Elephant & Castle regeneration

[kyser_soze]

local independent busineeses for a start.

What, you mean retail and catering businesses? Regardless or whether they are with an independent trader or not non-management retail and catering roles are still mcjobs mate - doesn't matter whether it's working for Tesco or Tribblys Minimart.

there are plenty of low paid jobs in central london, cleaners, kitchen porters, shop assistants, etc. they would have to travel further because there is not that much housing available for them or land for social landlords to build on in central london, since there is so much pressure for private housing there. it does make sense, actually.

It does now you've re-written it but no one is actually providing proof that residents will be moved any distance, or will bear significantly increased transport costs as a result of this redevelopment - bus fares are a single rate across London per journey, and unless plans are afoot to stop E&C being a transport hub how exactly will people be bearing a higher cost to travel to work in central London?

 

[Streathamite]

It is indeed, but it's still a part of our heritage. And you know the replacement will be very nice and full of expensive coffee shops and department stores that the locals can't afford. But wait most of the locals are going to be 'decanted' to some shit hole out of London so the people with money can have their nice central London apartments and shop at fancy boutiques in the lovely shopping centre that's won an architectural award. Not that I'm bitter or anything.

<applauds>

 

[guinnessdrinker]

What, you mean retail and catering businesses? Regardless or whether they are with an independent trader or not non-management retail and catering roles are still mcjobs mate - doesn't matter whether it's working for Tesco or Tribblys Minimart.



It does now you've re-written it but no one is actually providing proof that residents will be moved any distance, or will bear significantly increased transport costs as a result of this redevelopment - bus fares are a single rate across London per journey, and unless plans are afoot to stop E&C being a transport hub how exactly will people be bearing a higher cost to travel to work in central London?

if you are the owner of trilbys minimart, the independent caterer, and sole employee apart from your family, you may have a different view. still no new jobs....

you would have to be relocated because although there are other flats around, there are other people living in there, unless you want to allow flats to lie empty until they're ready for demolition (my suspicion is that the council is doing just that and homeless people are therefore denied housing). I don't have to give you a proof, just think logically. I do know the area, I am a local. as for the bus fares, I never actually said they would have increased transport fare, they would just have to travel further, longer distances in cattle truck bendies. it might be the same fare for now but it might not always be and it might return to a zonal fare policy, like before.

 

[TeeJay]

...the replacement will be very nice and full of expensive coffee shops and department stores that the locals can't afford...

Or you might get an expensive and shiney new shopping centre that can't let out its units at full-price and so ends up with the same businesses as it has at the moment. Are people going to start shopping at E&C just because the building gets a makeover?

...most of the locals are going to be 'decanted' to some shit hole out of London...

There are probably more 'shit holes' in London than outside, and I can't see why anyone would really want to try and relocate large numbers of people from inner London to the home counties. I doubt it would save anyone any money. Personally all things being equal I'd rather live out of London than in E&C, although I suppose everyone has their own preferences.

 

[zenie]

Come off it, there's a world of difference between the Erno Goldfinger monstrosities there now and the kind of architecture expressed at Peckham library - which was built in the knowledge of the lessons learned from the post-war drive to modernism and 'machines for living'.

The two aren't remotely comparable on ANY level - same goes for the new housing that will be built around E&C which will re-house local people:

http://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/00,news,626,28,00.htm

We'll see in 40 years wont we

You're entitled to your opinion but I can only go on what people were told when the area was last 'redeveloped' so I dont agree with you!!

IMO it's good news and bad news.

Some of the people relocating are being moved to behind where the burger king is in the new places there. Although they are much smaller than the LA flats they were used to

To cut to the chase It's just gentrification really isn't it?

 

[Monkeynuts]

Is it actually true that people are being "decanted" anywhere out of the borough?

I think it's reasonable to have some reservations but the place does need something doing. The main problem IMO is the pedestrian-unfriendliness and the traffic.

Be interested to know what people who are really affected think - those living on the Heygate. You will always get those who don't like any sort of change but many people are probably looking forward to a brand new home?

 

[TeeJay]

Shit-holes have low commercial and residential rents because noone wants to live, work or shop there.

Make somewhere better - cleaner, nicer to live, to work and to shop in, more energy efficient, easy to maintain, safer, better in almost every way - and demand will go up for everything.

You can keep rents down if you have controls and regulations - in effect a subsidy - but otherwise a pace getting better will mean the market prices it accordingly.

Seems like some people would prefer a cheap shit hole and don't believe that anyone can actuially benefit from making a place better, because any and all benefits are counter-acted to an equal an opposite degree by higher prices. However this isn't actually true since only some people will pay the higher prices whereas a greater number of people will feel the full range of benefits IMO.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

We'll see in 40 years wont we

You're entitled to your opinion but I can only go on what people were told when the area was last 'redeveloped' so I dont agree with you!!

IMO it's good news and bad news.

Some of the people relocating are being moved to behind where the burger king is in the new places there. Although they are much smaller than the LA flats they were used to

To cut to the chase It's just gentrification really isn't it?

I could be wrong bit I think the new places behind burger king are actually all private. I remember seeing a sign advertising for flats from £250000! and the council would have boasted about them and they haven't. the new places so far are in Wansey st, opposite, on the corner with the old town walworth town hall/ newington reference library.

 

[zenie]

I could be wrong bit I think the new places behind burger king are actually all private. I remember seeing a sign advertising for flats from £250000! and the council would have boasted about them and they haven't. the new places so far are in Wansey st, opposite, on the corner with the old town walworth town hall/ newington reference library.

Ermm..it's in a book I got before christmas about the whole thing, I lent it to boohoo though so she'd have to tell you.

I'm pretty sure some of them are HA/social housing.

Is it actually true that people are being "decanted" anywhere out of the borough?

Not to my knowledge no....

Seems like some people would prefer a cheap shit hole and don't believe that anyone can actuially benefit from making a place better, because any and all benefits are counter-acted to an equal an opposite degree by higher prices. However this isn't actually true since only some people will pay the higher prices whereas a greater number of people will feel the full range of benefits IMO.

The trouble is some people call this 'shit-hole' home

 

[TeeJay]

We'll see in 40 years wont we

There is a fair amount of perfectly decent and functional post-war buildings and developments. The Royal Festival Hall for example and the South Bank generally. Noone is demanding that it is all pulled down and replaced - of course everything needs a bit of patching up and a bit of redesign over time (eg more wheelchair access, more lighting/safety features).

To cut to the chase It's just gentrification really isn't it?

Not really, no. Unless anything that makes a place nicer is "gentification" - in which case what is your alternative? To let everywhere rot, just so that it is a 'genuine ghetto' or something? Why?

Can you give some examples of redevelopment and improvement schemes which have met with your approval, or are you someone who simply likes urban wastelands and dripping concrete? Maybe you simply don't like any kind of change at all (apart from things slowly rotting)?

 

[TeeJay]

The trouble is some people call this 'shit-hole' home

The idea is that the shit-hole that they call home is turned into a non-shit-hole that they call home. Why is that a problem?

 

[zenie]

The idea is that the shit-hole that they call home is turned into a non-shit-hole that they call home. Why is that a problem?

If only it worked like that though!!

 

[Monkeynuts]

If only it worked like that though!!

Well go on then, do expand... why won't it?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Is it actually true that people are being "decanted" anywhere out of the borough?

I think it's reasonable to have some reservations but the place does need something doing. The main problem IMO is the pedestrian-unfriendliness and the traffic.

Be interested to know what people who are really affected think - those living on the Heygate. You will always get those who don't like any sort of change but many people are probably looking forward to a brand new home?

they won't be decanted out of the borough, just further away. what happens when the council runs out of flats and there is limited supply of HAs flats?

there will always be traffic. it's central london and that's why there is a congestion charge.

there was actually a campaign against the scheme organised by heygate tenants, but people ran out of steam, I suppose. interestingly, the councillor behind the whole thing, catherine bowman, a libdem and councillor for the ward lost her seat at the last local elections which was a bit of a surprise. there might be a reason...

 

[Monkeynuts]

they won't be decanted out of the borough, just further away. what happens when the council runs out of flats and there is limited supply of HAs flats?

there will always be traffic. it's central london and that's why there is a congestion charge.

there was actually a campaign against the scheme organised by heygate tenants, but people ran out of steam, I suppose. interestingly, the councillor behind the whole thing, catherine bowman, a libdem and councillor for the ward lost her seat at the last local elections which was a bit of a surprise. there might be a reason...

F*** me, you're hard work, aren't you

 

[fudgefactorfive]

(a) Peckham Library is an eyesore

(b) Why is it only ever nasty poor people who get moved around so that nice shiny buildings for rich people can be put there instead

 

[Streathamite]

The idea is that the shit-hole that they call home is turned into a non-shit-hole that they call home. Why is that a problem?

cos it very rarely works out like that in practice

 

[Monkeynuts]

(a) Peckham Library is an eyesore

(b) Why is it only ever nasty poor people who get moved around so that nice shiny buildings for rich people can be put there instead

Why would you move round rich people to put buildings there for other rich people?

Plus, affluent areas tend not to get too run down. They are left to their own devices. The state doesn't intervene. The property doesn't belong to the state to intervene if it wanted to.

Your point is a little bit silly - although I agree with feeling uncomfortable with people having to make way. Is this what's happening here though? I don't know, I'm just asking. I would hope that people who live there now will be able to move back in when the building work is finished?

As for the eventual social mix it might be better if there was a bit of a range / mix of people. Never tcompletely sure on this point though...

 

[TeeJay]

Why is it only ever nasty poor people who get moved around so that nice shiny buildings for rich people can be put there instead

Maybe true in cities where affluent areas are typically already being fully utilised and have already got lots of investment in them, but richer people are often directly impacted when green field sites, bypasses, new roads or airports are built: for example the M25 went right through some very affluent 'greenbelt' areas, full of expensive homes owned by wealthy people.

 

[Streathamite]

Maybe true in cities where affluent areas are typically already being fully utilised and have already got lots of investment in them, but richer people are often directly impacted when green field sites, bypasses, new roads or airports are built: for example the M25 went right through some very affluent 'greenbelt' areas, full of expensive homes owned by wealthy people.

who were given a handsome amount of compensation that the poor never would have received

 

[TeeJay]

Isn't compensation for land/property lost typically linked to the value of that land/property? Or is there an element paid out for 'disruption and distress' (like when settling a road traffic accident)?

 

[Streathamite]

Isn't compensation for land/property lost typically linked to the value of that land/property? Or is there an element paid out for 'disruption and distress' (like when settling a road traffic accident)?

it can be altered at the discretion of those setting the compensation, the council, and/or the Sec Of State. IIRC, there is no 'fixed tariff', if you get me.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

F*** me, you're hard work, aren't you

indeed, this is a bit of a specialist area for me

 

[Streathamite]

it's also GD's manor

 

[Firky]

so what do you think it's going to be, if not more concrete, only higher? lots of fields with happy farmers tending to their cows? lots of happy hippies living in mud huts chanting mantras?

Anything but another generic flat pack barret homes project or shopping centre. British architecture is shit. People take pride in their enviroment and are influenced by it. Build something of civic pride and beauty and watch it look after its self.

 

[zenie]

Anything but another generic flat pack barret homes project or shopping centre. British architecture is shit. People take pride in their enviroment and are influenced by it. Build something of civic pride and beauty and watch it look after its self.

Hmm..I'm not sure that really works round here though

 

[Firky]

Come off it, there's a world of difference between the Erno Goldfinger monstrosities there now and the kind of architecture expressed at Peckham library - which was built in the knowledge of the lessons learned from the post-war drive to modernism and 'machines for living'.

The two aren't remotely comparable on ANY level - same goes for the new housing that will be built around E&C which will re-house local people:

http://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/00,news,626,28,00.htm



Where exactly in the plans for local residents does it say that they'll be moved out of London, or the local area?

demolition of the shopping centre and Heygate Estate
rehousing of Heygate Estate residents into high quality social housing in the Elephant and Castle area
removal of the congested road system and rerouting of traffic out of the core area
creation of a new pedestrian-friendly town centre
development of 5, 300 new homes
creation of 75,000m2 of modern retail and leisure facilities
design of an improved transport interchange
creation of two new parks
addition of two extra schools, including a city academy
creation of over 4,000 new jobs as a result of these changes
adoption of a range of innovative measures to minimise energy consumption
quality design at the heart of the plans

Nothing about people being 'decanted' out of London. Do you have proof of any of these claims?

One of the best social-planning and architecture sites is the byker wall, world famous! Won awards and what not...... ralph erkinse. Spent much most of my final year researching it all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byker_Wall

 

[William of Walworth]

Just seen this. Can't believe the threadstarter got a leaflet through his door and FROM THAT only 'just realised' this massive proect was going to happen. Those leaflets are only distibuted locally.

I've posted at length on Elephantine matters in at least three older threads -- some? of those are now sadly defunct.

Will get back when I get a chance. Lots to say ... golightly looks like he's talking sense ...

And contemptuous Elephant-sneerers can fuck off ... to think I've been the one sneered at** as a middle class 'liberal' snob and a reactionary bigot (as if the two are automatically equivalent) on these boards!

(**by complete tools, admittedly ... )

 

[Giles]

(a) Peckham Library is an eyesore

(b) Why is it only ever nasty poor people who get moved around so that nice shiny buildings for rich people can be put there instead

That's obvious!

Because rich people tend to own their accommodation, so it is not in the gift of the powers that be to move them around.

They can only do this to people who live in accommodation owned by the state.

Giles..

 

[William of Walworth]

That's obvious!

Because rich people tend to own their accommodation, so it is not in the gift of the powers that be to move them around.

They can only do this to people who live in accommodation owned by the state.

Giles..

hmmm ...