Probably a top ten LBH spin entry

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by pamish on March 22, 2015 at 20:42

Nimfy.  This is what will overshadow my front yard - literally.  I did this p/shop mockup to show the actual height of 21 storeys. The architect's choice of perspective - drawings as if on a wide-angle lens - reduces the comparative height to less than half.

More here.

They go on about delightful landmarks, but all the drawings so far are of very unprepossessing fag-packet-shaped slabs.  Haringey can't afford N Foster or Z Hadid. And 22 storeys really is HUGE.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by StephenBln on March 22, 2015 at 21:39

Perhaps this is the sort of thing Alan is proposing. Taken on what was 'no mans land'  - the border between East & West Berlin. This is all ministry and office space, but the blocks are sort of size you all seem to want.

I personally think it looks very clean & tidy, but not very inspiring.

Looking in the other direction (with bus as a comparison)

I have to say, I prefer something like this 'shape sensation', which I found in Milano.

BTW, this isn't only happening in London, it's happening all over Western Europe and is part of the fall out from the crash of 2008. Since then, many see investment in bricks and mortar (concrete and glass) as a better financial option.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on March 22, 2015 at 23:53

We're sort-of resigned to having a tower on our doorstep, not least because Boris will overturn any objections in his lust for glory.  We can just hope to get it halved in size.  I do like some towers, those that are built to more than the lowest price. The new one at Manor House has a bit of a zizz. The McAslan one? I could have drawn that on a fag packet. Or drawn a fag packet. 

You central image here illustrates perfectly the politics of lens choice and position. Is the statue ten storeys high?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 23, 2015 at 9:37

Pam, as well as the angle/positioning/framing, something else is also going on in the attempt to "sell" these buildings.

I first heard of the Danish architect Jan Gehl from another member of HoL who challenged my ideas about tall buildings. (I can't remember who it was, but grateful thanks.) 

I explored Gehl's stuff which is fascinating. Among his observations is how architects tend to present their plans in one of three ways. One is the fly-over where buildings become grand patterns way below, on the ground. Another is a streetview. A third is in between - what you might see from a low flying helicopter. (This is my summary understanding; not Gehl's words.)

To be fair to John McAslan+Partners (JMP) the images of their proposed tower are computer generated from a point at ground level. It's what people might see e.g. from Seven Sisters Road.

To my mind, what's far less honest is a middle range view - the oblique angle from above a proposed building. This is often an imagined night shot tinted with a range of blues. With contrasting bright lights - often warm golden yellows and bright silvers.

Even a ground level perspective may be decorated with the colours of precious metals and jewels. The one below is a developers' dream of Tottenham Hale Station, with ruby and beryl reds.

Forget jobs and housing; think glitz and glam. Life in the city is pretty. Colours go flashing in time.

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 22, 2015 at 14:35

Pam, have you seen The Observer today?   It has an article by Rowan Moore which is not quite a puff piece for the Koberites.

I was a bit puzzled by the timing, until Zena suggested that the Council's Propaganda Unit may have put out a Press Release about the forthcoming developers and architects' carve-up-Tottenham event at the former Town Hall.

I've added a comment piece as has Rev Paul Nicolson. If you haven't done so can I suggest that you and other people wade in and try to set the record straight.

Unfortunately there's a huge stream of comment white noise to overcome. Including bad wishes from Arsenal fans.  And someone who's never been to Tottenham but knows someone who met a woman on a bus who has.  We may be occupied by the Muswell Hill Colonial regime, but the maquisards have to try.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 22, 2015 at 15:04

My apology for mistakenly saying the Paul Nicolson had commented on the article by Rowan Moore. I heard he'd written to the Observer and I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

In fact, today's Observer published a letter from him about child and family poverty and the impact of benefit changes on pregnant women and their baby's healthy development. 

Like everything Paul writes it's well worth paying attention to. I just wish Ian Duncan Smith (and Haringey's councillors) thought so too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Luci on March 23, 2015 at 10:50

Have some posts on this thread been deleted? I can't see the posts Alan is referring to regarding housing redevelopment.

Regarding Marcus Garvey library, a lot of the proposed "improvements" seem to have a very negative impact on several parts of the library - the threat to the current children's library has prompted some of us, including a lot of mums who use the library with their kids, to start a campaign. We have a Facebook, Save Marcus Garvey Library Tottenham. We made a deputation to last week's Cabinet meeting to express our views.

Current proposals, apart from the reduction of space to the library  include the reduction of three customer service points to one - one of these would presumably be the children's library counter. The children's library has lots of activities for young children, messy play, singing, and free play times with lots of toys and dressing up clothes available. The staff also deal with lots of school visits, and there is a young adult room where as well as books and a space for young people in the library, they show films etc. There are homework clubs. As proposals for the library service include a 15% staff cut (12 out of 80), I think that's likely to impact badly on the bigger libraries where there is more than one counter.

There are "consultation" sessions this Friday, morning and late afternoon, and Saturday morning. It would be good if people can make it to express their views. I plan to take my kids after school on Friday (4-5), I'm hoping they will ask questions and tell whoever is doing the session what they think. Can anyone else make it?

For adults, there are also lots of other services in the library including some sort of mental health support group.

Propsals also include a new entrance near the Bernie Grant Arts Centre - at the moment there is a Reading Garden outside the children's library area, so what happens to this? We believe that the space used for children's library is going to be very reduced. At the moment entrance to the library is through the Sports Centre. I'm a bit concerned about security for the new entrance. And is the kids' library to be moved? Having the main entrance right next to an area full of young children doesn't sound great at all - how will parents and carers stop kids running out on to the street?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Luci on March 23, 2015 at 10:55

Consultation times this week for Marcus Garvey:

Marcus Garvey library users can find out more at one of three public drop-in sessions planned for next week. Council officers will be on hand to talk through the ideas for the library at the following times:

Friday 27 March: 10.30am-12noon
Friday 27 March: 4-5.30pm
Saturday 28 March: 11am-12.30pm
Further engagement sessions for other libraries will be announced soon, and more information will also be available at libraries and our website.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 23, 2015 at 11:43

Luci, yes, Joe deleted some of his posts. So some of my replies may not completely make sense.

Thanks for publicising the Marcus Garvey plans and consultation. There is so much rotten garbage being thrown at Tottenham by "our" Council that it's hard to keep up.

One aspect I loathe is their lack of openness and honesty. I got hold of one version of the Marcus Garvey plans and posted it online. It showed the library area reduced by approximately half. I challenged Cllr Jason Arthur to say whether or not the plan was accurate. As far I know he never replied to me.

Instead we got obfuscation from the Dear Leader and her flunkeys - something like "extending the offer".

But if they've retreated from the cut-by-half proposal it's excellent news.

I wish they would simply say truthfully what they're proposing and then how it changes. Maybe that's what they are doing in the meetings and dialogue with the user group you attend?  If so I wish they'd also report this dialogue publicly, so all users have an opportunity to know what's being said and agreed.

Were the meetings minuted? If so, by Council staff or library users? In my experience - and perhaps your own - official minutes tend to be brief, dull and give nothing of the flavour of a discussion. They are also controlled by the Council. (And in our London Borough of Control Freakery that's not a good idea.)

I'm also interested in the detailed current costings of the proposed changes to the Library. It can't be accurate that they will make a net loss from selling Apex House and then relocating the staff and services there?  Or can it?

I haven't looked recently into the Reading Garden.  In 2009 Cllr Bernice Vanier and I pushed hard for this to be completed. So I was disappointed that it wasn't always used well or maintained. It's a nice space. (Click on the photo to see larger versions and other photos I took as the scheme progressed.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Luci on March 23, 2015 at 12:25

Thanks Alan,

Just to clarify, the Marcus Garvey Library campaign group is currently a campaigning group. We had a read-in in the children's library a few weeks ago, and we've had a deputation. Our meetings have mainly been quite informal, to work out the next steps in our campaign. We have been advised that we should become a Friends of the Library Group, or alternatively an Action Group, but we're still deciding about that. So there haven't really been many formal, minuted meetings as such.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on March 23, 2015 at 14:48

All of this shows that they really have not thought through how to do the removal of Apex House.  They have to find space for the essential work that happens there.  But shoving it into the library is clearly not the answer.  They must now be regretting dumping the Town Hall.  But it's not used in its entirely, and most of the users are church groups.  Regardless of what I think about the takeover of commonly owned buildings by specialist exclusive groups, there has to be a way to reclaim some of the space in the Town Hall. Presumably the church groups are not 9 to 5.

When they built Apex House - and it was only in 1993 - they must have imagined it was the perfect answer to their needs in 1993.  Now it seems that this was a big fat mistake that had no provision for the future.  Repeating that level of error must be challenged now.

They have proved they they couldn't even do the costing right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JJ B on March 24, 2015 at 17:18

It is obvious that they ARE NOT INTERESTED in the medium and long term. Not are tehy really interested in really solving residents problems. 

They are being expedient and ticking boxes so 'regeneration' is underway but who will reap the rewards is another story. HAs anywone read the EqIA on Haringey's Housing strategy - see this part here on 

Page12 of 62  !!!!

What does this tell us about the affordability of housing for residents with protected characteristics?

The above evidence indicates there is a possibility that over time Black residents in Haringey may not benefit from the plans to build more homes in the

borough through promoting affordable home ownership in east Haringey. White households may benefit more easily. To help support existing

communities whilst also increasing a greater mix of tenure, ways of ensuring Black households have access to and benefit from low cost home ownership products need to be explored.>>

How can the potential effects be mitigated?

The ability of local people to afford the new homes being built, especially in the east of the borough, is dependent on them accessing jobs and also increasing their incomes to a sufficient level to afford the new homes on offer as a result. Haringey’s Business Growth plans include increasing the number of jobs in Haringey from 73,000 (2011 baseline) to 95,000 by 2036 (an increase of 29.5%). It is planned to change the profile of Haringey-based jobs so that retail and public sector employment are less dominant, and there is better range of jobs, including a greater proportion of jobs in more highly-skilled sectors, such as sustainable technology, digital design and skilled/craft manufacturing.The opportunities being created over the next 10 years should be open to all Haringey residents with monitoring undertaken to ensure the outcomes are delivered proportionately>>

Cynical. 

Of course, as Rowan Moore illustrated, there are already skilled and craft jobs in Tottenham. And more peopole are moving in. People find the 'place is a dump' because the council hasn't lived up to its responsibilities of maintaining the public realm, enforcing planning policies and it has allowed rogue landlords to run amok in the victorian streets. They now plan to allow in the developers - the big ones who need their high returns on investment. So 'for viability reasons' the council's own polcies on affordable housing are disregarded. And tehy are flogging every square available site to higher rise and density so that all the charm will be sucked oput of teh place and the very well heeled residenst who came to take advantege of the improvement potential will flee to pastures greener.

Repeating the same mistakes and will have moved on when 'the chickens come home to roost'....again in a few years!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page