Saving Pubs / Housing People

[Tim Lund]

This came through my door yesterday:



There is a bit of a disconnect. Bottom right we see "Sir" Steve in hi viz jacket and hard hat proudly saying that he has given the go ahead to 250 new homes in the borough. Well, I'm pleased, but how far does that go to meeting the shortage of housing. Could be have more details, please?

But more important, it seems, is that a significant opportunity for more housing locally has been stymied - at least until a "shyster" developer comes along able to schmooze and then face down local activists.

In this case, it's "only" a 1920s rebuild of an 18th century pub that is being "saved" - but if pubs now worth saving could have been built in 1926, who's to say that developers now couldn't come up with a good pub for people today?

The reactionary forces evoked by changes to pubs are grotesque. Far better to build the places people need to live, and allow capable entrepreneurs to come up with the community pubs people want.

[gerispringer]

Trouble is just building houses and squashing more and more people in isn' t the answer. In 10 -20 years time the offspring of the newcomers will want more homes and towns will be just hordes of people. No pubs, garages, shops, hospitals- all shut to be turned into flats. Not to mention the pressure on services - schools, healthcare, water etc. Cutbacks all round there. Its going that way at the moment. (Not that Im gloomy or anything)

[Eagle]

Well Said Geri.

[Nigel]

Tim
I know you to be a decent cove and your intentions are no doubt laudable .
However, over several posts I have come to the conclusion that you see the role of Sydenham as essentially a warehouse for anyone that lacks a home. You have made many references to housing density , the preference of hard- standing for cars over gardens and wildlife and the overwhelming virtue of housing people and providing the inevitable services to said people .
The reality is most of us want Sydenham to be pleasant , green , spacious and socially mixed.
For me that means trees, some space between neighbours , clean streets , care for the elderly , arts , pubs , small shops, The Coop, bacon sandwich at Sema's , obscure Catalan starters at the Dolphin and everything in between.

It is not unreasonable for anyone to want these things for Sydenham or wherever else one might live .
Your philosophy , with respect, is redolent with a contempt for these fine things and obsessed with the desire to house, provide for and encourage more people to come to Sydenham without any clear benefit to this scept'red suburb.

The 100% social housing outcome for the flats at the top of the high street is a huge disappointment - why Tim? Because for me and many other Sydenham residents , we expected a mixture of income groups and possibly more people to patronise the kind of enterprises most of us would want to see flourish.
I will not bore everyone with my fondness for Billing's ham , cigarettes and banter from Twice Sweet or indeed peanut butter from Melvin's . If that makes me foppish , fey or whimsical then so be it .

Most of us are heartily sick of more chicken outlets , bookies and personal grooming establishments which brings me back to my basic tenet which is : we do not seeing Sydenham as something to be sacrificed to the cause of overpopulation in pursuit of , and I apologise for strong language , misguided liberal intellectual aims over the comfort and joy of ordinary decent punters who may enjoy the odd bacon sandwich and gloomy Scandinavian crime drama .
A very good evening
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

I presume your are provoking debate Tim and don't think that we should give developers a free reign to build dull, sub standard developments shoehorning as many units as possible into the smallest possible space at the expense of our streetscapes, history, local character and urban drinking holes?

[Tim Lund]

Trouble is just building houses and squashing more and more people in isn' t the answer. In 10 -20 years time the offspring of the newcomers will want more homes and towns will be just hordes of people. No pubs, garages, shops, hospitals- all shut to be turned into flats. Not to mention the pressure on services - schools, healthcare, water etc.

It's good to look at the big picture, as here. Fundamentally this is a matter of how to cope with the increasing numbers of people, not just here in London, but however many billions are forecast in the rest of the world. Three questions arise - (1) what are the best solutions given how many people there are, (2) can the numbers be controlled, and (3) how do we best implement any solutions?

On (1) there is little doubt - humans live with the smallest environmental impact per person in cities, and the more compact the better. They spend less traveling, heating their homes, and allow agricultural land to be used most efficiently. (2) is massively controversial, but not, IMHO, a reason to panic - when there are good reasons to do so, people will limit the size of their families. (3) is the one the OP was more about, e.g. should we react by getting authorities to preserve wherever is threatened, or do we allow individuals and businesses to make mutually beneficial adjustments to the status quo, subject to reasonable requirements.

Most of us would say the latter, although there are those around who think all business people are evil, using language to suggest developers will be shysters, and without thinking will opt for authoritarian stasis. Leaving such to their rereading of classics of Soviet literature, the question becomes what requirements for change are reasonable? We can all agree that buildings should have secure foundations, and probably most other current regulations affecting the construction industry. It gets trickier when it comes to regulating the height and foot print of houses, and the size of habitable rooms; as a matter of arithmetic, something has to give.

You have made many references to ... the preference of hard- standing for cars over gardens and wildlife

but I would be interested to know where, and the context where his misrepresentation comes from. Like Michael, Nigel is also "a decent cove", so I do not want to get involved in a similarly fractious thread as this one over on SE23.com.

To restate what I believe I have made many references to, for me what should give is the height of buildings. An illustration of what happens otherwise is the recent redevelopment of 18 Longton Avenue, where,without raising the height, 7 flats have been squeezed into a house which previously was just two maisonettes, achieving housing densities in excess of the maximum specified by the London Plan - but apparently for new build only. How this came to be acceptable baffles me - all I can think is that it had to do with the building having been standing as a shell for as long as I can remember, and a previous developer having gone bankrupt - shades of the Hound that is Grey.

[Tim Lund]

I presume your are provoking debate Tim and don't think that we should give developers a free reign to build dull, sub standard developments shoehorning as many units as possible into the smallest possible space at the expense of our streetscapes, history, local character and urban drinking holes?

Who said anything about "dull, sub standard developments"? Are you telling me today's designers and architects are somehow inferior to their predecessors? Better to think through why current regulations make them underperform.

[leenewham]

I think todays architects are under pressure from developers to extract as much money per square inch from a development as possible, While the architects often care, I don't think developers care much about streetscapes, making developments bespoke, unique or that enhance the general area.

That's also what some architects that work for such developers tell me!

By developers I also mean councils (remember 'the secret history of our streets?). I'd go for conversion over destruction and replacement, even to avoid disasters like Pathfinder.

Look at the Corbett estate in Catford. Or Bournville. Or much of the housing developed after WW2, Letchworth or even Arnold Circus in Shoreditch. Al of these I"d say will be fare more loved than any modern development I can think of.

Perhaps we need to learn from the past rather than destroying it.

[Tim Lund]

Lee - with some exceptions - such as the Cadbury family in Bournville - developers in the past were in general as profit driven as they are now, so you need to ask yourself why things have got worse - if indeed they have. I'm prepared to grant you that with a larger, more centralised economy, there's less likelihood of developers and architects actually caring personally about what they put up, but against that there is a whole lot more regulation of what they can put up - which I think is perfectly reasonable.

With reference to "The Secret History of our Streets", I've been thinking recently, in this context, whether architects, forever wanting fees, are the problem. As I think you've written on the forum, the late Victorian developers of those streets copied a pretty well standard pattern,



and got the developments put up with as little fuss as possible, and minimal fees to architects. It was the same, I think, in the 18th century / early Victorian when there was a standard vernacular style of town house,


which is now seen as a classic. I wonder why such a modern vernacular has not emerged, to be used as a pattern for the houses people want. I guess there is, in the sort of Barratt homes that get put up in those developments of the green belt which do get approved - and which I can't say I like very much.

There's no simple point I'm trying to make here, except that blaming developers for being greedy is simplistic.

[Nigel]

Tim
I dont think anyone is concerned about development being modern in style - I am simply saying that we need to have ambition and aim for high standards in both build and design.
Your previous bit of , and again apologies for strong language, intellectual chicanery (vernacular housing , developers in the past were no different to now etc etc ) adds nothing to the debate .

All the time these issues are viewed through a kind of "it's all relative" filter , nothing gets challenged and we end up with the sad situation we have now . Without doubt the developer was cynical , greedy and has got away with too much - if Purelake like you , subscribe to a relativist way of thinking then they probably feel they are blameless but for my money they have vandalised an important building and I think people are entitled to demand they reinstate it .

The success or otherwise of the venture is a whole other story but to my simple worldview , it will not become a successful pub unless it is actually built .

Good evening
Nigel

[Tim Lund]

Tim
I dont think anyone is concerned about development being modern in style -

But I think many people are ... haven't we all been insisting that the front of the Greyhound is retained as far as possible as it is? In the development of 18 Longton Avenue, wasn't maintaining its facade the starting point for the architect? Doesn't SysSoc insist on people having less efficiently insulated homes in the Thorpes for the sake of keeping things as they were in the 1900s?

There is some modern architecture going up in Sydenham, for example the controversial new residential 'black box' at 5 Redberry Grove, but concerns are still expressed.

I am simply saying that we need to have ambition and aim for high standards in both build and design.

So how about a design competition for a resolutely contemporary alternative "New" Greyhound?

Your previous bit of , and again apologies for strong language, intellectual chicanery (vernacular housing , developers in the past were no different to now etc etc ) adds nothing to the debate .

By 'vernacular' I just mean an architecture which is sufficiently familiar and accepted that people generally take it for granted, although occasionally reflecting how satisfying it is - much as you might with a great pint of beer. We have had such vernaculars - it's a shame we don't now; I do think over ambitious professional architects, wanting awards and kudos at industry shindigs such as MIPIM are part of the problem.

All the time these issues are viewed through a kind of "it's all relative" filter , nothing gets challenged and we end up with the sad situation we have now . Without doubt the developer was cynical , greedy and has got away with too much - if Purelake like you , subscribe to a relativist way of thinking then they probably feel they are blameless but for my money they have vandalised an important building and I think people are entitled to demand they reinstate it .

I'd not say Purelake are blameless - but let's leave this discussion for another thread, when Robin can perhaps join us.

The success or otherwise of the venture is a whole other story but to my simple worldview , it will not become a successful pub unless it is actually built.

Does your simple worldview allow the possibility of a Greyhound other than according to the current plans, or at another location? Or would that be the end of local civilisation as we know it?

[leenewham]

OK Tim, it's an odd post that I don't really understand?

1: Why do you think the SysSoc insist on people having less efficiently insulated homes in the Thorpes for the sake of keeping things as they were in the 1900s? You can upgrade existing windows, wood is a better thermal insulater than UPVC. You can insulate lofts and internal walls in conservation areas.

2: Haven't we all been insisting that the front of the Greyhound is retained as far as possible as it is? Yes, we have, because it's part of what gives the area an identity. Because it's infused with history and charm and because it's made using materials, methods details and craft we simply don't do any more. BEcause we have knocked down far too much in the sake of cheap square footage already, look at Kirkdale, are you saying that what has gone on in Kirkdale is good?

3. I quite like the black box. I think the Portacabins in Bell green are ugly and the white building really badly finished.

4. You said "So how about a design competition for a resolutely contemporary alternative "New" Greyhound?" Do you really think this? Why? Why build a new building when the old one was fine?

What happened to Tim, Tim, come back, you have gone all strange!

[Robin Orton]

All the time these issues are viewed through a kind of "it's all relative" filter , nothing gets challenged and we end up with the sad situation we have now . Without doubt the developer was cynical , greedy and has got away with too much - if Purelake like you , subscribe to a relativist way of thinking then they probably feel they are blameless but for my money they have vandalised an important building and I think people are entitled to demand they reinstate it .

I'd not say Purelake are blameless - but let's leave this discussion for another thread, when Robin can perhaps join us.

Flattered to have a name check, but I don't feel I have anything to contribute to this discussion, which I don't really understand anyway. I'd only say that I'm assumimg 'it's all relative' in this context means the same as 'it's all a matter of taste'. That might well be a reasonable proposition when applied to the aesthetics of pub architecture, I'd have thought. Some people like to keep the old but undistinguished (cf. the saga of the refurbishment of Forest Hill swimming baths), others prefer something more up-to-date and exciting.

[Tim Lund]

OK Tim, it's an odd post that I don't really understand?

It's about testing the conventional wisdom.

1: Why do you think the SysSoc insist on people having less efficiently insulated homes in the Thorpes for the sake of keeping things as they were in the 1900s? You can upgrade existing windows, wood is a better thermal insulater than UPVC. You can insulate lofts and internal walls in conservation areas.

In what sense is wood is a better thermal insulater than UPVC? A quick google gives this information

There is a lot of talk about the comparative efficiencies of different types of doors. Timber has a relatively poor thermal efficiency compared to uPVC, but at least it is not uPVC. Timber with an insulated core is a compromise and people get very exercised about what thickness is best and the relative merits of each.

A typical external door is broadly 1.7 sq m in area. A uPVC door with a U-value of 1.8 will emit about 70W per hour of heat in the coldest months. A solid hardwood door with a U-value of 3.0 will emit 115W. It is not clear, to me at least, that it is worth putting up with all the negative aspects of uPVC for that relatively small advantage

From which it sounds that in a strict scientific sense, wood is less efficient. Perhaps I should look it up in "Engineering Tables and Data" - a neglected classic, if ever there was one . But as my old chemistry teacher used to say, the most important thing to know about any material is its cost - so may be you mean that you can get the same level of termal insulation with wood as with uPVC, but at a lower cost. In which case, why do some people waste their money on uPVC? Are they being missold to?

2: Haven't we all been insisting that the front of the Greyhound is retained as far as possible as it is? Yes, we have, because it's part of what gives the area an identity. Because it's infused with history and charm and because it's made using materials, methods details and craft we simply don't do any more. BEcause we have knocked down far too much in the sake of cheap square footage already, look at Kirkdale, are you saying that what has gone on in Kirkdale is good?

Certainly not, but I'm interested to know why we've had so much bad redevelopment, when I do believe we could have had decent, sensitive redevelopmet using modern engineering and materials.

3. I quite like the black box. I think the Portacabins in Bell green are ugly and the white building really badly finished.

I can't say I much like the black box, but a significant point about it is that it's a private development, where cost does not appear to have been a major constraint, which will perhaps have led to better general quality. So exactly the sort of development which will inspire ambitious architects to give their best. But I am more interested in why we don't seem to have a decent 'vernacular' architecture.

4. You said "So how about a design competition for a resolutely contemporary alternative "New" Greyhound?" Do you really think this? Why? Why build a new building when the old one was fine?

Because the evidence is that it is not commercially sustainable. Fine it may have been, but for what, now?

What happened to Tim, Tim, come back, you have gone all strange!

Sorry Lee, and any one else upset by these arguments, but I am just tired of wishful thinking, and a general reluctance to get to grips with economic and engineering realities. It's not that strange.

[CaptainCarCrash]

Modern building design is in the doldrums, designers are constricted by the limiting constraints of modern architectural design techniques which employ unimaginative AutoCAD (AutoSAD) software. The limitations of this point "N" click architectural tool stifles creativity because it fosters laziness and allows untalented users to hide their shortcomings and enables mediocrity to churn out high numbers of cost effective building designs which ultimately lack character.

Show me a new build anywhere and the one single underlying factor at the core of it's shoddy design will be a light version of AutoCAD, championed by urban environment vandals and inept planning offices all over London.

[simon]

Because the evidence is that it is not commercially sustainable. Fine it may have been, but for what, now?

What evidence is that Tim?
The Greyhound was profitable before it was closed

[Tim Lund]

The evidence is that tenants aren't coming forward. That will have a lot to do with the rent being asked, but that is part of the economic reality, behind which is the massive pressure to find space for people to live. Before our eyes we see this has taken most of the space of the old Greyhound. If we want pubs and all the other things we value about a vibrant local centre, we can't allow them to be squeezed out by the pressure of people. Our choices are:

• Allow slightly higher redevelopment on existing developed land
• Allow much higher development on what few existing developed sites can be got through the current planning process - so developments such as at Bell Green, The Greyhound
• Build up significant areas of local green space where these again can be got through the current planning process - so Tyson Road
• Squeeze over London Plan numbers of habitable rooms into an existing shell, without allowing the height to increase - 18 Longton Avenue
• Grab gardens - which also happened a bit in 18 Longton Avenue, and probably elsewhere
• Have people at 30 such as this woman writing in the Standard yesterday living on shelves in shared housing. And also our own Melissa
• Allow the many migrants who do much of the dirty work in our city live in beds in sheds
• Wish away the problem to Stoke on Trent, or wherever.

It's our choice.

[leenewham]

When I read the last blurb about the greyhound it said that it was to be left as a shell for whoever goes in to fit out.

If so, that's probably got more to do with the reason why Antic pulled out, they like to go in and make the most of the original features.

I disagree with pretty much all of your post Tim. There are 72,457 empty properties in London (see links below), over 700,000 across the UK (not including properties above shops). The reason developments like this get bigger is (in my opinion) due to profit, not pressure of housing. Pressure of housing is on councils, not developers. They answer to shareholders.

Start with the empties first.
http://www.emptyhomes.com/
http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/

It makes more sense doesn't it?

[simon]

The evidence is that tenants aren't coming forward.

That is so lame Tim. Does anyone know who has or hasn't come in for the pub over the last few years, apart from Antic? And does anyone really know why Antic pulled out? Last year Chris Best said Purelake had found a tennant; was she misinformed or was it true and the operator pulled out for some reason?
Yes the rent is an issue, but that could be negotiated. The main reason why no tennants have come forward is surely that the building is an empty shell with no sign of it ever being finished.
This looks to me like a classic case of managed decline by the developers. Purelake would no doubt like to knock it down and build more flats, not to aliveate any housing crisis, but to make more money. And you agree with them.
Purelake need to be kept to the obligations they undertook when they gained permission and if that means they take a financial hit, then tough. We may need more new housing in Sydenham and we've just got a load at the Greyhound site, but we don't need to lose the pub. Its not an either/or question, although Purelake will no doubt appreciate your attempts to present it as such.

[Tim Lund]

The evidence is that tenants aren't coming forward.

That is so lame Tim.

Lame indeed, in the same way that saying the solution to excessive housing costs is more supply. In other words, the blindinly obvious.

Does anyone know who has or hasn't come in for the pub over the last few years, apart from Antic? And does anyone really know why Antic pulled out? Last year Chris Best said Purelake had found a tennant; was she misinformed or was it true and the operator pulled out for some reason?
Yes the rent is an issue, but that could be negotiated. The main reason why no tenants have come forward is surely that the building is an empty shell with no sign of it ever being finished.
This looks to me like a classic case of managed decline by the developers.

Why on earth would they want to 'manage decline'? Are Purelake inherently evil, or are they just normal profit maximisers? If the latter, and a pub would be profitable, are they just not very good capitalists?

Let's agree that we want a decent pub. What I wrote in the "Hound that was Grey" thread was that a pay-off from Purelake could be negotitated which would fund the development of a New Greyhound, with space for more of the original features than now looks possible. This was not to let developers off the hook, but to negotiate a better solution all round.

Purelake would no doubt like to knock it down and build more flats, not to aliveate any housing crisis, but to make more money. And you agree with them.

I have no objections to business making profits from delivering goods and services people want. People want places to live. If there were fewer restrictions on the height of developments, there would be fewer sofa surfers, and fewer pubs knocked down. Which side are you on in this?

Purelake need to be kept to the obligations they undertook when they gained permission and if that means they take a financial hit, then tough.

And let that financial hit finance the sort of pub we want.