Why This One?
No - it's not a scene from some ex-Soviet suburb. It's the only one of those blocks of flats at Maze Hill that's been spared in the demolition-fest that's been going on for some time. They whipped the others down in a matter of weeks, but this one's stayed. Does anyone know why? Who did this block sleep with in order to continue to stand proud when the others, which seem to be of much the same architectural merit (i.e. none) get flattened?
My only guess is that the other two (were there two? My memory is short at best...) were razed to make way for luxury flats, whilst this one has been kept to be 'refurbished' as the obligatory 'affordable' accommodation. Is my cynicism justified? I've seen no plans at all for this area, though of course the whole Woodlands debacle rumbles tediously on in the background...
Labels: Debates
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
09:14
28 Comments:
Perhaps it was the only one still structurally sound. It looks like they're building out from a central core...or is that the scaffolding!?
There were indeed three tower blocks plus a little ancillary building.
I have no idea why this one is still standing, but surely not even Greenwich Council would be so crass as to let developers use it for the 'affordable accomodation' bit of the redevelopment?
"Welcome to your new affordable home! It may be an old council tower block - but we've split each damp, concrete-cancer-filled cramped flatlet into three damp, concrete-cancer-filled cramped flatlets, with faux wooden floorboards! Enjoy!"
Seriously, though, I'd be interested to know what's planned for that site - and where the woodlands saga now stands.
That's Norfolk House still standing; Lister and Jenner were demolished:
http://www.general-demolition.co.uk/restell-close.htm
Interesting that the area was once a chalk pit.
You can read the Mayor's verdict on the plans here:
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/2004/sept0204.jsp#17
No surprise really; he likes tall buildings.
At Norfolk House, it looks like they're adding to the building on the side and popping an extra floor on top:
http://www.trainandkemp.co.uk/project_list.asp?id=22
And no new development is complete without a silly name:
Seren Park Greenwich
Good lord - so I WAS right about that one being saved for 'affordable housing.' Dear oh dear.
Thanks for the links, Methers...
298 flats??!! How can the infrastructure cope with all this?
On the odd occasion I go to town in the rush hour (from Maze Hill station) it's nigh on impossible to get on the train as it's so packed. There are SO many people arriving in this area - it's bonkers.
Yup, I must agree with SoC, the amount of large scale housing projects in Greenwich as a whole is becoming scary. That would'nt be so bad in itself but as he says, there are no plans to develope any of the infrastructure. Oops, I forgot that they are extending the DLR platforms to allow for another carriage, so therefore only short thin people will be allowed to buy the new builds!
I still cant figure out how they are going to extend some of the underground DLR stations such as Cutty Sark. A freind of mine was involved in the original planning of the DLR and argued for longer platforms when it was being built!
OH. MY. COD. Will this madness never end?
I think there's a typo on the General Demolition website - it should read "Laing O’Rourke joint venture, RApe Greenwich SARL."
SARL apparently stands for "Screw All Responsible Locals".
And what the FECK is with the silly name? Is it really just "serene" - but without the "e"? Please, please tell me that "Seren" actually means something! Otherwise, this trumps even The SElect10n in pure idiocy.
SoC - you are so right. I absolutely dread the mornings that I have to take the DLR to work. The overload on local services has reached the just-plain-stupid level.
It would be so nice to read once - just once - a Mayoral decision like this: "I have considered this planning application which has been given conditional approval by Greenwich Council and have decided - enough is enough. No, you can't have your tower block. And I hereby order Len Duvall's immediate castration."
Die die die mayor-for-life-Ken with your love for inappropriately tall buildings!
Sorry for the long-winded rant. Sadly, it hasn't made me feel any better.
Oh, and Methers - thanks for taking the time to post all the info.
Benedict - Cutty Sark station isn't being extended. Apparently doing so would have required them to 'destroy unique local buildings of immense historical and architectural merit' which wasn't a problem, of course, but what with the hassle of having to lug the big drill bit down the escalators, they couldn't be bothered really.
So, some doors won't open there. It even has its own silly name: Selective Door Opening, also known by its technical name, SDO.
Excellent stuff. Totally agree on the infratructure though. The roads are a nightmare already.
I don't know the Woodlands saga.
Is it anything to do with whiteing out the 's' on the Woodlands road signs?
Right! I'm off to brave the never-ending roadworks to get the car washed, before that is also turned into flats (as planned).
Interesting you should mention SDO. I was chatting to a friend the other day who is involved with supplying trains to various companies and I asked why more carriages couldn't be added to overground trains to relieve overcrowding in rush hour.
He told me that not all the platforms could be extended so it was a Health and Saftey issue. He agreed that SDO was easily done but that it was the FEAR of it all going wrong that was holding back this kind of purchase. Seems crazy to me - if they have that little faith in trains' door opening systems I'm surprised they use them at all.
It would seem to me that even if only half of the stations oculd have extra long platforms, the supplementary carriages would be useful for the poor sods who never get a seat (and sometimes don't get on the train at all) and would be only too happy to walk a few more metres to the next carriage.
It may be too late for this one, but I think there's still a couple of days left to get your comments in about the Heart of East Greenwich planning proposals.
Greenwich Planning application
Lots of details on the First Base website
How to comment
On the flip side the influx of people should help create a demand for more and better shops and facilities in the area.
Thanks Methers. I'm having fun and games with the PDFs - I truly hate long documents in PDF format, but I'm getting there...
Thanks for the reminder Methers - need to get my comments in. (I generally like the plans, except for the extremely yuck terraced housing on Calvert Rd).
*Warning - a long, opinionated and no doubt ill-informed rant follows. I advise you to skip to the next comment. Read on at your own risk.*
Fat Cat - I agree that more people should bring more and better shops, and that's a good thing.
But for me, there are two key points here. First, all new development should take into account the capacity of local infrastructure to absorb additional residents. None of the recent major development projects have, as evinced by, inter alia, the uncivilised, degrading, sharp-elbow-filled scrum to get on the trains or DLR anytime between 7:30 and 9am.
Second, the height and density of all new development should be appropriate to and respectful of the local environment. For three hundred years London has been a very human-scaled, middle height, middle density city. Views of St Paul's have been preserved from all strategic vantage points. By and large, buildings that tower over, dwarf, and thus dehumanise the individual have not been permitted by planners. Manhattan, Tokyo and Shanghai are skycraper cities - and more power to them. But London has always had a more human scale.
Now, Ken likes tall buildings, as well as amphibians. So London's being reshaped before our very eyes into a high density, high rise city. And I hate that.
This push upwards - and I don't blame the developers, who are only responding to the incentives (the market) and the lack of constraints which were previously exercised by various planning authorities - is particularly inappropriate in Greenwich. Tall buildings will dwarf and thus reduce the grandeur of our Wren masterpieces, our Hawksmoor mysteries, our Queen Anne splendour.
I strongly support medium and even high density development of brown- and blackfield sites, and Cod knows that Greenwich has a million of those. But I think that those developments should be civilising, not barbarising. Like the Georgians, we should be designing and building medium height buildings on a human scale that are meant to - and do - survive the changing whims of generations and last for centuries, because they meet basic residential requirements, and are beautiful. 12-story tower blocks plonked alongside 2-story Victorian terraced housing is not appropriate.
And I promise you that "Seren Park" will not be there in 50 years, much less in 500.
My two million cents worth.
I did warn you... ;-)
What another schmuzal.
It is one thing that is always talked about in Greenwich is that the roads and public transport barely cope with the demands at the moment.
With all the buildings along the river, the old hospital site at east greenwich, this one, I can't believe that the money hungry council has not considered planning for transport. There will be no use having a car in greenwich in 10 years (probably not a bad thing), no one is going to be able to come or leave becuase it is going to be horrendous.
We all need to complain loudly to the council about this. I notice the greenwich society has this as one of its top priorities, but it needs more support from all locals!!!
Nevermind extending the platform, just run trains with more than 4-6 carriages during the rush hours. I reckon we've all got about 100 polite exchanges in us per day. If we're forced to use them up all before we even get to work, what hope is there for civility throughout the rest of the day?
Isn't this what they did with the tower in Deptford? Reclading is certainly less wasteful than knocking stuff down to start again.
Greenwich needs homes and if they are not built it is going to become more and more expensive to live here.
Regarding transport - most of the peak time trains are 10 coaches so I am not sure how much longer they can get. The problem is the frequency. This can't improve until they build the extra viaduct over Borough market (naturally controversial) where there is a bottle neck in the system.
In the meantime Mr. Anschutz's clippers are doing a roaring trade.
"Reclading is certainly less wasteful than knocking stuff down to start again."
I take your point, but I think that it depends on how energy efficient the original, reclad building is in comparison to the new building, and what the time horizon is.
But my real problem is the height and density. They're replacing 79 units with 298 - a 3.8 TIMES increase. And three ten storey buildings with seven buildings ranging from seven to 12 stories. IMHO, this is not appropriate for the site, but is entirely typical of all recent mega-developments in Greenwich.
"Greenwich needs homes and if they are not built it is going to become more and more expensive to live here."
Well, London certainly needs homes, and Greenwich has a lot of brownfield sites on which to build them. I welcome new developments in Greenwich. All I want is for them to be appropriate to their local environment, thoughtfully designed, and built to last.
Good point about the trains bottle neck at Borough mkt. Those Southwark people are so NIMBY-ish aren't they? ;-)
I'd love to take the clipper to work (when I don't cycle) - but doesn't it still cost a bomb?
those blocks - I thought they belonged to the hospital - they were nurses homes
yet another reason why this area needs to fight to hang on to it's Secondary School....particularly if the area is going to be in gridlock...
I agree with all Franklin has said - tall buildings are wholly out of scale with the Greenwich surroundings. And do we really need them? We hear so much about the housing crisis in London and how it is that more and more homes are needed - but is there really the demand given that there is now so much supply (especially in Greenwich). Would love to see the figures that underpin all this new building. But I wonder if all these planned buildings will actually ever get built in the next two to three years given the outlook for the economy (thanks for that Gordon) and the likelihood that developers won't get the vast super-profits that they have "earnt" in recent years. For example, it seems to me (and would appreciate any update from those in the know) that the Distillery development at Deptford Bridge seems to have been mothballed. Only 26 storeys there though... And a planning application in for a tower at One SE8 opposite... I had also heard that the development at Lovells Wharf may not be built out just yet once they've prepared the site.
When I have a moment I might put together a map of the area with new and proposed developments and the number of flats / homes planned. Could then do an interesting comparison with incremental infrastructure provision (schools, health, transport etc).
Excellent idea, Anon. If I recall correctly the Greenwich Society Newsletter did something similar two or three issues back - a list of all the major new developments and the number of expected occupants, so that might be a useful place to start. But it would be v interesting to see an updated estimate alongside planned expansion (if any!) of local public services.
Yes 298 Appts 114 Car spaces - where will all the others park? This regardless of the parking issues & congestion in the area as is.
And how about the knocking of numerous trees and the wall of Woodland heights (a supposedly protected building) and apparently there will be no affect on the local noise level or environment.
Yes, the Tall building that still stands is to be used for social housing. And the council let this happen - and vote themselves another pay rise - paid by us.!
I'm really sorry to be a boor on this issue. But Anon's post today reminded me of the Mayor's decision on the Creek Road/Bardsley Lane development last October, which the Phantom covered last April-May from the perspective of the person most affected, David Herbert, who lived/lives at number 258 Creek Road.
In order to capture the true tone of total disregard for local concerns in the Mayor's letter, I have to quote at some length, first from the objections (it's best if you read this out loud):
"Response to consultation
20. Greenwich Council received a number of consultation responses from neighbouring residents and businesses. Objections were raised regarding the loss of open space and trees; the loss of a former Edwardian public house; the impact on traffic and congestion; the cumulative impact with other recent permissions on the local infrastructure including policing and educational facilities; the impact on air quality; reduced natural light to adjacent properties; concern over asbestos on the site; adequacy of refuse storage removal; pressure for on-street car parking; circulation and road safety at a nearby junction; levels of illumination on Bardsley Lane; disruption during construction; height and scale of proposal in relation to surroundings; provision of licensed premises/club near a residential area; vandalism at the recreation ground; loss of private home and local bookstore; and loss of privacy.
21. The Mayor received a petition with over 400 signatures relating specifically to the loss of the small open space and fifteen mature trees, and the loss of the pedestrian route from Creek Road to the sites to the south of the development site. Over 100 postcards have been sent to the Mayor asking “Please Ken don’t let them take away the green at the heart of Greenwich.” The Mayor also received letters in relation to the loss of the former Edwardian public house, a local bookstore; and the design and appearance of the proposed scheme.
22. The Greenwich Conservation Group...notes that concern over the excessive scale of the proposal remains.
23. The Greenwich Society...continues to object to the building height as being “still too high for the area.”
24. The Port of London Authority objects to the proposal on the grounds that “the impact that Brewery Wharf and its operations would have on the proposed development in particular with regard to noise and dust/air quality.”"
Given this overwhelming opposition from local residents' groups AND THE PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY, guess how our "planning authorities" reacted!
"Conclusion
31. The scheme will provide a well-designed genuine mixed-use development which brings a largely underutilised site into active use, and which will support the regeneration of this area.
32. The issues concerning the energy strategy, design, access, transport and land use have been positively dealt with and no other strategic planning issues have been raised since the consultation stage. The proposal is in the interest of good strategic planning in London."
Ahhh, there's nothing like the smell of napalm being poured all over local democracy in the morning.
...but think of all the extra council tax raised, thereby raising money for local amenities and infrastructure!!;-)
Just got this email from King Sturge (note interesting date...):
"This weekend we are launching the exciting new development 'Seren Park' which is located adjacent to Maze Hill Station.
This Unique development offers a mix of 1,2 & 3 Bedroom apartments, most with stunning views.
There are also a mix of Penthouse apartments available.
If this would be of interest please reply to this email and we will book your place to visit the show flat,
We are having the FIRST LAUNCH Friday 30th May, Saturday 32nd May and Sunday 1st June
Don't miss some of the fantastic incentives available on this first launch,"
Oooh - I feel a nosy-visit coming on...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home