Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The Banner
Just seen the banner and my opinion is that its pretty damn crap.
Why?
You still see much of the shoddy paintwork on the bridge.
The banner is all wrinkled.
The overall design is so crap.
I could go on but I'll give everyone else chance instead.
Oh well.
Tags for Forum Posts: glsg, harringay banner, harringay bridge
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
They got you too David! Will you be joining the local Labour party in the hopes of a cabinet place? Honestly, this "In conducting informal referendums, it perhaps does not yet mirror the views of residents as a whole" has to be the worst thing I've ever seen you write on here. Show me a better gauge of residents feelings. Anywhere in Britain.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
I think it looks absolutely terrible and does nothing to promote either Harringay or the businesses who are advertising either side. Unless this is generating a serious amount of money that benefits the local area I would rather have nothing or - radical idea time - something that looks attractive and makes people feel proud of their local area. I think this is a really wasted opportunity.
-
Permalink Reply by Protheroe O'Shea on
-
David thanks for responding.
I agree that this is not the greatest civic amenity in the world. Babylon had the hanging gardens, while we have to make do with the hanging curtains.
Still, the appearance will improve somewhat and some of the advertising revenue will benefit the area
Could you please tell us how much each advert cost? and how the money will benefit the community.
Did you LBoH commit to a fit proper persons test on the sponsors?
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
DS on Twitter; 'Damn. HOL exploding superlatives. Bother. Must disappear for a few days. Will blame Labour. Te he. Need drop of something strong.'
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks for your reply David and yours Jeremy.
As far as the banner issues goes, I'd second Jeremy's points.
With regards to HoL's representativeness, I can't argue with what you say. However, do you think there is any body that is more representative, David? Are you implying that the views of 218 people expressed via HoL run survey are somehow less representative than the 10 people who voted at the GRA and the half dozen or so who attend the LCSP?
-
-
David thank you for responding. I hope your colleagues follow your example.
I think that HoL performs an invaluable service in providing a forum for exchanging views, for giving out information and thereby for improving the quality of discussion. In conducting informal referendums, it perhaps does not yet mirror the views of residents as a whole
David can you please go into a bit more detail. Why does HOL in your opinion not mirror the community as whole?
In your opinion what should HOL do to mirror the community?
Lastly why was there no formal unveiling of the banners involving our MP, elected Harringay councillors, bridge sponsors, traders assoc the press. Instead why was this done in the dead of night over two nights? do you not think the method Haringey adopted suggests that no one involved is particularly proud of the outcome?
-
Permalink Reply by Germana on
-
I don't like the banner that much (although I am not outraged by its appearance either – as I think there are much more ugly things around here). I think the views of HoL users should definitely be taken into account - plus I am a big fan of this website more generally and hope it continues to develop into an ever more useful system for people to connect in this neighborhood and improve it.
However I think it is slightly unhelpful to make this into an HoL vs RAs vs Council/councillors vs local traders or estate agents issue. The reality seems to be that neither HoL nor the RAs are perfectly representative of residents and we are living in an imperfect world for making these kind of decisions. For different reasons.
HoL clearly reaches more people but then most of the users operate under pseudonyms. Not everybody lists the street they live in and of course nobody has their precise address. In terms of the accurateness of online survey results there is no way to verify precisely who people are and where they live (e.g. not all who voted were necessarily resident near the bridge) and whether they are representative in terms of demographics of people living around here (if a survey was instead delivered by hand door to door to all residents even in a small sample of the area things would be different).
On the other hand RAs may have a smaller group of people going to physical meetings but they will know people’s names and surnames and addresses/contact details, and will reach a wider audience than just the handful that generally go to meetings (which may also vary from meeting to meeting). They reach people through mailing lists and more importantly often by bringing minutes of meetings by hand to people who don’t use computers, and also regular newsletters door to door to every single resident, often talking to them on their doorstep…The door to door canvassing was not done for this specific decision, so clearly their members' survey is not terribly representative either.
Ultimately what we need is to devise ways to make various systems that exist around here to debate local issues more compatible with each other and complementary. For example, if more people who are active on HoL could go to meetings of RAs and other bodies there would be more interaction between them. I've also been arguing in my own RA that we should be posting more often on HoL as the need for better communication goes both ways.
So while online surveys are a great tool – and we should do more of them – people can’t expect the Council or government or whoever else to decide solely on the basis of that against a variety of other considerations they have to take into account. We are also not living in a direct Athens–style democracy but a representative democracy where people are elected to make decisions on our behalf, after of course consulting and taking into account a variety of issues. Then if the elected representatives mess up they don’t get elected again.
In terms of the merit of this decision – and here is just my two pence for what it’s worth – at a time of serious crisis, when Councils are extremely cash strapped and don’t have many ways of generating revenues to provide vital services (and we all get upset when they are cut, don’t we?) I personally don’t have much of a problem with them earning some cash through advertising of local businesses (I was unhappy with McDonalds, and I can see adverts for an estate agent can be irritating but in the grand scheme of things they are not the worst type of business in the world, and I personally found them helpful when researching properties to buy around here).
Of course we all want to know how much is being raised (and clearly we hope it’s enough to justify the decision to put something not so appealing on our bridge) and what precisely it will be used for. I am sure David and other councillors will come online and tell us more about this when they have the information, right?
I hope this doesn’t upset anyone or create even more controversy. I think it’s important however to move beyond moaning and into finding solutions.
-
-
Very interesting post Germana.
Please note that what I write is not a pop at you !
One of my concerns is that we were given very little say on the matter. Why did the council only consider the judgement of handful of locals?
Why did they not canvas the whole area?
If money is so tight what not see if the locals are willing to adopt the bridge. I am sure there are a many of us out there who would have happily paid to have had no advertising on the bridge. But we were never given the opportunity. Instead we were given the run around.
Secondly why did they choose the three companies above others?
Paul Simon is guilty of blighting this are with to let and sold by boards that have remained for months if not years past the legal 14 days. They have also illegally placed advertising around the area.
Gokyuzu have a history of advertising for staff in foreign a language thus alienating a huge swathe of the very people they are apparently welcoming to Harringay. Whilst Hawes and Curtis' building is one huge advert already blighting the area.
It just seems a bit crass that such companies are allowed to get away with it. Don’t you think?
But above and beyond all that I have said the banners are just plain ugly, uninspiring, and patronising, offering absolutely no civic pride to the area. And why did LBoH not enforce Network rail to maintain the bridge appropriately.
The corporate logo for LBoH is supposed to signify thinking outside the box. Does anyone really believe that LBoH’s method in maintaining the bridge is doing this? I for one feel it is more like sweeping the dirt under the carpet, and a rather ugly carpet it is too.
-
-
Thanks for not having a pop at me! I am not the Council and know very little about how it operates, so I don't have the answer to your questions. I can only guess that they did perhaps not have the resources to canvas the whole area (do you mean door to door? or through an online consultation of their own? - perhaps more realistic...) on this kind of issue and that the companies that are advertising are the ones who offered to do so...
It's perhaps not unrealistic to ask that as a condition for them to advertise on the bridge they also sort out other issues like illegal advertising elsewhere I suppose. Of course Paul Simon may also decide it's not worth it and pull out rather than sort out their advertising habits (which you may think is a good thing..?). As for Hawes and Curtis again I have no particular knowledge and problem with them but technically speaking they are not really a local business but a chain I think.
Once we know how much money is being raised perhaps your idea of local people paying money to adopt the bridge instead could be suggested. However, I personally do not have spare money to spend on something like this at the moment and I suspect many others are in the same situation, although of course others might have enough and give it a higher priority in their spending - who knows... I am not generally a big fan of corporate advertising and sponsorship but personally would rather let Hawes and Curtis which actually looks like a rather posh company contribute some money than me having to part with my scarce cash!
-
-
Thanks for a very thorough and thoughtful contribution Germana – great stuff. In the spirit of a healthy debate, I’m going to disagree with a certain amount of what you’ve said but I genuinely appreciate your voice of moderation.
Firstly I ought to confess that I’m perhaps less exercised about the new banner than people may think. I don’t like it, but that’s life. We need to move on. My concerns focus more around a frustration with how the decision was made. If we can’t get this right then we’ll go round this cycle again and again.
So, on to the points you make.
The extent to which the issue is being played divisively on HoL
I really hope this issue isn’t coming across as dividing different groups. That’s certainly a million miles from what I intend. As I wrote above, my belief is that HoL compliments what the local RAs do and in no way competes with them. Whilst distinctions are drawn in the above discussion between how the opinions of the groups may differ, I’m not sure I see reporting that as divisive. Perhaps I’m missing your point on this?
The use of HoL as a channel to enable residents to represent their views to the Council
I hope my expectations about how the Council could use our survey results are pretty reasonable. As I’ve written a few times before on here and in letters to the Council:
“Whilst I can understand that the Council might not want to base decisions on the results of a survey run by Harringay Online, I would expect at least that our survey would act as a flag to local opinion and the Council would run its own consultation.”
You quite rightly question the accuracy of our survey given the lack of identity checks.
You begin by referring to the information that people provide about themselves on HoL. However, with all due respect, I think that misses the point since the survey was run via a completely separate survey site.
Coming to the survey itself, like most surveys, save door-to-door ones, whoever runs them, and however they are run there aren’t really any identity checks. However, online surveys are used to as a part of the formal consultation process to inform council decisions both by Haringey and other councils. Also the survey software we used does collect a user’s IP address. So there’s at least a check on multiple entries.
You also questioned the survey’s representativeness. As I’ve already said, it’s unlikely that it was representative, but I suspect that it’s at least as representative as RA opinion and it broadens the opinion base in terms of the sheer number of respondents.
As far as geographic location is concerned, people did state their ward of residence so we were able to filter out non-locals.
A door-to-door survey would be great, but the reality is that they cost too much so we have to find more efficient ways. Online surveys offer that.
Linking all local discussion forums more closely
I totally agree that it makes sense to forge closer links between local resident groups/platforms, both online and offline. That was a key hope when I set up HoL. Accordingly, I reached out to all RAs and politicians in the first few months of setting up HoL. I admire what residents' associations can do and see what we do as complimentary to their approach.
A focus on finding solutions
You write that there should be a focus on finding solutions and I completely agree. That was the whole point of the survey. Rather than just canvassing local opinion on the single issue of advertising, we broadened the issue so people could have more of a say in finding a solution. That 'say' was submitted to the Council in August at which point there was plenty of time to engage with people about what to do. Sadly nothing more was heard from the Council until February when a decision was handed down. So I’d question your view that there’s been a failure of resident correspondents on HoL to engage in finding a solution. I think we have to ask if the failure in fact lies elsewhere. It’s also a pity that end-of-financial-year time pressure became an issue since all the feedback was with the Council in August 2010.
Given the mismatch between the consultation feedback and the decision, I think it’s completely appropriate for people to challenge the decision and give voice to their dissatisfaction. That’s debate surely. But then it’s time to move on and, hopefully work together to find solutions to all sorts of things. But remember that it takes listening as well as constructive contribution.
The merit of the decision given the economic circumstances
As you suggest it may well be that there was just no other option to advertising given the financial straits we’re in. I don’t know. (Though Zena’s post suggests that there’s a very specific purpose for the money (paying for another banner).
I imagine there’s a lot of debate going on around how to make ends meet with all sorts of local expenditure and it’s unlikely that there are any simple answers.
However, if it is the case that the banner was never affordable without advertising, then what on earth was the Council doing running a consultation asking if it should have advertising on the banner? Perhaps energies would have been better focussed on a process that started from the point that advertising was necessary and seeking views on how it could be included whilst accommodating local opinion.
-
-
Thanks Hugh. It does help me understand better where you are coming from and I am sure you are right on many of the above points. However as you can see from several posts below this debate is still being used by some as an excuse to attack or undermine the opinion of other residents, or other residents fora.
Perhaps it's inevitable as online debates do tend to flare up quite easily compared to physical meetings where people discuss things face to face and tend to generally have more respect of each other.
Clearly a lot of work to be done if debates on here are to be taken more seriously. I for one, every time I see a flare, I think I will stop coming here and expressing my opinion. Then I end up coming again. But I know many other people who live locally but think it's a waste of time to engage in debates here as they always end up getting insulted in one way or another.
So clearly beyond the issue of the online survey (which was perhaps more representative than I initially suggested) there is more work to do to ensure this website succeeds in engaging more people and avoids becoming a divisive place. I am not saying you are not trying of course. I am sure you and lots of others are doing their best.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
