It is not regeneration when the existing working class residents are forced out of their homes to make room for yuppies. It's called SOCIAL CLEANSING. The new private - Lend Lease - development includes only 76 socially rented flats (which will most probably have segregation doors, i.e. the poor will have to use a different entrance from the well-to-do). Compared that to the Heygate's 1,200 council flats.
I don't live on London but think these large tower block estates are beautiful , surely the money it will cost to demolish , remove debris and rebuild could have gone into a refurbishment of this estate ?? Sadly it is happening all over the country and unfortunately being replaced with expensive properties that only the wealthy can afford , local councils around the UK are cashing in on this !!
It was a deliberate policy to 'let it rot' and then it's easier to say that demolition and 'starting again' is the best option as long as the ordinary people who once lived there are 'moved out' and more expensive properties are built and 'better' residents can move in. You can't have 'ordinary people' living on valuable land in an expensive city they'll be wanting the vote next! As others have said it's textbook 'social cleansing' but not unusual in Britain today where money is the only thing that's important.
just before heygate was demolished it was last used for the last episode of the bill and it was demonized in a wrong way as it looks !like a respectful area
We lived and grew up in the area before the Heygate was built. Lots of nice streets with nice homes. Demolished to build post modern slums for all the people that did not grow up in the area or come from South east London. Now the new residents (post 1974) all complain as if the Heygate was their utopia. The preexisting communities that were demolished before the Heygate was built put a negative vibe on the place. . Have a priest bless the land and cast out the negativity that lives in and around the Heygate estate.
many of them did come from the area. why do you think they didn't? the residents that were displaced from the Heygate and Nursery Row were rehoused in the Heygate!
The area was ok when i stayed there round 2000, i dont understand the outcry at the demolition of the place. If what they build as a replacement is a massive improvement then surely noone can bitch about it. I do question the motives of the local council tho. If theyre knocking it down because the land is really valuable used in other ways then they should admit it.
awootjam I agree , this was a huge estate and you just know all the people who were moved out won’t be coming back as there will never be enough affordable homes put back in their place !!
Sadly its not really the buildings that are/were the problem. Its people or in many cases a minority of people who cause trouble or problems. The main problem with social housing is that they tried to cram too many people into such small confined areas. Also the build quality was questionable at best. Ultimately post war social housing was a failure on the whole, I think it started with good intentions, but it did fail. Look at Hulme Crescents, Abbeyfield in Gtr Manchester both were pulled down after less than 20 years of use!!!It could have worked but the councils wouldn't invest in the upkeep and maintenance, which allowed them to go downhill steadily.
It is not regeneration when the existing working class residents are forced out of their homes to make room for yuppies. It's called SOCIAL CLEANSING. The new private - Lend Lease - development includes only 76 socially rented flats (which will most probably have segregation doors, i.e. the poor will have to use a different entrance from the well-to-do). Compared that to the Heygate's 1,200 council flats.
I don't live on London but think these large tower block estates are beautiful , surely the money it will cost to demolish , remove debris and rebuild could have gone into a refurbishment of this estate ?? Sadly it is happening all over the country and unfortunately being replaced with expensive properties that only the wealthy can afford , local councils around the UK are cashing in on this !!
It was a deliberate policy to 'let it rot' and then it's easier to say that demolition and 'starting again' is the best option as long as the ordinary people who once lived there are 'moved out' and more expensive properties are built and 'better' residents can move in. You can't have 'ordinary people' living on valuable land in an expensive city they'll be wanting the vote next!
As others have said it's textbook 'social cleansing' but not unusual in Britain today where money is the only thing that's important.
'regeneration'=social cleansing.
"diversity" = genocide
i was in a childrens home on wansley rd heygate estate 1985 so sad its all gone
just before heygate was demolished it was last used for the last episode of the bill and it was demonized in a wrong way as it looks !like a respectful area
We lived and grew up in the area before the Heygate was built. Lots of nice streets with nice homes. Demolished to build post modern slums for all the people that did not grow up in the area or come from South east London. Now the new residents (post 1974) all complain as if the Heygate was their utopia. The preexisting communities that were demolished before the Heygate was built put a negative vibe on the place.
. Have a priest bless the land and cast out the negativity that lives in and around the Heygate estate.
many of them did come from the area. why do you think they didn't? the residents that were displaced from the Heygate and Nursery Row were rehoused in the Heygate!
Chearsley 13 here, was grand in the 80's / 90's ... playing outside all day, sometimes wandering over to Kingshill
sounds like a strainge question but whats the name of the tune plaid in this clip?
The area was ok when i stayed there round 2000, i dont understand the outcry at the demolition of the place. If what they build as a replacement is a massive improvement then surely noone can bitch about it. I do question the motives of the local council tho. If theyre knocking it down because the land is really valuable used in other ways then they should admit it.
They want to build better housing and charge a lot more. The previous tenants won't be able to afford the new ones. It's all about the money.
The really negative comments (drugs, prostitution) came from speakers whose faces we did not see.
and they arent backed up by the recorded crime statistics
we shouldn't be knocking down perfectly good homes
awootjam I agree , this was a huge estate and you just know all the people who were moved out won’t be coming back as there will never be enough affordable homes put back in their place !!
Sadly its not really the buildings that are/were the problem. Its people or in many cases a minority of people who cause trouble or problems. The main problem with social housing is that they tried to cram too many people into such small confined areas. Also the build quality was questionable at best. Ultimately post war social housing was a failure on the whole, I think it started with good intentions, but it did fail. Look at Hulme Crescents, Abbeyfield in Gtr Manchester both were pulled down after less than 20 years of use!!!It could have worked but the councils wouldn't invest in the upkeep and maintenance, which allowed them to go downhill steadily.
hmm, a lot of the stuff they're building now as private is pretty shitty as well
15 minutes of colouring-in.
Do everybody get free housing in England?
no, very few
that was awesome!
At least they don't have that awful "facking" accent!
I used to live opposite it @ The Rockingham Estate ...
Same. I used to live at Wicksteed House