See what you guys think - another monstrosity proposed for the area......
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=57831
If the link doesn't work, it's planning application number DC/09/72492/X
W Wonder
Another butt ugly building for Sydenham
-
Wispy Wonder
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 11 Jan 2006 22:13
- Location: Sydenham
This is an amended version of an application made (and refused) last year - see earlier thread:
http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... f20c#19170
http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... f20c#19170
-
charlieandpip
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 22 Feb 2006 17:25
- Location: Cator Road, Sydenham
-
Wispy Wonder
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 11 Jan 2006 22:13
- Location: Sydenham
I'm all for the site being tidied up (personally, I'd sooner see the existing building renovated for offices, workshop, retail etc) but the proposed building just looks like a giant caravan with two chemical loos stood at the front. And on that site too, overlooking service yards, a grotty side road, a busy junction, and a mechanic's yard, it's a slum of the future.
Considering that the Newlands Park area (excluding the High St end of Venner Rd) area has been largely unspoilt by ugly redevelopments, I'm sure the architects could come up with something better. Maybe they should look at the proposal for the site near the railway bridge, or the one at Kirkdale, they're far better.
As for parking........ If the new residents can find spaces alongside the residents, shopkeepers, shoppers and station users, good luck to them.
W. Wonder
Considering that the Newlands Park area (excluding the High St end of Venner Rd) area has been largely unspoilt by ugly redevelopments, I'm sure the architects could come up with something better. Maybe they should look at the proposal for the site near the railway bridge, or the one at Kirkdale, they're far better.
As for parking........ If the new residents can find spaces alongside the residents, shopkeepers, shoppers and station users, good luck to them.
W. Wonder
I'm sorry Wispy Wonder, I'd love to concur with your views but I simply cannot.
Just so you know, I am the biggest architectural snob you're ever likely to meet. If it isn't Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian then I am not interested. I abhor most of the 20th Century's stock. That is not to say they are not comfortable/practical/safe...merely that I take Charles' stance in that they are carbuncles!
That written. Privately owned developments in the 21st Century are really starting to impress me. And this one puts me in mind of the stuff that you see bordering the trainline when you get toward L.Bridge and Bermondsey.
Good stuff.
After all. You are not going to be buying them, I assume? If someone wants the soundproofing, safety, 'move-inability' of this development but on a busy road then that's their lookout? You're right to point out the downsides...but you pays your money?...
That graffiti strewn rat-hole that currently occupies the site cannot be redeveloped quickly enough.
Just my opinion.
Just so you know, I am the biggest architectural snob you're ever likely to meet. If it isn't Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian then I am not interested. I abhor most of the 20th Century's stock. That is not to say they are not comfortable/practical/safe...merely that I take Charles' stance in that they are carbuncles!
That written. Privately owned developments in the 21st Century are really starting to impress me. And this one puts me in mind of the stuff that you see bordering the trainline when you get toward L.Bridge and Bermondsey.
Good stuff.
After all. You are not going to be buying them, I assume? If someone wants the soundproofing, safety, 'move-inability' of this development but on a busy road then that's their lookout? You're right to point out the downsides...but you pays your money?...
That graffiti strewn rat-hole that currently occupies the site cannot be redeveloped quickly enough.
Just my opinion.
Have to agree with wispy wonder
I think the new building is a joke, look at the trouble the new one has caused just behind the corner shop. I take it those that approve this awful development don't live in Homecroft Rd where parking is already a joke, I will be boycotting this new development for sure, I already know of others in Homecroft Road that will be opposing this eyesore.
I agree with whispy wonder. This is typical of Lewisham council's planning department. Cram as many dwellings into a structure that is so unsympathetic to it's surroundings. Once this has been built it will open the floodgates to other sites in the vicinity, namely junction of Tredown road and Newlands park. Two or three years down the line and the graffiti will be back. These newbuild properties have a temporary air about them and in my experience that will reflect the new occupants. Why not have two three bedroom semis that would at least show some continuity?
I have no idea what 'one' the Daily Mail reader PJWSON references but I assume he/she is quite mad...MartinH wrote:I agree with whispy wonder. This is typical of Lewisham council's planning department. Cram as many dwellings into a structure that is so unsympathetic to it's surroundings. Once this has been built it will open the floodgates to other sites in the vicinity, namely junction of Tredown road and Newlands park. Two or three years down the line and the graffiti will be back. These newbuild properties have a temporary air about them and in my experience that will reflect the new occupants. Why not have two three bedroom semis that would at least show some continuity?
So, MartinH, given the fairly down-at-heel nature of that end of Newlands Park, pray tell how you think the heroin-hang-out and rat-refuge that is currently there bests the plans for single young-professionals from moving in via these proposals?
One awaits your learned reponse.
-
Wispy Wonder
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 11 Jan 2006 22:13
- Location: Sydenham
Ulysses
I think you'll find that PJSON is referring to the newly converted flats at 28 High St that overlook the site, where the residents have jammed the rear patio with so much rubbish that the council have been called, due to rats.
As for the state of the existing building, that is due to the negligence of the owner. It is scruffy, and possibly rat-infested, which could all be resolved - without resulting in demolition.
Unfortunately, yours is the same knee-jerk arguement used in past decades to justify destroying similarly down-at-heel buildings in the area for a quick profit, to be replaced (in most cases) by buildings that were soon to become equally grotty (think Silverdale, Wells Park, Venner road, and Sydenham Hill, just for starters).
You may consider yourself an architectural snob, but a short-sighted one in my opinion, too easily persuaded by novelty roofs and decorative cladding.
W. Wonder
I think you'll find that PJSON is referring to the newly converted flats at 28 High St that overlook the site, where the residents have jammed the rear patio with so much rubbish that the council have been called, due to rats.
As for the state of the existing building, that is due to the negligence of the owner. It is scruffy, and possibly rat-infested, which could all be resolved - without resulting in demolition.
Unfortunately, yours is the same knee-jerk arguement used in past decades to justify destroying similarly down-at-heel buildings in the area for a quick profit, to be replaced (in most cases) by buildings that were soon to become equally grotty (think Silverdale, Wells Park, Venner road, and Sydenham Hill, just for starters).
You may consider yourself an architectural snob, but a short-sighted one in my opinion, too easily persuaded by novelty roofs and decorative cladding.
W. Wonder
-
Nickerbockers
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 31 Oct 2007 13:04
- Location: Sydenham
I am afraid Wispy Wonder, you have missed the point completely. But don't beat yourself up about it.
I did say I hated most of the 20th Century's output. I'd like to retain our Victorian stock but not to the detriment of the area. What is there wants pulling down. BTW You are talking about local authority stock - I am talking about private homes.
I too am dismayed at what the GLC did to vast tracts of London in the 50's and 60's - the decades that good taste forgot. I've seen the pictures of the Wells Park Estate before the demolition teams moved in and only a fool would say what is there now is better. Same for other parts of Sydenham/London.
Anyway, let us concentrate on the matter in hand...this thread. One assumes due dilligence has been conducted by the landlord and after various feasability studies there is more ££ to be gained from selling it as a plot of land with planning permission. Given the choice of looking at that current eyesore for another decade or having some smart new flats I'll go for the latter thanks very much.
I tell you what Wispy, why don't you buy it up and slap a preservation order on it. Maybe do it up and sell penny chews and cough drops to all the little darlings to and from school. Have an old Bakerlite on the wall. Talk in clipped accents.
No?
Now there's a surprise.
I'm all for preservation but not if it inhibits progress and/or gentrification.
Ulysses
[just thought I'd also sign off every post with my name even though it's quite obvious who I am given it's written next to my post...]
I did say I hated most of the 20th Century's output. I'd like to retain our Victorian stock but not to the detriment of the area. What is there wants pulling down. BTW You are talking about local authority stock - I am talking about private homes.
I too am dismayed at what the GLC did to vast tracts of London in the 50's and 60's - the decades that good taste forgot. I've seen the pictures of the Wells Park Estate before the demolition teams moved in and only a fool would say what is there now is better. Same for other parts of Sydenham/London.
Anyway, let us concentrate on the matter in hand...this thread. One assumes due dilligence has been conducted by the landlord and after various feasability studies there is more ££ to be gained from selling it as a plot of land with planning permission. Given the choice of looking at that current eyesore for another decade or having some smart new flats I'll go for the latter thanks very much.
I tell you what Wispy, why don't you buy it up and slap a preservation order on it. Maybe do it up and sell penny chews and cough drops to all the little darlings to and from school. Have an old Bakerlite on the wall. Talk in clipped accents.
No?
Now there's a surprise.
I'm all for preservation but not if it inhibits progress and/or gentrification.
Ulysses
[just thought I'd also sign off every post with my name even though it's quite obvious who I am given it's written next to my post...]
-
Wispy Wonder
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 11 Jan 2006 22:13
- Location: Sydenham
Ulysses
As amusing as your supercilious response is, albeit Blytonesque, you seem to be making rather a few misguided assumptions. Don't beat yourself up old bean.
- Local authority properties
Ownership isn't really an issue here, whoever it was took a short-sighted view, like yours, to condemn perfectly salvageable buildings and replace them with others offering short-tern glitz, long-term grot. That said, I think you'll find that many of the modern developments were actually built by private developers - it matters not.
- The landlord's dilligence
Not so. The new owner bought the site at an over inflated price on the assumption that he could make a quick buck from developing it, without realizing that it is covered by a conservation area. That's why he's trying to cram in as many units as possible, into a low-budget development.
- Me buying it
Yes, if I had the funds, I would. I've no doubt there are many businesses that would be very happy renting it out as offices, once it was suitably renovated. No blinkered, short-term'ism here.
W. Wonder (Yes, I sign letters and emails too, it's an old fashioned thing but please feel free to make another inane jibe.)
As amusing as your supercilious response is, albeit Blytonesque, you seem to be making rather a few misguided assumptions. Don't beat yourself up old bean.
- Local authority properties
Ownership isn't really an issue here, whoever it was took a short-sighted view, like yours, to condemn perfectly salvageable buildings and replace them with others offering short-tern glitz, long-term grot. That said, I think you'll find that many of the modern developments were actually built by private developers - it matters not.
- The landlord's dilligence
Not so. The new owner bought the site at an over inflated price on the assumption that he could make a quick buck from developing it, without realizing that it is covered by a conservation area. That's why he's trying to cram in as many units as possible, into a low-budget development.
- Me buying it
Yes, if I had the funds, I would. I've no doubt there are many businesses that would be very happy renting it out as offices, once it was suitably renovated. No blinkered, short-term'ism here.
W. Wonder (Yes, I sign letters and emails too, it's an old fashioned thing but please feel free to make another inane jibe.)
Last edited by Wispy Wonder on 3 Nov 2009 13:57, edited 1 time in total.
http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/posting.php?mode=editpost&p
I'll try and reign in my usual verbosity in favour of some brevity here Wispy. Wow, supercillious? I don't mind admitting I had to look that word up - yet you were the one who used it. I know the word sesquipedalian though...do you think that will let me off?
Look AliB is right. I really don't want this to descend any further. Personal opinion is just that, right?
You have no idea why I like these flats, do you? To say it's because of 'novelty roofs' and 'decorative cladding' is completely wide of the mark. I have, at various points, lived in new-build and Victorian/Edwaridan stock. New-builds offer (in the main) saftey, warmth, sound-proofing, lack of maintenance, and move-in-ability that older stock lacks. New-builds, however, lack the space, character, light, storage and cachet that a fine Victorian place can offer.
Yes, new builds are often fairly rabbit hutch-esque and not really for me anymore. But if well made, they offer a safe, comfortable and pain-free first step on the property ladder for a great many...remember we are in chronic need of property!
Can you tell me in exactly what area you feel these flats are so deficient in? Does it score low in it's Environmental Impact Assessment? What are the square footage per dwelling figures and how do these compare versus the alernatives? Heat dissipation? Decibel absorption?
I was referring to you referencing the L.A. stock in Sydenham and am well aware that Bermondsey Spa is not private. Bermonsey Spa was simply the first new build that came into my head. They are infinitely superior to what they are replacing though, especially the bit as you head back into Deptford [not Bermondsey I know but still] - surely we can agree on that?
Look, I can only offer that I think you're so animated and defensive here as you will have to look at them. Yes, clearly I won't. Perhaps in an ideal world what is there would be put back to use but I have been here for 10 years and that site has always been bad. Why do you think it's been allowed to get in such a state Wispy? Do you think it's because there's no demand for it to be an office or whatever you think it should be?
Blyton-esque? You've got me there. You'd never think I was only 33, would you? Sometimes I think I live in some sort of time-warp! I really don't want to fall out or have an on-going dispute with you but please, please remove the last line of your post. It's neither fair comment, nor acceptable. Ditto with the issues regarding Local Authority housing. The main [and only real] issue I have with them is the 'post-war' stock, as I term it, is often so ugly!
But that last bit is, again, just personal opinion.
Peace out.
[Edited 3 times now to try and get tone correct]
Look AliB is right. I really don't want this to descend any further. Personal opinion is just that, right?
You have no idea why I like these flats, do you? To say it's because of 'novelty roofs' and 'decorative cladding' is completely wide of the mark. I have, at various points, lived in new-build and Victorian/Edwaridan stock. New-builds offer (in the main) saftey, warmth, sound-proofing, lack of maintenance, and move-in-ability that older stock lacks. New-builds, however, lack the space, character, light, storage and cachet that a fine Victorian place can offer.
Yes, new builds are often fairly rabbit hutch-esque and not really for me anymore. But if well made, they offer a safe, comfortable and pain-free first step on the property ladder for a great many...remember we are in chronic need of property!
Can you tell me in exactly what area you feel these flats are so deficient in? Does it score low in it's Environmental Impact Assessment? What are the square footage per dwelling figures and how do these compare versus the alernatives? Heat dissipation? Decibel absorption?
I was referring to you referencing the L.A. stock in Sydenham and am well aware that Bermondsey Spa is not private. Bermonsey Spa was simply the first new build that came into my head. They are infinitely superior to what they are replacing though, especially the bit as you head back into Deptford [not Bermondsey I know but still] - surely we can agree on that?
Look, I can only offer that I think you're so animated and defensive here as you will have to look at them. Yes, clearly I won't. Perhaps in an ideal world what is there would be put back to use but I have been here for 10 years and that site has always been bad. Why do you think it's been allowed to get in such a state Wispy? Do you think it's because there's no demand for it to be an office or whatever you think it should be?
Blyton-esque? You've got me there. You'd never think I was only 33, would you? Sometimes I think I live in some sort of time-warp! I really don't want to fall out or have an on-going dispute with you but please, please remove the last line of your post. It's neither fair comment, nor acceptable. Ditto with the issues regarding Local Authority housing. The main [and only real] issue I have with them is the 'post-war' stock, as I term it, is often so ugly!
But that last bit is, again, just personal opinion.
Peace out.
[Edited 3 times now to try and get tone correct]
Last edited by Ulysses on 30 Oct 2009 16:23, edited 4 times in total.
-
Trawlerman
- Posts: 318
- Joined: 17 Sep 2009 13:56
- Location: Sydenham
-
Wispy Wonder
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 11 Jan 2006 22:13
- Location: Sydenham
Ulysses
You're quite right, my replies were getting unnecessary, and I have amended my last pot. I apologize for any offence caused, I probably took your tone for more than was meant (I do read the Mail, but only on Saturdays).
Anyway, my beef with this development is that it's too big for the site (parking, the main concern), and is completely out of character with the area. No doubt the workshop will be pulled down (something needs to be done), I'm just keen that whatever replaces it doesn't end up being as out of place as the Nabourhood centre looks in the High st. That isn't impossible, the recently built (1990's-ish) hostel on Tredown road shows that new-builds don't have to jar with the neighbouring buildings.
W. Wonder (Sorry, old habits die hard)
You're quite right, my replies were getting unnecessary, and I have amended my last pot. I apologize for any offence caused, I probably took your tone for more than was meant (I do read the Mail, but only on Saturdays).
Anyway, my beef with this development is that it's too big for the site (parking, the main concern), and is completely out of character with the area. No doubt the workshop will be pulled down (something needs to be done), I'm just keen that whatever replaces it doesn't end up being as out of place as the Nabourhood centre looks in the High st. That isn't impossible, the recently built (1990's-ish) hostel on Tredown road shows that new-builds don't have to jar with the neighbouring buildings.
W. Wonder (Sorry, old habits die hard)