Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

Yeh, but the majority of those were probably either tenants (& didn't own their flats) or the council bought them with compulsary purchase orders. I understand that's a problem if you bought a pile of crap for location. Also, in Scotland (privately) we have factors, which for whatever reason is far less common in England.
 
No, it's just the sheer cost. If councils and housing trusts can't secure money for major work to properties they own, how are individual flat owners going to get together and do it?
 
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. There was an old hostel in Glasgow for Jakey guys that closed in the 90's. Place was a total hole. Turns out it was quite old too, being an old mill building from the early 1800's. Private firm renovated it & sold off the flats to private landlords. I rented one. It's not really that remarkable. I understand what you're saying about councils pulling shit down, but that's because councils are broke. The ecomnomics of saving older buildings & making them liveable again is difficult but not impossible.
 
That even private companies tend to consider it not worth their while to do the work unless they stand to make an absolute killing out of it. Companies will certainly take the work on if they get to resell the properties afterwards as high value 'executive lets' and suchlike, but not if current owner-occupants of the apartments refuse to move, or aren't likely to pay vastly inflated ground rents/service charges. Any other work, as Zare says, relies on co-owners getting together and agreeing to refurbish the whole thing, otherwise, people only want to pay for improvements directly to the bit they own. The landowner would be far happier if the whole lot is condemned and bulldozed, then they can develop higher-profit new homes on an empty plot.
 
It gets messy when various people need to agree on something.

Cried, the ownership structure is different here because it has socialist legacy. There is no ownership of the land below these buildings. It's owned by some state entity de jure, but that's due to how transition from cooperative economy to market was done. Some legal entity has to be registered as the owner, and the state is the default. I just went to check govt GIS sites and this particular land particle is "owned" by the army. Sometimes they're owned by the city, by the estate council, by the county council, who cares. The land is subordinated to the building in this case, and the building is owned by flat owners as a group.

However the cooperation platform isn't horizontally integrated. There's usually no talk between chairmans of house councils, while the house council itself is mandatory by law.
 
Example of coop flat building from my town

cijeli-svijet-se-divio-kompleksu-split-3-635207121265032812-9_800_600.jpeg


I'm not a construction expert, but getting this thing eventually overhauled by private money only is going to be challenging.
 
My dad's building is sinking, I'm not sure if that's reparable. Tenants pay for the hallways to be repainted almost every year even though cracks start appearing on the walls after only a few months.
 
I understand what you guys are saying. In Scotland it's very common (the norm in fact) for private flats, which make up part of a larger building (like the one Zare shows), to be factored by a property management company. In fact it's highly unusual for this arrangement not to be in place. These companies, although there are problems sometimes, operate entirely at the behest of the owners; collectively that is. It's not an option to buy a flat and not pay factor fees, if there is a factor in place. And they will do things beyond cutting the grass on communal ground. They will renovate buildings if there is the collective will (& the money) to do so e.g. they'll tender for maintenance work to, say, re-slate a roof. Rather than each person just "looking after their own". I understand what you're saying about flats/buildings that were poorly constructed & aren't worth this investment. But, well, they're not worth that investment for the owners either. Some stuff just wasn't very good to begin with.
 
Completely same here. Mandatory community fee, technical agency, sanitation/cleaning agency. The technical agency will manage repairable parts of the construction such as applying new isolation layers.

I'm worried about this :

http://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-reinforced-concrete-56078

The steel arming can deteriorate in 100 years.

Edit : I never heard someone had to move out because load bearing walls are being fixed. However I'm going a ring a friend tomorrow who's an architect so that I can unwrap my head from this speculation.
 
Brigantium said:
Some property was never considered an investment to begin with, it was just a place to live.
Click to expand...

Definitely. However in my local case that would be low-cost private houses and such. The coops are usually part of a bigger project, some sort of concept around that microlocation. So repurposing a piece of developed land isn't viable.
 
We were just commenting stuff we hear over radio in winter times. "The city's winter services have been caught off-guard by this morning's snow". O really, you sit on your ass for 10 months and then get surprised when inevitable nature cycle happens.

Also people's perception of winter. You can hear them saying in christmas holiday time, oh what a warm winter. Well bitch, the winter has barely started. Come early February and everyone is freezing their asses off.
 
Adrian Smith played live at least one solo from each respective guitarist that was ever a part of Iron Maiden's recording history. Even the ones from the most important Maiden-related axeman that was actually never in Maiden. He played both Stratton solos and Cairns solo on early days, and Gers/Murray/Z solos while in Dickinson's outfit.

His TOAD rendition is better than Z's. The solo is mid paced and vibrato heavy and is really Smith territory. Powerslave Murray solo is one of the best ever played but Smith's picking sounds different enough for for it to have its own merit, but it can't really top the original. What I like about both of these solos, is the fact that original renditions are back-to-back with Smith. Here he does everything by himself, a minute, minute and a half worth of dynamic soloing, which is a new for Maiden (related) world.

The third Icarus solo Smith does better than Murray. The TM solo though, is same as Gers so we have a faithful cover. The early days solos are good and different than originals, and definitely way better than originals if he played it recently (Early Days, as opposed to 1981 or so). The Cairns solo on Strange World is my favourite Di'Anno era solo together with H's Prodigal Son. Smith's version on Maiden Japan is in completely different style.

Smith doesn't have a problem playing other people's solos in a way that comes out adequate or simply better. We're not talking pub covers, we're talking setlist staples on a proper tour. A feat yet to be accomplished by any other Maiden guitarist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top