Five-a-side plans for Finsbury Park

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on January 14, 2010 at 13:45

Yes Hugh, that's a strong foundation for the approach we should adopt to this "consultation" in line with the original intentions. That 'massive petition from the locals in the 1870's' should be precedent enough for HOL and others, should it become necessary. After all, wasn't FP originally meant to enclose 240 acres rather than the 120 acres or so we've ended up with? If only they'd extended it through Harringay Park (betwixt GL and Wightman Road) as far as Harringay House, instead of throwing up all those late Victorian slums across New River meadow! Who'd need salt, grit or snow displacement activities along those gentle slopes even in deepest winter?

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on January 16, 2010 at 17:42

@ Hugh Hayes: Most local councillors are Lib Dems and therefore ineffective !

We've been waiting about 53 hours for some doughty ripostes from Alroy, Wightman, Falkland roads.

Permalink Reply by Stuart on January 14, 2010 at 23:37

I emailed parks two days ago to ask why they hadn't published any details of the actual plan (I'm struggling to see how they can fit 10 pitches and parking for 80 cars on a space that size) and whether we could have a copy of the proposed plans. I also asked for the names of any commercial entities to whom they had already spoken to see if they'd be interested.

Inevitably, no response.

Permalink Reply by matt on January 15, 2010 at 7:02

What's the email address?

Permalink Reply by Stuart on January 15, 2010 at 9:59

parks@haringey.gov.uk

Permalink Reply by matt on January 15, 2010 at 10:44

Try: john.morris@haringey.gov.uk

He's head of parks.

Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on January 15, 2010 at 9:30

Would people oppose this if it was locally owned by the council and not a private commercial venture or do people not want the tacky tarmac messed with?

There are quite a few issues here for me, some I am in favour of, others I am against.

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on January 15, 2010 at 9:34

I wouldn't. I'm just unhappy about public land being turned over to a private company.

Permalink Reply by Liz on January 15, 2010 at 13:50

I think the commercialisation/land grab aspect is undoubtedly what has troubled most people but I have some concerns about the assumptions that this space is tacky, of no use, needs messing with.

I would want to know how tampering with the 'balance' of the park by displacing people from 'free space' would impact on all users. Not every bit of park has to be given over to a specific activity. More and more our parks are beginning to resemble outdoor gyms, parcelled up and sometimes charging. What of those users who wish to only stand and stare?

There should be space that has no 'use' and thus 'any use'. Up there on the flat ground, many activities can take place, you mention the carfolk for example, which do not impact on others. Even if this were a council intiative, I would expect to see evidence that they had assessed how a development would change the park...these things are possible, are often done relatively cheaply and allow all voices to be heard.

So I guess I'm coming at this from an even more fundamental level. Who gains but more importantly, who loses?

Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on January 15, 2010 at 14:08

That last sentence can be applicable now, who wins and who losses out. Many sports are catered for in FP having the correct facilities, football (in any capacity) isn't catered for (apart from grass and poo goalposts), which I find a little odd.

Finsbury Park is large enough to encompass many activities and it is culturally and historically shown to host many sports, pass-times and activities – that's what public parks are for.

I understand I may be coming across as incredibly bias as a football fan, I am : )

Permalink Reply by Stuart on January 15, 2010 at 10:08

Personally, I don't mind the tacky tarmac messed with (it's a bit of an eyesore albeit useful for basketball/bike training/rollerblading etc.). What I object to are:

- use of public land by a commercial enterprise with a sop to the public issue of vague promises of cheaper fees during off-peak (i.e. when 90% of users can't actually use it). If it's going to be a 5-a-side centre, it should be run (I don't care by who) as a not-for-profit exercise at the very most. Hugh's post above captures this issue perfectly and persuasively. On the council's argument, you may as well section off other less-used parts of the park and lease them out to commercial enterprises too. Why stop here?
- there is no way in hell that the current space has room for 10 5-a-side pitches PLUS parking for an additional 80 cars. So that can only mean either that the council haven't bothered to give this any serious thought or they have come up with a development design and plan which they are not sharing with the public because it involves land-grabbing far far more of the park. Naturally, I suspect the latter.

Permalink Reply by matt on January 15, 2010 at 11:00

Thx

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page