Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community

Sirus sell off

Discussion in 'General Property Chat' started by jins13, 6th Aug, 2016.

  1. jins13

    jins13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    939
    Location:
    Sydney
  2. Nemo30

    Nemo30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    31st Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    433
    Location:
    Somewhere
    I think its a good thing. Firstly the building is an eyesore. Secondly the public should expect its tax dollars to be spent wisely. If i owned that piece of real estate i would be developing it too.

    Yes there should be public housing, however i dont think it should be a life tenure and it shouldn't be prime sydney waterfront. How many people could be accommodated for the same cost.
     
    Joynz, jins13 and Cactus like this.
  3. jins13

    jins13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    939
    Location:
    Sydney
    I am sick of people's sense of entitlement to it and do agree it's not a life tenure as well. Very happy that it's getting sold off. Call me inhumane but I didn't feel sorry for the people at all.
     
  4. C-mac

    C-mac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    789
    Location:
    Sydney
    So long as the people being re-homed are being done so, humanely. There is a massive trend in the UK around this right now. In fact, the last five years has seen for mass-swathes of London housing estate blocks from the 70's being ripped down and built into (wait for that word... you know it is coming...) luxury apartments.

    Estate housing tenants (and owners! I.e. those who bought their council estate flat from the government) are being forcibly moved against their will to far-flung (i.e. outside of M25 ring) towns with poorer amenity and services (especially for the older citizens).

    The scale of this is huge. In fact, Catherine Tate's Nan (a super funny show on the ABC!) did an entire episode built around this concept.

    I do agree that prime waterfront real estate shoulf have a higher use, but I disagree with what is happening with the Sirus building.

    Why?

    Because, sure it is ugly-as-hell, BUT architecturally it IS a product of its time. It has that early 1980's Bladerunner (Harrison Ford movie, if you havent seen it, watch it, well worth a watch and the dystopic depiction of architecture is awesome) feel to it.

    As for the 'community' nature of the Sirus building; my understanding is that there really isn't one, at least not in the way that a massive 1970s London council estate has a genuine community in them that the people have built from scratch. They mind each others' kids; have each other over for tea etc. I.e. not a superficial "hey" when passing your neighbours in the common hallway (even though you dont know their names or anything about them...)

    Also, those Christians who have had that banner up for about 20 years that reads "One Way! Jesus!" will no doubt be disappointed as they will lose that prime eyeball advertising space for their religion lol.
     
  5. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,545
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia
    I feel that the development industry is entitled to develop this land should it be sold.

    Real people have not lived in the cbd for 30+ years, only thise with deep pockets have been able to afford to live in the area so why should the most disadvantaged in the community have access compared to anyone else?
     
  6. Marg4000

    Marg4000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    903
    Location:
    Qld
    I don't think public housing should mean staying in the same property for life. I also believe occupancy should be fixed for a certain number of years and then eligibility should be reviewed.

    The problem is the same in all states, homeless families languishing on the wait list for years, while a lucky few get to stay in under-utilised housing for decades while maintenance costs soar.

    You see the stories on the news - a single person living in a 3 or 4 bedroom home long after the children have flown the nest. Any suggestion of relocating to smaller premises is met with tears and anguish that he/she is being forced to move - "but this is my hoooome!"

    Many people have to move house unwillingly. Sometimes tough decisions have to be made for financial or health reasons. Not to mention people in private rentals.

    Same with extremely valuable sites - how many more people could be housed spending the money in a cheaper location? One person living in a harbour view unit equals how many homeless children sleeping in cars?
    Marg
     
    willair and Player like this.
  7. au contraire

    au contraire Member

    Joined:
    30th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    8
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Wow, I am an avid reader here and don't really get the chance to post much but I am a bit saddened by the response to this issue v that in the 'Housing Crisis... your fault, old people' thread.
     
    Scott No Mates likes this.
  8. marty998

    marty998 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    125
    Location:
    Sydney
    Once a person is granted a public housing place... is that the end of it? Is anything then done by the government to assist them move on into the private rental market? Curious to know what the policies are...
     
  9. datto

    datto Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,390
    Location:
    Mt Druuiitt
    So they are getting rid of it. Are they serious?
     
  10. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,545
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia
    Yes, they sell off the building ;)