NEW HOUSING IN SYDENHAM

[Tim Lund]

Victorian and Edwardian build methods did not have modern Building regulation restraints put upon them and Victorian houses are notorius for subsiding due to next to none, credible foundations for example.

Backing up the point I made on the parallel thread on the BBC program on Deptford about 'survivor bias' - what survives from the past tends to be the better quality. Also makes the point that we do need some building regulation!

[simon]

I'm afraid I actually quite like the green box development at Bell Green. Its different but from the back the flats look like nice places to live. What's wrong with green? With new materials you can have any colour you like and I would think other colours would either date or be very bland.
Not keen on the big development over the road though. Looks far too cramped and I agree with Lee that the finish looks cheap.
Lee asks if there are any decent new buildings in Sydenham. I'll nominate two; the flats on Kent House Road look like good places to live and Hexagon's office on Sydenham Road is bold yet fits into its suroundings. Both are vast improvements on what was there before.

[Tim Lund]

Greyhound development from Station Approach


Greyhound development from Kirkdale


Smaller social housing development going up further up Kirkdale


Above garishly painted private development - I believe - on Kirkdale


Next three on Kirkdale which make you wonder if the planners were asleep




A brief gardening interlude, showing the difference between planting where no local trader - or anyone else, it seems - has a sense of ownership (I've now removed the sow thistle ...)


and three where local traders do have some sense of ownership




Now those developments next to an beside Masienello - I don' think they're so bad



Failed retail with residential flats above, to be replaced with more social housing, I think,


The Bell Green development at last


Two photos showing the metal pear trees



And finally the green box

[Annie.]

the "green" box developement looks better than I originally thought it would,the only problem I have with the green colour is its a bit dark looking,more in tune with a secret mi5 place. And the outside lights seem to be on all day long,or is it my eyes? The opposite building is sooooo massive,I don,t actually mind the shape, but wonder how the local infrastructure with cope with all the new people who will live in both blocks, ie the Doctors opposite?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Yes I wonder about the infrastructure in Bell Green coping with the increased population.

I guess the lucky new occupants are going to be mainly young professionals with jobs in London so probably will not weigh down the surgery too much.

The area will be very quiet in working hours.

[leenewham]

The images flatter the buildings (the green portacabin does't look bad from that angle). Have a look in the flesh. The white render on the bell green development is pretty poor when viewed from the road going towards Sainsbury's.

[Eagle]

Does anyone know how many housing units these new devolpments have . Also what price they are being offered at .
I assume not taking people on hosing benefit.

[Annie.]

I havent seen any "for sale boards" yet?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Search East]

Yes I wonder about the infrastructure in Bell Green coping with the increased population.

You're right there Lee, as in Tim's pics there is one of 255-269 Sydenham Road, which has been given permission back in Feb this year to be demolished for affordable accommodation. Located not far up the road, the area is set to get busier.

http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6347

Still, I think the next thing to watch is the far bigger vacant site at Bell Green. I understand from previous posts that Sainsbury's had been given permission to build a large DIY store there, which has since been put on hold due to the economic down-turn. Within this were plans for further housing with a social housing mix.

[Rachael]

I assume not taking people on hosing benefit.

I hope not - we aren't allowed to use our hoses (yet).

[Eagle]

Oh dear my spelling again. You would not have believed I went to Dacres Rd School for young Gentlemen. Apologies.

[Annie.]

I like rounded buildings, so I quite like the metal tree one,I just dont see the point of metal trees when there could have been even more softening of the building by using real ones,just my view.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Annie.]

Typos allowed Eagle, ;0))

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Rachael]

Oh dear my spelling again. You would not have believed I went to Dacres Rd School for young Gentlemen. Apologies.

No worries, Eagle, I make plenty of typos, especially when the dratted autocorrect gets a mind of its own. The joke wasn't on you, just prompted by you

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

There are also very costly " sustainability " issues to deal with , a condition that L.A. put on permission being granted, with a " Code for Sustainable Homes" level being required, which has spawned a whole new parasitc industry to take " from the cake". This will now be compounded by the C.I.L., which will further encumber development.

Interesting stuff, with much more background and analysis in the Barker Review of Housing Supply. Not quite up to going into it now, but maybe over a pint? Although mine's a half

The point about CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy), which replaces Section 106 agreements, is that it should pay for the additional infrastructure which new developments require. After all, it's not unreasonable that some part of the cake goes for this. I suspect the problem is that everything is rather vague, and rules keep changing, making it difficult for private developers to plan anything.

[stuart]

The point is not so much how they look now but how they will look in 10 years time - or a 100 if they last that long.

The advantage of brick and stone is it pretty well keeps it quality over time (only smoke pollution within inner industrial areas has a major effect). Whereas anything white won't stay that way for long and, if it is not premium property then it isn't going to be repainted often enough to stop it adopting a degenerate appearance and doing the same to the community around. Similary other rendered/painted surfaces do the same.

There are alternatives - glass & metal - but these are expensive. Wood is good if its well chosen but is not really part of the English vernacular.

Or you can go for really dominant architectural statements where the structure/form dominates the skin. Many people don't like brutalism - but it does often wear better than straight concrete skinned buildings.

Trouble is anything that isn't bland is likely to attract too much criticism from one part of the community or another and hence come unstuck. LCD reigns supreme in our planning world methinks.

Stuart

[Eagle]

You mention hoe they look in 10 years or 100 years time. Cannot really see them being there in 100 years.
I would refer to my earlier post re Canal Walk development of Venner Road , built in the early 70's .
They are not a good advertisement for housing of that era and look more run down than the Victorian dwellings in Venner Road. Not sure they will make 50 years let lone 100.

[Tim Lund]

Slightly off topic, and mere hearsay (somebody told me this last weekend), but apparently in Scandinavia, landlords are responsible for the heating bills. It would definitely make sense for social housing, where tenants will not have the money to invest in decent insulation, and since tenants will not want to be over heated, the landlords' liability would be limited. And Scandinavian houses are much better insulated than ours.

Sorry to wish an extra burden on landlords, Dorian

[Annie.]

More burden on the tax payer over here though? Council is a Landlord, although if they wanted to make private Landlords responsible for the heating/green aspect of a new building,then yeay, i'm all for it.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Blushingsnail]

Re the roundish block of flats at Bell Green (does it have a name?) I've seen it advertised as a 'buy to rent' scheme. This site http://premierconstructionnews.com/2012 ... ell-green/ gives a description:

"Comprising a mixture of one and two-bedroom flats, the 156 units are divided into 85 rented units and 71 units under the rent to buy scheme. This scheme is a government initiative that allows tenants to rent a property for a predefined period of time before purchasing it once the tenancy ends."

And if anyone's interested:

"A combined heat and power plant (CHP) will be built on the site and will act as a centralised boiler, providing heating and hot water for all of the residents. In addition, a number of photovoltaic panels will be installed on the roof in order to provide an additional source of hot water."