Sparticus' serious point

[Tim Lund]

Seems better to start a new thread than respond to this on the Brown & Green thread where he made it

there is a serious point to be made about where we want Sydenham to go. I, and many others I suspect, certainly don't want the High Street to become a Lordship Lane clone, full of over-priced eateries, shops selling expensive tat and populated by vacuous, self-obsessed Clapham wannabes. The mix we have is great, and the presence of pound shops, ethnic grocers and cheap fast food joints alongside the newer, more upmarket places is testament to the fact that we haven't completely pushed out the people we all need to service our child-friendly, privileged lifestyles. And there's nothing wrong with marrow-fat peas in my opinion. I enjoy them alongside fish and chips just as I enjoyed the duck gizzards and foie gras (not for the vegetarians amongst us!) in On the Hoof last night, another estimable addition to our high street. The diversity we enjoy in Sydenham is, as the reviewer in yesterday's Guardian said of Catford, is like what a lot of inner London used to be like, and long may it last.

I think most of us would agree - with the possible,exception of the duck gizzards - but are we prepared for what is needed for this diversity to continue? If we don't want where we live to be taken over by affluent incomers, we have to allow enough new homes to be built to bring house prices and rents back down to something affordable for the diverse range of social groups we say we want. Actually, 'allow' is not good enough - it's something which needs to be planned for. In 25 years it is quite possible that the Bakerloo line will be connecting with Lower Sydenham Station.



Brilliant - bring it on, I say. But let's be asking Lewisham Council to be developing plans, in cooperation with Bromley, and the GLA, for where enough good quality affordable homes can be built to meet the new demand for housing this will bring.

Look at the map:



Bellingham will be transformed. Those industrial estates along Kent House Lane will be redeveloped. Who's to decide - planners, market forces, or the two working together?

[Nigel]

Tim
no wish to be rude but this really is the most contrived segue into a housing post that you have ever made .
Sparticus' serious point , was a valid one but was not about housing at all.

Whilst agreeing with him in principle , I think the point is overstated - our main problem is Sydenham is really not wealthy young metropolitans with a taste for hallumi sandwiches and improbable gifts - no it is the opposite : we still have a high street offer that does not meet the needs of all of us , meaning that people still go to CP or elsewhere for an evening out and still go to Dulwich for odds and ends.

You know me to be a practical cove , I am a devotee of Sydenham DIY , Sema's , and the excellent Fresh and Fruity , Billings , Cake Store (just for croissants really) as well as Kirkdale books fro my more cerebral moments . I would be the last person to wish for an East Dulwich experience - for a start , I really dislike the pushy professional dominance with their " get out of my way, my child needs needs to scooter into Le P'tit Choux at great speed " etc etc .

When the time comes that the excellent and improving shopping life of Sydenham gets like that , I will be only to ready to protest about gentrification but frankly that is years and years off .

Regarding your housing point - I put it you , Mr Lund, that you were lamely attempting to trick us into thinking we were talking about affordable housing , when we were not (nor was Sparticus) . It was another of your sledgehammer , build more housing in Sydenham diatribes even if 90% of us don't agree . You are fully entitled to your point of view but please don't dress it up as undeniable truth and even worse, please don't pretend you have somehow been invited to hold court again on the subject .

To end on a perverse note , if anything is missing from the mix it would probably be a bit of " unaffordable housing " e.g. would it be so unbearable if more really wealthy people moved in ? Or to paraphrase Southern Trains , wrong type of diversity on the tracks?

A very good evening
Nigel

[Smiffy]

Why build in an already overcrowded part of London when there's plenty of underutilised space used by relatively few people nearby that could be put to better use?

[Tim Lund]

I'd be careful suggesting building off golf courses, given how tempting it might one day be for LB Lewisham to try selling off Beckenham Place Park.

Sorry, Nigel, but it's a fairly easy jump from Sparticus' fears over diversity to housing. He speaks of the "diversity we enjoy in Sydenham", and fears it will be lost if overwhelmed by Clapham wannabes, but this is happening already thanks to the numbers of well off people who do want to live in London, and who, thanks to the London Overground, are increasingly looking to move here. I don't actually think Sydenham's current diversity, exemplified by the offer on Sydenham Road, is necessarily all that could be desired, and I'm happy about changes indicating that we are getting a bit more up-market. But I respect Sparticus' concerns, and I also share the concerns of those who find themselves unable to afford somewhere to live in the area where they have grown up.

It may be too late to do much now about the current changes, but alongside any plans to bring the Bakerloo line to Lower Sydenham and Beckenham, there is an opportunity to plan for an expansion of the housing supply which will strike the best balance between the various interests. It's what town planning should be about - not just reactively opposing this or that planning application.

[sparticus]

I don't think Tim was being disingenuous with his segue into the issue of housing as it's fundamental to the whole question of how we maintain diverse communities in inner London. A sufficient supply of good-quality rented accommodation and affordable owner-occupied housing is fundamental to balanced communities, as indeed is the availability of decent, secure, and well-paid jobs. Given the complexity of the economic and political issues that surround housing in the UK I venture into the discussion with some trepidation! It seems to me that we need to dramatically increase the supply of housing for rent and to buy and the only feasible way this can happen is to allow local authorities, either the boroughs or GLA or both to borrow money at the current very low interest rates and to allow them to compulsory purchase suitable land. Then we need to end the disastrous right to buy policy that hollowed-out social housing stock and ensured that social housing is only available to people in extreme housing need, and therefor by definition often with multiple social problems. Then we need to reform the private rented sector by giving good tenants more security but also allowing landlords to get rid of bad ones, and by introducing a system of rent control that gives landlords a reasonable return but also protects tenants. These measures in turn would start to damp-down the overheated housing market,

I grew up on the edge of a large council estate in Bristol. My parents had lived happily in one of the council houses but then bought a house nearby. This was before right to buy! It was not without it's problems, but it was a reasonably functioning community and the local school attracted middle-class kids from all over Bristol. 30 years later it was falling apart socially, drugs and violence were common and my school was in special measures. A combination of right to buy, increasing numbers of "problem" families in severe housing and social need and declining employment opportunities in the aerospace industries of North Bristol have taken their toll.

In a later incarnation I managed a busy homelessness unit in a north London borough and saw at first hand the terrible human consequences of a desperate shortage of decent rented accommodation. I was appalled by both the impact of homelessness on children in particular, and the potential for corruption on the part of elected members. A much-revered council leader, now dead, was in reality a corrupt bully.

I can't approach the sophistication and knowledge of Tim's contributions to this debate, but I do believe that somewhere in these rumblings is the basis of a coherent policy that could start to address this most fundament of issues. Over to you Tim!

[Tim Lund]

I don't think Tim was being disingenuous with his segue into the issue of housing as it's fundamental to the whole question of how we maintain diverse communities in inner London.

...

I can't approach the sophistication and knowledge of Tim's contributions to this debate, but I do believe that somewhere in these rumblings is the basis of a coherent policy that could start to address this most fundament of issues. Over to you Tim!

I blush

There is in fact a lot of far better informed and more sophisticated thought out there about this indeed fundamental issue - how humanity can best fit together on our Planet Earth, and I'm not the only lay person who's following the debate. There was a time, as WW2 was ending, when Town Planning was far more widely discussed, and the profession was very prestigious. A document I treasure is a copy of the City of Manchester Plan, 1945, (Abridged Version), with a note on the inside cover indicating that my Dad bought it when it came out, aged just 19. It was a time when people felt they needed to look ahead, but also felt they could, and develop a consensus as to what to do.

We all think we know what went wrong, even if, like Paul Weller, we're a little short on why

[youtubes]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnyorUGeUE[/youtubes]

I'm with you on Right to Buy being one of the reasons, but I think leasehold reform in the 1960s was also.

There's lots which could be said - and already has. But I'd suggest a higher level reasons for the problems is the an ideological battle between public & private sector. Those plans drawn up in the 1940s - for most cities in the UK - were suffused with an anti-market ideology; they were reacting against the perceived failures of market forces in the 1930s, and the success of planning in guiding a war economy, so found it hard to imaging that their public sector plans could go wrong, or that revered Council leaders could be anything other than secular saints. The private sector was also blamed for the horrors of urban sprawl - 1930s ribbon developments, the motor car. etc., etc. Thatcherism, with its Right to Buy policies and others, was a reaction against that; somewhere in the middle, however, there should be a best way forward. Unfortunately, the disappointments of the post war experience have led to a decline in trust in Town Planning as a profession, which is now in itself a problem.

[Nigel]

Tim
let me be the next to compliment you on your sophistry - reading your self-quoted comments again and again , I am in no doubt about your cleverness. But the point remains very simple.
I likened your approach to a sledgehammer with good reason . Your argument basically follows this line of thought and hangs on the following wrong assumptions :

1 - London's population must grow continuously (most would disagree)
2- Lots of people have a " right " to move to London (most would disagree)
3- the immigration that fuels most housing demand will continue unabated (most would disagree)
4- London can continue to become more densely populated without detriment to its residents provided it follows your planning ideas (most would disagree)
5 - Assuming points 1-4 are true (most would disagree) then it is wise to plan any expansion to housing and ensure the mix needed (of course it would be true)

I was born in privately rented then local authority housing until I went into privately rented as an adult then owner occupier some years later . I was born and bred in London, consider myself a Londoner in every conceivable respect .
Already the skyline or London has been lost , the quiet spaces are disappearing , the roads are more choked and housing options are getting drastically worse for anyone unless pretty comfortably off .

I really do not relish someone coming to London and telling me that controlling London's population is not a legitimate or desirable (for many) aim . Lee's post about reducing budgets is extremely relevant to this argument -when the infrastructure we do have finally ebbs away , there will be no street cleaning , emergency housing , maintenance of social housing (let alone building of ) or any of the enforcement or controls that stop an ever more dense and inevitably less cohesive city from really hotting up .

I know with your sledgehammer approach , you have to keep on and on , and on , with the same argument and therefore not likely to prioritise . This argument started with an unfounded fear of gentrification . I am not sneering at that argument but I am keeping it in perspective - none of my friends would say Sydenham is showing E Dulwich type excesses but nearly everyone on this forum has said we have too many awful shops dragging down the efforts of those who are trying to make Sydenham attractive . Do ask people and see if they think there should be 4 mobile phone unlockers for every new coffee bar , or 2 unlicensed fruit vendors selling unweighted unlabelled fruit for every proper greengrocer .

Good evening
nigel

[angela53]

I completely agree with Nigel, well said

[Annie.]

Nigel, common sense, well said.

[sugahill cafe]

[quote="Nigel"]Tim
none of my friends would say Sydenham is showing E Dulwich type excesses but nearly everyone on this forum has said we have too many awful shops dragging down the efforts of those who are trying to make Sydenham attractive . Do ask people and see if they think there should be 4 mobile phone unlockers for every new coffee bar , or 2 unlicensed fruit vendors selling unweighted unlabelled fruit for every proper greengrocer .

I'll never understand whilst we are surrounded by all these tacky mobile phone unlockers, fruit vendors etc, people will find time to put down for whatever reason the shops that do put in some effort whether it be to your particular liking or not. Cherry & Ice,Aquatics shop,Inkwa Tatoo even Billings today until he cleared things up have all been recently criticized via this forum when in each case i bet the owners are approachable. Put your efforts into knocking those establishments mentioned that obviously don't give a damn & have put in no effort at all as they hold us all back. If slightly off subject sorry..Chris

[14BradfordRoad]

Nigel, common sense, well said.

Very entertaining too!
Certainly gave me a chuckle or three!

[Tim Lund]

Your argument basically follows this line of thought and hangs on the following wrong assumptions :

1 - London's population must grow continuously (most would disagree)
2- Lots of people have a " right " to move to London (most would disagree)
3- the immigration that fuels most housing demand will continue unabated (most would disagree)
4- London can continue to become more densely populated without detriment to its residents provided it follows your planning ideas (most would disagree)
5 - Assuming points 1-4 are true (most would disagree) then it is wise to plan any expansion to housing and ensure the mix needed (of course it would be true)

Well, 5 counts as progress, since at least you're agreeing my conclusions follow from what you say are my premises. So let's look at these:

1. London's population doesn't have to grow continuously, but over the planning horizon we're talking about - 25 years - it almost certainly will
2. To suggest people don't have a "right" to move to London (linguists will note the scare quotes, indicating that the user knows he's not using language plainly) - is to say that there needs to be some new rules whereby people will have to get permission to move to London, and suggests that people like me, Lee, Rachael, Robin, Sparticus and numerous others, somehow are here illegitimately. And how far back should we go? Should we demand that somebody's parents should also be born and bred Londoners for they to have full residential rights? Any you think most people would agree with you? I think not.
3. You don't think immigration will continue? So what are you worried about? Do you agree or not with your own arguments?
4. Of course London can become more densely populated - which isn't the same as whether we want it. It's far from the most densely populated city in the world, and even places such as Hong Kong could become more densely populated.

I was born in privately rented then local authority housing until I went into privately rented as an adult then owner occupier some years later

What possible relevance has this? Or are you try to say you were born again in local authority housing?

I was born and bred in London, consider myself a Londoner in every conceivable respect.

And so I'm not? Is my breeding not up to your standards?

[Robin Orton]

I agree with most of what Tim says. As a liberal, I believe that the default position should be that people are allowed to set up home wherever they like - in London, Britain or anywhere else.

[hairybuddha]

It would be absurdly illiberal to try to restrict the right of people to move to London. And almost certainly illegal in EU law at present. Surely the answer lies somewhere in the middle here. We need more housing and denser housing in order to deal with current and short/medium term levels of demand. But we also need to find ways of cooling demand in the longer term. Strengthening the cities of the North would hellp IMO. As would placing greater restrictions on property ownership for non-doms and buy to let landlords. Greater centralisation of planning would surely also help tackle NIMBYism?

[Eagle]

Robin

You cannot be serious. Are you really saying anyone in the world can come to London if they wish to. !!!!!

Mon Dieu. I do not believe it , as Victor would say.

[Nigel]

Tim,
in the spirit of fairness, why not edit out your latest response , have a think and then have another go.
There are too many holes in your argument to mention them all but here's a few:

1 "Well, 5 counts as progress, since at least you're agreeing my conclusions follow from what you say are my premises. So let's look at these".
Tim any entry level reader would deduce that I am agreeing with none of your postulations .

2- "London's population doesn't have to grow continuously, but over the planning horizon we're talking about - 25 years - it almost certainly will" [/i]- Do you really expected us to accept this quality of argument from someone as highly educated as yourself- basically " something is because it is" ?

3- "To suggest people don't have a "right" to move to London (linguists will note the scare quotes, indicating that the user knows he's not using language plainly) " -
the quotes denote the right does not exist. Robin and HB, I don't say these mythical incomers have no right , I say there is no "right" for a person live and be housed in London.If you think there is have a go at defining it but on past showing I am sure it is going to some fluffy "everyone should be able to come from Oxford/Sylhet/Clejani/Warsaw and live happily in London" . Tim, that is not "rights" -thats more " I did it , everything was lovely for me ,and I want the whole world to feel what I feel" .

4 - "Nigel wrote:
I was born in privately rented then local authority housing until I went into privately rented as an adult then owner occupier some years later -
What possible relevance has this? Or are you try to say you were born again in local authority housing?"

Tim , you are trying your hand at being obtuse, and bless you for that, but what I was trying to say is obvious . I was born into the nth generation of unskilled manual workers , lived in quite basic, at times horrible, housing . I now live in a very nice house and can honestly say I feel grateful , and lucky , every day that I have been able to save and buy somewhere peaceful and quite leafy. To be blunt I am making it clear that I was not born with any advantage apart from the supreme luck of good health and good parents and as a result I have some sense of what it is like to struggle to get someone nice to live .

5-"Nigel wrote:
I was born and bred in London, consider myself a Londoner in every conceivable respect.
And so I'm not? Is my breeding not up to your standards?"

Tim I don't don't if you are now breeding pigeons but I have no idea what you are trying to say here , even if you do .

A very good afternoon
Nigel

[Eagle]

Amazing posts Nigel and Tim.

Whilst I do agree that London is fairly full , I also believe that immigration over the centuries has generally been beneficial to the City.

I was born in Sydenham ..

What we should be talking is not zero immigration but managed. We are short on many resources a big city requires. You would not think so this year but we are a water deficient area normally .London uses a great deal of water.

I except what Tim says that London is not big compared with many other cities. That is true , but I would not wish London to become a Greater Sao Paulo or New Delhi , .

I am not at all sure how we solve this issue , however an increase in spending on infrastructure outside London might be a start.

[coldand]

Not really sure what the original thread was about as it seems like quite that people just having a go at other people's ideas. But have to say I for one would like a different shopping
Experience in Sydenham. Pound shops , nail shops, chicken shops, fruit in bowls shop, have their place but we really don't need anymore . Personally I find shopping in lordship lane quite a pleasant experience . Personally I would say their coffee shops actually offer better value than the likes of cherry and ice so I don't think we should knock it.
Until we have a wide choice of shops bars and cafes people will still go to crystal palace and lordship lane and sometimes affluent people bring money into the area which in turn gives our community local jobs. I'm sure no one can knock that !

[Tim Lund]

Not really sure what the original thread was about as it seems like quite that people just having a go at other people's ideas. But have to say I for one would like a different shopping
Experience in Sydenham. Pound shops , nail shops, chicken shops, fruit in bowls shop, have their place but we really don't need anymore . Personally I find shopping in lordship lane quite a pleasant experience . Personally I would say their coffee shops actually offer better value than the likes of cherry and ice so I don't think we should knock it.
Until we have a wide choice of shops bars and cafes people will still go to crystal palace and lordship lane and sometimes affluent people bring money into the area which in turn gives our community local jobs. I'm sure no one can knock that !

The point of the thread is that you can't keep the same mix of shops here, or anywhere, if affluent people wanting to move here keep pushing up property prices. I one sense, both Nigel & I want much the same outcome, a general improvement in the standard of shops here which retains as much as possible of the current character which we like. The difference is how to achieve this - build enough homes so that there are places for everyone, or shut out the would be incomers.

[Tim Lund]

I don't say these mythical incomers have no right , I say there is no "right" for a person live and be housed in London.

Nigel - all you have to do is think of something else people might want to do, such as have a beer, or cycle to work.


"I don't say these mythical beer drinkers have no right , I say there is no "right" for them to drink beer in London."

"I don't say these mythical cyclists have no right , I say there is no "right" for them to cycle in London."

Makes about as much sense.