pay 100 - 120 for a 2 bed one is about the right price, but  I'd say worth more if it was a gated estate. As it is, the area still has too many people 'hanging around' outside. 

The insides do look nice don't they, and it's good that they have the concrete parts still visible, it gives the rooms a bit of character.

 

I must say 100-120k for a 2 bed in such a modern development seems woefully low, even for Sheffield. Compared to the soulless boxes in many of the other city apartment blocks, Park Hill doesn't seem expensive. 255k does seem a lot when you can get a nice 3 bedroom semi in a decent part of Sheffield like Meersbrook for less, but then as others have said, it's what people are prepared to pay.

 

 

7 hours ago, Anna B said:

It's called 'Gentrification;' tarting up a formerly poor area so the landlord can get top dollar for it.

All well and good, but where are the poorer people supposed to go? Or are they just expected to live on the streets?

 

Does anybody know what did happen to the former residents that were living there right up until the revamp started? Were they rehoused in other parts of Sheffield?

[bassett one 450]

when i was offered a house,that would be demolished within 5 years,if i took it the deal was on moving a good choice of like for like ie 2-3 bed house,plus £5,000 demolishing removal/disturbance money,i thought about it,but my nice house at lowedges,with big garden,quiet ect came up,so i took it with no regret,my neighbour who lived in the demolished area,moved about 5 years later,but had it rough towards the end as she was one of the last out of that area,but she did get exactly what was offered,so well done SCC /housing on that one.

[hauxwell 243]

On 16/07/2021 at 15:59, bassett one said:

it looks awfull and needed knocking down,it seems this council keeps the tat,but knocks down or neglects the nice 1900s stuff ect.

I have to agree they do look awful and I also thought they needed knocking down, but I’m not sure the council can knock then down as they are a grade 2 listed building. 
 

[ECCOnoob 1,032]

9 hours ago, hauxwell said:

I have to agree they do look awful and I also thought they needed knocking down, but I’m not sure the council can knock then down as they are a grade 2 listed building. 
 

^^^^^^  what they said.

 

So thank christ some "scumbag" "disgraceful" "greedy" private enterprise developer has taken a punt in doing them up, making them attractive,  getting them on the obvious demand filled  market and breathing some life and populus into the building once again....otherwise it would simply become one of many empty, decaying eyesores around the city.

 

Bring on the gentrification I say.

 

Sick of all the horse crap about ordinary homes for the ordinary working people. Most of those said ordinary folk started choosing not to live there or moving out 30+ years ago.  Most of the ones that were left were just the type of morons who didn't deserve such accommodation after they decided to turn what was at one time an architectural revolution elevating hundreds of families out of back-to-back or almost slum like conditions into a publicly funded modern day crime ridden dump. Can't have it both ways.  

 

The world has moved on. I fully embrace our next generation of younger people with their much more ambitious and less backward thinking mindset. The entire world of work has changed dramatically over the past decades and even more so in the past 18 months. I'm sick of certain types of people harping on about the past and pandering to some tiny fraction of so called "real worker" class who have failed to evolve with the times. 

 

Things cost money. If people want better things than they need to prepare to pay for it.

 

Now let me be very clear before certain types of people jump all over me. I am not against the notion that everybody has the right to a roof over their head.  I am not against the notion that everybody has a right to a minimum standard of living. I am not against the notion that the state should be there to provide a basic welfare provision to its citizens. However, that certainly does not translate to some automatic right to live in a primary location in primary real estate a short hop away from the centre of town.

Edited July 19, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[Bargepole23 337]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

^^^^^^  what they said.

 

So thank christ some "scumbag" "disgraceful" "greedy" private enterprise developer has taken a punt in doing them up, making them attractive,  getting them on the obvious demand filled  market and breathing some life and populus into the building once again....otherwise it would simply become one of many empty, decaying eyesores around the city.

 

Bring on the gentrification I say.

 

Sick of all the horse crap about ordinary homes for the ordinary working people. Most of those said ordinary folk started choosing not to live there or moving out 30+ years ago.  Most of the ones that were left were just the type of morons who didn't deserve such accommodation after they decided to turn what was at one time an architectural revolution elevating hundreds of families out of back-to-back or almost slum like conditions into a publicly funded modern day crime ridden dump. Can't have it both ways.  

 

The world has moved on. I fully embrace our next generation of younger people with their much more ambitious and less backward thinking mindset. The entire world of work has changed dramatically over the past decades and even more so in the past 18 months. I'm sick of certain types of people harping on about the past and pandering to some tiny fraction of so called "real worker" class who have failed to evolve with the times. 

 

Things cost money. If people want better things than they need to prepare to pay for it.

 

Now let me be very clear before certain types of people jump all over me. I am not against the notion that everybody has the right to a roof over their head.  I am not against the notion that everybody has a right to a minimum standard of living. I am not against the notion that the state should be there to provide a basic welfare provision to its citizens. However, that's certainly does not translate to some automatic right to live in a primary location in primary real estate a short hop away from the centre of town.

Agree entirely.

[Liv20 0]

I own a flat at Park Hill.  I am not ‘trendy’, ‘rich’, ‘posh’ or a ‘Londoner’.  I just saved up for many years for a deposit.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Liv20