Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Plans Published for Redevelopment of Tottenham around Spurs Stadium
The Council's vision of a Tottenham regenerated as a result of the new Spurs Stadium was published this week.
Options for consultation include:
- Station improvements
- New public space between White Hart Lane Station and Spurs Stadium
- New homes
- New school
- New heath centre
- Cafes and restaurants
- New cinema
Full details of plans and consultation here.
Tags for Forum Posts: tottenham
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Where is the option for Just Improve Whats There Already? That's the one that gets forgotten.
The People will be given the option of whether they would prefer pink or brown paving stones.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
So far I've only had a chance to read it through quickly, but not yet gone through in detail.
Have you, Pam? It seems to me that the options on offer to residents are rather more extensive than the colour of the paving stones. Isn't it more a case of whether just a few people's homes are to be demolished and redeveloped or nearly everyone's home?
One worry I have is the apparently tight timetable for consultation. Especially as the appointment of the independent Tenants and Leaseholders Advocate organisation has only just happened. (As far as I know, it wouldn't have happened at all unless I'd pressed for it.)
Have you spoken to any of the residents on the Love Lane Estate? I'd appreciate any contact details you have - but only with their permission of course. If any of them are reading this, here's my email: alan.stanton@virgin.net
I'm happy to share what I know - which in the Kober's secret Haringey isn't much of course - with anyone with ideas or concerns about the direction this development is taking; and the implications for the wider area - not just immediately around Spurs' Stadium. But I would ask people to keep an open mind, and crucially respect the wishes of local residents most affected. Let's please not dismiss this as an opportunity for them to have a significant improvement in their homes and streets. It isn't only Spurs Football Club which stands to gain.
By the way, this estate is in Northumberland Park and not my own ward. Which prompted an interesting query from one of the Northumberland Park councillors about the basis for my involvement.
I've explained that it's in the north-east Harringay soccer district, so obviously we've all got a stake here.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
P.S. I've had a closer read of the so-called consultation document called: High Road West Creating a plan for change. Which isn't actually a consultation document but yet another glossy sales brochure. It appears designed to persuade residents to accept one of three options. Each preceded by the sentence: "This could provide the following benefits.
That's right; just benefits. There may well be good things here. And residents may want them. But there are also risks and possible weaknesses. The glossy brochure has nothing about any possible downside. Buy buy buy. Say 'yes' to one of these once-only special time-limited offers.
Elected councillors should be ashamed. We have a duty to safeguard the interests of our residents and this means not simply giving them the hard sell, on the basis that each option is an unqualified good thing.
Just as embarrassing is the list headed: "You told us that the priorities for the area should be:". Which yet again fails Simon Hoggart's Law of Reverse Meaning. Which states that: "if the opposite of something is obvious nonsense, it wasn't worth saying in the first place". So I doubt there's a single resident who told the Council the priorities for the area are:
● Worsening the quality of homes
● Encouraging crime and anti-social behaviour
● Fewer local jobs
● A declining High Road
● Reducing facilities for the community
● Creating worse public open spaces.(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by Asher Jacobsberg on
-
I agree Alan, this is just a sales brochure. It needs to include dis-benefits and risks for each. Fine for Spurs or the architects to produce something like this, but the Council should be far more balanced.
In so far as just producing three options goes though I do see why this has been done. Giving people a context to choose from often produces far more useful results than an open ended consultation. Often it does not mean that one of the three options is chosen but elements are identified from each as particularly positive or negative. Completely open ended consultations often end up with such a wide variety of responses that are impossible to reconcile, so everyone comes away feeling they haven't been listened to - or you end up with the kind of bland meaningless statements that no one can disagree with as you highlight.
Options are a way to focus people's thinking, but they have to presented in a balanced way, with pros and cons of each. This allows useful discussion and debate to happen.
-
Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on
-
Yet another degeneration plan for Tottenham.
Meanwhile, plans have been submitted for 530-536 High Road for the construction of a four-storey building consisting of 16 flats and three shop units, despite the fact there are plenty of empty buildings locally. I would have rather the council create a memorial park as there is also a shortage of open space.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
My impression is that the council feels that it needs to be seen to be doing something. For how many years has the council been regenerating Tottenham?
Is it an unbroken 40?
If Tottenham is still/again in need of regeneration, does this not say something about Haringey's ability to effect lasting improvement? Either the council is not good at this job, or the susceptibility for regeneration is a function of factors beyond the control of the local council.
Either way, the council might consider approaches other than again turning the regen handle.
-
-
Sometimes, Clive, you have something fresh and interesting to add. But not today.
Though thanks for spotting the point about politicians having to be seen to be doing something - which I made on a Flickr page in February. But as you probably saw, I was just quoting from the TV series 'Yes, Prime Minister' , which introduced us to the Politician's fallacy. (Click the second link for a short YouTube clip.)
-
-
Sorry if I appear to be repeating what you said Alan or worse, being seen to agree with you.
I appreciate this must annoying. At least we can have a real disagreement about the need for parking ticket targets. I understand you view the targets expectations forecasts as necessary management tools.
The Ham and High story appears on the front page of both their regular and Broadway print editions. Geoff Martin's excellent and thoughtful editorial on parking enforcement also appears in both and I would encourage you to read it (print version only). Are there any points he makes that you'd disagree with?
.
-
-
Hmm. So now you want to hijack a thread about development in North Tottenham to rehash a dubious LibDem press release about "targets" for parking tickets.
Geoff Martin's excellent and thoughtful editorial? I assume that simply means he agrees with you.
-
-
No, I agree with him. In spite of your views about the effectiveness of targets as a management tool, I suspect that you'd agree with Geoff Martin, as I do. I'm happy to say I agree with his comments, but I do understand if you don't want to be seen to be in accord.
-
-
Such as ...?
-
-
I've just spotted this on the front page of Haringey Council's website.
Both shaming and alarming. The lead item on "our" council website is pure sales pitch. Without the slightest pretence at any balance. And with no trace of any understanding of Haringey's responsibility to provide factual objective information and advice to residents in North Tottenham and further afield.
No. The future is Spurs' vibrant public space" ... "the heart of exciting proposals".
I expect such hype from the worst estate agents.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
