Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Hawes and Curtis Site Redevelopment
I am sure many of you saw the leaflet that dropped on our mats this morning about the redevelopment of the Hawes and Curtis site.
See the scan attached here if not.
There is a lot of development already happening close to us (Woodberry Down), and a lot more to come down the pipe (St Anns, Heartlands) as 'open' and brownfield' sites are identified and (re)developed as part of wider development plans for the borough.
You may have something to say about it, and you can do so at public exhibitions at the Falkland Centre, entrance on Frobisher Rd, by Harringay Passage. Near North Harringay Primary. Friday 5th Feb 4-8pm and Saturday 6th Feb 1-5pm.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon T on
-
The block of flats incorporating The Laurels health centre, on St Ann's Road by Chestnuts Park, looks like a useful comparator for height (six/four storeys), scale and integration with nearby buildings..
-
Permalink Reply by Laura on
-
I can't, at the moment, find the post on here about the behaviour of LB Haringey Planning over the Hornsey High Street/Sainsbury's development. It was a long post by someone who had been involved in fighting the scheme. I will come back and do it when I've got time. As far as I remember, Haringey Planning pretty much over-rode the statutory requirements for such developments. I remember reading the post carefully and being
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
The proposed development is being reported to Planning Sub Committee to enable members to view it at an early stage."
This includes an artist's impression
The developers have been reminded on their responsibilities to consult in the community.
- Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
The exhibition is actually at the Falkland Centre, entrance on Frobisher Rd, by Harringay Passage. Justin, you may want to put that info within your post.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
Will do!
-
-
I agree about the two trees being chopped down a few years ago without permission. The wording all seems a bit woolly. Open space for residents? What does that mean? A courtyard ?And the "Opportunity" for a NHS centre, sounds more than vague, presumably they have some sect 106 obligation...but it's an ugly site
-
Permalink Reply by Rory Bergin on
-
Being an architect who is routinely involved in schemes like this, it is interesting to hear your comments made without seeing the proposals. It sounds as though many of you are prepared to be 'anti' as a matter of course. While I know no more than any of you about them I suggest that the following should also weigh in your minds.
- we have a government which has no interest in providing affordable housing
- young people in London are being forced to leave through lack of same
- the only kind of housing we are likely to see any time soon is that provided by developers like Hadley
- the only way prices are going to come down is if we see an increase in supply
- the more people prevent development, the slower the supply of homes becomes and the more expensive it becomes
- streets like Green Lanes will be enhanced by better and more 'street-friendly' development, but shouldn't provide parking spaces, there is no need for young homeowners living on Green Lanes to have a car.
- while land is being developed it makes sense for it to be developed fully to take the most advantage of the opportunity. Opportunities to develop a particular piece of land happen about once in a hundred years.
- development on high streets should have commercial space on the ground floor as a matter of course, Green Lanes is such a vibrant street, it will find a use quickly
- think more about what use the building will have in fifty years from now, not what impact it is going to have on the buildings around it, cities need to change and grow to stay alive.
- so before reaching for the objections letter template think about the impact housing supply is having on the young.
I am working on a scheme on a housing estate in another part of London where the strongest objectors to the provision of affordable housing are the residents of an adjacent conservation area. It makes me very angry that these wealthy people secure in their period properties think that it's appropriate for them to hold up the delivery of much needed housing in their area. I dare say it was ever thus, but it makes me angry all the same.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Rory, I don't think you've got the local feeling on this development right. I don't read that anyone opposes the use of the Hawes and Curtis site for housing (or on the site of the old CAB office on another recent thread).
You hit the nail on the head when you said that we should think about the impact of this development in 50 years time. But isn't the problem with some housing developments that they simply do not have that kind of longevity because they are designed simply to take profit in the short term?
On the thread about the CAB site I said that what we need isn't new housing, it is new homes. Strong communities are aided by having places that people want to stay in, perhaps raise children in, rather than having developments that are marketed in as investment opportunities or short term places to live in until you can afford something "better"
As for wealthy objectors, take a walk down any of the Ladder streets and you'll see the mix of people who live here. A lot of people may be property rich, but until the day they sell up, they are certainly not income wealthy.
-
Permalink Reply by Mavic Starfish on
-
Hi Rory, thanks for giving a different view, can I ask do you live in the local area? By the way the original proposal showed a bicycle cafe which I thought was a great addition and chimes in with your comment regarding car spaces. The revised design appears to have nixed that, so it does raise the question as to what the final design will end up like? For example the Paul Simon development on Ducketts common that has increased from 30 to 60 units, is that the type of housing that is needed?
-
-
Hi Rory, your absolutely right. I believe that local residents should be campaign FOR development, but with the expectation that the developers should be aiming (as a minimum) at award winning modern architecture using modern materials and providing accommodation/ buildings that provide a decent space to live.
While I understand the desire of some residents to preserve the character of the area. We all need to remember that an interesting and diverse streetscape will be inhanced by allowing architects to produce their best.
This will mean that developers will HAVE to take a financial hit to provide buildings of quality and distinction that respect, articulate and celebrate their situation on the street. Just look at the missed oppertunity of the colosseum, or the building that replaced,it, at a major junction on green lanes, absolutely failing to construct a modern building that matches the scale, importance and celebration of a major corner that is the building opposite. The Victorians must be spinning in their graves.
Finally, I recently read an article that said that a new build one bedroom flat in London provides less space to live than a single tube carriage. The planning restrictions that ensured a decent sized space to live, that were removed to encourage private development, should be brought back to prevent rabbit hutches like duckets common - Paul Simon, I'm talking to you!!!This is blatant profiteering - Rackman style. You, and the folks who constantly complain about HMO's (my first affordable living space after collage) should be ashamed. The 'market' as we know it will inevitably produce a race to the bottom.
Hope I haven't upset to many people .
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
