Were the northern back to backs of a lower build standard than the southern ones? I agree an outside bog, damp and no CH is not a lot of fun, but southern back to backs have been successfully renovated (have lived in a couple myself).

Im confused. Are northern terraces a lower build quality than southern ones?!

The southern equivalent is surely a block of flats. A 2 up 2 down terrace would suit me better than a 2 bed new build every day of the week. New build sucks.

Not as far as I'm aware Mike. Mine's over 100 years old, started its days as the old type 2 up, 2 down. I don't understand the logic of pulling these places down either - as has been happening in many areas. Although I can understand that in certain areas they may have been neglected, all it takes is regular maintenance and they'll be good for another 100.

Remains to be seen if these new build 2 bed 'starter homes' as they call them are still in as good nick 100 years from now.

quote:

(there are some exceptions - a company called 'Urban Splash' seems good, for example).

yes, they'd be great if they'd pull their finger out. Get that Midland hotel up and running you snails with hard hats on. Probably got to cut them some slack though as I still haven't finished my kitchen off.

I'm all for renovating the terraces and "slums" instead of the affordable "schemes" new builds. It's entirely possible that I hate affordable housing cramped up new builds more than any other person. Ever.

Oh and off topic I absolutely loathe the people who decided it was a good idea to build the "luxury" 4 bed housing in the most run down part round my area and put the cramped affordable boxes across from me and bulldoze all the trees and have lots of houses having a lovely elevated and perfect view right into my rooms. Bravo. Bra- -vo.

Slum housing is all relative. I worked in a local authority housing department in the early 60s and loads of those small victorian cottages were torn down in the name of slum clearance, to make way for tower blocks. Those same cottages, had they been in Chelsea or Richmond, would have cost thousands even then, but as they were in Acton or Shepherds Bush, people thought they should be pulled down.

quote:

Originally posted by queenstomper:
Not as far as I'm aware Mike. Mine's over 100 years old, started its days as the old type 2 up, 2 down. I don't understand the logic of pulling these places down either - as has been happening in many areas. Although I can understand that in certain areas they may have been neglected, all it takes is regular maintenance and they'll be good for another 100.

Remains to be seen if these new build 2 bed 'starter homes' as they call them are still in as good nick 100 years from now.

Yeah it wasnt a real question. I have one in the sticks of county durham just under 90 years old and the north east has seen a lot of terraces knocked down. I think the people are to blame the most. If the area is rough and crime is high, unemplyment high etc then the houses are going to be neglected, both by the landlords who own these bedsits and converted flats and the people who live in the street who see no point in adding value to theirs while houses next door lay empty and boarded up. Take parts of Liverpool about 3 years ago, highlighted many streets for demolition til gradually developers and landlords started renovating them as they were so cheap and now they are hotspots.

If the areas are lilely to stay empty and neglected, set on fire by local chavs etc then the only way to end the cycle is knock them down and put some pokey shoddy 'nice' new builds up. It has nothing to do with build quality which some people seem to believe.

I'm not talking just about housing, but other, typcally 1900 +- 10 years buildings. Darwen has had many places pulled down, including a big stone chapel, and a warren of houses; also it's about to lose it's 1920 health centre to a hypermodern swimming pool, largely because of a small clique of swimmers. A 'model lodging house' is to be replaced by a modern lump, to house probabtion prisoners, within 100 yards of the shopping centre [!]. It's also had a large area of houses vandalised by the council in pursuance of a Rod ALdridge scheme in which he puts in a tiny percentage in exchange for rights over the land in 30 years' time.

There's a problem in that the north had a lot of unemployment and there are cowboy 'builders' everywhere wrecking things.

quote:

Slum housing is all relative. I worked in a local authority housing department in the early 60s and loads of those small victorian cottages were torn down

Yes, Micki, exactly right. The small houses here in somewhere like Kew would cost £200K+.

It's not just the comparison between new and old, of course. If the replacements were exactly the same size as the old, what counts I suppose is the cost of new build vs the cost of refurbishing. In my area the council deliberately exaggerated the cost of refurbishing to help their case for demolition.