Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
What Makes a Neighbourhood a Friendly Place to Live?
Last week saw the publication of a paper which presented an aspirational vision of London "Where neighbourhoods thrive and everybody matters" and sets out a challenge for London’s next Mayor:
We want to live in a place that we love and we want to be loved in the place where we live. A place where people are friendly and generous
"The Good City" contains many innovative ideas about how London's neighbourhoods could be improved and changed for the better.
Have a read. How does Harringay measure up?
Tags for Forum Posts: finsbury park, finsbury park pavilion
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Hello Gordon
Thanks for your suggestion. I've only just come to this particular issue and I'm unfamiliar with the background.
However, as this building appears to be scheduled for demolition soon, I put in a Member's Enquiry earlier this morning.
I'll report back when I've got more information.
That I identify myself as a Councillor may be required under the HOL rules (I'll check with Hugh) but equally, it may be a hangover & habit from the run-up to the election.
Some have asserted elsewhere that an interest in Harringay is none of my business: that is nonsense. Alan Stanton, with 16 years experience as Councillor, eloquently described elsewhere the foolishness of petty territoriality.
Incidentally, for about 20 years I ran around our park most mornings. As well as living adjacent to Harringay for 28 years, nowadays I find myself walking through it more often, as the Ward sits between my home and the Council's premises!
Therefore you may expect me – like my colleague Harringay resident Karen Alexander (eight years a Councillor) – to keep an eye on it.
-
Permalink Reply by Cllr Emina Ibrahim on
-
Hi Gordon
Cllr McNamara has been on this issue for a while now as we raised with him over a month ago. We are still pursuing the issue even though we have had a response which Hugh also received about the structural soundness of the building. I am requesting the original survey and will hopefully be able to provide more information on the issue. It's become clear to me that there is a strength of feeling in the community that there could be really positive uses for the site and I don't think we should give up until we are 100% certain and seen the surveyors advice.
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon T on
-
Thanks for following up and giving the state of play at the moment, Emine.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
You've had a response about the structural soundness of the building, Emine? Can you share it please.
For the avoidance of doubt, below is the body of my reply from the leader of the Council and my response:
Email sent by Claire Kober (assuming prepared by an officer):
As background, the building is located adjacent to the New River in Finsbury Park, between the entrance from Endymion Road and the main carriageway drive in the park. The building is in an extremely poor condition, as the shown in the pictures below, and would require a significant investment to bring it up to a useable standard. It also attracts anti-social behaviour and rough sleeping, which can be really unpleasant for park users.
Alternative uses for the building have been considered on a number of occasions, including a cafe or art gallery. However, there’s another (usable) pavilion a few hundred meters away, along with two other cafes and two other art spaces in the park.
Also, the building is located right next to a covered over section of the New River. As mentioned in our manifesto, we’re committed to making better use of some of the great environmental resources we have in the borough, and would be keen to see this opened up. Removal of the building would present a real opportunity to work with Thames Water to make this a reality.
Based on all of these factors, a considered decision was taken to demolish the building later this year. This will ensure we continue to have the right mix of facilities in the park, and that it remains a safe and pleasant environment for users.
There will be a cost associated with the demolition which, along with a number of other improvements in the park, will be funded through income from recent concerts there.
My Response, to which no further reply was received:
I have been inside the building and I appreciate that it is currently derelict and used by rough sleepers. However it may well be structurally sound. Many buildings in a worse state have been renovated and are now in use. Obviously, once the pavilion is in use it wont be open to rough sleepers.
I am also aware that there are two other cafes in the park. However, as with any business, the question of the viability of a new cafe is surely a mater for the new business to assess, unless the Council is seeking to control competition on behalf of the existing businesses. If a new business is willing to invest in refurbishing the building and setting up a business, surely that should be welcomed.
I think you've been misinformed slightly about the status of the river next to the pavilion. It's not covered over, rather it's fenced off and, unless Thames Water have told you otherwise, I can't see that the presence or absence of the building would affect the decision to remove the fencing, which by the way I've been advocating for ten years.
Claire, I really can't see that any case has been established for removing the building, whereas there's a strong case to be made for repurposing it for the local community. This really makes no sense at all. May I ask how I can request that this decision be re-examined?
In the meantime, are you able to send me copies of all correspondence and minutes related to the decision, including demolition cost estimates, or is it simpler for me to go though FOI?
-
-
-
Hi Hugh - i haven't seem the survey ? Is that not what you asked for ? Sorry I am not clear I have had the same email yes which I stated earlier. I also said that you received it. It does not have the survey attached. All I have said is that rather than you needing to put in a FOI - I will ask for the report as a members enquiry. As the email was addressed to you not me it would not be for me to share. I was forwarded a copy of the email you have posted after it was sent to you as a courtesy, it is your email to share not mine. Would be bit off if I shared someone else's email. As you had sent an email to the leader as well as the ward Cllrs that's why you received a direct response and not via the 3 Cllrs.
-
-
-
My point, Emine, was that despite my clear questions about it, at no point has any one said anything to me about the "structural soundness" of the building. So I was assuming that you'd heard it from elsewhere.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Robin Dennis on
-
I don't want to flog it to a private business; I'm not in favor of doing that at Duckett's Common either. In this case, I want to know if it could be renovated to be used as a community space. My view is that keeping existing buildings is generally better than bulldozing them for superficial "modernization" purposes, in terms of cost effectiveness, quality of construction, and historical preservation. That's especially my feeling when a demolition plus new-build could very easily be more expensive than restoration. If that's the case, then any new building would be just as likely, or more so, to "require" bringing in a private business for the project to be "affordable", concerts in the park not withstanding. Of course, there's also no reason to assume anything will be built in its place if demolition goes forward. Has anyone seen a plan to that effect? Perhaps someone involved with FoFP might know.
If the Council comes back and says the building is in incredible disrepair and/or that it has asbestos cladding and is unsuitable for use, and that the cost of repairing the building and removing the asbestos exceeds the cost of demolishing it, I could accept that, though I wouldn't be happy about it. Thus far, it doesn't seem as though any such information has been presented, and it would be a simple matter to share it, don't you think? Even as the child of a general contractor who spent a few summers working on restoration construction sites, I don't feel confident making an assessment of the structural condition and potential for reconstruction based on Ant's snapshot.
It is a good question: Why was it allowed to become apparently derelict?
-
-
Lack of demand - at the time - as a pavilion as far as I observed.
Duplicated/redundant facility once the cricket field stopped being used as such, a decade (more like two?) ago.
-
-
Just because the originally intended use of a facility disappears, shouldn't mean you let the facility fall apart. It's a baseball/softball field now, and those teams and their fans have similar equipment (and other needs), too.
The point I was inelegantly trying to make was that some authority made a decision to stop maintaining the building -- this was allowed to happen. Maybe it was an easy budget cut when no one was complaining, in the years between cricket and baseball. Or was it that the building was maintained by a private cricket club in the past, and not by the Council or by Finsbury Park or by a combination of several agencies that all thought someone else had jurisdiction over it? And so when the club disbanded, no one took over responsibility for the building? Maybe so, given how the London Mets & Meteors website describes the field (without mentioning the pavillion).
In any case, it's too bad the pavillion wasn't included in the £5-million Heritage Lottery-funded restoration in 2005. It's not Victorian, but neither is the new cafe that got built then.
-
-
Yes, a poster in another discussion has said the ball players don't have enough changing facilities and that the demolition proposal dates back to the HLF project
-
-
I didn't hear anybody arguing the case to keep our 'heritage' paving, repair the broken ones and make do with a few puddles. Nobody was clamouring for a half-arsed solution there, so why the desire to save a building which isn't fit for purpose?
Personally, I think the amount of money spent on the so-called improvements on the high street was a waste of money, given the outcome: after many months, some very expensive "new scruffy concrete paving slabs", as you say. Which is precisely what I'd like to avoid by demolishing a building and replacing one that is basically the same, but potentially built with even less staying power and incompetent planning a la the bike rikes, when it might be refurbished to "modern" standards for the same or less money.
Asking that this be explored (or to be given a public accounting that this has been explored) is not insisting that the building be saved just for saving's sake.
Demolishing the building does not and will not assure a new building is budgeted, approved, and built.
A refurbished building would not be redundant if it was not used as a cafe.
Surely it's worth pushing our government to be transparent about its decisions and its future plans rather than assuming that they'll spend "a bit of money" on something?
-
-
-
Tris, I don't think anyone's claiming there are no structural issues. For my part, I've already said that if a survey proves its beyond economic repair then knock it down. What I'm questioning is whether the issue has been properly considered. If no survey has been done then it ought to be because the building could be put to any number of purposes.
Its not clear to me that the two alternatives are repair or replacement. I'd understood that it's repair or demolition. No one's said anything about replacement.
The repair option for operation as a community cafe has the benefit that the operator would fund the repairs. If there's funding to erect another building, there's room both to keep this pavilion (if it's repairable) as well as to add a toilet/changing block. The two aren't mutually exclusive and indeed as someone's said already the baseball players would probably welcome a cafe as would their spectators.
Whether it's to be repaired ore replaced, however, don't you think some sort of community consultation might be in order? There are clearly a variety of views as to what it might be used for. Ant Elder was told the mere placement of a bench on the pavement required a wide-ranging consultation with everyone who lived on his street. Don't you think we also might have a say in how this amenity in our local open space is used?
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
