ALIB,
I agree basically with what you are saying...But what people want isn't necessarily the same as what is good for society or for many individuals.
It is generally recognized that fewer cars on the roads means better health all round, fewer deaths and injuries, a better environment, lower carbon emissions, less stress... But we are addicted to our cars, they give the illusion of freedom but more often than not they equal clogged-up roads, traffic jams, obesity [due to people driving short distances instead of walking or biking], worries about 'parking spaces', rising petrol and tax costs and rising asthma cases amongst the young.
There will be an outcry, but perhaps a better way for the future would be more double yellow lines, FEWER parking spaces and far less provision for the lethal steel boxes on wheels...For a healthier and safer environment for all.
Oh, also...London was never built with the car in mind. It is very much a 19th century city for pedestrians, horse transport and [later, gradually] railways.
Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds
Yep, I totally agree trawlerman. I was playing devils advocate, which was why i stated i use my car as little as possible. However, other people (and it seems a significant percentage) are not of the same opinion.
That's why I was saying 'market forces' are responsilble for the type of developments that are proposed.
Personally, I would have to be put under extreme financial pressure to give up my car. I am sure I am not in the minority (even though I would prefer other people to drive less)
That's why I was saying 'market forces' are responsilble for the type of developments that are proposed.
Personally, I would have to be put under extreme financial pressure to give up my car. I am sure I am not in the minority (even though I would prefer other people to drive less)
-
Trawlerman
- Posts: 318
- Joined: 17 Sep 2009 13:56
- Location: Sydenham
ALIB,
Yes, again I see your point.
The Market, as you put it, is responsible for a great deal. All it, [note the word it...it is an it. It is not a person. And you cannot put a finger on it...It is a fiction we all pay homage to. It is a belief, am I making sense?] ...All it respects are economic factors..In the short term.. . It takes no account of what is really good for people ... This is a great shame.
Going back to what you say, I'm sure you are not in a minority. But, what has what is right or wrong got to do with minorities or majorities? In the past the majority probably believed in the death penalty, or thought there was nothing wrong with slavery or [more recently] smoking 40 fags a day...
Sometimes, as you know, relatively small sacrifices have to be made in the short term [although they may not seem small to individuals at the time] for the long term greater good.
But, the question must arise: Can this be done 'democratically'?
Yes, again I see your point.
The Market, as you put it, is responsible for a great deal. All it, [note the word it...it is an it. It is not a person. And you cannot put a finger on it...It is a fiction we all pay homage to. It is a belief, am I making sense?] ...All it respects are economic factors..In the short term.. . It takes no account of what is really good for people ... This is a great shame.
Going back to what you say, I'm sure you are not in a minority. But, what has what is right or wrong got to do with minorities or majorities? In the past the majority probably believed in the death penalty, or thought there was nothing wrong with slavery or [more recently] smoking 40 fags a day...
Sometimes, as you know, relatively small sacrifices have to be made in the short term [although they may not seem small to individuals at the time] for the long term greater good.
But, the question must arise: Can this be done 'democratically'?
Can I also add some information at this point. I understand the proposed new development consists of Wooster and Stock and what was the old post office.
I know the last owner of the post office/newsagent had difficulties with builders doing works on the party wall on his other side. Apparently serious damage was done to the party wall and the owner has sought legal resolution with the builder responsible. The builder immediately went bust, then started a new company.
The legal technicalities aside, I don't think the issue of the damaged party wall has ever been addressed. Therefore there may be a potential structural issue with the currently empty post office which would make it more cost-effective to rebuild.
just a thought
I know the last owner of the post office/newsagent had difficulties with builders doing works on the party wall on his other side. Apparently serious damage was done to the party wall and the owner has sought legal resolution with the builder responsible. The builder immediately went bust, then started a new company.
The legal technicalities aside, I don't think the issue of the damaged party wall has ever been addressed. Therefore there may be a potential structural issue with the currently empty post office which would make it more cost-effective to rebuild.
just a thought
Went into Wooster and Stock this afternoon and had a look at the model they have in there.
I think that it will be a really good addition to the street. It's modern and interesting.
I can't see any cultural or architectural merit to the current buildings there.
Apparenly the Sydenham Society has written a very long objection letter? Perhaps if they hand some net curtains off the front of it, they might think it's OK. Hahahah!
I think that it will be a really good addition to the street. It's modern and interesting.
I can't see any cultural or architectural merit to the current buildings there.
Apparenly the Sydenham Society has written a very long objection letter? Perhaps if they hand some net curtains off the front of it, they might think it's OK. Hahahah!
That's unfortunatly a pretty accurate description of what's wrong with the Sydenham Society.
I'm actually a member, but am getting increasingly narked with what appears to be a luddite nimbyist agenda.
Choose your enemies wisely, people. Only object to something that's really out of order, or actually - really - detrimential to the local environment.
I'm actually a member, but am getting increasingly narked with what appears to be a luddite nimbyist agenda.
Choose your enemies wisely, people. Only object to something that's really out of order, or actually - really - detrimential to the local environment.
-
Trawlerman
- Posts: 318
- Joined: 17 Sep 2009 13:56
- Location: Sydenham
I have no real opinion on this...But perhaps a 'modern and interesting' building would be nice.
I agree that 'nimbyism' has a lot to answer for. But, let us be careful... In certain cases it can help to save / preserve a worthwhile environment ...for the good. We should, I agree, choose our enemies carefully.
Oh...The luddites have been much maligned. The word has now come to mean an unthinking, ignorant anti-modernism. Things were a bit more complicated.
Also...The Philistines had their own flourishing, sophisticated culture!!
I agree that 'nimbyism' has a lot to answer for. But, let us be careful... In certain cases it can help to save / preserve a worthwhile environment ...for the good. We should, I agree, choose our enemies carefully.
Oh...The luddites have been much maligned. The word has now come to mean an unthinking, ignorant anti-modernism. Things were a bit more complicated.
Also...The Philistines had their own flourishing, sophisticated culture!!
-
Trawlerman
- Posts: 318
- Joined: 17 Sep 2009 13:56
- Location: Sydenham
If some of you actually like the plans and want Lewisham council to receive an alternative view to the Sydenham Society it might actually be worth writing to them yourself, or maybe some of you like-minded people could send a joint one.
At least they would know that some people out there felt differently to the Sydenham Society on this one.
At least they would know that some people out there felt differently to the Sydenham Society on this one.
The planning dept will be discussing the plans for this building on Thursday at 7.30pm at the Town Hall.
I'm objecting as I think it will just add to the cheap new buildings on this side and end of Kirkdale. Some are half empty, one not in use at all.
The accomodation offered by these new builds is substandard unless you want to live in a cell. There are already cars parked down the back of willow way and rubbish strewn at the front of Kirkdale.
The planner in question has approved most of the substandard buildings in this area, one building has never been occupied (apart from now where some pigeons have taken roost) and probably never will be as they did not get party wall agreement ( apparently) and built their upper extension on top of the adjoining properties wall. You can see quite openly the supporting steel rod thing and the front of the shop has not been put in. It's been like this for over a year now. Do we really want more substandard builds brining down this area?
I'm objecting as I think it will just add to the cheap new buildings on this side and end of Kirkdale. Some are half empty, one not in use at all.
The accomodation offered by these new builds is substandard unless you want to live in a cell. There are already cars parked down the back of willow way and rubbish strewn at the front of Kirkdale.
The planner in question has approved most of the substandard buildings in this area, one building has never been occupied (apart from now where some pigeons have taken roost) and probably never will be as they did not get party wall agreement ( apparently) and built their upper extension on top of the adjoining properties wall. You can see quite openly the supporting steel rod thing and the front of the shop has not been put in. It's been like this for over a year now. Do we really want more substandard builds brining down this area?
Re: Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds
At least two blocks of flats along Kirkdale, one of which is pictured, are absolutely appalling.
They don't even seem very occupied.
Can any of the Sydenham councillors enlighten us on how such eyesores where granted permission? I am pretty sure at least one of them has gone up in the past four years!!!
They need to be a good size inside, decent quality, and be set back with planting, then someone might actually want to live in them!
They don't even seem very occupied.
Can any of the Sydenham councillors enlighten us on how such eyesores where granted permission? I am pretty sure at least one of them has gone up in the past four years!!!
They need to be a good size inside, decent quality, and be set back with planting, then someone might actually want to live in them!
Re: Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds
i agree, baglady, that the new build flats look shithouse.
have you had a look at the model and plans in wooster and stock, though? i think it's much better than the flats that have been built.
have you had a look at the model and plans in wooster and stock, though? i think it's much better than the flats that have been built.
Re: Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds
yep i've looked, still think it's terrible.
For me the old building is still working, it fits, people can live and work there comfortably. Why put another 29 potential tenants in a place where they will be cramped,squeezed in and fed up. I would be if i lived in the new build, why is it not good enough for me but good enough for other, probable renters?
Anyway it's apparently not actually safe, thats what i've heard, having an indoor courtyard isn't supportive of the rest of the building and the vibbbbrationattttions here in Kirkkkkdale, caused by passing busses and all that, aren't really taken into consideration.
Anyway i think theres a match on...
For me the old building is still working, it fits, people can live and work there comfortably. Why put another 29 potential tenants in a place where they will be cramped,squeezed in and fed up. I would be if i lived in the new build, why is it not good enough for me but good enough for other, probable renters?
Anyway it's apparently not actually safe, thats what i've heard, having an indoor courtyard isn't supportive of the rest of the building and the vibbbbrationattttions here in Kirkkkkdale, caused by passing busses and all that, aren't really taken into consideration.
Anyway i think theres a match on...
Re: Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds
ALIB, Dickp, Lambchops
I'm no longer on the SydSoc exec, or planning sub-committee, so there's no particular reason for me to respond to your criticisms of it. Design and the importance of historical context may just be a matter of taste, so I'm not going to respond on this. However, planning standards do exist for a reason - to maintain the quality of local space and local lives. And in this case we have a proposal to put 22 'habitable rooms' on a 290 square metre site - that's just a bit bigger than a standard allotment. These numbers are important, because standards for density of development in the London Plan are expressed in 'habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha), which in this case is 759. For this to be acceptable, the location would have to be 'central', as opposed to 'urban' or 'suburban', and it would need to have a 'Public Transport Accessibity Level' (PTAL) of 4 or more. In this case, the PTAL given in the officers' report is only 3. For an 'urban' location with this PTAL, the maximum 'hr/ha' is 450. This is over-development and a half - more precisely, over-development and 68%.
To argue against a development on these grounds is not nimbyism - it is doing exactly what a civic society should do, working within a framework established to deliver the common good. Your criticisms would be more understandable if the Sydenham Society always opposed development - it does not. It has been supportive overall of the Greyhound development, in which, more slowly than probably anyone would have wanted, a good and widely acceptable development is now moving to physical reality.
I'm no longer on the SydSoc exec, or planning sub-committee, so there's no particular reason for me to respond to your criticisms of it. Design and the importance of historical context may just be a matter of taste, so I'm not going to respond on this. However, planning standards do exist for a reason - to maintain the quality of local space and local lives. And in this case we have a proposal to put 22 'habitable rooms' on a 290 square metre site - that's just a bit bigger than a standard allotment. These numbers are important, because standards for density of development in the London Plan are expressed in 'habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha), which in this case is 759. For this to be acceptable, the location would have to be 'central', as opposed to 'urban' or 'suburban', and it would need to have a 'Public Transport Accessibity Level' (PTAL) of 4 or more. In this case, the PTAL given in the officers' report is only 3. For an 'urban' location with this PTAL, the maximum 'hr/ha' is 450. This is over-development and a half - more precisely, over-development and 68%.
To argue against a development on these grounds is not nimbyism - it is doing exactly what a civic society should do, working within a framework established to deliver the common good. Your criticisms would be more understandable if the Sydenham Society always opposed development - it does not. It has been supportive overall of the Greyhound development, in which, more slowly than probably anyone would have wanted, a good and widely acceptable development is now moving to physical reality.
Last edited by Tim Lund on 8 Jul 2010 21:27, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds
At the last minute - literally - this was withdrawn from the agenda this evening, and planning officers have agreed to arrange a meeting with objectors where concerns can be properly addressed.
Re: Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds
There will be a meeting tonight at 109 Kirkdale regarding this proposal. 7pm.