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 Clive Carter on
-
And Birmingham's Bull Ring Centre (with associated Ring Road and Inner Ring Roads) was completed in 1964 with the full support of the Birmingham City Council.
The unlovely Bull Ring probably lasted longer than Apex house. But the resident's of Birmingham might have been surprised to have known their big new construction would last just 40 years before demolition.
If Grainger's dull design is ever built - with much over-massing on top of the corner - I wonder how long it will last before being demolished?
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Yes, yes.. bla, blah.. it's all very well saying modern buildings won't last that long.. no they won't, because quite simply they are not designed or built to last so long as in earlier times. Buildings these days are not statements of landowers or railway barons.. They are consumer objects, just like shoes, to be used until they wear out an then be replaced by newer ones.
Even in the city where I live, where there are extremely high standards put on to new buildings, most of the newer ones are not expected to last more than 50 years. Even the two new palace copies currently being built certainly won't last over 500 years like their predecessors did. Although I do certainly accept that you certainly have more than your share of err.. *excuse me* 'jerry-built' or badly planned modern structures around the HoL catchment area.
It's usually a lot cheaper to demolish 50s, 60s buildings than convert them to today's standards of technology, fire prevention and insulation standards, that's where the Bull Ring fell down..
The Bull Ring was a fabulous building, of it's time and it demostrated the optimism of post-austerity Britain very well. Similarly, the Agricultural Hall at Islington was a typical later Victorian construct, like that other monstrosity up on the hill, but it and the Bull Ring had no use in modern day Britain.. That's why they didn't survive pass their sell by date.. just to infer that were ugly is totally missing the point.
-
-
it's all very well saying modern buildings won't last that long
Except I did not say that. Many well designed modern buildings will last a long time; but a mere 40 years for as big a development as the Bull Ring was, with so much time and effort spent on it, indicates that something went wrong. The Bull Ring has for some time now, been generally acknowledged as a notorious example of the Brutalist style of municipal planning.
The thing that the Bull Ring got wrong - and Birmingham was far from alone in this - was in having everything revolve around the motor car. The Tottenham Gyratory is a more recent example. Christopher makes a good point about an isolated 'island' having been created.
Buildings these days are not statements of landowers or railway barons.
True, but some of today's buildings are statements of other controllers of capital: politicians or their parties; buildings as statements is perhaps most true of the banks, which attempt to portray stability and security - and corporate ego.
It is un-green, extravagant and wasteful of resources to treat buildings as consumer objects, just like shoes, to be used until they wear out an then be replaced by newer ones. How much better than the throw-away culture, to take care over a building and have it last for a long time?
I'm not surprised that the standards for new buildings in Germany are extremely high. Would you say the standards are higher than in the UK?
Returning to Grainger's Proposal, do you think it would be a fabulous building of its time, or do you think that Tottenham deserves better?
-
-
I certainly think the whole 'ensemble' is worth saving!
I think I'm probably one of the only people here that can remember Tottenham High Road pre-gyratory (pre April 1970, when the bus lane opened) .. It certainly improved the traffic movement in the area and eased the jams on Seven Sisters Road towards Ward's corner. Caused by traffic wanting to turn right into Broad lane towards Walthamstow. On the other hand it also caused the above mentioned Island situation and I think has completed ruined (with the help of the planners) that area.
-
Permalink Reply by sophia c on
-
Clive, I agree, the standard of buildings is much much better in Germany and not just of new buildings(anyone who has bought a German product know they last, let alone buildings), as they are at least 20 years ahead of us - if not more - in terms of sustainable buildings:
- partly because of their building and engineering skills, attention to detail (sustainable design will not translate into sustainable building performance if the building elements are not put together with the utmost care) and craftsmanship and pride in their work;
- partly because Germany is as many years ahead of the UK when it comes to local decision-making in relation to housing, urban development and green issues. Broadly especially when it comes to public space and housing, I would say the same applies to Austria, Denmark, Holland, Scandinavia, Switzerland (and may be more as late, France).
-
-
Sophia the other thing about Germany is that they are the world leader in green and environmental matters. I do not believe that
most of the newer [German buildings] are not expected to last more than 50 years
but I do believe that Stephen became carried away with his own rhetoric. He's not normally shy about drawing comparisons between Berlin and Haringey.
The Grainger development would look adequate in another place. It is sad that the council is prepared to displace so many people and their livelihoods as well as cast human-scale buildings into the bin.
There's been cynicism throughout the Wards Corner episode. The site was deliberately run down and then there's been a pretence that the only choice was between Grainger's proposal or further decline.
The council attempted the same strategy with buildings as diverse as Stroud Green library and Alexandra Palace. In both those cases the council wanted to put public assets into the hands of private developers. The Planning Service and some councillors seem to have a close and unhealthy relationship with developers.
-
-
I was 11 and my grandparents had a combi boiler, room thermostat and mixer taps in France. I am now 51 and came to England to discover that these were not standard even in "modern" constructions!
What explains this backwardness?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Update on the webcast.
I'm told that the Council's contractors have apologised for their technical error and will be posting the complete video on Haringey's website as soon as possible.
-
Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on
-
While people are right to be angry with the events of Monday night, we need to be more realistic about the current situation. Barring the threat of a legal challenge from WCC, the reality is that the development may never get off the ground. The council's reputation and the poor local services delivered here will mean that the new buildings may never attract the so-called gentrifiers to live there. As is been said before, Tottenham needs more jobs, decent housing, safe schools, well-funded youth services and better amenities, yet they are not even on the agenda. Unlike neighbouring areas, there is simply nothing to bring people in. The least that the council can do at this time and in the future is to MANAGE Tottenham's long-term decline.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
@ Neville, I wish i agreed with you but unfortunely I don't think it's the case that there is no attraction to the site. It will sell to Saudi investors as BTL - imagine the glossy brochures targeted at them, given Grainger's propaganda budgets. It will then let to city types who can just scuttle down onto the tube, or to Liverpool Street by the overground, via the tesco express, and grabbing a latte from Starbux to go. They won't connect with the area but they won't care. They will move out after 1 to 2 years and the next city workers will pop up. The transport is the key, that's why Grainger is so desperate to get it.
-
-
I moved here because I got the last affordable flat in London. At the time I was much more of a car user, it took time for me to realise what a great transport hub this is. I ended up by accident in what can still become an absolutely brilliant corner of London, I have earmarked one bit of the Wards first floor for my studio/community darkroom. That's the only direct connection I have with the campaign, unlike those who will lose everything. I am involved because of the simple social justice question, and because that horrible depressing slab of a building will make me want to move out, and moving is such a hassle. NB I would have been a yuppy in my time, but I missed that era.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
