6 ms·

It depends, and whilst San Francisco can’t be compared to Harlow there can be some tragic ramifications: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47720887 h

It depends, and whilst San Francisco can’t be compared to Harlow there can be some tragic ramifications: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47720887 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47720887

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
I mean, Terminus House was essentially turned into a large project where people were dumped, an approach that has shown similarly disastrous results in the US for decades. That's quite different from turning office space into desirable apartments.
- julianlam 6y ago
  In what way? In Harlow, government took a hands off approach on zoning and oversight and let the free market figure out housing for the country's poorest. It all seems very similar to me. I'm sure at the start they also thought they were turning defunct office space into desirable apartments too.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    The article linked by the comment I replied to stated this: > Smith is one of hundreds of residents placed at Terminus House in Harlow by councils in and around London, often many miles from everything and everybody they once knew. I'm not familiar with the specifics of UK subsidized housing, but it sure sounds like the residents were placed in this building by government.
    - mattmanser 6y ago
      Yeah, you're not and totally misunderstanding how that works. Councils used to be the biggest house builders in the UK. Then the neoliberals decided that was silly and the free-market could sort it. So they banned councils from building houses in the 80s. House builds plummeted from 300k per year to 30k per year. Plus they forced the council to get rid of their affordable housing by letting people buy their council house from the council. So now, when poor people who are guaranteed a house need one, the council have to buy a slot from the free market (and obviously need to go for cheap). Now the UK has a housing crisis. Yay, free market. Basically, the opposite of what you think. The council didn't 'choose' to put people there, they were forced to by the market and disasterous neo-liberal policies.
      - wastedhours 6y ago
        I think you're arguing at cross-purposes. Terminus House is social housing (no-one's arguing that it's not, and that it's not bad), what they're describing in SF is different as it's commercial, and certainly at least medium-grade private housing. Whether or not the free market has caused the use of private companies to provide project style social housing on the fringes of cities (short answer: of course it has) is somewhat irrelevant compared with converting city-centre commercial property into private accommodation. >> sounds like the residents were placed in this building by government > council didn't 'choose' to put people there Again, your response isn't to the point being made really - no-ones really arguing against your point. Just because they didn't have any real alternative doesn't invalidate the point that they did it.
      - michaelt 6y ago
        What hn_throwaway_99 means is: If the policy was "Homeless people rent a house of their choice and the state pays the rent" or "homeless people get cash to spend as they see fit" it wouldn't matter if there were low minimum standards and shitty houses on the market, as they would be rejected by everyone looking for housing - including homeless people. In contrast if the policy is "Government pays the rent on the cheapest houses on the market, for homeless people" or "government has a fixed budget and must house as many homeless people as possible" then the legal minimum standard is crucial, because that's what you'll likely be giving to homeless people. For councils to build houses and build them to a reasonable standard would, as you say, be another option.
      - fidelramos 6y ago
        > Yay, free market. Can anyone buy some land and build whatever they want on it, like massive apartment buildings? If the answer is no, how can you claim there is a free market? I think the problem is clearly on the heavy regulations, licensing and zoning that keep companies from building.
        throw0101a 6y ago
        > Can anyone buy some land and build whatever they want on it, like massive apartment buildings? They probably can, but The Market™ may give better ROI to (e.g.) condominiums so who'd want to do it? With apartments you have to do things like put up with tenants and such, and who wants to do that? With condos you sell the units, create a condo corporation, and then walk away with your money once it's constructed and never think about it again. Why build rental units for poor people when you can sell to oligarchs who want an asset to park their money in?
dmurray 6y ago
This definitely doesn't sound like a consequence of adding extra supply to the market in desirable downtown locations.
Danieru 6y ago
Who in their right mind calls anything "Terminus"!? Outside of the a hipster morgue that is not an appropriate name. The building looks and was named straight out of judge dredd.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Yeah, and bus terminals? The last stop sounds pretty fatal!
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Terminus is one of the first names of the city now known as Atlanta.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

I mean, Terminus House was essentially turned into a large project where people were dumped, an approach that has shown similarly disastrous results in the US for decades. That's quite different from turning office space into desirable apartments.

julianlam 6y ago
In what way? In Harlow, government took a hands off approach on zoning and oversight and let the free market figure out housing for the country's poorest. It all seems very similar to me. I'm sure at the start they also thought they were turning defunct office space into desirable apartments too.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  The article linked by the comment I replied to stated this: > Smith is one of hundreds of residents placed at Terminus House in Harlow by councils in and around London, often many miles from everything and everybody they once knew. I'm not familiar with the specifics of UK subsidized housing, but it sure sounds like the residents were placed in this building by government.
  - mattmanser 6y ago
    Yeah, you're not and totally misunderstanding how that works. Councils used to be the biggest house builders in the UK. Then the neoliberals decided that was silly and the free-market could sort it. So they banned councils from building houses in the 80s. House builds plummeted from 300k per year to 30k per year. Plus they forced the council to get rid of their affordable housing by letting people buy their council house from the council. So now, when poor people who are guaranteed a house need one, the council have to buy a slot from the free market (and obviously need to go for cheap). Now the UK has a housing crisis. Yay, free market. Basically, the opposite of what you think. The council didn't 'choose' to put people there, they were forced to by the market and disasterous neo-liberal policies.
    - wastedhours 6y ago
      I think you're arguing at cross-purposes. Terminus House is social housing (no-one's arguing that it's not, and that it's not bad), what they're describing in SF is different as it's commercial, and certainly at least medium-grade private housing. Whether or not the free market has caused the use of private companies to provide project style social housing on the fringes of cities (short answer: of course it has) is somewhat irrelevant compared with converting city-centre commercial property into private accommodation. >> sounds like the residents were placed in this building by government > council didn't 'choose' to put people there Again, your response isn't to the point being made really - no-ones really arguing against your point. Just because they didn't have any real alternative doesn't invalidate the point that they did it.
    - michaelt 6y ago
      What hn_throwaway_99 means is: If the policy was "Homeless people rent a house of their choice and the state pays the rent" or "homeless people get cash to spend as they see fit" it wouldn't matter if there were low minimum standards and shitty houses on the market, as they would be rejected by everyone looking for housing - including homeless people. In contrast if the policy is "Government pays the rent on the cheapest houses on the market, for homeless people" or "government has a fixed budget and must house as many homeless people as possible" then the legal minimum standard is crucial, because that's what you'll likely be giving to homeless people. For councils to build houses and build them to a reasonable standard would, as you say, be another option.
    - fidelramos 6y ago
      > Yay, free market. Can anyone buy some land and build whatever they want on it, like massive apartment buildings? If the answer is no, how can you claim there is a free market? I think the problem is clearly on the heavy regulations, licensing and zoning that keep companies from building.
      - throw0101a 6y ago
        > Can anyone buy some land and build whatever they want on it, like massive apartment buildings? They probably can, but The Market™ may give better ROI to (e.g.) condominiums so who'd want to do it? With apartments you have to do things like put up with tenants and such, and who wants to do that? With condos you sell the units, create a condo corporation, and then walk away with your money once it's constructed and never think about it again. Why build rental units for poor people when you can sell to oligarchs who want an asset to park their money in?

dmurray 6y ago

This definitely doesn't sound like a consequence of adding extra supply to the market in desirable downtown locations.

Danieru 6y ago

Who in their right mind calls anything "Terminus"!? Outside of the a hipster morgue that is not an appropriate name. The building looks and was named straight out of judge dredd.

StavrosK 6y ago
Yeah, and bus terminals? The last stop sounds pretty fatal!
Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Terminus is one of the first names of the city now known as Atlanta.