The coincidences of Tottenham regeneration

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 2, 2015 at 16:03

Okay, no preselected tick.

But then no little boxes for other alternative options such as:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 2, 2015 at 16:50

Surely Alan, you want to

Stay up to date.

With progress?!

Who wouldn't?

As a former Councillor, you may remember the Coat of Arms, with the lightning bolts on the shield, radiating and symbolising the 1936 TV signal transmitted from Ally Pally. The motto is:

Progress with Humanity.

I subscribe to that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon T on March 2, 2015 at 10:48

This is more pamish's manor than mine, but I often cut through the small estate to the south of Apex House, bounded by Seven Sisters Rd, the High Road and the rarely-used railway curve - it wouldn't surprise me if a phase II was to 'redevelop' that estate with more tower blocks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on March 2, 2015 at 16:46

Very reminiscent of Ken Livingstone's campaign to extend the Congestion Zone westwards. There were posters all over the tube saying " if you support the extension, ring 0800 xxxxx to register your opinion " There was no corresponding 0800 number to indicate that you opposed the extension

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Pike on March 4, 2015 at 22:16

Left the box unticked.

http://apexhousedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Exhibi...

Not a fan of the "emerging" design although it appears justified by the 2004 vision document. The visuals are in sketch form in an attempt to soften what looks to be quite an orthogonal generic apartment block. Note strategically placed trees - if in doubt put a tree in front of it!

The Urban Character study favours a 20 storey building! Head the warning! Just look at Strata at Elephant and Castle for an isolated tall overbearing ugly structure that creates it own wind issues! I fail to see how this is justified other than a simplistic assumption that a key corner requires an edifice. Is this really what we want to mark such an important node when the surroundings are of a very different scale and character? 

Public realm is talked up as important, however plan and visuals show an ill thought out left over space that could be unbearable due to adjacent traffic. 

Housing is required to meet demand as is well documented. It is a shame that another public site has gone into private hands, when a different approach could have been taken. Why couldn't the council instigate their own redevelopment of the site for truly affordable good quality housing or a community driven custom build initiative. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 5, 2015 at 9:16

a signature building

I've heard this term (whatever that might be) before. I suspect it's in the same class of marketing-speak meaning such as, "statement", "landmark", "gateway" and my favourite, "celebration" as in, building X will celebrate the site.

Too often, its a forged signature that in plain English, can mean unattractive overdevelopment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 5, 2015 at 10:20

Does a corner "deserve" a certain sort of building?  Is this because it's been a well-behaved hard-working corner and needs rewarding?

Do developers "deserve" public land sold-off to them to make large profits? (I've heard a figure of £3.7 million mentioned for Apex House, but don't have hard information.) 

Do London - and Haringey - residents "deserve" decent homes to live?  Or is it okay to let them be crammed into hutches and beds in sheds?  What do human beings "deserve" to live reasonable lives, bring up their kids etc etc?

Do the public calling at the Customer Service Centre at Apex House and the staff who work there "deserve" decent facilities in a new building?  Or is it okay to snaffle one of the two floors of Marcus Garvey Library. And then try to rationalise this by pretending that it retains nearly the same floor area while widening the "offer"?

On Tuesday evening Zena and I met someone arriving at King's Cross Station. And once again enjoyed seeing the new Western Concourse and King's Cross Square. Examples of inspiring public spaces; beautiful new buildings; and of elegant old buildings revered and revealed.  Work John McAslan+Partners and Arup can achieve. (The former are designing Apex House; the latter were hired to support Claire Kober and Alan Strickland's social cleansing plans for Tottenham.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 6, 2015 at 19:54

What's to disagree about?  If I'm the leader of the Council and want to "regenerate" your house by kicking you out, knocking down the building and re-selling the land to a developer for say, a block of flats, surely that's perfectly okay.  Isn't it?

Or what if get my planning staff to draw a few lines on a map calling it a "housing zone"?  So perhaps you can't plan for the future; and lie awake at night worrying. And find, for example that it suddenly gets harder to obtain a loan to repair the roof?  Three loud cheers for regeneration, right? 

Of course, as Leader of the Council and the controlling political group I would never propose such a plan for where I and my close allies live. So no problem, hey?

The U.S. businesswoman Leona Helmsley was nicknamed "the Queen of Mean". She famously remarked that "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes".  It seems to me that in Haringey, with what's now laughingly called a "Labour" Council, only the little people have regeneration imposed on their homes and businesses.

So maybe, Joe, you are not one of the "little people".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 5, 2015 at 14:31

Alan all the epithets I used (above) were applied to another "corner" site in the Borough. It seems corner sites are fair game for deserving a signature building. Sites in between two corners will eventually deserve signatures too. Some signatures are scrawled and others are illegible. Are there any undeserving sites?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page