Bell green the next stage

[Muddy Waters]

I like Sydenham - it's not perfect - there are many things which could be improved but realistically if you want to live in an inner city area (not Kensington, Chelsea or Westminster) it's pretty good for an inner London borough and by my estimate can only get better. I, for one, having lived here for nearly 40 years am watching the improvements taking place with optimism.

Poor, poor Knighton - dont you just start to feel sorry for him/her trapped in this little backwater which most of us are more than happy to live in?

Should we start a collection to buy him a ticket to some other district centre in Inner London that he can live in and add positively to the area? Any ideas as to where he/she should go? £6 should do it for a London Travelcard - can they be designated one-way only?

[maturin]

If they are ugly and useless then replace them. That would leave one shop standing.

Which is?

The shops provide no service. We just have a collection of the unsavoury, the dirty and the uneconomic and therefore ramshackle. Hence passers by (who are hell bent, in any case, on just escaping the traffic jam) are unlikely to stop to buy.

If they provide no service, surely they would be going out of business?

Who needs an endless row of greasy spoons especially when those spoons appear to have been dropped in the dirt? Who needs miniature banks with endless queues? Who needs so many hairdressers... few given the empty chairs they generally sport.

if you choose not to eat at the 'greasy spoons', that is your business. Lots of people, including me do.
We are surprisingly, still alive.

There is not a single decent butcher or greengrocer.

really? There is an excellent butcher -- but I suppose the fact that he is Halal doesn't count. There is an absolutely superb greengrocer, where I buy all of my fruit and veg.

There is only one men's clothing supplier which is very small and generally empty of shoppers. I bet the proprietor deeply regrets locating his smart looking operation amidst the clutter of shanty town Sydenham.

judging by his Porsche SUV outside his shop, I doubt very much he regrets it
.

Not one of the pubs is worthy of a visit. They are cheerless and generally dirty holes providing no entertainment.... and yet one of them was London's first music hall! What other leisure facilities are there? Answers on a postcard please.

I agree wholeheartedly. We really really really need a pub.

If some effort were made to attract the people who can walk to Sydenham Road there would be no need to persuade those passing through. The fact that the shops are complaining of a hard time is a reflection on their tatty, off-putting, shabby appearance and the irrelevence of the services they offer.

again, you have hit the nail on the head. What is needed is the shops in Sydenham to be improved. Not, knocked down. There is nothing wrong with the buildings.

[Knighton]

1. Few of the shops have a long life. They do indeed go out of business with monotonous regularity. It is a difficult cycle to break. The shabbier the street becomes the more difficult it becomes to attract businesses that will "dress well". etc. The further downhill the shopping centre goes.

2. Renovating differs little from demolishing and replacing. However, given the decrepit state of most of the buildings, I have to disagree with the idea of renovation. These buildings need to be demolished and replaced. Renovation is an expensive option. The buildings will remain "past their sell-by dates". How nice it would be to have a shopping centre around a public square with a bit of green within it, for example. Far fetched? Only in Lewisham.

3. I do indeed object to the Halal method of slaughtering.. (It amuses me to see that shop facing the antique place and the display in their windows.) That is by no means the only objection I have to that particular shop. The state of the shop itself and the surfaces used for the presentation and preparation of meat is enough. Then there is the fact that they are combining two incompatable trades on the premises. I am curious to know what LBL Environmental Health Inspectors get up to.

4. I do not eat in the greasy spoons. I eat in my own home. If I want a meal out I travel to Beckenham or further.

NB I just noticed the MW post. MW the way to make matters worse is to say nothing and keep your head down. If Sydenham, as it is, lives up to your highest expectations I am sorry indeed for you. In the 18 years I have lived here I have seen the area move from mediocre to downtrodden. This is the cinderella district of the London Borough of Lewisham and unless the people of Sydenham start to make their elected representatives quake in their shoes it will remain so. Nothing spent on the roads. Nothing spent on footpaths. No attempt at remedying the pollution and traffic problems... Just drive from Penge to Sydenham along Kent House Road to see the contrast between the treatment of streets in LB Bromley and LB Lewisham.

If ever a street made the case that one is it.

[gillyjp]

I think this thread has gone a bit off track as it started out as a post regarding Bell Green and the main development issues surrounding it.

However it is good to discuss the state of the main high street and see a lot of conflicting but interesting points of view. I have just been over to Pete's, the newsagents opposite the Greyhound - who has been there for years. When I go in I always get asked how my adult children are, what they are up to, etc, Pete always asks. He remembers them from when they were still at school so that tells you how long he has been in that shop.

There are little pockets of excellence along the road that have stood the test of time, Kirkdale Bookshop, Woodfalls, Mastercutters, That's Amore (near the turn off at Dartmouth Road) to name a few well kept old favourites. The Greasy Spoons have their place and dedicated clientelle and I for one would not like to see them go.

Why did they decide to fill in the roundabout at Cobbs Corner? It is now an unsightly concrete mass. It used to have plants, daffs, tulips etc. It is horrible now.

I do not agree with knocking the buildings down. The architecture on most is stunning. I don't see why Sydenham Road cannot be as swish and trendy as, say, East Dulwich is with their row of shops. They have their share of naff shops and shabbiness, but overall there is an underlying stylish feel about the place.

[Knighton]

hmmmm

which of the following exhibits "stunning" architecture?

The Naborhood Centre.
Somerfield
Lidl
The row of buildings between Somerfield and Lidl
Smith's Mercedes outfit.
The hand car wash opposite the dissenter's meeting house.
The buildings between Bell Green and the point opposite the RC church.
Kwik Fit
Sivvyer's Yard
O'Rourke's
Hexagon Housing Association

Incidentally where does Dartmouth Road join Sydenham Road? Surely it leads off Kirkdale.

[maturin]

Please don't think that I disagree with you on the general state of Sydenham. There are huge problems in this area. Most of which ARE solvable without demolishing the entire place.

1. Few of the shops have a long life. They do indeed go out of business with monotonous regularity. It is a difficult cycle to break. The shabbier the street becomes the more difficult it becomes to attract businesses that will "dress well". etc. The further downhill the shopping centre goes.

As you say, it is a 'difficult cycle to break'. The solution, as other areas both in London and around the country have shown, is to attract people to the area, NOT, to knock the place down and start again.

2. Renovating differs little from demolishing and replacing.

What?
If I got someone into 'renovate' my house I would be a little disappointed to find that they had demolished and replaced it. You wouldn't by any chance happen to be an architect would you? You seem overly fond of the idea of demolishing things.

However, given the decrepit state of most of the buildings, I have to disagree with the idea of renovation. These buildings need to be demolished and replaced. Renovation is an expensive option. The buildings will remain "past their sell-by dates".

There is nothing wrong with the buildings on Sydenham high-street. Certainly not in comparison to other areas that have successfully reinvented themselves, like Clapham, East Dulwich, Balham etc. I certainly don't see how it is expensive as knocking them down and rebuilding. The only people who seemed to get benefit from this will be architects. What about all the people who currently live in Sydenham? What happens to them while you demolish their houses?

How nice it would be to have a shopping centre around a public square with a bit of green within it, for example. Far fetched? Only in Lewisham.

That would indeed be very nice. But unfortunately knocking the place down in order to achieve that seems like a extremely high price to pay.

3. I do indeed object to the Halal method of slaughtering..(It amuses me to see that shop facing the antique place and the display in their windows.) That is by no means the only objection I have to that particular shop. The state of the shop itself and the surfaces used for the presentation and preparation of meat is enough. Then there is the fact that they are combining two incompatable trades on the premises. I am curious to know what LBL Environmental Health Inspectors get up to.

Objecting to the halal method of slaughtering is your own business. But I find the comment that the shop 'amuses' you disturbing. You did not elaborate what exactly it is that amuses you. Please elaborate. As for the state of hygiene, the shop is a butchers and the interior is indistinguishable in cleanliness from the non-Halal butcher that was there before it. That previous shop also combined two 'incompatible' trades.

4. I do not eat in the greasy spoons. I eat in my own home. If I want a meal out I travel to Beckenham or further.

Your loss. Gurkhas is one of the finest Asian restaurant for miles around. Certainly as good as anything in Beckenham.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

which of the following exhibits "stunning" architecture?

None.

Just as I can select a few of the many comments of yours which are untrue, unworthy or just plain dull. Does that imply there can be no stunning remarks of truth or even worthwhile contributions in the remainder?

Think about it.

[Knighton]

Please don't think that I disagree with you on the general state of Sydenham. There are huge problems in this area. Most of which ARE solvable without demolishing the entire place.

I am glad we agree. I did not suggest demolishing the entire place. I was far more specific. It is just Sydenham Road that annoys me.

1. Few of the shops have a long life. They do indeed go out of business with monotonous regularity. It is a difficult cycle to break. The shabbier the street becomes the more difficult it becomes to attract businesses that will "dress well". etc. The further downhill the shopping centre goes.

As you say, it is a 'difficult cycle to break'. The solution, as other areas both in London and around the country have shown, is to attract people to the area, NOT, to knock the place down and start again.

How do you attract people to a run down place within an area negelected by a run down local authority?

2. Renovating differs little from demolishing and replacing.

What?
If I got someone into 'renovate' my house I would be a little disappointed to find that they had demolished and replaced it. You wouldn't by any chance happen to be an architect would you? You seem overly fond of the idea of demolishing things.

I think you are being mischievous here. Some of the buildings atop the shops in Sydenham Road may be quite attractive. It is the demolition of the entity at the bottom I am talking about.

However, given the decrepit state of most of the buildings, I have to disagree with the idea of renovation. These buildings need to be demolished and replaced. Renovation is an expensive option. The buildings will remain "past their sell-by dates".

There is nothing wrong with the buildings on Sydenham high-street. Certainly not in comparison to other areas that have successfully reinvented themselves, like Clapham, East Dulwich, Balham etc. I certainly don't see how it is expensive as knocking them down and rebuilding. The only people who seemed to get benefit from this will be architects. What about all the people who currently live in Sydenham? What happens to them while you demolish their houses?

I thought we were talking about shops.

How nice it would be to have a shopping centre around a public square with a bit of green within it, for example. Far fetched? Only in Lewisham.

That would indeed be very nice. But unfortunately knocking the place down in order to achieve that seems like a extremely high price to pay.

No gain without pain.

3. I do indeed object to the Halal method of slaughtering..(It amuses me to see that shop facing the antique place and the display in their windows.) That is by no means the only objection I have to that particular shop. The state of the shop itself and the surfaces used for the presentation and preparation of meat is enough. Then there is the fact that they are combining two incompatable trades on the premises. I am curious to know what LBL Environmental Health Inspectors get up to.

Objecting to the halal method of slaughtering is your own business. But I find the comment that the shop 'amuses' you disturbing. You did not elaborate what exactly it is that amuses you. Please elaborate. As for the state of hygiene, the shop is a butchers and the interior is indistinguishable in cleanliness from the non-Halal butcher that was there before it. That previous shop also combined two 'incompatible' trades.

My point exactly. I did not say the shop amuses me. I said the display in the shop opposite amuses me considering its location wrt this particular shop where meat is sold from animals slaughtered in a deliberately inhumane manner.

4. I do not eat in the greasy spoons. I eat in my own home. If I want a meal out I travel to Beckenham or further.

Your loss. Gurkhas is one of the finest Asian restaurant for miles around. Certainly as good as anything in Beckenham.

Not to my taste.

Thank you for being constructive. This beats the somewhat abusive response of another poster who was so disinterested by my contribution he could not resist the urge to respond.

Phase one is to get the discussion going. Maybe, at this point, there could be some constructive suggestions on how to improve Sydenham Road's facilities and its layout.

Personally I would favour pedestrianising the section between Newlands Park and Mayow Road.... even without the necessary dual carriageway through Forest Hill... although that road is long overdue. This would test out the theory that increasing road space increases traffic. Removing it should do the reverse. A few changes to bus routes would be necessary. Maybe a few stallholders could be encouraged, then, to operate a market.

[Bryan]

Oh dear, Knighton...you really don't know much about what goes on around you.

You should have swallowed your pride and gone to the Sydenham Society website, as I had suggested. Had you done so you would not only have been enlightened about Bell Green but you would also have had the opportunity of reading up on the Sydenham Gateway proposals, as formulated by the Sydenham Society.

The discussion that you wish to get going has already been going on for a long time, and has resulted in hard cash for Sydenham (as pointed out to you by a previous poster). Again, a lot of coverage about this in the local press which you have evidently missed.

[Knighton]

What local press?

Is there a discussion forum on the SS site?

Meanwhile the SS Site is devoid of detail... There is just reference to vague ideals. The funding is for design and consultation. Sydenham is in phase 3 and anyone who has ever worked in the public sector knows that phase 3 never happens. Phase 1 is what the officers want. Phase 2 is what the councillors want. Phase 3 is put in to keep the public quiet.

Oooops. We've run out of money! Phase 3 will have to be cancelled.

[Bryan]

Knighton

You can comment on the Society's Gateway proposals, as the website makes perfectly clear.

Maybe the funding for Gateway will materialize, maybe it won't. You can't be absolutely sure until it's in the pocket.

But your remarks completely miss the point - which is that the Sydenham Society has done a lot of hard thinking about Sydenham Road and has come up with proposals that inhabit the real world and which have resulted in action by the Council, action by our GLA member, and discussions extending to other interested parties. It's the beginning of real change.

In contrast, your ideas - including the demolition of shops in Sydenham Road- hover between the laughable and the ludicrous. That is why they aren't worth serious attention - and why your postings attract comments which you describe as abusive but which in fact are no more than fair comment on half-baked thinking. So please, give it a break.

[Knighton]

A small sum of money has been earmarked for a design process that will not be carried out in or near Sydenham and which most likely will never result in any work carried out in Sydenham.

The Sydenham Society is an elitist group which is not democratic in its nature and therefore has no claim to be representative. They are entitled to have an opinion but to put themselves forward as representatives of the residents is not only dishonest it is potentially damaging as the politicians will use that prop to claim they have carried out consultation.

How can comments be made when details are not posted on the site? Only vague wooly statements exist on the SS website. Vague mention of a transport interchange... that could only be achieved by some extensive demolition around the station... or do they really mean just moving a couple of bus stops?

No Bryan. I shall not shut up. The classic weapon of those with no argument is to try to stifle the comments of those with views to express.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

The Sydenham Society is an elitist group which is not democratic in its nature and therefore has no claim to be representative.

Elitist and non-representative? Another unsubstantiated statement Knighton.

They do represent a thousand or so Sydenham residents (if you count by membership). The winning councillors this week will poll a similar number. So who really speaks for Sydenham?

I don't think there is a clear answer. That is a good thing if you believe in pluralism. Should we not also include the people who post here who are not members of the SS or the LP?

I presume that includes you.

[gillyjp]

You only need to raise your head a little to see the 'stunning' architecture of the buildings above most of the shops in Sydenham Road. If you are talking about demolishing the shops, I cant see how the buildings above could remain standing.

I went through Beckenham and Crystal Palace yesterday and neither of these towns have anything like the architecture of Sydenham Road above their shops. In fact they are dreary, dirty and boring. However they are strangely more popular than Sydenham. It is because there are plenty of different restaurants and cafes. Is hardly easy parking around Crystal Palace - if we want to eat there we hop on the bus. I don't see why Sydenham can't be the same. We need better eating establishments.

As for Dartmouth Road not being off Sydenham Road, I stand corrected. Don't see why this was made out as some sort of huge mistake. I am sure most people who know Sydenham realised where I meant.

The other thing that puzzles me is why people who think that Sydenham is such a poor place to live, have stuck it out for so long, (18 years was it?) and continue to live here?

[Knighton]

PP

I have raised my points here on a generally available discussion forum. I have not set out to impose my views on others or to subvert the democratic process by falsely claiming to represent others.

Democracy relies on debate. Therefore I have taken actions to support that process. Those who set out purely to stifle debate are the enemies of democracy. Try addressing the issues instead of trying to undermine those you see as opponents. I am not your opponent. I am someone with an alternative view. It is a view I am entitled to express.

Gilllyip. I made no great issue of the Dartmouth Road point. I simply questioned it since, as you admit, it does not join Sydenham Road. Who knows what you might have actually meant. That is another tool of debate. The question is used to verify detail.

I note you agree there is room for improvement in the facilities on Sydenham Road. Pity you seem unable to understand the points made. If you remove the contents, the people, the fittings and the frontage of a lock-up shop.... it is demolished... it is gone... it is destroyed... it is no longer there. The fact that a shell remains supporting another property above is irrelevant.

What everyone on here has said proves my point. "you only have to raise your eyes....." How nice it would be if the view at ground level were acceptable and remotely attractive. It is the view at ground level that creates the impression and that is why Beckenham seems so much more attractive. The shops are well tended. "Crystal Palace.... surely the Palace was built on Sydenham Hill.... has the benefit of being the centre and terminus of dozens of bus routes. I can think of no other reason why it seems to attract the level of business it does.

Meanwhile pity the new occupiers of the former taxi office, alongside the hand car wash... who have spent money tarting up the ground floor while the building above is covered with cheap tatt...

[dickp]

Reading through these posts, I'm afraid I agree with Knighton. What is it about local activists that makes them so enamoured with protecting derelict or run-down facilities? I’m now going to make a point of attending local planning meetings, and speaking in favour of local developments that actually enhanced the local economy and environment.

Bell Green is a dump, and home to what exactly? A main road and redundant geometers? Why can’t it be replaced with shops people actually want to go to, and provide new employment prospects for local people? Heaven forefend that a popular and well run national retailer would want to relocate to the area. Sure there’s a problem with the railway bridge, but it’s not an insurmountable issue. Why not make Homebase contribute to the cost of widening it as a condition of giving planning permission?

Likewise with Sydenham High Road. What exactly is worth protecting on this street? Shabby, transient pound shops, or low quality national retail chains, all operating out of clapped out buildings. Knighton’s right about Beckenham. Its high street might be largely comprised of faceless modern buildings, but its shops are high-quality, popular and well maintained – despite it too being a busy through road.

[maturin]

I'm sorry, but despite having many good points to make, the reason it's not possible to agree with your 'logic' is because you keep changing the goalposts. Your most recent post denies that you ever talked about demolishing anything...

I note you agree there is room for improvement in the facilities on Sydenham Road. Pity you seem unable to understand the points made. If you remove the contents, the people, the fittings and the frontage of a lock-up shop.... it is demolished... it is gone... it is destroyed... it is no longer there. The fact that a shell remains supporting another property above is irrelevant.

It's highly relevant.
But you quite clearly said earlier on

2. Renovating differs little from demolishing and replacing. However, given the decrepit state of most of the buildings, I have to disagree with the idea of renovation. These buildings need to be demolished and replaced. Renovation is an expensive option. The buildings will remain "past their sell-by dates". How nice it would be to have a shopping centre around a public square with a bit of green within it, for example. Far fetched? Only in Lewisham.

Now which is it?

Almost everyone who visits this site wants better shops and facilities in Sydenham. What we all disagree about is methodology. What is disagreeable about your argument, is the over-the-top language that you use.

The fact that you rail against 'non-elected' groups, like the council and the Sydenham Society doesn't help either.

But who DO you approve of?

[Knighton]

I'm sorry, but despite having many good points to make, the reason it's not possible to agree with your 'logic' is because you keep changing the goalposts. Your most recent post denies that you ever talked about demolishing anything...

au contraire. I was pointing out the inconsistency of other arguments which are effectively calling for demolition but in convoluted terms. There is clearly a consensus on the state of Sydenham Road shops. The division is on how to resolve the issue. Complete demolition is the cheapest option. Partial demolition/renovation is the more expensive and least enduring option.

I note you agree there is room for improvement in the facilities on Sydenham Road. Pity you seem unable to understand the points made. If you remove the contents, the people, the fittings and the frontage of a lock-up shop.... it is demolished... it is gone... it is destroyed... it is no longer there. The fact that a shell remains supporting another property above is irrelevant.

It's highly relevant.

I disagree. See above.

But you quite clearly said earlier on

2. Renovating differs little from demolishing and replacing. However, given the decrepit state of most of the buildings, I have to disagree with the idea of renovation. These buildings need to be demolished and replaced. Renovation is an expensive option. The buildings will remain "past their sell-by dates". How nice it would be to have a shopping centre around a public square with a bit of green within it, for example. Far fetched? Only in Lewisham.

Now which is it?

both. See above.

Almost everyone who visits this site wants better shops and facilities in Sydenham. What we all disagree about is methodology. What is disagreeable about your argument, is the over-the-top language that you use.

The fact that you rail against 'non-elected' groups, like the council and the Sydenham Society doesn't help either.

But who DO you approve of?

Try listening to the vast majority of people in Sydenham who do not join such organisations. See what they are saying. I hear the comments every day. I hear the disgruntled traders who express hatred for the environment (and frequently the people) of the area.

I have not railed about such groups. I have stated they are not representative and should not be treated as such.

Over the top language? So what. The topic is now on the agenda.

Thanks for the voice of reason Dickp.... though I almost misread your pseudonym.

The best way to improve the environment is to engage with the developers and persuade them of the good business sense of developing wisely... incorporating real improvements to make their businesses viable rather than what happened with phase I where it was cheaper to make gifts to certain Lewisham projects rather than chip up for the necessary road improvements which originally were stipulated. This is the point CB has not answered incidentally. The SS comes over as a bunch of flat-earthers resisting change for the sake of it.

Perhaps you can suggest how you will persuade dozens of independent shopkeepers (clearly operating on a hand-to-mouth basis) that they should invest in new shopfronts etc. They are there because no smarter businesses are willing to be. Smarter looking businesses will not move there because of the appearance presented by existing businesses.

Do please, at least, assure me you would prefer the "Nabor"hood Centre to be removed and replaced with a public square - if only in the interests of grammar!

[Pat Trembath]

I am hesitant to prolong this diatribe against Sydenham and I am aware that calling the Sydenham Society's members "flat earthers" is provoking a response.

Sydenham Society has been in existence for over 30 years and has been involved in many campaigns - including helping to save Sydenham Hill Woods from development in the 1980's and Crystal Palace Park from a Multiplex development in the 1990's.

Currently we are stimulating discussions about how to bring about new stations at both Forest Hill and Sydenham. Money to improve pedestrian flow in Sydenham has come about because we took the ideas of Sydenham Gateway to the council. We are aslo involved in the discussions with the London Development Agency about the future of Crystal Palace Park and the new sports centre.

I would suggest that a local amenity society with 1100 members (surely an endorsement in itself) is entitled to speak on behalf of its membership who are kept well informed by its quarterly newsletter. It is certainly not elitist and is open to all who are interested in promoting the local community.

Knighton seems hell bent on destroying the community! He does not indicate who will pay for compulsory purchase of all the shops, busnesses, houses and flats along Sydenham Road in his grand scheme. Nor does he suggest how he would provide full time employment for those who lose their livelihood by such a scheme. Certainly major warehouse retailing of the kind the developers at Bell Green want to create are not renowned for employing large numbers or for high rates of pay.

Bryan's 52 lane autobahn painted a extreme scenario of the outcome of Knighton's masterplan. I for one do not want to live in Sydenham's (sorry, where did you say? - it no longer exists in Knighton's future plans) version of the Purley Way.

[nasaroc]

Knighton's scheme for "improving" the area contains two main elements - knocking down and rebuilding large parts of Lower Sydenham adjacent to Sydenham Road and building a large highway in Sydenham and/or Forest Hill. Can I ask Knighton for two pieces of specific information:

1. How many people (apart from yourself) support such a scheme? No political organisations, pressure groups, residents' groups, as far as I can tell. The last time a scheme for roadbuilding on this scale was introduced was in the late 80s when it produced an uproar of dissenting voices. I attended at least four public meetings held to discuss this proposal and I didn't hear one speaker support such a barmy scheme. Knighton - you accuse many of the organisations contributing to this debate of being unrepresentative. Who do you represent? If you are so confident of your position, and feel that so many of the rest of us are out of touch, why don't you stand for election on such a scheme or persuade one of the current political parties to support you? Or even turn up to the a few public meetings - perhaps the next public meeting run by the Mayor - and suggest such a scheme and see how far your views represent anybody but yourself?

2. How would such a scheme be paid for? Knocking down houses and rebuilding new roads/houses costs money - lots of it. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of homes would have to be compulsory purchased for such a scheme to work - the cost would run into hundreds of millions of pounds. No public or private organisation would undertake such a scheme. Are we, the taxpayer, expected to fund such a crazy idea?

Rest assured fellow posters, our support for improvement of Sydenham Road via money from the GLA and the coming East London Line Extension represents the views of all political parties, residents' groups, Sydenham Traders, the Sydenham Society and the overwhelming majority of residents in SE26. The unworkable and fantasy-based views of Knighton represent nobody but himself.