Finsbury Park Station/City North Development

Arkady · April 2015

I think that the most likely explanation is that City North's contractors have gone under or otherwise let them down, or that CN's funding has fallen through again. This start date has been planned for a long time.

Awesome_Wells · April 2015

Where did the confirmation regarding the ticket gates not being switched on come from, Arkady?

Arkady · April 2015

A contact at TfL.

ADGS · April 2015

I would hardly call no work the worst case scenario. I didn't want their poxy great block in the first place, even before the length of the proposed station fuckery became apparent.

Arkady · April 2015

I do want the block, but I want the new station entrance much more, and you're not going to get one without the other.

Papa · April 2015

Maybe the buyer in Singapore for the new station tunnel and entrance realised they weren't actually buying a penthouse in Knightsbridge and pulled out.

Duncan · April 2015

Well Finsbury Park is almost Knightsbridge. It even has a Starbucks. I expect that even now people are posting about how wonderfully the area is gentrifying.<div><br></div>

gardener-joe · April 2015

...

ADGS · April 2015

Honestly, I'd rather have neither. If every development currently underway in London ground to a halt, it would be much preferable to the slew of monstrosities we're going to get, let alone the further horrors their success will breed. Yes, a lot of the losses so far are already beyond remedy, but at least we'd have no more, and hopefully a collapse in prices (once all those deserted building sites made clear that this was no longer the investment destination of choice for the clueless rich) which might make the place a bit more liveable.

Arkady · April 2015

It does indeed seem to be a problem with the contractors:http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/plan_to_close_finsbury_park_tube_gates_scrapped_for_now_1_4042917?utm_content=buffer9a3e9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Arkady · April 2015

@ADGS - you seem to be arguing that building fewer houses will reduce housing prices, which is rather contrary to the usual rules of supply and demand.

graeme · April 2015

ADGS seems to be arguing that once a few high-profile 'investment vehicle' rabbit-hutch blocks fizzle out, investors may find something else to invest in, rather than human shelter. Perhaps the economy can return to something resembling a functioning mechanism for growth. <div><br></div><div>Councils falling over themselves to allow developers to bulldoze a city to provide opportunities for people who (almost certainly) already own a scarce resource, to hoover up even more of that scarce resource can't be condoned. Can it? </div><div><br></div><div>It's grim. But at least we'll have a cinema at the station - just the place I want to spend my evenings. Rejoice.</div><div><br></div><div>p.s. this whole scam reminds me of the developers who tore down the red cinema beside John Jones where the Sainsburys is now, then went tits up and left SGR hoarded up for about 3 years, half the pavement sectioned off, until house prices recovered enough to make it worth their while to build. </div>

ADGS · April 2015

Well, quite. At present, London property is "the world's reserve currency" - buy-to-let and buy-to-leave investors have deeper pockets than buy-to-bloody-inhabit folk, and unlike even ultra-capitalist Singapore, the UK has no meaningful measures in place to deter that sort of behaviour. So all we're doing is despoiling the land to make the rich richer. Kill that unnatural demand, and once the parasites have moved on to some other poor bastard city with the corpse-glow of pseudo-prosperity (or gold, or futures, or who cares what else) the smaller supply would be fine (or at any rate, closer to fine) for the people who actually want to live here.

kreuzkav · April 2015

It's not just about supplying more housing but providing more of a certain type of housing. More social (not 'affordable' 80 per cent of market rate ones). And schemes to help people with deposits (as discussed at the hustings) are important. As ADGS has quite rightly stated, the apartments will be sold to non-residents as speculation. London doesn't need this at the moment.

Papa · April 2015

Buy-to-let is no longer really a viable option for most UK landlords in London looking to enter the market. Prices are too high and yields are too low. Some are buying, but really just on the hope of capital gains - thus putting themselves hugely at the mercy of being on the wrong end of greater fool theory.<div><br></div><div>The root problem is the 1997 to 2007 house price boom, where we allowed property prices to rocket unchecked on cheap credit and the rise of interest-only-with-no-plan-to-pay-them-back mortgages. Subsequently, we then did everything in our power to stop property prices falling. Had the market been allowed to do its work and there been a proper crash, property would no longer be so expensive. (Obviously this would have been very painful, including probably for me as a homeowner.)</div><div><br></div><div>This was compounded, as ADGS states, by the world deciding that post 2008 London property was the new gold and a place to stash wealth safely, at the same time as the pound plummeted - thereby putting it on sale.</div><div><br></div><div>Added to that mix have been ultra-low interest rates for much of the past six years for the wealthier end of the local population who can raise the colossal deposits needed to keep buying increasingly expensive homes.</div><div><br></div><div>Kreuzkav is right, the real shortage of homes being built is local authority affordable housing. The political rhetoric though gets mainly aimed at private developers, who after all are right to be cautious having just played their part in a financial crisis.</div><div><br></div><div>I would also support stopping the precious few new homes we built in London being touted overseas to investors.</div><div><br></div><div>The London property market has been in a bubble. It will burst. Whether City North is an early sign of that or not remains to be seen.</div><div><br></div><div>What I would say is that <a href="http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-48938173.html">£460k for an unbuilt one-bedroom flat in a tower in Finsbury Park</a> sounds a bit steep</div>

Arkady · April 2015

I agree with most of the points being made here. It's social housing and housing association stock that we really need in large numbers. And we should lobby for (and vote for!) that.<div><br></div><div>The narrow point that I am making is that this will still involve new developments, and that many or most of the developments will (and ought to) be on brownfield sites such as City North and John Jones. And history doesn't suggest that such developments would likely be of a higher aesthetic quality than the private developments which are currently going up; quite the contrary. It shouldn't be so, it needn't be so, but that's sadly the likely outcome.</div><div><br></div><div>Whoever owns these private structures, the inhabitants are mostly going to be middle-income renters. If they don't live in these new developments they will be competing for existing housing stock, accelerating the exodus of lower-income people to the outer suburbs (which is why new dedicated student housing is also a good idea). This is why I think the idea that just stopping all new developments is a profound mistake, and one that ignores the fundamental rules of supply and demand. </div>

Ali · April 2015

<p>South Sea Bubble</p><p> </p><p>It will collapse and once the Asian investors get wind of that they will all move onto the next place so it will be quick and drastic</p><p> </p><p>The City North thing has been going for 7 years </p>

Robby1 · April 2015

Been reading with interest and also looking at plans and pictures but still can't quite work out if the new development will effect where I am currently living in the block above Orleans, 259-261 Seven Sisters Road and my landlord seems oblivious. Would be grateful if anyone can shed any light on this please. Thanks Rob

Sutent · April 2015

This might not be the best place to put your personal address on here.

Arkady · April 2015

@Robby1 - it's on the other side of the station, so not directly. What sort of impact would concern you? What's it like living there?

Robby1 · April 2015

Is the building being redeveloped/knocked down and do I have to move?<div><br></div>

JoeV · April 2015

I'm all for building more social housing and housing association stock but isn't the housing 'problem' in the UK, London in particular, essentially mean the private rental market is broken?<div><br></div><div>Low income, middle income, whatever income people/families are being forced into the private rental market, which offers little to no protection or security for tenants and with increases demand even middle income earners are finding it difficult to find a flat they can afford.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes build more, but if everything that is built is skewed toward the buy-to-let market, regardless if the owners are British or from overseas, nothing will change.</div><div><br></div>

Ali · April 2015

This goes a way back to when Maggie T privitised accomodation through right to buy reducing public housing and housing benefit to bring in private renting

NorthNineteen · April 2015

@Robby1 No plans to knock down<br>

Arkady · April 2015

@NorthNineteen: That said, I believe that LB Islington are on record as saying that they don't consider it to be or architectural value and that the some of the accommodation is not fit for human occupation.

Arkady · April 2015

@JoeV - I sort of see where you are coming from, but again, it's supply and demand. If you (say) doubled the rentable housing stock than things obviously would change - the price would come down, because there would be increased supply for the same demand. Alternatively if you built lots more social housing then people who currently struggle to rent might go for that option instead, relieving pressure on the mid-market.<div><br></div><div>Whatever housing stock is built will relieve pressure on the market. Of course the ethical thing to do would be to prioritise housing for those who most struggle to afford it - but we need strong guarantees of high minimum standards of build quality and aesthetics, not the ghastly dross that they built in the 50s-70s when social housing was last high on the agenda.</div>

Robby1 · April 2015

Thanks NorthNinteen how can you tell from the plans?<div>Do you have a link to this info please?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>

Arkady · April 2015

Robby, there are lots of pictures of the plans throughout this thread. The development is on the other side of the station to your flat. Like, the opposite side of the tracks, on the Wells Terrace/Fonthill Road side. Your flat, and the building it is in, have absolutely nothing to do with it save that it is also in an area known as Finsbury Park!

Arkady · April 2015

Here it is in MS Paint form:<div><br></div><div><img src="http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae221/Redarkady/Clarification.jpg"><br></div>

graeme · April 2015

<div>Arkady, Does the Supply and Demand argument involve supplying investors with vehicles for their pensions, at the cost of low and middle earners? Why should shelter be a commodity? </div><div><br></div><div>The price seems artificially high because overseas investors are competing with each other. The UK worker on £20-30k, is no longer invited to the game. </div>

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Finsbury Park Station/City North Development

Comments