Priced-out Londoners turn to empty homes

[cookie]

here's an interesting way to have a holiday in London town...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/6579622/Priced-out-Londoners-turn-to-empty-homes.html

 

[BinkieBaumont]

"Here in the Swan River colony we have installed a railway North and South following the Indian Ocean's coast, SO eventualy we will have a City that is 20Km wide and 300-km long (thats a sock)

 

[Edward]

Not sure if this is really relevant to the Lounge?


I've got nothing against squatters - just a shame that so many of them seem to be young, often professional, people who often can afford to live elsewhere and pay rent, as opposed to the genuinely homeless.

 

[volatile]

Not sure if this is really relevant to the Lounge?


I've got nothing against squatters - just a shame that so many of them seem to be young, often professional, people who often can afford to live elsewhere and pay rent, as opposed to the genuinely homeless.

It depends on how you define "genuinely homeless", I suppose... most of the squatters I know are artists, musicians, performers and the like - they wouldn't be sleeping rough if they weren't squatting but they'd certainly not be living in London or making the art they are able to currently.

 

[Story]

Not sure if this is really relevant to the Lounge?

George Orwell stayed in a 'spike' in the 1930s, so perhaps this is an opportunity to review another case of plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/aug/27/housing.communities

 

[Edward]

It depends on how you define "genuinely homeless", I suppose... most of the squatters I know are artists, musicians, performers and the like - they wouldn't be sleeping rough if they weren't squatting but they'd certainly not be living in London or making the art they are able to currently.

True, there is that to it. It just makes me uncomfortable when I see squats (and I know of at least one) run by middle class people who very much can afford to do otherwise, but instead choose not to contribute. Either way, there is definitely something wrong in a city where the arts and culture are sufficiently undervalued that it is not possible to make a living wage therefrom. Which will be to our detriment in the long run.... (and I say all this as someone who would have loved to have forged a career as an actor, but never had the economic luxury of that being a realistic option).

 

[pdxvintagette]

I know a woman who lived in a charming home here in Portland, in a very nice little neighborhood, and I would have called the family (herself and two sons) middle class. The fact is, however, that if they had been paying a mortgage or rent, they would have been just about at the poverty line. They were squatters, and she kept heat, water and electricity in that charming, abandoned home. The yard was kept trim. The walls were fresh painted and the plumbing and fixtures kept in repair. And because she didn't have to worry about that largest bill, she was able to healthfully feed and properly clothe her children.

Most people didn't know that she did not own the house. And I'm sure the rest of that neighborhood assume they were your standard middle-class sort of income. Sometimes you just don't know.

I believe they were there for some ten years before the property was finally auctioned off. And for a much better price than the city could ever have realized if she hadn't kept it so nice. Sadly, she and her youngest now live in a small apartment in a quite distant satellite city.

As to London, I would think it likely that artists and middle class families choosing to squat would keep far, far better care of the properties that they are "borrowing" than many of the "truly homeless." I make no judgement on the ethics of it, however. A very interesting topic.

(And Edward - this is the Observation Bar! Must we really stay "relevant" in every matter?)

 

[Edward]

(And Edward - this is the Observation Bar! Must we really stay "relevant" in every matter?)

To clarify, that was a question rather than a judgement... in the last year or two, the bartenders have been trying to keep things a touch more within the frame here, so there's more of a vibe of 'the stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else' as opposed to 'anything goes'. Certainly, though, any online space has a need of an area where a degree of OT stuff can flourish, otherwise it risks a lot of OT posting elsewhere, in my experience.

Thinknig about all this does make me wonder how the issue of homelessness was dealt with back in the 30s and 40s... I imagine that it was an ever-present problem even then, and especially so in the pre-welfare state days. I've seen photos of people in the 30s in London sleeping rough as they lost their homes very quickly after becoming unemployed - something that wouldn't happen just so easily nowadays. I wonder too whether there was more 'invisible' homelessness back then - in an age when people were used to more to a room, living with extended family, someone sleeping on the sofa, how many folks just accepted and got on with being in a position which nowadays we would find intolerable? Of course, we might argue that folks today are too soft, though I think we can sometimes be too quick to jump to that conclusion instead of being grateful for the many advantages we have nowadays which would not have been open to us only a couple of generations ago.

 

[Paisley]

From the article:

Unable to rent out one of its office blocks in the central Soho district, the council turned to an association that found short-term tenants willing to live there for minimal rent - a win-win solution for both sides.​

Well, yes...charge a reasonable rent and you'll probably get a tenant.

 

[WideBrimm]

Speaking of London in the 1940s, just how did London handle the problem of homelessness during the Blitz ?