Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Wards Corner alternative plan launched - planning meeting looms
The Wards Corner Community Coalition has now lodged its own plan with the Council’s Planning Department.
The wordpress website is now ‘live’ and all documents relating to the community plan can be viewed here. See drawings of how the buildings can come back to life, and details of proposed management structures and funding.
Meanwhile more nifty moves from the council friends of Grainger the developer shows that they are more determined than ever to push through the wholesale demolition of the area. They have added an extra Labour Party member to the planning committee, so now there will be six Labour to four Liberal Democrat. Last time, with nine on the committee, it decided by five votes to four, to reject the Grainger plan.
The meeting on the new railroaded-through Grainger plan is on Monday 25th June, 7pm, at the Civic Centre in Wood Green. It's not too late to add your comments about the plan, they will be circulated to the members of the committee. See here, click Comment on Application. Reading through others' comments will give you some idea of the issues involved.
Tags for Forum Posts: grainger, planning, seven sisters, ward's corner
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by sophia c on
-
Alan, I am responding to myself to respond to your own reply (could not find the 'reply' button below your comments). Really glad you found Gehl's work interesting. I think it does apply to what will happen in the Wards Corner not least because whilst the proposal is a medium-high building, once you go a certain height, nothing will stop the next developer to propose a project with one storey higher so on and so on... Also you might think 7 storeys is not so different from 3, 4 or 5, but actually it is. So what you put at the top requires careful consideration (not shown by the Gainger's scheme I'm afraid). There is also issue of the mass shadowing adjacent properties - as I am sure you are aware, daylighting is a key factor in people's health and happiness.
My view is that Gehl is being humble about the lack of studies on how people use cities, there has been many conclusive studies done by himself and others but not necessarily all in English language (I've got the Cities for people book and there are many references in Swedish or Danish languages) that have gathered enough evidence to support his approach. As you might have heard from his talk, Gehl himself has worked on the subject for over 30 years and has intervened as an urban consultant in many cities in the world including London. I know also of others that do observational studies in the UK using specialist software too to map out where people walk, etc. Arguably there could be many more studies conducted by other people than Gehl's practice which would enrich the body of research on the subject.
The problem in my view is not the lack of evidence, it is the lack of will to act upon it - I agree with the point of 'starchitects' interventions with towers. Unfortunately the root of that is that architecture schools are decades behind when it comes to sustainable architecture both from building (performance) and urban perspectives. I completed myself my architecture training at the Centre of Alternative Technology in Wales where the approach would be considered heretic in mainstream architecture schools where - as Gehl points out - most of the teaching and learning is obsessed with 'the form' (there are always exceptions with teaching that is much more considerate to people's needs but this is not the overall approach and as a student you can totally ignore it without being penalised).
I'd be interested in the projects which you as an architect or your consultancy have designed. Are there some in London I can go and see? Have camera will travel.
My practice is young and has not delivered built projects but rather produced competition projects including a 3.5ha mixed-used development for a city in Europe. But I work also for a consultancy practice that defines itself as 'architects interested in people' and 'social scientists who care about the use of building' (two of us hold a PPE degree as well as architectural qualifications) with many projects in the UK and worldwide that you would have definitely heard about (incl. central government, local authority, higher education, not-for-profit). We do at building level what Gehl does at urban level, i.e. observing how people use spaces and use that evidence to help develop briefs, design and recommendations about buildings for our clients accordingly. If you would like to know more, I would be more than happy to carry on the discussion offline at some stage and provide you with some examples. -
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
A second thank-you to Sophia and also to Anon who sent me the link to another and better quality video on YouTube - this time of a talk in New York, where Jan Gehl explains and shows the ideas in his book.
Strongly recommended viewing. Jan Gehl is a charming, persuasive, and often funny speaker.
Though as I wrote before, I may be wrong but I'm still not convinced that his critique would include the Wards Corner development. It seems to me that it applies far more to the Hale "Village" towers. And - probably - to the eventual plans for North Tottenham.
Though on the latter, I am currently still being denied a copy of both the draft Masterplan and Sir Stuart Lipton's report on Tottenham. Fetid secrecy seems to be one hallmark of Kober's Council.
(Labour Councillor Tottenham Hale)
-
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
what dismayed me was that on a major development, the report had typos and other mistakes on page after page.
Alan I think you're right to be dismayed about such sloppiness, but if it was confined to spelling and grammar, it might not be such a problem. Carelessness like this is both undesirable of itself but, as I think you suspect, but do not say, its probably also a symptom of the level of competence in a wider sense in Planning.
Basic skills like spelling etc. should be a given for highly paid staff doing what many would think of as professional job. You observe and note the symptom - but there's no intention to address it.
Why is this tolerated? Why does Haringey continue to employ individuals who may be only partially literate? (I have to say I've seen evidence of this in other departments as well).
It may or may not be true that this is a clear sign of the failure of the British education system to produce a literate, or indeed numerate, population, as Christopher claims. Not all jobs require clear written expression. But I would have thought that Planning was a function that did require a minimum level of education.
In any event, this is surely not a good enough excuse for the Borough of Haringey to continue to employ sub-standard staff, when I know that there are highly competent people who could do a better job - and are currently unemployed.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Being less than a perfect speller should not exclude anyone from doing a job, given the reality of dyslexia and also the high levels of poor spelling ex-education (not the same thing), this doesn't make them 'sub-standard' re other skills. There are two solutions - spellcheck/grammar check (not 100%), and human-based proofreading as a separate task. If a high-level planner or policy wonk has difficulty with spelling + grammar, they just need to sei up a system where all published documents are proofread by nitpickers like you and me before being allowed to be seen.
One of my most brilliant teaching colleagues had real difficulties in spelling, she just used to use us as audible dictionaries from acrsoss the desk, and get one of us to skim-proofread handouts etc. When you can spell well, a quick check is easy, none of us minded as she got results with the young people that I at least could not come near.
-
-
-
I stand chastened and corrected. I was referring to legal documents related to a major planning application which involved complex property rights and large sums of money. The outcome of which affected the lives and homes of residents nearby.
At the time, the phrases which crossed my mind in respect of the Planning Service were "systemic failure"; "unfit for purpose"; and "culture of low expectations". But obviously I was on completely the wrong track and should have been considering:
- the failure of the British Education System;
- correct use of the subjunctive
- How to help people with dyslexia and poor spelling.
I apologise and bow out of this discussion thread.
-
-
-
". . . even Tottenham Hale had that until the developer there went bust (correct me if I'm wrong Mr Stanton)."
Lee Valley Estates has not gone bust. Here's their website, Pam.
But they were, let's say, a trifle tardy in starting to make their Section 106 (planning gain) payments. Which of course, were rescheduled by the Council.
As we know Haringey is always just as kindly, understanding and patient with any small business which owes money; or tenant behind with their rent; or resident late paying a council tax instalment.
-
-
Hi Christopher, I fully agree with most of your points and in particular the ones made on transport but I differ on the point of architectural value of the Wards Corner Store. I believe that particular structure ought to be preserved, it's an elegant piece of architecture (also seen at no. 166 High Road) than can be successfully found in other parts of London. Had it be retained and provided some basis to the new development, whether in form, materiality or both (even if not literally) it would have contributed to the architecture richness of this local area. As well as the environmental benefits associated with keeping an existing structure, this is about recognising the quality of the space created (high ceiling, lots of natural light) as well the attention to detail that is displayed unfortunately missing from the proposed Grainger development. The building allows us to have a sense of place through its historical roots whilst the new development is an opportunity to demonstrate our current values and aspirations for the present and future. As mentioned in my comments submission to the council submitted earlier this afternoon, there are countless of examples in Europe of areas mixing the 'old' and the 'new'. But then again planning in these parts of Europe are much more thoughtful about what constitutes holistic approaches to development.
sophiag_c from carbogno ceneda studio (a local architecture design and environmental consultancy).
-
Permalink Reply by Candy on
-
The merits of the Wards Corner building are hard to see as it is hidden behind hoardings and neglect. But I assure you that the merits are there. If you could see inside, which I have done then you would be able to see what it has going for it. The light is fantastic. It has a series of lightwells down the whole length of the building.The space is enormous with beautiful cornices. The view over Tottenham is lovely from upstairs and it is in a better state than you would realise from the outside. I think it is best not to criticise a building if you have not seen it properly. And sadly that is not possible now. We all want something done with this site and do not reject the idea of new build on some of it. Tottenham is in dire need of attention, but the threat of Grainger has stopped this from happening. They are the ones who own the really derelict parts and they are the ones who are committing the area to blight
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Fowler on
-
Dunno, looks like an old warehouse to me. Any sense of space is negated by all those structural pillars. Modern construction techniques could produce a bigger space without interruptions, by suspending the roof. Of course, the cheapskate developers won't do anything like that. I'm no apologist for Grainger or any other money-grubbing private developer, but the reality of the Britain we live in is that no local council can fund a re-development on this scale itself.
-
-
The planning report gives the character appraisal for those buildings in the Conservation Area. Of the six 3 make a postive impact, 2 make a neutral impact and 1 a negative.
The buildings that make a neutral impact are the Market part 229-249 High Rd and only because the owner TFL has maintained them and LBH has not enforced Conservation Area rules as is the case in many other loctaions in Tottenahm. This si not an adequate reson to destroy heritage assets and thats the planning law.The negative impact of 251-253 is becasue the buiding burned down. Restoration of these is fairly simple and so in the end you'd get an overall positive contribution.
Graingers generic building will set a precedence leading to the over development of the junction leading to the Wood Green type of place which is not what Tottenham needs to "regenerate" it. Lewisham town centre has had massive amounts of commercial floor space for years with adequate parking and transport links and new housing. It has still required a concerted effort from the council to review how they can "regenerate" the place. It isn't the builidngs alone taht will bring renewal of human capital. So be careful what you ask for.
Also Westfield-Stratford had a specific planning condition in the developement to ensure local recruitment but that didn't live up to expectations at all . So it isn't as simple as buildings and national multiples. That is the issue here.
The regenration should build on the incubator status of a restored, locally appreciated building, that allows micro business to START UP and provide a sense of palce and give a unique visual ID to our neighbourhood. Then support needs to be on offer to get these businesses and the sense of place to grow.
BUT where is that vision in this whole equation. This is where LBH is totally failing. Grainger?HAringey vision document is so cynical in its propaganda like appraoch that they didn't even have the honesty or the bravery to put their names on it.
Haringey's top-down approach to "regeneration" is shortsighted and extremely alienating to sections of the community that are becoming more vocal if you care to listen. Go out there and see and hear for yourselves.
Warning!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
