Stuart
You have a vaild point Traffic. Short of puting motorways through inner south london the only way is to restrict car ownership.
How many people living in SE 26 have a car ? How many actually need a car ?? How many have a Diesel VW. ?
The current road structure etc in SE26 mainly laid out between 1850 and 1900. Most roads have no allowance for cars.
We have a wonderful Public Transport System .
Sydenham & Forest Hill welcome new people
Re: Sydenham & Forest Hill welcome new people
Monkeyarms is spot (we think the same way). It's incredibly simplistic to say that the only way to solve the housing crusts (by which I presume Tim is talking about prices) is to build more.
How property is marketed, costs and hassle associated with selling and buying exiting built property, second homes, property being marketed overseas, seeing property as investments rather than places to live in, the emphasis on London, lack of social housing, cost of new builds, the way people think, our rental market, cost of building, cost of land and planning and even Right Move's price brands are all factors.
Not just 'build more'.
Monkeyarms, am I right in thinking you have moved or are looking to move recently and have first hand experience of the housing market? It sounds like it from what you write.
As for 'Moot Points', nearly all points are moot and no-one is saying that more homes shouldn't be created to cater for an expanding population, be it converted existing building into accommodation or building new. It's common sense.
It's just that they should be well designed, warm, sustainable and designed around community with a sense of place. If you really think that most modern developments do this, I despair. There are some really good developments, like Segal, like Coin Street, Kidbrooke, The Orb, The Oxo Tower, Hab, The Arc in Forest Hill?, Bedazzle, Stoneham Green, Sinclair Meadows.
It can be done and it doesn't have to cost a fortune. Tim, I think you confuse good architecture and design with being expensive, with banal, dull, uninteresting, safe design and architecture with cheap or 'value'.
It's not the case.
How property is marketed, costs and hassle associated with selling and buying exiting built property, second homes, property being marketed overseas, seeing property as investments rather than places to live in, the emphasis on London, lack of social housing, cost of new builds, the way people think, our rental market, cost of building, cost of land and planning and even Right Move's price brands are all factors.
Not just 'build more'.
Monkeyarms, am I right in thinking you have moved or are looking to move recently and have first hand experience of the housing market? It sounds like it from what you write.
As for 'Moot Points', nearly all points are moot and no-one is saying that more homes shouldn't be created to cater for an expanding population, be it converted existing building into accommodation or building new. It's common sense.
It's just that they should be well designed, warm, sustainable and designed around community with a sense of place. If you really think that most modern developments do this, I despair. There are some really good developments, like Segal, like Coin Street, Kidbrooke, The Orb, The Oxo Tower, Hab, The Arc in Forest Hill?, Bedazzle, Stoneham Green, Sinclair Meadows.
It can be done and it doesn't have to cost a fortune. Tim, I think you confuse good architecture and design with being expensive, with banal, dull, uninteresting, safe design and architecture with cheap or 'value'.
It's not the case.
Re: Sydenham & Forest Hill welcome new people
You are starting to sound like a local cllrs talking up shabby high streets! Whenever someone deceives a high street as 'Vibrant' it normally means 'unloved, dirty and depressing'.stuart wrote:A prettier more populated Sydenham and hence a really more vibrant high street…
Stuart
Re: Sydenham & Forest Hill welcome new people
I was taking the VW additive Lee!leenewham wrote:You are starting to sound like a local cllrs talking up shabby high streets! Whenever someone deceives a high street as 'Vibrant' it normally means 'unloved, dirty and depressing'.
The way of getting a more vibrant street anywhere is to have more people. The higher the density the less back gardens to hide in and more people on the street. More trade, more places to trade. That's where nearly every other european city scores over London where, once you get away from the commercial centres you get deserted streets and either no shops or poor ones. It becomes a downward spiral. Sydenham has nice wide pavements. Could be a lot nicer without its metallic lining and filled with residents.
People won't walk far to the shops but they will go downstairs to them ...
Stuart