Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Green Lanes regeneration update to be given this evening
http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/11592087.Green_Lanes_rege...
Councillors are inviting constituents from St Ann’s and Harringay to an area forum this evening.
Council officers will give people an update on the progress of the regneration and construction works around Green Lanes.
There will also be an opportunity for members of the public to raise any concerns with councillors and council staff.
The meeting begins at 6.30pm at St Ann’s library, Cissbury Road.
Tags for Forum Posts: harringay regeneration 2012-13, outer london fund
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I am happy for them to be campaigning for the general election. I wasn't being facetious.
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Ball on
-
Hi Pav,
That is reasonable request. I hope it succeeds.
Just one correction. Well, two actually. It is Cllr McNamara is who leads on environment and getting rid of waste around Haringey's streets. While Cllr Strickland is the leading advocate of the regeneration agenda that aims to get rid of homes, shops and Coombes Croft library in Tottenham High Road.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks Pav. Should we be concerned that he doesn't mention the works to the bridge? My understanding from Rob Tao is that the delay is with Network Rail.
I wonder if we can also educate Peter to refer to our neighbourhood by name rather than by the name of its high street?
-
Permalink Reply by Protheroe O'Shea on
-
Maybe you should take this chaps mobile number off your post?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Has anyone working in, or who knows about the the "regeneration" business, seen an independent evaluation or research of the throw-loadsa-public-money-at-private-shopfronts policy?
Many years ago I felt a deep disquiet when Haringey gave grants to refurbish attractive old buildings. It seemed to me that there was a element of - in effect - rewarding property owners who'd let their buildings deteriorate for many years. In some cases, they were landlords who had let flats or rooms above their shops which were of a very poor standard and had even been fire hazards.
At the time, I knew and valued the opinions of a Haringey resident who worked in another borough which gave such grants. He assured me this was standard practice and a legitimate and effective way to "kickstart" the regeneration of an area.
Now I'm not so sure, and tend to share the scepticism of Phil Kennedy on HoL. Because the policy often seems to operate as a Sheriff of Nottingham Tax. We take money from thousands of poorer people and to help fix the "castles" of the richer. And in many cases the "fix" seems temporary. Does it kickstart very much?
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1 on
-
I'd also say that it seems to have been used to renovate shops that were already, so far as I remember, in decent condition anyway.
They look a bit nicer now but I don't remember thinking that storefronts such as Lido, Yasar Halim, Tao, etc were really the ones on Green Lanes that looked grim and needed renovating to drag the area forwards.
-
-
It's not legally possible to make such schemes complusory, Pav.
But in any case, where should the line be drawn? Should any property owner who has let their premises run down then be offered a 100% public grant? And the ones who've used their own money to maintain their buildings lose out?
Should this apply to every commercial street in the borough?
What about privately owned homes? Should they all get 100% grants to make them look attractive? Does a private owner have no responsibility for the upkeep of external appearance of their property?
As I'm sure you know there are many hundreds of demands on the Council's budget. What priority should this have? Where should the extra money needed come from? Higher Council tax? Increasing prices for all the services which charge?
I'd also question the assumption that an injection of public money would largely solve the problem for ten years. There's an old proverb: "A house is a thief".
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
As Alan says, owners of properties cannot be compelled to do work that is cosmetic (expect in very rare circumstances). Maybe one route to help prevent any future changes that were to the detriment of building frontages would be to designate the stretch of Green Lanes from the bridge to snooker hall as a conservation area. That way owners would at least need to apply for permission to make changes. It wouldn't however compel them to alter any of the "improvements" made up to the date of designation.
-
-
If anyone did paint such a picture of traders along the whole street all taking part in a single scheme, then you're right - it would have been unrealistic. So I hope that nobody gave that impression. Or at least that it was presented as an aspiration - a "best case scenario".
I know a bit about the work that went into the shopfront schemes on High Road Tottenham near Bruce Grove Station. Getting agreement with freeholders and others needed much discussion and persuasion for traders and freeholders to join There were at least three different schemes - with different external funding - over several years. And some businesses decided not to join in.
It seems to me that - as with any external funds - the availability of someone else's money may skew the Council's priorities. Bear in mind as well that such funding is "ring-fenced". The Council can't bid for shop fronts and spend the money on, for example, tackling substandard accommodation in flats above shops. Though of course, clever Council staff with subtlety and imagination can use the external money as an incentive - a useful 'lever' to get owners to make other changes.
Although let's not get too carried away. Rich business people and successful companies who own high street premises are not primarily social enterprises nor charities. They tend to be willing "partners" with a local council as long as they too get to spend someone else's money.
All that still leaves some big unanswered questions. Including: is this use of public tax funds value-for-money? And do the assumptions behind such schemes stand up to rigorous independent evaluation? One thing I learned as a councillor is that Haringey holds some assertions to be self-evident truths. And so its reports and plans go on stating these beliefs in copied-and-pasted paragraphs for years.
One of these is faith in the standalone magical powers of regenerating High Streets by doing-up shop frontages. Here's an example from another Haringey scheme - in West Green Road.
"The appearance of shop fronts has a considerable influence on the overall character of an area. They are an essential element not only of the buildings in which they are set but also the wider streetscape. A shop front that has been designed with the respect given to the architecture of the building and character of the surrounding area can add to the vitality of an area, making it attractive to shoppers and visitors alike."
Uncontentious perhaps? But what of parking? The counter attraction of Shopping Malls? Of Ebay? Ocado? Click and collect? And in West Green Road Road itself, the streetscape is often dominated by piles of rubbish bags along the pavements. There, and in many other Haringey shopping streets, your eye sees (and in the summer smells) the garbage before you see the shop window.
-
-
Let's get the basics sorted out first. My priorities for GL would be
Sort out commercial and householder waste collection
Clean the pavements every day
Get traders goods off the public highway
Get rid of all redundant street furniture, unused phone kiosks and signage
Plant more trees and maintain them
Enforce parking restrictions
Then think about shop fronts
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
