Tom Bombadil
Well-known member
You must have read a different article because that's all about the developer whining that the council wants them to stick to teh agreed plan andbuild some homes that people might actually be able to afford
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Brighton] King Alfred
- Thread starter Steve Foster
- Start date
You must have read a different article because that's all about the developer whining that the council wants them to stick to teh agreed plan andbuild some homes that people might actually be able to afford
The priority should be sorting out the eyesore that currently , and historically, ruins the beauty of one of the most beautiful Georgian seafronts in the UK. Councils of varying hues should be ashamed of themselves for being unable to sort this issue out for over 50 years! It should be an issue made free of politics as it is everyone’s benefit to build a world class watersports complex/tourist attraction on that site, with or without housing of whatever kind. It would benefit the local community, the local economy and give B&H another reason to sell itself to the world. Councillors from all parties should work together to achieve this, maybe TB could help too? The current status of this valuable piece of real estate is shameful and a disgrace to the city.
Oxo flavoured crisps in the bowling alley after a swim in waters so chorinated they had us seeing 'mist' out of our red eyes for hours after we'd towelled off. And that isn't a euphemism.
If you're honest with yourself, you'll accept that had an extension been granted, it still wouldn't have gone ahead as no one would agreed to fund it in the economic climate we had back then.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
I think the national definition is housing that is given over to a Housing Association or RSL to manage either as rentals, shared ownership etc. to qualifying residents, typically from key sector workers or on the local authority housing register.
I recall it was sparkling.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,150
For sure the global financial crisis killed it stone dead. The plan was unveiled in 2003 though. Without the inevitable opposition and haggling over the scale of the project there is at least a sporting chance that it may actually have been nearing completion when the financial crash hit. Though knowing B&H's track record tgey'd probably still be at the talking/opposition stage, even if the financial crash had never happened. Sadly a lost opportunity.
You'll need quite a few people banned from this thread.
It's not often I agree with you on a subject like this, but I agree there. Who are we trying to kid here? It's prime real estate and you'd expect any homes built there would be expensive to build (built luxuriously, and to take the beating from the weather) and expensive to buy, not 'affordable'.
Have affordable housing around the city, but when needs must (and we need to replace the King Alfred), let the rich kids buy something swanky which helps fund something for the city.
PS - I know that grammatically it's whom
IMO it was right that there was opposition. The cool tower aside, it was just a mass block of ugly housing and offices.
Rubbish. Plenty of projects were still going ahead and being funded at that time. In fact, if you’re a cash rich it's a good time to build as costs are often much lower during a recession. Loads of places sprung up in Berlin at that time.
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
Doesn't seem to be the case in Britain, the crisis in 2008 saw the lowest house building rates since records began. As a result the government had to step in and effectively subsidise the house building industry with the Help to Buy Scheme.
symyjym
Banned
This is the design from LEC Architects that was rejected over Rob Starrs fantasy.
More images here: https://www.lcearch.com/project/king-alfred-enabling-works/
The council need to go begging them to take the project over otherwise nothing will happen before 2030 because of the process of putting it out to tender again and redesigning something using the same specs as there has been since 2003 and the Ghery design.
LEC are also behind the other development going on next to the King Alfred: https://www.lcearch.com/project/kingsway-development/
More images here: https://www.lcearch.com/project/king-alfred-enabling-works/
The council need to go begging them to take the project over otherwise nothing will happen before 2030 because of the process of putting it out to tender again and redesigning something using the same specs as there has been since 2003 and the Ghery design.
LEC are also behind the other development going on next to the King Alfred: https://www.lcearch.com/project/kingsway-development/
Last edited:
Indeed. One of the biggest booms in housing in British history was in the 30s, when we were in an economic slump. Much of Brighton's outskirts were developed in this period - it's when the house I grew up in Moulsecoomb was built. Interest rates are low, making it easier to borrow and labour costs are relatively low too.
Maybe you've got confused, the King Alfred isn't in Berlin, it's in Hove. Loads of places weren't springing up in the UK.
As I said, much of the housing development in our city was during the recession of the 30s: Moulsecoomb, Patcham, Hollingbury, chunks of Hove, a bit of Coldean were all built then. Builders could have built in the UK if they'd wanted to.
Last edited:
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
Our economy is very different now to what it was in the 1930's, in many ways we have an economy that is now based around house price inflation and cheap credit. House builders restrict supply in order to keep prices high and the psychology of the nation is that prices always go up, hence in a slump nobody buys. Following the 2008 crisis the banks also became risk adverse and stopped lending so it would have been very difficult to get a large housing project off the ground.
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
I understand that Germany has a very different approach to housing than the UK with more of a focus on renting than home ownership which would probably account for the difference.
Yes, that's true. But the point is: it's possible (even advantageous) to build in a recession and the reason that we didn't is for a political reason (the need to keep house prices high, as so many people were property owners).
And, yes, the banks did become risk adverse but that's because there had been a political imperative to make this a home-owning economy and, as such, there were too many bad loans made. The situation had been even worse in the US, hence the global crash. Again, that's not because of the recession per se but because of the political situation in the UK.
As HT pointed out, it didn't have to be that way, Germany (which is not home-owning) took advantage of the recession to build, build and build.
How many different suns are there shining down on Hove?