Google  


Tuesday, 13 May 2008

Cutty Sark Cash-Generator-O-Matic

I've just had a thought. Every time I go past the Cutty Sark's boarded-up hulk, I see some one or other trying to peek through the little gap in the gate where the padlock goes. Sometimes there's even a little queue of nosy parkers trying to get a glimpse of what's going on - especially now there are interesting noises again. And let's face it - we're all just a little bit curious to know how things are proceeding behind that chipboard and plastic shell.

Don't you think it would be great if they created a little scaffolded observation platform, where people could pay a couple of quid a pop to watch the work going on? It would surely pay for itself - they might even get a local company to donate the equipment and erection in return for a little sign on the side - and they'd get more money towards the restoration programme. It could even be a little ramp so that wheelchairs could get up there too - after all it's not that high up.

I'd certainly return on a regular basis - especially if there was the odd expert around to answer questions from time to time. And it would be a good way of getting tourists involved in the works so they'd be more likely to return when it was finished.

What do you think, folks? Shall I suggest it to them? Would you pay a small fee to see the restoration works? How much? Maybe they could do a loyalty card scheme - where you get your card stamped every time you visit the works - a full card would be a free visit when it all opens again?

Labels: , ,

Friday, 9 May 2008

Briefly Comprising...

I cannot believe I'm the only one who gets nigh-on apoplectic when I look at estate agents' grammar. Let's face it, no kid goes to their careers officer and tells them that what they've always dreamed of was running away to Foxtons, but really - these guys are trying to sell something. They have a few precious words in which to do it. You'd think they'd use them wisely.


I'm not talking about the usual cliches - "bijou" (small) "cosy" (ditto) "compact" (ditto) "ideal renovation opportunity" (falling down) "individual" (weird) "sought-after area" (anywhere) "quiet" (miles away) "ideal transport links" (backs onto the Blackwall Tunnel Approach) "exposed beams" (exposed sky, too) "easily manageable" ( back to 'small' again...)


These are so bloomin' obvious they don't actually get used very much any more and when they are I almost enjoy them in a nostalgic kind of way - the same way I enjoy Prawn Cocktail, Black Forest Gateau and cheese and pineapple cubes on sticks. Or maybe it's more Blue Nun and Sparkling Pomagne...

No - it's the way they mangle the English Language that gets me. Here is the phrase I've just seen that inspired this post:

"...within a mile radius of Greenwich Village"

This gets three of my worst goats in one succinct sentence.

"Radius." Surely a radius is round. Not a posh way of referring to any old distance from A to B.

"Within." The usual use for "within" in the Estate Agent lexicon is a fancy word for "in." As in "situated within a highly sought after area." Here, of course, if "radius" was working, this would actually be necessary, but it's not, so it's just irritating the hell out of me.

"Greenwich Village." Have you ever heard anyone who isn't an estate agent refer to our town centre as "Greenwich Village?" Greenwich Village is in effing New York. We have the original. We don't need to tack "village" on the end of it to make it look cute.

It doesn't stop there, of course. Other phrases I detest: "briefly comprise" - "boasting a..," "at an asking price of..." and those horrid jaunty, jokey ads with the comedy-pun headlines.

The one I hate most of all?

"Home."

A home is what one makes of a building. Until it is inhabited and loved, a property is a house/flat/room/whatever. It is not a home.

Sorry. Not sure where that came from. Attacking an easy target is pretty rubbish of me, really. I'm even covering old ground - I've grumbled about all this before. I should just let it lie. I seem to be back to being a Grumpy Old Phantom again...

Labels:

Tuesday, 29 April 2008

Peninsula Pollution?

P and his mates down the pub have been putting on their conspiracy hats...

"I heard a rumour at the pub the other evening... when talk slid along (as it does) to cover various disjointed yet weighty topics, we entered a residential/environmental phase of the discussion. At which point, one of the group asserted that the B&Q on the Peninsula was having problems with pollution leaching up from underneath.

To support this, they referred to the slightly buckling pavement in front of it. This hardly speaks to a "nice" aspect of Greenwich... but I'm certainly interested to know if it's true or not. I wonder if this is something you might throw out to your wider readership to confirm/deny?"

The Phantom is largely unconvinced. Certainly it all sits on top of a load of ex-industrial nastiness and there is only a 'cap' on top of it, but I would really assume (or maybe I should say 'hope') that it's pretty thick (the peninsula doesn't seem to be any higher than anywhere else but it is build on marshland, so maybe it all evens out.) Those giant retail sheds can't have much in the way of foundations; I would have thought that the pollution just couldn't get through there.

I suspect the buckling of the pavement is just down to bad building - and very annoying it is too, if you're trying to push an already recalcitrant trolley along it. Blackheath Bugle went over just now to see what all the fuss is about and took some pics of the pavement, which Blogger won't let me upload. Grrr. BB asked in B&Q what was going on with the pavement:

"I asked the cashier about the paving outside, and he said that it was about to be renovated, but he didn't say why. It's not just B&Q -all the paving next to the shops there is wonky, and also the tarmacby the bus stops has warped leaving large puddles next to the seats."

Now, If you'd asked me about the high-rise flats I might be a tiny little more concerned. They must have to have quite deep foundations and I can't see that the 'cap' can be very thick underneath them. But I'm no engineer and my physics sucks. Maybe someone else here has more of a grasp than me (not hard...)

I wouldn't put it beyond being true. I have an engineer friend who was brought in as an expert on a project up north which was going to build houses on an ex-landfill site that had been landscaped. He refused to sign it off because he was concerned of methane leaks and shifting soil as stuff decomposed, and got sacked from the project. Another 'expert' was brought in to rubber-stamp it. If there is something nasty going on there, then I doubt anyone in charge is keen to advertise it, but in the case of B&Q at least, I think we're pretty safe.

Labels: ,

Crossing Points Again

Pat's irritated by the new crossing points that seem to be sprouting up all over the east end of Greenwich. She says

"I mentioned recently the new crossing points on Woolwich Road and have since noticed more on the Charlton side of the tracks. I now see that they have sprouted what appears to be solar panels! Can this be right? I might be showing my lack of green credentials here but I would have thought that the amount of expenditure to create dropped pavements, build island structures and erect signage would far outway any benefit gained by a few small panels at any time in the near (or distant) future.

Or maybe someone can put me right and tell me they are disguised speed cameras or mobile phone masts, perhaps they are monitering for alien contact!"

I don't think that speed cameras are allowed to be disguised. I'm sure I remember the car lobby finding some way of not only getting them not disguised but actually making them obvious - which is why they all wear yellow jackets. Not sure how they wangled that one but I confess to using the loophole myself from time to time. All car drivers know where speed cameras are and adjust their driving accordingly. Frankly, in my humble, the only speed cameras that really work are those average-speed jobs - they're scary. Oh - and the cameras in the Limehouse link which mean that traffic crawls through it at 30 mph.

So no, I don't think that it's speed cameras, and the alien contact is out. We already have Glenister Green for that. So I have no idea what the solar panels are for. Do they have LED lights?

Hmm. The expense. I guess it comes out of the roads budget and I guess if it makes walking a bit safer so we have more pedestrians then it could be argued that getting people out of cars is saving the planet. It's a feeble guess, I know. Anyone got any other thoughts?

Labels: , ,

Thursday, 24 April 2008

Top Tips

I notice that the Government is just about to launch a review into the way that restaurants handle tipping to waiting staff. It ranges from the mildly cross-making Pizza Express keeping 8% for administration charges (to which I say sort-of fair enough) to the boycott-inducing Carluccios who keep all the gratuities to top up the minimum wage - which is frankly disgraceful. In between these companies there are all sorts of versions - some of which, I am sure, actually allow the waiters to keep their tips.

I have long asked in every restaurant I eat in what their policy for tipping is - and usually end up sending the bill back with a request to remove the 'service charge' from the bill, to pay in cash. But even this could be futile.

According to the BBC Website not even paying cash tips helps ensure it goes to the people who have served you and added service charges sometimes go nowhere near the staff at all in some cases. Now there is the system where the tips are shared by the whole kitchen - which is another issue - but even so, some restaurant owners divvy it up and include themselves in the share-out.

So I think it's about time we named and shamed in Greenwich. I'll start.

Greenwich Inc. I got so fed up with the staff telling me that they never saw their tips that I called a manager over one day and asked him to explain. He told me that it went towards a company incentive scheme, whatever that is.

Now excuse me - but I am not here to subsidise Greenwich Inc for trying to bribe their staff to arrive on time, help with the washing up, stay late to sweep the floors etc. I am paying a tip to a particular person who has given me good service. Swiping my money to use for another purpose is not acceptable.

Of course it's more acceptable that making up the already pathetic minimum wage with tips a la Carluccios (yes I am still banging on about him...) but it's still extremely poor.

BUT - and this is a big but. I don't believe that Greenwich Inc are in any way lone villains here. And I want you lot to help me out.

When you go into a restaurant in Greenwich, I want you to ask the staff what happens to your tips - preferably a) those included in the bill as service charges, b) those that you add on as part of your credit card payment if you don't have any cash on you and c) cash tips.

Then report back here. And folks - do sign up to hear updates on the comments. We need to work on this together. To find out which eateries need to be avoided from now on (thank God we don't have a Carluccios - and he seemed such a nice, roly-poly sort of man, too...) those we need to give cash at, those we can safely tip within the service charge or a credit card option - and those lovely restarants/cafes who actually give a damn about their staff. I especially want to know about them. This should be a positive, not a negative thing.

By the way. Legend has it that the word "tip" comes from an acronym "To Insure Promptness." Maybe that's why some of our service is so damn slow...

Labels: ,

Greenwich Pier

I'm having a grumpy time with Blogger this morning; it's refusing to upload any pictures - and I have some great ones for you. So I'm writing a equally grumpy post about something Dazza's brought to my attention.

Let's create a context for this. We have a World Heritage Site here, that people get so sensitive about that they moan when someone wants to place Ferris wheel in the grounds of the ORNC for a few months in the summer. A world heritage site based on the area's history.

Arguably the most important part of a WHS is the way people first see it. And for many - the romantics among our visitors - that's the view as they arrive by boat.

Now. We're all agreed that what we currently have is a mess. And a bloomin' confusing mess at that - trying to work out where to get a boat from must be a minefield for a visitor (well- it certainly was for a Phantom.) A once-grand pier (I would show you a pic if I could upload any) has deteriorated to a building site. But let's just look at what Greenwich's powers-that-be have got Conran & Partners to design for us - click here to see it.

Is this the finished product? Is this what we're getting? Are they proud of that?

Conran boasts:

"Over the past 20 years our buildings have made a significant difference to their surroundings."

They fail to mention whether this difference is actually a positive one or just a 'difference' in the same way that we use 'interesting' to describe First Base's plans for The Heart of East Greenwich. So will it make a 'significant difference' to Greenwich? You're darn tootin'.

It's apparently based on traditional "palette" of boat-building materials - copper, glass and wood - but to me it looks more like a bunch of the rusty old containers that clutter boat yards today.

Copper? Copper? I'm a big fan of copper - it keeps the slugs off my hostas - but apart from the sheer cost of the stuff these days pushing this project into overspend-freefall, large areas of copper weather really badly. They patinate to a mellow bluey-green, yes, but that's after long years of streaky browny-green gunk, though at least we could plant some giant hostas around it to cover it up in the meanwhile. Do architects never think about what will happen to their projects in ten year's time? Presumably not - they just move onto the next cash cow.

And the language:

"The amorphous shape of the buildings is moulded between these view axes." What the bloody hell does that mean? "Three new pavillions..." What do YOU think of when the word 'Pavillion' is bandied about? I'll wager it's not this.

Now I'm not suggesting we go for some dreadful faux-Victorian pastiche (even though we have a REAL Victorian waiting room there that is considered 'too old' to renovate - so we're sending it to the West Indies where - wait for it - they'll be renovating it) but please - can't we have something that doesn't look like a giant brown cardboard box? Modern architecture doesn't have to be awful - there's some great stuff around. It's just not in Greenwich (though I confess to being a bit of a fan of Will Alsop's (thanks Deb) stingray-shaped tube station on the Peninsula.)

Some might argue that I haven't studied the plans - I don't seem to be able to find any more to look at. But this is Impact Architecture. It's to be viewed from a distance, like Sir Christopher Wren's iconic Hospital. Indeed alongside Wren's masterpiece. And in my opinion it just doesn't hold up as a vista - as a building to be enjoyed by The World as part of its Heritage.

Thanks Dazza, for sending me the link - but you just depressed the hell out of me.

Labels:

Monday, 21 April 2008

The Gift, Not The Giver...

Dave from Winnipeg has a fabulous question about General Wolfe's statue that must win the prize for specificity. I have absolutely no answer to this, but something tells me that one of you might...

Dave asks:

"Concerning the statue of General Wolfe. I believe the inscription on the plinth (describing the gift of the statue to Britain - TGP) was changed from "people of Quebec" to "people of Canada" sometime in the last twenty years."

Dave's trying to find an old photo taken from the rear that would bear this out. If any of you fancy shuffling through a few shoeboxes of old pics, he'd be mighty grateful.

While we're on the subject, I have always been slightly puzzled as to why the people of Quebec - or Canada - would want to give a statue of the man who whooped 'em 200 years ago to the country that invaded them. Maybe someone could enlighten me on that one, too...

Labels: ,

Saturday, 19 April 2008

Call Box of Shame


I was just about to write about this neglected little corner of Westcombe Park - and what a sad little area it was, when Serendipity sent me a mail from Methers, who at least made me giggle - even if really it's no laughing matter...

This little nook - on the corner of Dinsdale Road and Vanbrugh Hill - should be lovely. It's sheltered, there's a sweet little bench and a phone box there. It should have an air of bucolic charm, half way up what has to be one of the steepest hills in Greenwich (and let's face it, we have a few to choose from) - an opportunity to take a break and catch your breath while looking out over London. What it actually is amounts to Tag City - a mess of inarticulate daub; a scream of frustration from a voice that has realised it has nothing to say.
I'm not totally against street art - at its best it has a dynamism and visceral quality that lends it a power and gives its purveyors a means of communicating through a vibrant artistic medium. But this - this has nothing. No merit, no power, and worse - no hope.
The people that create this have no vision of their lives as anything more to look forward to than the fumes they can breathe from their marker pens. For a few short seconds while they're wielding a spray can, they can feel they have a purpose before sinking back into the anger that will prevent them from becoming anything.
"Look, World. I am skilled enough to take a cap off a pen and point it at a stationary object. I am dextrous enough to make a mark. Respect me."
And what for the rest of us? To get angry ourselves? Or to get even? How about a bit of both? Methers sent me this photo - with a most convincing 'notice' from Greenwich Council:
Let's take a closer look, eh...


Methers notes "who ever made the sticker made a very professional job of it. The colour, the typeface, everything looks authentic. It couldn't be a strange attempt by the council to try to put the taggers off, could it?"

Who can tell. But I can't help thinking that he has a point when he continues

"I know someone would probably be upset by this, but I do think of asking BT to take the phonebox away. There's another one just down the hill for anyone who needs one, and it just seems to attract graffiti and vandalism. Am I being an old misery? Could we make it a lovelier spot, with another bench and some nice plants?"

Excellent idea. Any volunteers?

Labels: ,

Wednesday, 16 April 2008

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:

Tuesday, 8 April 2008

Greenwich Goings On

Today I'm thinking about a whole bunch of different stuff that people have been mailing me about recently - I'd normally look at these individually, but there's just so much exciting/curious/interesting here, that I'm having to combine it before it all goes off the boil...

Firstly, P&D has pointed out that Sainsburys seems to be slowly forgetting its green ideasl:

"I don't know if Sainsbury's eco credentials are under threat but I noticed today that the wind turbines in the car park at their peninsula site have been removed. Are they abandoning their much hyped eco store or merely upgrading the infrastructure?"

I confess I hadn't noticed - but the last time I walked underneath those turbines in high winds was a bit scary. I also noticed that the electric car points have gone - presumably no one used them - they're now just used as parking spaces by 4x4s. I can't really see that Sainsburys have their hearts in eco-friendship - it was imposed upon them when they wanted to open at the Peninsula and now, I suspect, they're quietly dropping it. Let's face it - if they were really looking for ways to be green, they'd have put doors and lids on their freezers/fridges during the recent refit...

Labels:

Tuesday, 25 March 2008

Crossing Points on Woolwich Road

Pat points out:

Have you noticed that the council has built in no less than three crossing points along Woolwich Road?

Two are in front of the retirement home and another further down towards Denham Street.All have dropped pavements and a central island. As a pedestrain I appreciate having somewhere safe to cross but can only predict that this will lead to further traffic problems as the road is now significantly narrowed.

And who in their right minds would choose to cross that road at anything thing other than the designated pelican crossings where at least you only have to do battle with the cyclists, generally the other traffic is not going anywhere very fast anyway!

The Phantom sort of agrees:

I wonder whether they are gearing up for the new "Heart of East Greenwich?" Heaven help us. I noticed that one of the big problems with the plans (when they deigned to show them to us for half an hour last autumn) was the exiting point of traffic from the new development straight onto Woolwich Road.

I asked the guy why they thought that was a good idea and he just said ' well there would have been traffic when it was a hospital." Trouble is that whereas that traffic have been on a continual trickle-basis during the day when it was a hospital, when new flats and offices are built, I can see residents (understandably) wanting to leave for school/work at the same time as the council office workers want to arrive and everyone else is trying to use Woolwich Road around them.

But back to crossings. The point outside the retirement home could well be a good thing, thinking about it - especially for frail people to feel a little safer, though as you point out the traffic's nearly always at a standstill anyway. I can't see that there are going to be enough elderly people crossing to make it a big problem.

Woolwich Road is going to be an interesting experience over the next couple of years, methinks. What I'd love to see is a rejuvenation of the dead shops there. The big problem is the traffic, and at the risk of being a controversial old phantom, it's possible that some kind of congestion charging for people just using Greenwich as a rat-run could be the answer...

What do you lot think?

Labels:

Friday, 7 March 2008

Greenwich Gas Holder

Terry has sent me a copy of Gaslight, the newsletter of the North West Gas Historical Society, which proves that the rest of Britain is worried about the future of our fabulous gas holder, even if Greenwich Council seems not to be.

Of course there used to be two of them . The one that's now gone was the largest in the world when it was built, but the one that remains is no less important, and - I'm nailing my colours to the mast here - should not be elbowed out of the way by a school that has no business on the Peninsula in the first place.

Perhaps if councillors and local scaremongers had actually made a bit more effort in their own schools they might be able to wrap their minds around why this gas holder poses no threat to any community - by its very construction it is as safe as gas can ever be.

Mary Mills (gosh, I'm mentioning her a lot today - it's completely coincidental...) talks about the history of the gas holder in her book Greenwich Marsh - The 300 Years Before The Dome (currently out of print, but badger her to revise and reprint) so I won't go into detail here, but it's worth remembering that gas holders are iconic in their design - a step-change away from the traditional curlicues and over-ornamentation that many Victorian Public Good Works had - and towards minimalism - it was built to impress with its sheer size and efficiency, not fancy ironwork.

But back to the safety. The way I understand it is this. Gas explodes when it's in contact with oxygen, but it HAS to be a special, extremely subtle mix of the two (a Stoichiometric Mixture, if you want the correct term - look it up on Wikipedia and you'll get some fabulously boffinesque equations which I'm sure mean something to someone.) This is very rare indeed - so rare that most of the time gas in the atmophere just burns - which is why it's good to use as a fuel.

What those clever Victorian dudes did, was to cut-out the air entirely. As the gas is used, the holder gets smaller, making sure that there's only ever gas in there - not air, which means that if there's ever a problem - for example a tile falling off the outside - if a little gas escapes and if it's exposed to a spark, it burns. It doesn't explode, and is easily put-out. In fact, this happened all the time during WWII bombings - the gas burned for a while; it was extinguished and resealed. There was never enough air in the mix to make it explosive. All the time gas is coming out of any perforation, there's never a mixture.

The supposed unsafeness of Greenwich Gas Holder is an excuse that's being used for political reasons, using fake science and scaremongering to get a result expedient for those who have other axes to grind. The movement of John Roan School is a political hot-potato, but to bring in a Victorian gas holder that has been safe for well over a hundred years and will continue to be so is merely moving the pawns around the board instead of tackling the major pieces.

Labels:

Thursday, 6 March 2008

The Future of the John Roan School...

...once again rears its troubled head.

Debaser says:

Your readers may already have heard that the governing body of the John Roan met on 28 February and voted to move their support ‘in principle’ of the move to the Peninsula to a support ‘in fact’. No doubt the Council, which was represented at the meeting by the customary heavy mob, is already preparing its press statement, but let me just feed you some counter-news.

The governors were given a report from Christine Whatford (be careful to keep the ‘d’ at the end of her name: it’s an easy mistake to make), the acting Director of Children’s Services, which updated governors on the state of play concerning the conditions the governors had laid down in order for their ‘in principle’ agreement to become ‘in fact’. Strangely enough, if there had been movement on some of these publicly stated conditions (and that’s a big ‘if’), none of them had been resolved – not even the gasholder, which the local MP had admitted to being a ‘deal-breaker’.

Despite that, the Council, represented in boring force by its predictable bully boys made it clear to the governing body that, were the move not to go ahead, there was no Plan B for the John Roan. (Let’s just spend a second remembering that the person who coined the expression ‘There is no alternative’ – often abbreviated to TINA – was Margaret Thatcher, a politician clearly more beloved of Greenwich Council than we had thought. They’ve certainly learned more than we’d imagined from her way of operating.) Just in case she hadn’t made this point clearly enough, Ms Whatford stuck around for the governing body debate even though, as an invited speaker, she had no place to be there.

Thus pressured, and with abject support from the chair of governors (a one-time employee of the local MP), the vote was passed 10–5 to support the move of the school to the Peninsula. There wasn’t quite enough time to debate it in full because the deputy chair of governors (David Gardiner) had another meeting to go to, bless him, obviously one that is much more important for a man who is tipped to step into Mr Raynsford’s shoes and whose children were selectively educated (please don’t let him or anyone else query the use of that word ‘selectively’) at Haberdasher’s. In fact – perish the thought – was there ever a possibility that the meeting had been brought forward to the earlier time of 6pm in order to facilitate his attendance at this second meeting? Let’s hope not: that would be to question the integrity of our chair and deputy chair too far, surely.

Argue it as it might, the Council has sold the school, its pupils, staff and stakeholders almost literally down the river. After one of the Council supporters has attempted to put an opposing position to mine, we’ll be able to give you even more worrying news about the Council’s, designers’ and governing body’s complete failure to consult fully on the impact of the noise pollution on the ASD pupils, one of the apparent jewels in the crown of this new design, soon to be exposed as tawdry tat.




The Phantom is worried.



Tell me. Being ignorant on these matters, I wonder how the Council can sell off land that belongs to the John Roan School, which I always assumed was a charity?



I always get a huge postbag when we come to these discussions - let's keep the gloves on, though, folks...

Labels:

Thursday, 14 February 2008

Romantic Greenwich

Well - it is St Valentine's Day, after all. And The Phantom is going all gooey on you. I am on a quest to find the most romantic place in Greenwich and I want your personal favourites. I don't care where it is - a restaurant, a quiet corner of Greenwich Park, round the back of the bicycle sheds - it just has to be romantic for you.

Lovely stories, Our Song-stylee, optional, but I am looking for geographical specifics. If it's Greenwich Park I want GPS co-ordinates (no, not really - a good description will do). If it's a cosy restaurant, which table is the best? A street? Which corner? The Picturehouse? Which seat? If it's Blackheath Tea Hut, I want to know what time of day/year you love most. If it's the bike sheds - well, ok, you can keep that one to yourselves.

I'm not necessarily talking about relationship-style romance either. Just a Greenwich place that really moves you to think lovely thoughts, that gives you a warm glow inside...

For once, I'll chip in with my own two-penn'orth later, but for now I'll leave you with this picture I took on my sewer-quest last week, of an alarmingly-pruned Leylandii, proving that even bad gardening can be romantic...


Labels: ,

Thursday, 7 February 2008

Is There More Crime In The Area?

ScaredofChives asks:

Is there more crime in 'the area' ?

I ask because:

1- For the first time I witnessed a teenager on a bike looking into each and every car window - clearly to steal something (never seen this before)
2 - There seems to have been loads of smashed car windows in the back streets recently (near Maze Hill, for example)
3 - Eric in the Trafalgar Road newsagents got beaten up outside Sainsburys at 7pm by two guys wanting money - he's on crutches and his jaw is wired-up
4 - Steve the Threshers manager got held up on Monday by someone with a 'gun' in his jacket - he tackled him and the bloke ran off

All these have happened in the last 3 weeks.

Yes, it's London etc...


The Phantom says:

Well - I've certainly seen all the smashed windows around Maze Hill - some of them hung around for ages which implied to me that they were dumped stolen cars.

Poor Eric. Hope he gets better soon.

I confess that I still don't feel particularly unsafe around here. Ok - I'm not going to hang around Wetherspoons on a Saturday night or wander round the backstreets in some areas, but that's always been the case. I walked through the Park alone after dark the other night and the only frightening thing was the unpleasant Parkie who told me most aggressively that it was closing. I knew damn well it was closing but I could only walk so fast...

Labels:

Monday, 28 January 2008

The Blackheath Tea Hut


Or, The Phantom Jumps Down Off The Fence...

I've been meaning to write about the most controversial greasy spoon in Greenwich (well, ok, on the border) for some time, but the catalyst has definitely been Alexandra Moskalenko's documentary Tea Time, which has just come out on DVD and which will enjoy a screening at the Picturehouse on Feb 3rd.

It's a charming little docco - made by Moskalenko over four years, but actually covering the life of the hut during the span of one. What makes it such a fascinating subject is that it's open 24 hours a day, on the most windswept part of the heath, and yet it still attracts customers on a year-round, day-round basis.

And what customers. From the police and emergency services, cabbies and truckers, through bikers and carny-folk, all the way to families and tourists, this place has a little micro-community of its own. It attracts loners and insomniacs, drifters and misfits, businessmen and sharp-suits. All of whom muddle along together in that small, timeless world that a tea break provides from whatever else is going on in one's life. The film, perhaps wisely, concentrates on the human element of this South London institution, with interviews and long-shots, portraits and closeups, rather than giving us a history lesson. The music, especially, reflects this - from eerie out-of-tune pub-piano to the Ian Dury-esque At The 'Ut (you get a nice cup 'a tea...)

Perhaps it is the oddball, edgy quality of the folk who visit this funny little stall that makes 'ordinary' people like The Blackheath Society so angry about its existence. Their almost-disproportionate misgivings range from its being an eyesore, a blot on the community and a litter-magnet to being rowdy and environmentally damaging. A pick & mix shopping cart of complaints which perhaps conceal the real problem they have with such a place - that it's not 'within' Society - that it has an 'outsider' quality that can never quite be contained. A quality that lingers from the dangerous days of the Greenwich Fair, of Jack Cade's Cavern, of tumbling, and still hovers, like a slightly bad smell, whenever the circus comes to town.

What I like about this documentary is that it doesn't shy from these difficult topics. It represents the extraordinary lives of ordinary people - each has a story to tell, not least that of Nick, a regular, who, by sheer dint of personality, manages to become the central character. A damaged, almost lost soul, Nick manages to find a little stability in his world whenever he makes it up to the hut, and despite his tough appearance and sarf-London accent, slowly reveals himself to be a pussycat - an adorable figure who relies on the camaraderie of the motley characters at the tea shack to get him through a life that has seen much pain.

And that's true of all the regulars interviewed. They nearly all look menacing on the outside - some might even say hard - it's even implied that there indeed are one or two villains among them - but scratch the surface and they are charming - and articulate, too, in their own individual ways. Moskalenko has taken the time and effort to find the stories here, to imply, not lay-on thick, the personal worlds this funny little place provides a haven for.

Oddly, the hut itself is less of a character than I expected. Whether in the height of summer or under a sprinkling of snow, it's merely a meeting place for unlikely people to get together. Perhaps this is because the building itself is of a temporary nature - temporary to fit the transitory nature of the people who use it.

What impressed me most was the inclusion of Neil Rhind, of whom I am normally a HUGE fan. I adore his meticulous work, his devotion to Blackheath and its history, his detailed writing, his eloquent speaking. As the president of the Blackheath Society, he agreed to be interviewed for this film. Now this is an intelligent man. He must have known that whatever he said would make him look like a NIMBY - and he did it anyway. I admire him all the more for having the guts to do it.

That's not that I agree with him. I hear his arguments - he is big enough (and has the integrity as a historian) to admit that there has been a tea-servery (albeit not 24hrs) on the site since the reign of Charles II (indeed Moskaleko interviews an octogenarian who remembers drinking tea there in his youth) but complains that it looks appalling, creates a traffic and noise problem and is environmentally unsound. The Blackheath Society proposes, I understand from the people in this film, to spend £2m on 'improving' Blackheath - including a giant ridge of earth to disguise the A2, which would engulf the tea hut. Perhaps it's even true.

You know, I struggle to see what harm there is in this little shack. In recent years the owner's made an effort to tidy it up and pick up his litter - you'll find far more elsewhere on the heath. It's miles away from anywhere, it doesn't serve alcohol, and even the police in the film admit there's virtually no trouble. I've enjoyed a fair few cups there myself. Tuesday nights are a good time, when an entire youth club from Rochester make a pilgrimage to the shack. I haven't ever heard of any trouble from them. And I never leave without a chat with someone.

I find it quite telling that the two sides have never actually met in this dispute. And that Neil Rhind has been the only person brave enough to raise his head above the parapet. At a recent licensing hearing no other bugger turned up, so the licence went through, according to the owner. The BS gets almost apoplectic over this strange little half-world, and yet they don't actually appear to have really looked at it.

It seems to me that both sides need to move on now; to actually meet. The Blackheath Society has cash to spend, but the heath belongs to all, and that includes the people who use the hut. Surely there must be some way they can live together? Maybe the society could fork out some money to make the hut more attractive, rather than obliterating it? In return, the owners of the hut can make sure that the litter is always cleared up and that people park tidily.
One final thought, not totally disconnected. If there was to be a giant earthen ridge to shield the eye from the A2, would the Highways Agency see this as a good excuse to make it a dual carriageway? Just an idle ponder.

See Tea Time for yourself. You can buy it on DVD at the Pepys Visitor Centre (the best place I know for local history books) or, if you buy it at the 'ut itself, you get a free nice cup 'a tea with it...

Oh - and if you want a biscuit to go with it, try http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com/

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 25 January 2008

Greenwich Farmers' Market

Yes, you read that right.

Cheryl Cohen of the Blackheath Farmers' Market has sent me this, asking for your opinions. She writes:

We've been approached by the town centre manager in Greenwich to open a weekly Saturday farmers' market on Cutty Sark Gardens. I would love some feedback on this idea. I've suggested a Saturday so as not to clash with Blackheath. The last thing we want is to take business away from Blackheath Village on a Sunday, but I feel sure that there's room for Greenwich to have its own market to help keep local people shopping in the neighbourhood and in turn, support your local shops. Would people from East Greenwich, Charlton, Woolwich or Depford attend? Please feel free to post something about this - I'd love as much feedback as possible. If you know of any community or residents associations/groups to pass this onto please feel free.

The Phantom Replies:

Mmm. A farmers' market in Greenwich would be well-received, I'm sure. I'm not totally convinced about Cutty Sark Gardens though. You'd certainly get some good custom there, especially on a Saturday when all the tourists are there. But it's quite windswept on occasion, and sited in right in the middle, puts you directly in competition with The Creaky Shed, Drings, The Fishmonger and The Cheeseboard, not to mention the M&S next door.

Have you considered moving a little further east? If I'm totally honest, I don't know quite where - the Forum is a bit small - but there must be a good space somewhere. Over the east side, there's only really the other branch of the Fishmonger to worry about, food-wise. Since the much-lamented demise of the fruit & veg stall last year, it's been supermarkets or nothing, really (there's the odd shop that specialises in ethic-y food, but I miss the fruit & veg. There are literally hundreds of new swanky (and otherwise) flats being built on the East side just now, and virtually no food shops to support them. The new East Greenwich Traders Association is doing its best, but Trafalgar Road, apart from the odd glorious exception, is still a sorry sight.

What does everyone else think?

Labels:

Wednesday, 16 January 2008

Ceramic Painting Shop in Nelson Road

Paul Cunningham writes:

Just look at Nelson Rd. For what should be a show piece of Greenwich Town Centre its is looking awful. Another shop has closed and in the dark nights it s quite a dismal place.

And my part in it. Well I have been trying to open a ceramic painting shop where the offer is creativity on unglazed ceramics with colours. I've had a lease conditional on a planning application since 2006!

The problem is I can't get LB Greenwich to give me a decision on the type of shop it should be. Its not that I don't like the decision its that I can't get one with a change of use planning application that been with them for six months!! They are hung up that it might be a cafe because you can have cup of tea or coffee and a juice for the kids. I need help. To try and get this matter moving and resolved I have started an online petition

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?PaulC just to urge them to give me a decision!

The Phantom replies:

This is an interesting one. Yesterday when you sent me this, I assumed that it was part of the 'regeneration' (read "chain store revolution") that seems to be lined up for Nelson Road, but I'm beginning to think that it's not as simple as that. I think it's the whole future of a shop unit, probably beyond the life of your store.

It is true that we have an inordinate amount of cafes in Greenwich already, and I can see that change-of-use could be seen as a precedent - if, for example, you opened your pottery shop and found that you made more cash just selling teas, it would then be a cafe in perpetuity - even if you sold it on. Presumably this is what the council's bothered about.

But that's no reason to keep you hanging on like this. They should make a decision - even if it's only a firm "no" - so you can get on with your life and set up shop elsewhere.

There are a couple of things I could see being a possible compromise if you can possibly get the council to talk (unlikely I know, but worth a shot.) I wonder if there could be some kind of "temporary" change of use licence - perhaps for the duration of the lease of the shop, to be reviewed at the end of a set period. If the council felt your shop was less pottery-painting and more coffee-drinking, they could kick up a fuss. If your business was thriving as a pottery paintery then it would get a permanent licence or another long-term 'temporary' change.

You could agree not to sell a certain amount of beverages or more than three different kinds of cake or something, or keep the amount of permanent cooking facilities to a kettle and a sink.

Or maybe the change of use could be granted to YOU, not the shop - so that if you moved, the change of use would not stay with the shop?

But perhaps I'm being naive. Maybe it's easier for the council to sit on the fence. Have you tried contacting your councillor?

If all else fails, what about considering other places? Ceramic-painting shops are destination stores, not depending on footfall. The ones I've seen in Brighton, for example, seem to be stuck down side-streets and still do a roaring trade. Trafalgar Road is beginning to get some interesting shops down it and as the amount of new builds increases, hopefully the area will continue to expand and trendify. The rents are cheaper too, and the choice of unit is wide indeed. I'd suggest taking a look there.

I wish you luck trying to get a decision from the council, one way or another, so you can get on with your life and your business...

I forgot to mention that Paul's website is http://www.biscuit-biscuit.com/

Labels:

Thursday, 10 January 2008

New Refuse Arrangements

Steve asks

I'm a supporter of the existing refuse collection arrangements and, having a compost bin, have very little in my greentop bin every week. As of next week, we will now have to buy a black plastic sack for those items currently now collected from my bin. How green is that? Extra black sacks to buy and dispose of!

I have just had a baby and don’t want to contribute tons of nappies to landfill. I asked a Council person at Charlton House just before Xmas why they didn’t have an incentive scheme like other Councils, to encourage people to buy washable nappies. I was told that they had no evidence that incentive schemes work. Altho' I have bought washables anyway, the Council will be happy to give me 52 plastic sacks and come and collect those from my door. Crazy.

I think that there will be poor compliance with the new measures which will undermine the whole scheme.

The Phantom replies:

I confess I'm a fan of the new arrangements. A system for collecting organic refuse as well as dry recyclables is a fantastic idea, IMHO. I went to one of the periodic tours around the MRF recycling plant (you can do so too - email recycling@greenwich.gov.uk ) which, frankly, converted me. I am not a massive council supporter, but the guy who runs the MRF plant has his head screwed on and a very pragmatic approach to recycling. His no-nonsense and frank answers to the increasing problem of massive fines if they don't stop using landfill was refreshing to see, and in theory the new system is fantastic.

The ratio of black bin bags to the amount of organic waste saved from landfill would seem to be bearable, since there's very little that won't fit into one of the two bins - basically just polystyrene and waxed juice cartons. The trouble is, that virtually no one knows this, as nobody's been properly told.

Much as I hope against hope, I am not convinced it's going to work. I just don't think we've had enough information about it for it to work smoothly. Due to my visit, I'm pretty clued-up on how it should work but I just can't see that the organic waste green-top-bins are going to remain uncontaminated by wrappers, plastic bags and people-who-can't-be-arsed-to-sort-their-garbage's waste, and the amount of time they'll spend picking out that contamination (now there's a job I'm not volunteering for) will make the whole thing unviable.

We need a MASSIVE publicity campaign to get something like this to work smoothly. People need to be explained-to the way that I was how it's going to work - and why it's important. It shouldn't be down to me to talk about giant vacuum-sealed (to keep-in the pong) compost bins at Thamesmead that rot-down the food waste, so that the methane gas and compost created can be sold to subsidise the system. It shouldn't be down to me to tell people that if you wrap stuff in newspaper or a paper bag it won't make your bin honk to high heaven. And it shouldn't be down to me to mention that the alternative is even higher council tax.

The other major point is that while we are carefully sorting out our chicken bones and tea bags at home, small and medium-sized businesses are not compelled to recycle even one newspaper. Until this anomaly is fixed, recycling is a mere token effort.

Having said that, I embrace the new system with open arms. I am delighted to give it a go. I just hope the council can make everyone understand how the thing works.

On the subject of nappies, there is, of course, an argument that the water, heat and detergent used to wash nappies can create as much environmental damage as cutting down trees to make disposables. I'm not getting into that one as I've never really done any thinking at all about baby-shit. Frankly, as a parent, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. In the meanwhile, the council will, at least, be providing a separate collection service. Congratulations on your new arrival.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, 9 January 2008

West Greenwich Gets Even Posher...

...not.

Angie has just told me we will be getting a Pound Shop in the beautiful arcade that houses Somerfield and The Wimpy Bar. Apparently it will be in the old video store.

I just wrote, then deleted, a whole sarcastic passage about how charming it will be and how disappointed I am there isn't a strip club and an amusement arcade to go with it. Actually, it isn't very funny. How come developers are only too happy to tear down old, interesting buildings (for example the Stockwell Street warehouses - ok, not pretty, but fascinating) and yet ignore the one area that could be bulldozed with very few tears shed? A nasty grim, grey concrete monstrosity, which if its grotty old carpark doesn't look like a ghost town out of a western is only because the litter beat the tumbleweed to it, full of abandoned shops and desolate-looking offices, surely it would be in everyone's interests to just buy-out the few remaining tenants and rebuild something worth having?

It's rare you'll ever hear me calling for a demolition - but in this case I would say good riddance. Greenwich deserves better than this apology for a shopping arcade.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, 12 December 2007

Off-Plan Hutches


Woolwich Road, SE10

Tell me - are these not the most horrid little rabbit hutches you ever saw? A few short months ago this was a petrol station - at the end of Woolwich Road, next door but one to East Greenwich Library.

Now what I can only describe as (slightly) overgrown shoeboxes are being shoved up at a rate of knots. They are being sold as "off-plan" apartments - clearly "investments" for prospective landlords to make a killing on. Each one is long and thin and crammed-in next to its neighbours.

I can only assume it will be so dark inside it will need the lights on all the time, and each unit looks so small they might just as well have built a pile of those "container houses" on the site. Now admittedly they're not as small as they first look - each one is three scaff-bars across - but believe me - they're still tiny.

There are probably people out there that think I am totally anti-development. This is absolutely not true. I don't object to apartment blocks per se. No, really I don't. I don't even object to apartment blocks on the site of old petrol stations - after all that Jet garage was hardly a vision of loveliness (albeit ocasionally useful.) But these flats - clearly being designed as rental accommodation - are mean in virtually every respect. Surely somebody could have designed something a bit better than this? Someone's got to live in these.

If, for some inexplicable reason, you're interested, folks, hold onto your hats. A one-bedroom flat will set you back £ 230,000 and one of the two three-bedroom "duplexes" will cost a staggering £ 447,000. If you want a live-work 'space,' factor-in a whopping £ 450,000.

The Phantom weeps.

http://www.propertyliaisons.co.uk/

Labels: ,

Friday, 23 November 2007

What's On?

Folks - I want to ask you a question. When I started this blog, I was really sure that the one thing I didn't want it to turn into was some kind of Parish Noticeboard with bring-and-buy sales, bob-a-job weeks and pensioners' tea parties advertised on it. I have always seen this as my personal blog - and I don't really want to dilute my own tedious opinions with a What's On section.

But people keep sending me stuff - and some of it (not all, by any means, ahem,) looks really interesting. I'm wondering - if I created a second blog "The Phantom's Parish News" or similar, click-through-able from this site, would it be useful? Or are there already plenty of places to find out what's on?

I'll warn you - I'm poor at going out and finding events - this would merely be based on things I notice and think look good - or things selected from stuff people send me - and not everything I'm sent either - I'd only include it if I thought it looked really different and good. And I'm rubbish at HTML so don't expect graphs or grids or diaries - or indeed any funky add-ons. But with those caveats - is it appealing, or a waste of time?

Labels:

Thursday, 15 November 2007

Spooks

Donovan says:

Further to the discussion on Greenwich in Film and Books, did anyone spot the Greenwich shots in Spooks last night? The drop-off to the Iranians was in Gloucester Circus, at which time there were cut scenes showing, confusingly, someone driving up Maze Hill towards Blackheath, then east along Trafalgar road between the ORNC and the Queen's House...

The Phantom replies:

I confess I gave up watching Spooks after the third series - it seemed to be losing its way after a really good start. So no - I didn't see it - but did anyone else? Donovan tells me he was channel-hopping and happened upon the Greenwich Moment - but perhaps someone can tell me whether it's actually worth watching these days?

Labels:

Tuesday, 6 November 2007

Publicity - What Publicity?

I am currently listening to Womans Hour - where they are interviewing the artist Esther Shalev-Gertz as she takes the reporter round the Queen's House for their latest exhibition, which, apparently, has just opened.

Did ANY of you know that this was coming? What on earth is going on with the National Maritime Museum's publicity department? I spend half my life looking out for new stuff going on round here and I couldn't find a thing. I even tried to check out the NMM website - and if it's there it's not easy to find on an albeit cursory search.

How the f*** are we supposed to know what's going on if they don't tell us? There are local papers. There are magazines. Noticeboards. Leaflet opportunities. Or are they only interested in telling "important" people these days? The same thing happened with that Sailor Chic exhibition - first I knew about it was a poster at BANK station. Maybe City types are more likely to visit than the people who actually live there - well they certainly will be if that's the only publicity on offer.

If you're interested, the relevant webpage is

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.22013

but I had to find the link through the Womans Hour site, not the NMM's own.

They really need to sort their publicity out if they want local people to come along more often - unless they really are only interested in tourists. Grrr.

OK rant over...

Labels:

Friday, 26 October 2007

Olympic Families...

Now here's a cosy concept. The Olympic 'family.' This is the nausea-inducing title given to the group of 'clients' that the Olympic Delivery Authority actually care about for 2012. They include National Olympic Committee officials, athletes, workforce, media and, most tellingly, 'marketing partners' - i.e. advertisers. The Paralympic 'family' has similar categories.

So why am I writing about this today? Because on the 23rd, the ODA produced the transport plans for 2012. We're all going to go by public transport. No ifs. No buts. Unless we can manage to join The Family...

So what will The Family enjoy that we can only stand in our queues and watch?

Well, traffic lights will be rephased so that traffic going to the games gets priority and where necessary roads will be closed. Routes will be diverted and 'kerbside controls' (Parking restrictions) brought in. Special 'Olympic' lanes created for more than 1000, officials who will be entitled to their own car and driver. For us this will mainly mean that the Blackwall Tunnel will be down to one lane because most of the roads in Greenwich won't support a separate lane.

The ODA are, at least, good enough to accept that the most important sub-category of The Family is the athletes. Fair enough. It would be most annoying if the race began and the runners were all stuck on the Northern Line. But after that I start to wonder just how many of these dignitaries really justify a dedicated lane in already-congested roads. The rest of us are expected to leave time for our journeys - which will be worse because The Family are taking up an entire lane. I like the way they put things: that less than 50 percent of the ORN (Olympic Road Network) will be affected - a good news-way of telling us that nearly half of our roads will be fiddled with.

Do I ultimately care? Probably not that much for the total of four weeks during the two sets of games. But I will not be happy if it is extended for months before and after the festivities because the building work is going at its usual Olympic speed (late) creating designated lanes for JCBs...

What do you folks think?

http://www.london2012.com/plans/transport/getting-ready/transport-plan.php

The Phantom lights the blue touch-paper and retires...

Labels: ,

Tuesday, 23 October 2007

"Heart of East Greenwich" consultation

Anonymous suggested we talk about this now we've had our slender chance at seeing First Base's plans for the old District Hospital site.

I say 'look' at their plans as I really believe that whatever anyone says on their little piece of paper in the way of comments will be looked at - then utterly ignored. But hey. They let us look at them for one afternoon and one evening and I guess we should be grateful...

What really jumped out to me was that nothing jumped out. Someone on the last thread mentioned that it was all done using a computer kit, which is why it all looks the same. And they must be right. There is no genuinely original thought here - a wavy roof on one bit and a few scribbled-in lollipop trees and bushes doesn't hide the rest of it.

Why are they creating all those shop spaces when we can't fill the ones we have along Woolwich Road? Wouldn't it be best to landscape that area for now (I know, I know - architects are allergic to the colour green unless it's in lollipop form...) and wait for the shops in Trafalgar and Woolwich roads to fill up, and, when we have a head of retail steam in East Greenwich, then build some more shops and cafes to suit what the area has turned into? As it is I can see acres of boarded up NEW shops as well as the old ones. The first thing that people will see on entering the area is a load of un-taken shops with just the odd bit of tumbleweed drifting between the new dole office and the rest of the council buildings, the scruffy Starbucks, inhabited by truant teenagers its only open shop.

They very cunningly put so many images of happy people 'using' the facilities that it was quite difficult to concentrate on the actual buildings; that may have been because the images of people were more interesting than the buildings. There were a selection of what I at first took to be kiddies building blocks but turned out to be samples of the materials they'll be using. Cheap and nasty, dyed bright colours to try to conceal the fact.

And maybe that's it. We have got this design because it's cheap. East Greenwich is far enough away from the posh historic end for it not to be visited much by tourists, therefore somehow it doesn't matter. Who cares if all that new traffic pours out onto Woolwich Road making it even more congested than it is now? (When I asked about this I was told that everything would be alright because they were "only allowing left turns" - no thought given either to how that would be enforced - or what even the left-hand turns would do to traffic that gets banked up to the A102M every morning.)

Would you believe that the argument I was given for allowing all the extra parking was that the hospital would have had cars? I guess there would have been a small car park - but any hospital traffic would have been coming and going throughout the day, not all trying to leave for work at 7.30am. Besides, in the years the hospital has been dead, the traffic has increased to fill the gap it left. It's no longer a viable argument IMHO.

I went with my mum. She doesn't live in the area, but she always loves to visit Greenwich because it's lovely - even the East bit. I think she summed it up. She walked round, studying the boards in silence. As we left, she just said "Greenwich deserves better, really, doesn't it..."

http://www.firstbase.com/heart.html

Labels:

Wednesday, 10 October 2007

Consultation, Consultation, Consultation

East Greenwich Old District Hosptial Development Proposals.

I don't know - you wait ages for a consultation then two come along at once...

I got a rather dull-looking leaflet through my door today from a company called First Base inviting me to a two-day consultation (what is it about two days? Some kind of legal requirement, perhaps?) for what they like to call The Heart of East Greenwich and the rest of us know as The Old District Hospital. You can tell it's 'worthy' because it's laid out in little boxes and contains artists impressions of boring designs that have clearly been agreed on by committee. Believe me - it makes the leaflet (and the designs) for Greenwich market look funky...

Can one object to a proposal on the grounds of its being boring? There's no doubt that we desperately need something on the site - Woolwich Road seems to get scruffier by the day and those dead shops are not going to regenerate until there is some kind of plan for the enormous hole left by the wrecking ball. And I can't really complain about the sort of thing they are proposing - new apartments (it annoys me when developers refer to every new dwelling they create as a new 'home' - homes are made from buildings by the people who live in them, not created wholesale by developers) and a selection of 'public service facilities' - whatever that means - a dole office, perhaps.

To be fair, they do go on to list two swimming pools (bye, bye, Arches) gyms, a 'wellness spa' (blimey) and a library. The doctors' surgeries, I assume, will replace the Vanbrugh Group Practice's building. I don't know about you, but I'm beginning to get a soft spot for the current VGP building though - neo-brutalist it may be, and in need of a spruce-up- but there is something about it that's growing on me.

The whole thing will be 'carbon neutral,' yada, yada, and they plan a square and more shops - (more? Like the ones we have are already are overflowing...) but there's something so - so anodyne about it all. As if they've just remembered East Greenwich exists and feel that they need to tick lots of boxes at once.

I don't have a huge problem with the contents of this development. But from the leaflet, the design looks dull and uninspired. Glass wavy structures with wood-plank decorations - just like every new build I've seen recently. Presumably they've put the best bits in the leaflet and none of them (or the photos of things the architects have created in the past) inspire any kind of enthusiasm in me. I like the way the d