The Old Bottle Shop

Hands up who remembers the Village Market? It's not a year yet since the market closed, and yet it seems like forever ago. The site sits forlornly waiting for anything to happen while the traders have been scattered to the four winds.

The Old Bottle Shop lady made a stab at keeping going - from that secretive little upstairs warehouse marked only by a giant plastic geisha (whatever happened to her?) - to what some consider to be even more secretive Trafalgar Road - one of the many, many many empty shops along a sad-sack street that desperately needs a revamp.

She certainly shared the space with some oddities. Whenever I went by there was something new jostling with the assortment of vintage glassware - ladies' knickers, grow-bags, saucy stockings. But it's been closed for some time now.

Adrian was curious, and the next time he saw her, asked her what was going on. It's a sad story. He says "Apparently, she has been evicted by the landlord and her stock seized by the bailiffs. And sure enough, Saturday's catalogue at the Greenwich Auction was full of beautiful old bottles of all shapes, sizes and hues - a life's work of collecting under the hammer. "

Adrian tells me she has still has some stock in a small space in the basement of the Junk Shop (where several Village Market refugees seem to have established themselves) and was talking also about doing more car boot sales, etc. but she won't be taking on another shop.

Perhaps it was inevitable. Tourists just don't get down as far as Trafalgar Road - and let's face it, why should they? It's just a bog-standard, local street full of takeaways and a few decent shops, but with a constant flow of heavy goods traffic and narrow pavements that don't invite browsing. The shops are tiny - and would be perfect as cutesy little gift stores (I wish The Home Front every good thing, btw - a lovely shop, and a brave move) but anyone stopping to look in a window would hold up the entire street.

The East Greenwich Traders Association are keen to make Trafalgar Road a 'cultural corridor' for the Olympics. I guess if nobody's allowed to cars during the games, they could spill out onto the road, but personally, I think they have an uphill struggle ahead. Any ideas for how Trafalgar Road could be made - well - a bit nicer than it is?

Musings

I've been thinking about this morning's post. As I said, I don't encourage family history enquiries - I don't have any interest in my own family's past and I don't really 'get' the whole digging-up-the-ancestors phenomenon (my mum does it and I still don't get it.)

But from the responses today I can see that Phantomites are a generous bunch - and seem to enjoy a challenge. Should I perhaps relax my hitherto fierce attitudes to family tree-huggers and start posting a few more 'personal' posers rather than ploughing through them at a (very) slow rate myself via the privacy of email? Or does the idea of trying to find someone else's Great Uncle George who worked at the dog food factory send you to sleep?

I'm open on this one - though it would help clear the Giant Backlog of Doom in my inbox...

Greenwich Goes Royal

So - apparently we're to become a 'Royal Borough.' It sounds nice, and I read that it's a rare honour, bestowed because of the links we had with the crown in the middle ages, but can anyone tell me what this actually means in any real practical sense?

I don't want to be a grump and I guess I'd rather live in a Royal Borough than not - but what will it mean other than a some fancy road signs and new batch of stationery for the council?

Is It Time For The 'C' Word?

Following on from this morning's post about the proposed pedestrianisation of Greenwich, Fat Cat has suggested it could be time to introduce a local congestion charge.

It's been mooted in the past, with mixed reactions. Certainly I don't think it would work if it just joined up with the central London one, but it might be an interesting thing if it were genuinely local.

I'm not sure that we'd ever get away with residents being entirely exempt, but presumably a similar discount to the London scheme would be possible, perhaps with a slightly lower discount for residents in the immediately surrounding towns.

What do we think about this? Maybe it is time to at least talk about such a concept. In the meanwhile, let's have a quick yea-or-nay straw poll.

Pedestrianisation Proposals

We talked about the possible part-pedestrianisation of the town centre just before Christmas, but Helen thought it would be worth having another discussion now that at least some of us have been able to look at the proposals in a bit more detail. If you didn't make the blink-and-you'd-miss-it consultation, you can get the basics here.

Pedestrianisation is certainly no new thing - as this proposal from 1970 shows:

It just seems to be the pedestrianisable area that's changed. And to be frank, the new one seems more likely to get footfall.

I did manage to get along to the consultation and, despite it being during the pre-Christmas hurly-burly, it appeared to be well attended (it also gave me the chance to have a poke around what turned out to be a very boring, corporate-looking Davenport House.)

I can't help feeling that what it boils down to is whether or not you're a driver living near or regularly passing through the giant one-way Ring of Doom proposed as an alternative to using the covered market as a roundabout. If you are, then you'll probably be very grumpy about it all. If not, it might seem rather appealing.

There are two basic options proposed by the council, but from what I can tell, the council itself really doesn't have any preferred ideas - they genuinely seemed to be asking for thoughts from the public when I was there. I'm guessing they fancy the idea in principle but don't really know how to go about it.

Certainly Option One - which is where they would just close off College Approach and the north end of King William Walk but do absolutely nothing else - is clearly useless. Even the guys at the consultation openly admitted that it would create utter chaos.

Option Two and its variants - sundry versions of a large one-way ring road with bus/cycle possibilities - seems better. Nothing's going to stop congestion (short, perhaps, of a Greenwich congestion charge, a whole other subject - or maybe not...)but it merely being a pain in the proverbial to get round the centre of Greenwich might make people who currently just rat-run between Deptford and the Blackwall Tunnel take a different route.

Andrew Gilligan's not happy at all and he has some valid points. Certainly buses have a hard time of it under the current ideas - working through the plans so that buses would have a clearer passage seems like a good idea to me; even at the expense of some of the council's 'boulevard' dreams. If your aim is get rid of cars by making it physically hard to drive round, it's essential to make the buses - and cycle provisions - as attractive as possible instead. And yes - something would need to be done to prevent more rat-running between Circus Street /Royal Hill / King William Walk.

But I'm not sure I buy everything he's saying. I don't think that pedestrianisation would necessarily make Greenwich even bleaker than it already is late at night on weekends, for example. We can't just count on cars as some kind of Darwinist method of getting rid of Saturday night drunks; separate measures (probably to do with licensing) need to be looked at to counter that particular problem.

I also can't see people making the effort to rat-run through the park. Once you're as far as the park on the A2, you might as well take the pain and finish the job across the heath.

I agree that congestion is an issue - as it is now. And yes - it might get worse. But it also might not. It could end up as no worse - or not much- worse, with a net gain. I'm not convinced I agree with him that "the status quo remains the least-worst option." I'd like to learn what the results of the consultation come up with, and see some modelling done on the best suggestions.

What do you think?

Resolutionary Road

It's that time of year again. That time when we all swear we'll turn over a brand new leaf. We really will lose five stone this year. Really will visit the gym, stop smoking/drinking/ eating lard/ picking our noses/biting our nails/ shouting at strangers/ jumping traffic lights...

Okay, so that's just my resolutions then. But this year at least some of them will be Greenwichian.

Firstly, I am going to actually write all the letters of protest/support/suggestion that I mean to, instead of the one in three that I manage at the moment, despite my best intentions. I did write several of the really important ones last year, but can't help thinking that the Phantom school report would read 'Must try harder' on the issues that are not quite so pressing. I can't moan about stuff if I don't do anything about it.

I am going to go to more local exhibitions, lectures and gigs than I managed this year too - not, actually, very hard, since I went to a woefully small amount in 2009, given what's available on my doorstep (not literally, natch, though the postman's quite entertaining sometimes.)I have no excuse - the fabulous IanVisits lists what's on both in London and more locally.

I'm going to complete the Phantom Book Shelf - still only a third of the way done after an initial burst of enthusiasm. And I really will try to get Olde Phantom's Greenwich Almanack finished this year. No - really. It's only been three and a half years in the making so far.

But by a long chalk the most shameful of my bad habits this year (waaaay beyond the nose-pickery and stranger-shouting) is the two-hundred-and-fifty-three (eek) Starred Items of Shame in my inbox.

Starred Items of Shame are emails, questions, photos, tip-offs and suggestions that lovely people have sent me and that I haven't dealt with to my (and definitely not to their) satisfaction yet. Stuff just gets out of hand sometimes (mostly due to that pesky thing Real Work) and the backlog just keeps getting bigger, especially the things that need lots of research, specific visits to weird places or, ahem, bending the law (no, Louise, I haven't forgotten...)

Guys - please accept my apologies. I will be aiming to deal it all as soon as Phantomly possible this year. I may even instigate a special Starred Item of Shame section - but for now, please bear with me. I haven't completely ignored you, I promise. And don't stop sending me things, please - I LOVE getting mail.

Are there other Greenwich things I should be putting on my New Years Resolutions list? And what local resolutions will you be making this year? Somewhere to visit? Something to do/protest about/ make happen?

Trafalgar Square - Eat Yer Heart Out

This one's all a bit last-minute; if it's been planned for much longer than a week I certainly haven't known about it. But hey - it's all over the place now, and, despite the council having chosen what is probably the least convenient time to have a consultation, it might be a wise idea to hove your way down to Devonport House at some point this weekend (between 19th and 21st December) to see all five possible options (six if there;s a 'do nothing' button) for the pedestrianisation of Greenwich town centre.

Now - I have to say that in principle I have no objection to this. In fact I rather like it. I'm guessing that few Greenwichians would object to the idea - and it would do the place no harm at all for encouraging tourists. It's the guys from outside the area who use us as a rat-run between further into town and the Blackwall Tunnel that will be getting hot under the collar - but there are levels of pedestrianisation and it would do us all good to decide exactly how far we'd want to go with it.

The options range from just cutting off College Approach and making Nelson Road two-way (easiest but a potential log-jam) all the way through to a giant one-way system just outside the centre (elegant but making you go a long way round - which might not be so bad at that), with various permutations along the way.

Those of you in the Greenwich Society will have received a letter about this - it's been forwarded to me several times (thanks, guys) but it's all a bit complex to explain here.

There's only a small window of discussion here as the council want the new system in for (surprise, surprise) the Olympics, hence the awkward date of the consultation. Do try to get along if you can...

East Greenwich Library

I've been getting increasingly concerned at the state of East Greenwich Library. Whereas its sister in West Greenwich, also funded by the philanthropist Andrew Carnegie's foundation in the early years of the last century continues to be a well-loved - and used - part of the community, the Woolwich Road version gets ever tattier, ever lonelier and seemingly ever fewer books.


I go in there occasionally, and I would like to go in more often, but it's been a long while since there was actually a book I wanted to get out - the selection seems to consist of large-print romances, technical manuals and kiddies' picture books (though there is a small section of local history volumes.) The place was clearly once rather grand, but now it just has a sad air of neglect, almost as though it's waiting a fate of doom.

What that doom would be, no one seems to know. The building is Grade II listed, but, in a chilling conversation I will never forget that I had with a pimply young promotions guy at the blink-and-you'd-miss-it 'consultation' for the Heart of East Greenwich (all rather a long while ago now...) I discovered listing won't necessarily save it. The arrogant young pup announced with great glee that only the facade is listed - they can do what they like with the rest (and yes, that's not far off the exact words he used.)

While he's hopefully been hurriedly bundled off for 're-training' - the last thing they need is someone who's actually truthful at these events - that doesn't help us.

The pictures of deep-down rot on this post were taken by Charlie, who's also very concerned about what's to become of the library. He says:

"Currently, the building’s central heating system isn’t working, the flat above the front of the building is condemned and about 1/3 of the building’s lying derelict. It’s a real shame, and I’m hoping to get a question asked at Council about what the library’s future is, particularly since the proposed replacement in the “Heart of East Greenwich” project is looking more distant than ever."

I bet you didn't know there's a Friends of East Greenwich Library. I didn't either - and they're not easy to find. They don't have a website but they do have good intentions in their hearts - and a track record. Terry Wheeler says:

"The library campaign in East Greenwich was started by Richard & Molly Bartlett in the early 90's and I became very active within the group and after what Bob Harris, (our opponent in the council) described as a brilliant campaign, following our listing of the building, East Greenwich Library was saved.

Sadly, at a price, because they shut half of the building down, reduced the opening hours and the stock to a fraction of what it was and got rid of our wonderful old oak shelving and called it a model library."


"Following a report in Greenwich Time that a sum of £1.3m for five libraries but with nothing for East Greenwich, we started writing to the press and contacting our councillors about our library with the result that in September, we had a meeting with John Fahy who is going to get some work done to make the building more waterproof, clean the front and do some redecoration."

"It was finally admitted by councillor Fahy at that meeting that the new 'wonder' library we have been told we should be grateful for, which will be ready by 2012, will not, actually be ready, for at least 4 years, if not five.When I saw Dick Quibell, he said that they needed to have the social housing in place first before the new library would be built in order to generate some income. I understand there are problems with funding for the old hospital site, so my guess is that it could be six, if not seven years away, if then. I for one, like the library, where it is, in the building it has been in since 1905. Carnegie got it right.

We also managed to get the council to clear the blocked drain outside the library which had caused flooding in the library through the floor every time there was heavy rain. The gutters in the Tunnel Avenue part of the building were cleared of weeds and grass following representations to our councillors. We have suggested that flat above the library be repaired and let to generate income, and, indeed, suggested this over ten years ago.

Our library, and it's building, which is listed, has been severely neglected despite the efforts we made to get it repaired and the suggestions we have made to the council over the years to help generate some income.Despite the obligations of the council to upkeep this listed building, it has taken a lot of effort by numerous members of our group to start things moving."

So - what can we do to help push things along? Well, firstly, we need to let the council know we do give a damn.

I know it's hard when there aren't really any books in the library to borrow (although I can see that for short-sighted romantics and parents with bookworm kiddies it's still very useful) but if there's some way that we can tell them we don't want to lose what we have now, and, when the magical Heart of East Greenwich finally gets built we don't want it sold off for luxury flats but used for something community-related, then maybe it's not completely doomed after all.

Writing to John Fahy would be good - I suspect Mary Mills is already batting on the side of the library - and letting the print-press know (especially Greenwich Time, who have suggested that the money outlined for various libraries but not East Greenwich could be an 'oversight' - not that the 'mistake' has ever been rectified...)

If you're wanting to really get your hands dirty here, you can also contact Terry by emailing him - feglig@yahoo.co.uk.

Security Issues

I got two emails last week, each worrying in their own way.

The first was from Chris, who witnessed an unreported-by-the-press (so far, anyway, I don't get the free papers so I haven't been able to check since Friday) incident in the foot tunnel last Monday:

"About forty 14 year-olds running through the tunnel south to north with bats, sticks, chains and belts on Monday night. Police presence now upped in the tunnel space, as it was reported the kids threatened commuters in addition to beating up some other kid."

The second was from Frank who has more of a question:

"I've recently started to notice 'Greenwich Council Wardens' walking around (usually in twos and threes). They manage to look quite intimidating, in particular they are mostly well built, wear police-style jackets but with no markings on the front or arms and it is only when they turn round that you can see their title. They have no personal identifiers/numbers.

There may be something on the council website but I couldn't easily find it. So what are they? What do they do? What are their powers? Can they detain you? How much do they cost?"

There seems to be some sort of link between these two, but I'm not sure what it is. I don't know what these wardens are - or, indeed, what their powers might be, but I'm guessing they're not equipped to deal with the kind of thing that Chris saw, which sounds like a serious police issue.

This begs the question of what exactly they are for - if they're going around in gangs of three, it surely can't be to report fly-tipping or people throwing their cigarette butts on the ground.

Greenwich, especially the town centre of a weekend evening, seems to be becoming a lot more scary recently (though I still maintain we're generally pretty safe round here in comparison to most of London...) and much seems to go unreported in the press - I witnessed quite a major incident myself a couple of years ago that went completely under the radar.

The strange thing is that we seem to be flooded with security - we're told Britain has the most CCTV cameras in the world - and yet could we find poor Josh Beasley in 2007? (I find myself thinking of him, his family and those devoted friends of his at this time of year...)

Or discover exactly what happened to Arianna, whose ghost bike still stands at the flyover on Woolwich Road? (BTW there is a case going through the courts at the moment regarding this - I can't help feeling that some CCTV footage would make the prosecution stronger. I can't see any CCTV at all on that roundabout - one of the most dangerous around. Hell - I've had an accident there myself, and I know others have, too...)

And these 'Council Wardens' - about whom I know nothing. I would appreciate enlightenment on their roles too.

I appreciate that this isn't the most coherant post I've ever written. Maybe I'm putting together thoughts that don't go. To me, there is some kind of link between the two incidents - it's just my brain on a Monday morning can't process it...

More About King Billy

Sorry about the delay here - I'm finally reposting this after a week or so of prevarication (the splendid Phantom Webmaster was away and I'm a technical toddler without TPW) But now the link should work...

There's been a huge amount of interest in the digging going on around the site of the Old St Mary's Church, where King William stands (curiously, according to the article below, the poor guy's even facing the wrong direction - he was apparently supposed to be looking south into the park...) and both John and Tony have sent me some clues that imply that the land is still consecrated - and that there are over three hundred bodies under there - some of whose coffins are just a few inches under the soil...

Tony sent me a link to a truly fascinating document written a few years ago by the author William Clarke, who, at the time was editor of the Friends of Greenwich Park. It's so beautifully written that I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here - here it is for your own perusal - I highly recommend it as a utterly intriguing read. I am sure the NNM already know of its existence.

Nick Raysford to Stand Down?

I can only assume so - since he obviously doesn't care about being re-elected.

The extraordinary interview he did with greenwich.co.uk yesterday had him quite clearly siding with Greenwich Hospital Trust's market proposals rather than his own constituents, many of whom protested vigorously about the project.

I urge you to read the interview - it doesn't really need much in the way of comment since he's such an angry man that it's quite clear where his allegiances lie - and they're not with the people who voted him in.

The council's decision was UNANIMOUS - from all political parties, nobody wanted that particular development - though one that is actually sympathetic to the heritage of the area would, I think, be largely approved. I don't have any great love for the current, grubby, leaky (and breaky) roof we've got now but I can't see how creating all those columns in the new one, finally putting the kibosh on its ever being used as an open space, demolishing historic buildings to make way for wheelie bins, replacing cobbles with slippery granite sets and building a modern hotel that pokes up above the rest of the area is in any way moving forward - or doing anything other than playing Russian Roulette with our World Heritage Status.

Raynsford, if he actually wants to stay as an MP, is counting his chickens that he has a very safe seat. For me, he's putting his personal opinions (and let's not forget that he's chairman of the National Housebuilding Council Foundation...) above his constituents, and that, however safe a seat may be, is a dangerous thing.

Sailor Billy

He's the one everyone forgets - the last of the Hanoverian kings, in between George IV (who is forever engraved on my heart as played by Hugh Laurie) and Victoria (Judi Dench). And he was, frankly, a bit forgotten in his own time too. William IV wasn't ever really meant to be king - he was a third son and he managed to slip through life to the age of 64 as merely a slight embarrassment to the Royal family.

The family did what they always do with younger sons - stuck him in the services - he joined the navy, where he had a marvellous time, doing all the things that sailors traditionally did, bar much in the way of fighting. He did his share of the cooking, a lot of drinking and a little brawling. He was a great pal of Nelson - he insisted on giving the bride away when Nelson married.

He wanted to be a Duke, but the king wasn't having any of it, so William threatened to enter the House of Commons (this was still in the days of rotten boroughs - he was going to buy Totnes) and the king acquiesced at the thought of William on the hustings. He became the Duke of Clarence and the Earl of Munster was thrown in for good measure. He was a bit of a loose cannon - he said he was a Whig, but he really just did random stuff - such as opposing the abolition of slavery, saying it wouldn't do the slaves any good to be freed, which on reflection probably wasn't the strongest argument for the case.

A whole load of stuff happened during his seven year reign between 1830 and 1837 - not least the end of those pesky rotten boroughs - but he himself wasn't a particularly exciting king (though I guess after George IV anything must have seemed a breath of fresh air...) There were good and bad things about his reign - he was the last king to install a prime minister against the will of Parliament, for example - but on the plus side he gave most of George IV's paintings to the nation.

I guess what most people remember him for is his relationship with the actress/courtesan Mrs Jordan, with whom he had a staggering ten children. Since none of them were legitimate, when he died the throne went to his niece Victoria though it's possible that the illegitimate kids will have the last laugh - Wikipedia tells me that Tory leader David Cameron is a descendant of one of them...

So why am I writing about Sailor Billy today? Well - because something seems to be happening to him in Greenwich. Our statue of him originally stood in King William Street in the City - here's an old pic:

It was moved to Greenwich in 1936 to fill the gap left by the demolition of St Mary's Church just by the main gate to Greenwich Park, where he's quietly stood ever since, surrounded by a beech hedge and, if memory serves, low stones marking the perimeters of the old church.

I was walking past last week and I saw the hedge had gone, replaced by builders' hoardings. Poor old Billy stood alone in a sea of mud. I can only assume it's part of the new Sammy Ofer wing.

But - can they do this? I have heard rumour that no one actually knows who owns that land - and that underneath the grass still lie vaults with graves and bodies in.

I don't know anything at all about this - but would be very interested to hear if the rumours are true - and if so, how the NMM has managed to sneakily disturb Billy's peace...

What Would You Put In The Dome?

Further to my previous post (the one about the Estate Agent trying to make living next to the Dome sound exciting) I have been thinking about why most of us just don't go to the Dome on a regular basis (or even at all), and what would make us go.

I mean - not all of us want to go to a stadium gig every night - but there are other things there. Its problem seems to be in that it does everything you can already get in Greenwich, just not as well. There's a cinema - with one giant and a whole bunch of teeny screens - we have the Picturehouse. There's a dodgy nightclub - we have Olivers. There are infinite so-so restaurants - we have plenty of so-so eateries ourselves (and one or two really good ones.) There's an exhibition space - we have several of those already too. BTW has anyone been to the British Music Experience yet?

I was wondering last week why there isn't a microbrewery or even somewhere that serves proper beer there, after the Phantom Webmaster's miserable experience. Apparently the fact that the Dome spends large amounts of time effectively empty when the rents are so bloomin' high and the problems of it being a purely drinking place rather than somewhere to eat too put a spanner in the works - but if the place was to become more appealing during the day, maybe it would be viable after all.

Maybe AEG are making so much cash from the big-hitters they don't need to have the place working to capacity the rest of the time, but surely they could start looking at the 'dead' space and time there. There's still loads of room to be filled, especially round the back. But what with?

My choice would be a bowling alley (I LOVE bowling but only ever manage to get to the Bloomsbury Lanes about once a year) but I'm sure there are other things that would bring more of us over there more often. An actual destination restaurant rather than stadium tat (with the honorable exception of Gaucho) perhaps? A decent exhibition in the 'Bubble?' Or even that dreaded fallback - retail?

What would make you visit? Or should we just decide that it's not really for the likes of us and let it carry on sparkling to itself across the water? I guess its failure to appeal to locals is good news for the town centre... :-)

BTW - do you ever play the same game as me where you come out of North Greenwich Tube and work out what gig is on from the type of people that are heading towards the O2?

Quiet Shame

Back in September, during Open House weekend, I went to visit the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich - a curious building with a curious history. But I'm not talking about that today, I'm more concerned with something I learned that morning which has been troubling me ever since.

Our group was shown round the barracks by the man in charge - always good to get the head honcho - and I took the opportunity to ask about the fate of the Rotunda.

For those of you who aren't aware of this very, very odd building, tucked away behind a screen of trees and a fence of barbed wire (the photos here are the best I could do back in the summer - there's just no way of really seeing it any more...), it's a weird tent-like structure, which started out as exactly that - a tent.

John Nash built it in 1814, in the grounds around Carlton House Gardens. It was the centrepiece of six tents created to celebrate the defeat of Napoleon (so what if it was all a bit previous...)

Everyone liked the tent so much that Nash decided that it was too good just to take down again, so he hit upon the idea of surrounding the tent walls with brick, and covering the canvas roof with a rather splendid, sweeping lead version to protect the original. I guess the equivalent would be if someone put a giant metal dome over the top of the O2.

The whole thing was moved to Woolwich in 1820, to become the Museum of Artillery - which it was for about 180 years. It even got a revamp in 1975.

When the Woolwich Arsenal was turned into what it is now, it was decided to create Firepower, and all the stuff was moved from the Rotunda to the new museum. They're still moving the last cannons, I understand. Here's one:

What one makes of Firepower is an individual matter. But the question of what happens to the Rotunda next is one that I'd never fully got to the bottom of.

It's completely closed, with high fences and the aforementioned trees, though it would have once had fantastic views - for miles around. I knew that the place had reverted to the MOD so I took the opportunity of asking our guide what would be happening.

Frankly, after he told me (he was completely, and typically militarily up-front about it) the rest of the weekend was a bit of a downer for me and I've been trying to get my head around it ever since.

When the final cannons go (and they may have gone by now, though I doubt it - they're big buggers) the place will 'have the lights turned off.' That, to you and me, means it will just be left, to moulder away. No access, no views, just a quiet rotting into the earth.

It's economics, of course, that dictate this. The guy told me it takes sixty-odd grand a year just to stop the place collapsing (it faces special architectural problems due to its 'unusual' construction) and he has other drains on his finances - not least huge amounts of military memorabilia that finds its way into his hands which he's supposed to lovingly curate.

I expressed my distress at this news, trying hard to lower my voice from the strangulated squeak it had become. He said that he would be interested in talking to anyone that could make a financial go of leasing it - after all - it's a liability - sixty grand a year before you do anything to it (and I'm not sure if they're even going to spend that when they finally go...)

I would SO love to see something happen to this - but what - and with what kind of cash? The place is listed (of course) but there's no real stick to beat the MOD with if they just let it moulder. It's out of the way - I can't even see what it could be used for - but hell - this is a John Nash building that is at the very least 'exotic.' Surely there's something...

Tunnel Talk

Luke met (over the weekend, I'm assuming) some people seeking support against the closure of the foot tunnel and wondered if I'd come across them (which I hadn't.)

We talked about refurbishment work looming on the horizon back in January but although Andrew Gilligan's June article mentions a start date of September 2009, work doesn't appear to have started yet.

Luke says that the protesters claim the tunnel (along with the one at Woolwich) will be closed for 6 months while it's refurbished. Andrew Gilligan thinks it will be more like 10 months to a year.

"The campaigners were getting signatures on letters to Greenwich Council asking for the work to be done at night or for shorter bursts rather than completely shut off a major route across the Thames," Luke says.

I think the issue here is one of this being a public highway (which is why the tunnels are not closed at night.) Surely there HAS to be some kind of provision for an alternative crossing - especially for people like cyclists who aren't allowed on the DLR? I mean - when they close a road, they generally provide alternative routes that aren't something like a ten-mile round trip.

I've tried cycling round - it's bloomin' MILES to go via Tower Bridge - the nearest alternative, and much of the cycle route is hard to decipher. I didn't even finish, being an exercise-o-phobe. Closing both tunnels at once is especially bad (if true) - but even cycling down to Woolwich is an extra - what - hour-and-a-half for me, 30 mins for everyone else.

However, I'm not sure I agree with the work being carried on at night or in short burst. It would just provide an excuse for the only bit of Cutty Sark 'Gardens' that isn't a building site to be an, um, building site - for no fixed period of time - and for the lifts to never work properly ('oh, we're getting to that bit later...')

But if we want a nice clean, fresh tunnel with lifts that work, improvements need to be done.

I would be in favour of lobbying for a regular ferry across the river to Island Gardens - paying for such a facility would be a wonderful concentration for the mind on getting that work finished...

Nevada / Silver Street

I've been sitting on this thorny question for some months, trying to get to the bottom of it. Sheila asks:

"I'm trying to find out when and why Silver Street was changed to Nevada Street. I've tried research on t'interweb, but to no avail. Do you have any information or advice as to where I could find out more about this?"

You know I thought this was going to be fairly easy to answer, but the more I looked, the less I found out. All every history book ever says on the subject is something along the lines of "Silver St (now Nevada St)" but as to why the hell it should be Silver Street in the first place, and why the bloody hell it should have been renamed Nevada Street is a complete mystery.

I spent some time faffing around the libraries of Greenwich, not to mention my own bookshelves, looking for this before admitting a big fat zero on this and going whining, tricorn in hand, to the man who, if-it's-there-to-know-he'll-know-it, Julian Watson.

The first part of the question is relatively easily answered - or at least best-guessed. Julian tells me

"Nevada/Silver Street was earlier part of Stockwell Street and before that part of Heathgate Street. Heathgate Street was the name given to the western end of the road that went under the Queens House – the main road from Woolwich. Heathgate Street also seemed to encompass the bottom bit of Crooms Hill. All very confusing!

Silver Street seems to have taken its name from the firm S.W. Silver who, according their company history, were in Greenwich in the 19th cent. However, I have never found them in any directory. They moved to the other side of the river and Silvertown grew around them."

So far, so good. No actual proof that that's where the Silver bit comes from, but it's plausible enough for me to buy it. But on the Nevada bit, even the mighty Mr Watson then ran out of ideas, though he wondered if it might have had something to do with the Metropolitan Borough of Greenwich which was formed in 1900 and, full of self-importance, set about changing all sorts of things just for the sake of it.

After some exhaustive (and exhausting) searches, he found the name was changed by the London County Council on 18th June 1895. Sadly the both the minutes and the report in the Mercury at the time merely report the renaming, not the reason.

So why did it stop being Silver Street? I mean - I have nothing against Nevada, but I don't know of any connection between Greenwich and the US state, either now or in any part of the past couple of hundred years. I looked at Nevada State history and there don't seem to have been any great commemorations around the time of the name change or connections with Greenwich.

Maybe S.W. Silver's grandchildren did something awful to offend the council, they immediately struck the name from the records and just stuck a pin in a map for inspiration. Julian wonders about a silver/gold mining connection, but the best mining Greenwich ever seems to have to offered was sand. I guess there could have been some sort of civic visit from American dignitaries commemorated in the name but - hey, I'm clutching at straws here.

The answer is, Sheila, it's yet another Greenwich mystery.

Theories here, please...

Left Out

I've just been forwarded this message. Spot the deliberate(?) mistake:

"We are looking for people who live in one of the following Boroughs to take part in research on Tuesday 28th July at 6.30pm in Stratford. The research is about communities/community spirit and what the Olympics is bringing to these London areas:-

Greenwich Borough (SE2, SE2, SE7, SE8, SE9, SE12, SE13, SE18, SE28)
Hackney Borough (EC1, EC2, E1, E2, E4, E5, E8, E9, E10, E15, N1, N4, N5, N15, N16)
Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest & Newham Boroughs (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, E11, E12, E13, E14, E15, E16, E18)

The research is paying £50 and you will be asked to participate in a 10 min weekly or monthly (TBC) online questionnaire (for 6 months) for which you will be paid an additional amount for.

If you are interested in taking part please email us or text 'communities' to 07940 138132. We do need to cover people from all walks of life so we are particularly interested to hear from people over the age of 65, ethnic minorities, gays & Lesbians, or people with disabilities, so please email this to family, friends or colleagues that would be interested in taking part. This project is very large so we have lots of places on offer.

When replying please provide us with your contact details and state if you meet any of the above.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Tina
Tina Collins
The People Finders
P O Box 225
Bexleyheath
DA7 9AS
020 8306 9803"

Now - I can understand SE3 being left out of this mail - it is in Lewisham - though will be just as affected, if not more so, than some of the outer postcodes that this does include.

But SE10?????

I'm beginning to get the feeling that the Olympic committee really doesn't give a stuff about Greenwich...

Manners Maketh Man

Stevie's miffed. He says:

"I was accosted in the Greenwich Park tonight at closing time.

Let me clarify that remark. It was 9.15pm and I was sitting at Woolfe's statue when the outsourced security van with responsibility for closing came on to that area at speed and it's horn beeping loudly and repeatedly

BARP BARP BARP BARP BARP BARP BARP!!!!! THE PARK IS CLOSING. YOU MUST LEAVE .... THE PARK IS CLOSING - LEAVE NOW ... BARP BARP BARP BARP BARP BARP BARP BARP! THE PARK IS CLOSING. YOU MUST LEAVE .... THE PARK IS CLOSING - LEAVE NOW ...

The tourists scurried away obediently while the locals exchanged remarks about what a rude way it had been to spoil the end of a lovely evening.

Is this the norm at closing time? And is it appropriate? Of course it isn't. Actions like this harry locals and visitors alike in a dreadful way.

Where's the moderate tone of 'The park will be closing shortly. Please make your way to the exits. Thank you.'?

The Phantom is with Stevie here. Manners Maketh Man, as I discovered was my school motto, though only after I'd left (dodgy comps don't tend to do mottoes very well. Apparently there was a school song too. I never did find out what that was. The theme tune to Only Fools & Horses, perhaps...)

I assume Royal Parks believe that if they're not aggressive about it then no one will take any notice (or maybe it's the closest the guy driving the van gets to Absolute Powerrrr) - but surely they can add the odd veiled threat - (extremely polite and in hushed tones, natch) - something along the lines of "We are slowly closing each gate - when the last one is shut, we release the dogs..."

Any of us who have been caught like this will know it's a horrid way to end a lovely evening. Royal Parks, eh. Whatever happened to Court-esy? Not, of course, that Henry VIII would have allowed serfs like us in his park anyway...

What would be the recorded message YOU would megaphone-out to the dirty stop-outs who just won't go home? Or should be we just tug our forelocks and be grateful we're allowed in the park at all?

The photos, by the way, are from Stevie's Greenwich Park Flowers collection...

World Heritage Building Site

Thanks to everyone who sent me the news that Greenwich Hospital Trust have applied for permission to shift the market to the Old Royal Naval College's grounds for a couple of years before the magic 2012.

I guess that in itself that doesn't bother me too much - it's temporary - and as long as they replace the turf afterwards, it probably won't do much harm in the long term.

But Rod and I have been wondering about what all this concurrent building work - which everyone's doing at the same time as nobody wants to be the one who waits until 2013 to spruce up their shop window - is going to do to us as a World Heritage Site.

As Rod points out, Dresden has just been stripped of its WHS status because it built a four-lane bridge a mile from the town centre. UNESCO points out that the city failed to preserve its "outstanding universal value as inscribed." It's only the second time that a site has been declassified (the other was in Oman) but it proves that however heavy-hearted it may be to do it, UNESCO is prepared to use the knife.

Whatever we think of World Heritage Sites, to be listed as one is a privilege and it does bring in revenue we wouldn't have otherwise - not least from tourism.

Let's just take a peek at what Greenwich will look like in 2010, and you tell me - if you were a foreign tourist, would you visit this World Heritage Site? (I'm not going to count anything outside the WHS, like the 'new heart for East Greenwich,' which in the past year has had nothing more than its signs replaced as the government department changed its name. Again...)

• The Old Royal Naval College - partially closed due to building work. The creation of the new Discovery Centre (and brewery) has seen large amounts of scaffolding and hoardings in the grounds for some time now.

• The Cutty Sark - in shreds - and, worryingly, with no end in sight.

• Cutty Sark Gardens - apparently there is to be a refurb here too, which is why the market couldn't move here.

• Greenwich Pier - in a complete state of hideousness, having sold off a historic waiting room and a new, not-very-heritage-friendly building to be erected in its place. The sellers reckoned the Victorian waiting room was unusable and unsaveable. Try telling that to the guys at St Kitts. UNESCO might be tempted to agree with our friends in the Caribbean, who have bought it to restore.

• Greenwich Market - closed, a total building site. Demolition of Edwardian buildings.

• Greenwich Village Market - closed - demolition in progress for new building, which may or may not be a paragon of architecture.

• National Maritime Museum - Demolition in progress of Victorian buildings in preparation for the new Sammy Ofer Wing.

Tell me - just how does all this add up to our being a strong contender for keeping WHS status? I know the building work itself is temporary. But I worry that each faction thinks it's only them that's pulling down old buildings, only them that's making a mess of their little bit of Greenwich. We can only keep our fingers crossed for those 2010 horsey trials in the park...

Kid-Free Festival

Daniel asks:

"Should I be as pissed off as I am that children have to pay full price for the Greenwich Beer and Jazz festival? I was really looking forward to a lazy Saturday afternoon with my family and some friends - but having to pay full price for my pair of four year-olds, and our friends' children seems a little excessive.

Now if they were students or OAPs they would get a pound off!"

I can only think of one reason why kiddies will be expected to pay the same as adults - that it's a way of limiting the amount of children that will be at what, despite its being held outdoors, is essentially an adult event.

Now - it makes no odds to me. I went last year for curiosity's sake but I won't be doing it again. I'm sure its great for real ale enthusiasts, but it's no fun for people who don't drink beer - there are better events for children and Phantoms. My suggestion would be the shindigs at the Greenwich and Docklands Festival, many of which are family friendly - see you there.

But hey. That's my reading of the pricing policy. Is it correct? I don't know. Is it right? You tell me. But since last year, if memory serves, sold out, it's a seller's market. You organises the festival, you takes your choice as to whether you can afford to lose the family market.

Oh hell. I have a horrid feeling I have just opened the Floodgates of Flame.

Play nicely with the other folks, now...

Not At Risk. No, Really. Honest.

According to a survey by English Heritage released today, one in seven conservation areas in London are 'at risk' - mainly from "neglect, decay or damaging change."

You know the sort of thing - dodgy extensions, icky 'improvements,' street clutter, the wholesale paving-over of front gardens, giant advertisement hoardings, nasty front dormers, yada, yada. EH's biggest bugbear is plastic windows and doors.

"Hm," I thought to myself. "I can think of a few 'additions' to some local conservation areas. I'll look up the results and see just how bad we are..."

Hold onto your hats, folks. Greenwich is squeaky-clean.

What? Not a single conservation area in the whole of Greenwich borough at risk? Heavens. What paragons of heritage preservation we must be after all. I must have just been imagining that front-dormer in Humber Road...

It was only when I looked a little further, that I started to smell a rat. English Heritage got their results by contacting councils and asking them if there was anything wrong with their lovely conservation areas. Simon Thurley, (CEO of EH) was "delighted that 75% responded..."

Let's look at the possible meanings of our own fair borough's omission from the list.

Number One. The Bucolic Greenwich Scenario. We really do have completely healthy conservation areas, every development in these spots is utterly gorgeous to look at and we live in an Arcadian Dream.

Aw, c'mon. It's possible...

Number Two. The Oops-I-knew-there-was-something-I-meant-to-do Scenario. Greenwich Council couldn't be bothered forgot to fill in the form. Well - at least they're not alone - a quarter of councils did the same thing.

Number Three. The Nothing-to-see-here Scenario. Surely Greenwich Council wouldn't lie about the state of our conservation areas? After all we're not at any kind of risk of losing our World Heritage status, are we.

Nah. It's got to be Number One. It's just got to be.

What's your favourite 'addition' to a conservation area? Remember it has to be a conservation area, so sadly my all-time favourite conversion, to adjoining properties on the corner of Halstow and Chevening Roads - so extraordinary that it's made its way into a Harper Collins book on period property, and worth making a special trip just to witness (sorry - I've never had my camera whenever I've been that way), doesn't count...

Pants On Fire

Did anyone hear that interview on the Today programme this morning, with Bob Crow and the Mayor? Sadly they were not interviewed together, which I'd have really enjoyed.

Management claim that today's strike is down to two sacked workers; Crow swears that it isn't and never has been about that, that there was a deal on the table that either he had signed or was about to sign when a mysterious telephone call saw said agreement whipped away from under his nose.

The only thing that we can be certain of here is that Someone Is Lying. And I find it bizarre that whichever side that is, it must be a blatant lie. An easily revealed lie, surely?

Either there was a deal (and now isn't) or there wasn't. Either the two sacked workers were part of the dispute or they weren't. Both sides seem to think they're still in the playground, while the rest of us are stuck searching for bus routes and cycling maps.

It doesn't help that Bob Crow has to be one of the least sympathetic characters on the London political stage just now (and let's face it, there are so many candidates for that 'accolade') but he sounded so indignant this morning I nearly believed him.

Whoever's lying, it should be reasonably easy to resolve - that contract Bob Crow says he was willing to sign at 6.00pm just needs to be found and signed now. And if it can't be produced...

If you can't get in today and are stuck for something to do, try amusing yourself with Darryl's entertaining drinking game.

Grinnidge

"Be not afraid of Greenwich, some are born Greenwich, some achieve Greenwich and others have Greenwich thrust upon them..." *

Sue and I have been discussing ways to tell if someone is a true Greenwichian or a happy incomer who has found Paradise in the Land of a Thousand Domes...

I guess you could say you were Greenwichian if you were born within the sound of St Alfege's Bells, but they don't ring very often. It would be most inconvenient to be born at a time there's no campanological practice. Christ Church's always-slightly-late chimes, then? Hmm. Maybe.

Sue reckons there's an easy way to tell a Born-Greenwichian. She says:

"Locals (including me) call it “Grinnidge” but immigrants to the fair borough and the people who make the announcements on the train and the DLR pronounce it “Grenitch”.

I am in accord. My elderly uncle always used to call it Grinnidge. (He also had a sweet tooth and enjoyed a nice slab of 'nuggit' from time to time.) I, neither to my shame nor otherwise, have always called it Grenitch (and enjoyed the occasional nugget of noogar.) Both are wrong, considering its spelling - even my pagan pals don't call it green-witch.

Sue continues:

"The other thing about the local accent is the aaaaas. My north London friend is fascinated by the number of “as” I can place in the middle of a word. He says it sounds like hay without the h."

Interesting that many Greenwichian accents seem to owe more to rural Kent than Sarf London. Some people say they can tell the difference between accents from Greenwich, Charlton, Woolwich etc. I confess I wouldn't be able to but Sue says that a few trips to the terraces at The Valley should help me out. And I do intend to put my aversion to all kinds of sport to one side next season and actually attend a Charlton match, just so I can say I've done it. Oh - and listen to all those different accents, of course.

Thing is, I'm not totally convinced that you actually need to be born in Greenwich to be a true Greenwichian. In fact it's entirely possible you don't even need to live here. Like the rest of London, Greenwich is now a cosmopolitan place. Being born here is cool - but that isn't the only way. I am coming to the opinion that Greenwich, like New York, is a State of Mind. You merely have to allow Greenwich into your heart (ooh - that sounds a bit creepy and evangelical...nah, I'll let it go...) to be a True Greenwichian.

So today, I would like suggestions for what makes someone 'a true Greenwichian.' And, indeed, ideas for a Person-of-Greenwich noun less wanky than 'Greenwichian...'


* from the First Folio edition of "Twelfth Night." Censored by the Lord Chamberlain as being 'offensive to people not from Greenwich,' it was replaced in later editions by the synonym "greatness."

Alternative Domes (2)

The Reservoir, Greenwich Park

I keep forgetting that I acquired a whole bunch of aerial photos taken last year on the Zepplin rides. There are some amazing shots, I must use more of them...

I wasn't really sure whether to make this an Underground Greenwich entry - or an Alternative Dome, but looking at it from above, it just has to be the latter, even though it's as hidden and inpenetrable as any of Greenwich's other underground stuff. But serene, secret and secluded as it may be now, building this almost-unknown dome brought on one of Greenwich Park's first-ever environmental protests...

Greenwich Hospital had spent a lot of time and cash enlarging and improving the maze of underground conduits that weave their way through the Park, but they had their eye on making it even bigger - not least because as well as supplying Deptford Dockyard and the hospital itself, the surplus water could be flogged off to local residents.

That the spot they chose for an open reservoir in 1844 was home to a small colony of Anglo Saxon tumuli didn't bother the admirals in charge one jot, and they had already turfed-up several ancient burial mounds before a newly-politicised public got wind of it.

The very early Victorian age was beginning to realise the importance of conservation - almost contemporary to the destruction of this most ancient part of the park was raging another dispute, over the arrival of the railways. The fury over the Anglo-Saxon graves was both organised and angry. Greenwich's 19th-Century Swampy, one 'Simon Sensitive,' was appalled and made the campaign public, writing to the Pictorial Times.

The protesters got themselves a stay of execution - and they saved the burial mounds (albeit in a very damaged form.) But Simon Sensitive and his friends may have won the battle to save the burial mounds but they'd lost the war not to have a waterworks built in a Royal Park. It was constructed a year later, a few yards from the original site

According to the very-wonderful John Bold, it cost £3,069, and was designed by Sir William Thomas Denison, Superintendent at Portsmouth Dockyard, under the watchful eye of the Admiralty Works Department. And I guess it looked a lot worse then than it does now - probably a complete eyesore. The armed services are not known for aesthetics in design. The new tank held 1, 125,000 gallons of water, was partially dug-out, partially built-up and measured 160 feet across its base. "The crowning outrage is now being effected," Simon Sensitive wrote. "I am ashamed, I am grieved, I am indescribably distressed..."

The frustrating thing is, that after all that fuss it only lasted 26 years. The hospital closed in 1871. Kent Waterworks covered the reservoir with a turf roof, and screened it with bushes. I don't know whether it was drained at the same time or later, but it's empty now.


I like to think that Simon Sensitive would be calmed by what the reservoir looks like now - almost impossible to see except from the air. But I do find myself thinking about that space from time to time. I can't decide whether it needs to remain as it is, or whether this giant, low-ceilinged, brick-pillared empty space could be used imaginatively.

Probably a bit low for a performance space (the pillars are 8ft high) unless it was re-opened as an open-air theatre, but perhaps an art gallery? Aquarium? Museum? Funky restaurant? Or perhaps re-opened as a nature reserve?


What do you think? Has enough damage been done, and should we let sleeping dogs lie - or could this be a really interesting, useful space, out of sight of most park users these days and full of possiblities?

'Achievements'

When I was a child, one of my favourite non-fic books was a hand-me-down copy of The Story of Houses and Homes - a Ladybird 'Achievements' Book. No - really - I was a weird kid. In fact I still have it. Here it is:

I read that book endlessly - it was one of a handful I knew back to front - even the boring bits like the page about nasty slums and the one following it which explained how "a famous Act of Parliament, passed in 1875, stopped the greedy building of large numbers of small houses crammed together."

That 'famous Act,' I found out later, was Disraeli's Artisans Dwellings Act - which effectively began the social housing movement. My Ladybird book told me "Among other regulations there had to be a certain number of rooms, walls had to be of a certain thickness, every house had to have a sink in the kitchen with a tap, a copper for boiling water to wash clothes, and its own lavatory."

It's pretty much down to that act why so many houses round here - and, of course, across Britain look like this:

All those thousands of terraced late-Victorian /Edwardian houses are the result of builders working out the way they could squeak within the letter of the law, given the new restrictions, using the least amount of land and building materials.

For the last 18 months, as I've plodded my way to Sainsburys, I've been watching these flats going up. From the start it was clear they were never going to be able to use the description 'luxury,' but there is a point where cost-cutting and greed does start to plum new depths.

Rooms I swear will never be lit by natural light, edges that don't meet, pipes sticking out from the walls, cheap, dodgy-looking doors and the block's one nod to 'style' - glass panels masquerading as porches - hung horizontally so that rainwater will gather on the top until it either spills over onto whoever's below or starts growing its own green roof.

A few weeks ago I walked past and they appeared to have given up on proper building materials at all. Workmen were busy putting up what I'm certain were plywood walls around the balconies and using what probably weren't but did look like old pallets for the balcony roofs. Another guy was merrily painting the high, end wall two different shades of white, after, presumably, running out of the original colour halfway up.

Now, perhaps in some kind of bid to sell it to the HM Prison Service as overflow accommodation, some battered battleship grey panels are being put over the plywood (one or two look wonky to me) and some metal grilles are being tacked onto the balcony sides. All they need is some netting to make sure the inmates don't chuck themselves over them. Oh - no - wait - that won't be necessary - the giant road sign outside the window will break their fall...

All this has been bugging me for months. So why am I spitting tacks today? Because this weekend there was an article on the news that put me in mind of my Ladybird Book, and for two mornings running I've woken up grumpy, thinking of these blooming apartments.

The government has given housing associations cash to buy up unsold new-builds and turn them into social housing. I think it's a great idea.

The problem? Many of these developers have been so greedy that they've produced properties so poor in quality the housing associations won't touch them. They're far too mean, small and badly built for social housing...

I'm not saying that this block has been rejected - or even considered by - housing associations, but if I were in charge of buying some new social housing stock I'd be giving it a wide berth, given what I've been watching go up over the months.

Of course, I haven't seen it up close. Taking a sneaky peek at the show flat would be illuminating (even if I can't promise those windows would be...) Every so often, a plastic banner is hung from the balconies, declaring the show flat is 'open.' I've not been able to see exactly where that would be. After a week or so, the banner starts to fall down, then it's removed.

Apparently there's an open day on 23rd May, though - the website still seems to hold out hope that someone would actually buy one of these. Just check out the prices - still absolutely ridiculous, despite their being reduced. If nothing else, check out the artist's impression of what Woolwich Road looks like in Developer Fantasy Land. I particularly enjoyed the greenery, the block that's been built over the coach station, the wide boulevard that is Woolwich Road and the piazza where the artist obviously enjoyed a pavement cappucino whilst sketching this fabulous scene of urban paradise.

It's right and proper that the housing associations have standards - but why haven't the rest of us? How have these developers been allowed to get away with this? According to the news at the weekend, MPs have been pushing for legislation that would guarantee standards for private development similar to the social sector.

What? We don't have regulations already? What happened to the rules embodied in the 1875 Act, for starters? Repealed, presumably. By whom? Who thought that was a good idea? Have we really gone backwards into slumdom again?

I wish I could say this block was unique in its hideousness, but for those of us who have watched several local new-builds going up over the past few years it's a familiar story.

My Ladybird book was published in 1963 - a brave new world of (admittedly unexciting but nevertheless sincere) tower blocks and glass Le Corbusier houses. I have no idea what they would write about Greenwich's most recent 'achievement' in a reprint today...

Broken Link Fixed

Just to let all of you who have been telling me the link to Greenwich Hospital Trust's application for planning permission re. the market, as shown on Greenwich Council's site, is broken - it's now fixed (apparently the response has been huge, which got them to mend it...)

I believe that the bit to do with Durnford Street's buildings was in a different link to the one pertaining to the main market so here are two different links:

For the demolition of the Durnford Street buildings - click here .

For the other proposals, including the cobbles issue, click here

Several people have been asking how to view the drawings for each application. You do that by clicking on the serial number at the top of the application - tabs appear, one of which includes "documents." They are, many of them, the wrong way up and absolutely tiny - but the little plus sign will make them much easier to read.

I have heard that comments will be considered in tandem with the two applications, but so many people have been emailing me about this, I can't remember who said that. If you want to go for the belt-and-braces thing, perhaps you can copy comments to both proposals...

Another Piece Of Greenwich History To Be Lost

I have discovered a new word recently. Facadism. (there should be a cedilla under the 'c' but Blogger doesn't allow such flourishes...)

I suspect that Facadism is exactly what we can expect from the new Greenwich Market development. We get to keep the look of the outside - but only because it's listed. The rest can go to hell in a handcart.

Of course most of the inside of Greenwich Market went down the Swanee back in the 1950s, and, frankly I say good riddance to much of it, having no architectural merit (or even build quality) to speak of - but that's no reason to continue the slide into Historical Oblivion with this latest development.

I have just received an answer to my question about the fate of those little outbuildings behind the market (apparently they're Edwardian, not Victorian. My mistake. It doesn't make them any less important historically.)

I am informed they are 'unsafe' and will be demolished as part of the new plans. I suspect that if they were not in the way of Greenwich Hospital Trust's plans, their 'unsafeness' might not have been quite so insurmountable.

David McFarlane, communique for the development, agrees that they have become "much loved friends to many in Greenwich" and tells me that Greenwich Hospital have agreed to "carefully photograph them for public records."

Big deal.

Mr McFarlane tells me of all the stuff that was demolished 100 years ago to widen Durnsford Street - and to create the very buildings we're talking about. But just because no interest in history was displayed by our ancestors does not give us the excuse to do the same to the very little we have left. Photography is not even a poor substitute.

We are still lucky enough to have a lot of Greenwich's grand past surrounding us. But we are losing the history of the ordinary people of Greenwich on a nigh-on daily basis.

And The Worst View?

I exaggerate, of course. This isn't the worst view in Greenwich by a long chalk. I will let your imaginations run riot as to the true worst view.

But really - are Stephen and I the only grumbly NIMBYS who think that this ugly snack caravan could be placed a few yards back, among the leafy glades of Greenwich Park, instead of battling with the tourists for pole-position, right inside the Observatory walls? It's been there since Wednesday, and Stephen says it's run by the same people who do the pricey sausages in the car park.

I know - it's only a dodgy-looking coffee wagon (I've heard the word 'portaloo' used about it) - and it's not permanent - but this should be a clear, uninterrupted view of a World Heritage Site. How many fewer bags of crisps would they sell if they were moved just a short way from the very area where people often have to queue for a view? I mean - it's not just the van itself, it's it's well-spaced bins lined up along the fence.

Tell me I'm getting obsessive now. I have the horrid feeling I am. It just seems like an eyesore that could be easily moved with no real loss of business to the snackmongers but a small but significant bonus to visitors and locals alike.

Deer Me

I always enjoy some blue-sky thinking - especially when it's clearly intended as a wind-up. Which meant that I specially liked WG's comment a couple of days ago:

"With regards the deer enclosure - is this the optimum use of quite a large slice of Greenwich Park? There are only two cramped observation areas with prison-like security to stop fingers being nibbled. I suggest they are moved to Bushy or Richmond Park where they will be free to roam and do something a bit more beneficial."

Okay - let's run with that. It's not something I had ever considered - I confess I can't imagine Greenwich Park without the deer. They've been here for longer than we have - at least since Henry VII's time and yet it's us that have slowly pushed them further and further back until they're shoved into a corner next to the compost heaps and the rubbish bins.

It's not so long ago deer roamed freely through the park - and, as you can see from the 1903 postcard above, until 1927 feeding them was part of the fun of a day out to Greenwich.

Not that that came without its attendant problems. People tended to assume that the deer enjoyed scoffing whatever they enjoyed - and there were a few casualties along the way. Post-mortems revealed

Death By:

• Gooseberry Tart
• Sweeties
• Orange peel
• Mutton bones
• Strips of cloth
• Leather and, ahem,
• Venison.

Deer have always been around Greenwich park by default, but it was 1653 that a specific herd of 96 deer was officially brought in (along with a small stock of conies, which, inexplicably, don't seem to have bred like the proverbial rabbits...)

Numbers have increased and decreased over the years, and yes, WG, some were moved to Bushy Park in the 1850s when they got a bit numerous. Every so often they bring new males in to make sure the stock stays strong.

I think it's a shame the deer have to be locked away these days - presumably for their own good, but I don't see any real reason for getting rid of them altogether. The park is huge - we don't really need any more space - besides - I rather like there being a secret 'secluded' area.

The deer are charming - and while I'll agree that the double - or is it triple now - row of wire netting makes it hard to feel close to these animals in any real way, I still enjoy taking a trip to the south end of the park. Sometimes they're really near the fence; other times they're not to be seen at all. I like that pot-luckery - it makes me feel privileged when I do see them.

Thing is, the deer enclosure isn't just for deer. At the risk of coming over all eco-warrior, it's a habitat for all manner of other wildlife from bats to moths, funghi to flowers.

But let's not dismiss the idea altogether. Hmm. Let me think. What would the benefit of moving the deer be? Well, I could sleep easy on Blackheath Fireworks Night, knowing the deer aren't frightened out of their furry wits, for a start.

Maybe there is a better use for the land. Her Majesty could flog it off for some luxury flats, perhaps. Or Greenwich Inc could put a venison-themed mid-price restaurant franchise there. How about a pony paddock, complete with baby jumps as a lovely legacy for 2012?

Suggestions here, please, folks...

Slums of Tomorrow

Benedict saw this article on the BBC website some time ago (ahem, it sort of shows you how badly behind I am in my correspondence - sorry, Ben...) and wondered whether this could happen to us.

The gist of it is that in their greed to build as many new homes on as small a piece of land as possible, developers are making places that are just too small to live in.

I've been looking at the brochure for the new development at Lovell's Wharf. And I'll give the PR people their due - after reading that lot even I suddenly fancy living there.

But just take a closer look at those room plans. Where's the storage space? Where do you put your ironing board? The bin? The skis you use once a year? Some of the apartments have a 'utility room' (cupboard) but most, from my scrying, don't.

Now, admittedly, I've never been much of a minimalist - but you'd need to have some kind of disorder to have little enough clutter to keep these places tidy.

Same goes for those little rabbit hutches they're building along Woolwich Road where the old Jet Garage was. On the plans for them, (which I can't seem to find just now) the artist has kindly removed Woolwich Road, replacing it with trees, and taken away the bus garage behind the block. Of course there is no trace of the giant road sign immediately outside one of the appartments...

I loved one of the comments on the BBC website, where some wag had scribbled over the room plan outside one block in Bristol - "Flat shown is actual size."

So what do you think? Could you learn to be tidy, as long as the view was good and you got to live in the best town in the world?

That Silvertown Crossing

Following the talk about the foot tunnel yesterday, Dazza sent me this map, with the proposed Silver town crossing.

I direct you to this article about where it all currently stands (as far as I can see.) I like the idea of a bridge - but surely the road that would lead into it is already a bottleneck? On the plan above the little yellow line disappears into somewhere around the tunnel entrance.

It's a nice idea, but I don't really get how it would work in practice...

Laser Love

Back in the late 90s, while on part of a nationwide initiative to tart up all of France's cathedrals, it occurred to the mayor of Amiens that the beautiful Cathedral there had probably not always been quite so - well - tastefully monochrome in its appearance. That in its medieval heyday, all the saints and decorations would have been a riot of colour, painted in varying garish hues, bringing the place to life.

Sure enough, as the decorations right on top of the cathedral were given a spruce-up, traces of the original paints were found. The mayor was delighted and not a little smug.

Now, even given it being the millennium and all, the Mayor knew that no one was going to wear his climbing up the scaffolding in smock and beret and painting all the saints' beards red again.

But the French are very good at many things - and son-et-lumiere is just one of many including the obvious - champagne, Bouillebasse and the Gallic Shrug. At a cost of heaven-knows-how-much, a specially-cut laser gobo was attached to a projector, and now, for an hour each evening in summer, Amiens cathedral is lit to look like it would have done around 700 years ago.

I have never seen it, so I confess to having borrowed a picture from this website, where you can find more examples of just how great it looks, as well as what it looks like during the day.

Now. I was visiting the Queen's House on Saturday. And one thing you can't level at the Queen's House is garishness. In fact, for a place that's seen so much history, I find it hard to get any real feel of what went on in there. There are some fabulous paintings, and the building itself is seminal - I would call it austerely beautiful. But as a place where so much happened, it's soulless. I get no sense of anyone living - or doing anything - here. Its a sophisticated, tasteful art gallery. But that's it.

On Open House Day last year, I went to Marlborough House to see the Gentileschi paintings that originally adorned those sad, empty, achingly beautiful ceiling panels in the cube room of the Queens House. It reminded me how much a bit of colour would bring some life to those empty roundels I saw on Saturday.

Of course there's no way the Commonwealth Secretariat will ever let us have those paintings back (hell - they won't even let you photograph them...) but I understand that back in the 90s, there was a similar experiment to the Mayor of Amiens's laser display to put the pictures on the Queen's House ceiling by projection.

I keep reading very sniffy accounts of how the Queen's House was in the 90s, largely, it seems, by purists who didn't like the idea of populating the place with fake furniture and rooms of - goodness - different period styles. I can't really comment on that - I don't remember it. I only went once (you had to pay back then - not everything is worse these days...) and it was ages ago.

The guidebooks I have from the 70s and 80s appear to have a totally different picture in that centre circle, 'attributed to Sir James Thornhill.' I have absolutely no idea what happened to that. Was it painted-out in an attack of 'taste?' If it was, then I'm against the '90s update too. The Maybe-Thornhill might not be part of the original Jones plan - but neither is a blank white space.

Now we have nothing. A dull building that was once Glamour Personified.

Why did this Scanachrome projection of the Gentileschi murals stop?

Maybe it was considered old-fashioned, and went out the same time as the rest of the '90s 'improvements.' Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, perhaps.

Maybe the images were a bit fuzzy. Well - just take a peek at those saints on Amiens Cathedral. And they're 3D statues. Lasers can do amazing things these days.

Perhaps it was that old perennial - cash. But hang on. They've just been given twenty million quid. But - oh, sorry. That's for the maritime part of the museum. And maybe the Queen's House is one of the poor relations who won't see any of that.

To be honest, I don't know why the projections went.

But now I'm asking. Can we have them back? What aesthetic harm would they do if the ceiling murals were projected for an hour a day, other than to perhaps bring a bit of much-needed life into a sombre building of great worthiness? It might even increase visitor numbers. (personally I'd have them animated too, so the figures would 'dance' - but maybe that is going a little too far...)

Do you remember the Scanachrome projection? Was it any cop? Would some laser-love brighten up this beautiful, currently-slightly-dull building?

Greenwich Council Do Something Good

Sit down, folks. I have an announcement to make.

I am delighted to put my full support behind something Greenwich Council are doing.

No - really. I don't always see eye to eye with them, but on their latest campaign, I'm right behind them. It's just possible it's pie-in-the-sky - but full marks to them for having a go.

They are trying to persuade Boris Johnson to give the same support to the riverboats that he does to the rest of London Transport. They want Oyster Cards to be useable on them, there to be a more frequent service, and, most importantly, for them to have the same kind of subsidy as is currently given to the buses and tubes.

This last one is the biggie, of course. As things stand, the Mayor's current subsidy is due to end in July - but Greenwich Council want him not just to renew it, but to increase it. And good on them for trying.

I urge you to join in with this - the link to sign up is here.

Not such good news about the disgrace that is Greenwich Pier. For nostalgia purposes, here is the slightly scruffy but very sweet Victorian waiting room that was demolished a few months ago. It was, apparently, unsaveable, though try telling that to the guys in sunny St Kitts who have bought it to restore over there...

What we were getting instead was a monster, albeit a monster by a famous name. But Stephen tells me that things have gone a bit pear-shaped. The place has been turned into a building site, with tourists forced to queue round the block in-between rows of scaffolding and boards, the little waiting room has gone - and one of the future tenants has withdrawn support, putting the project as it stands into dodgy financial territory.

Apparently Conran are currently "working up an option." So the chances are that now we don't just get a monster, we get a cheap monster.

It does sound as though whatever happens, though, it will start to happen soon. And maybe that is a good thing. Anything would be better than what we have now. And perhaps, after a discreet amount of time, we can quietly lose the monster, and plead with St Kitts for our little Victorian building back...

Countdown 2026

Here's a thing I hadn't heard of, which I'm suspecting the Government is keeping a very low profile on, but which everyone should be aware of, even those of us that live in an urban area. For those of you who get the blog via RSS, sorry about the re-post - I managed to put it in the wrong place.

Did you know that on January 1st, 2026, all paths established before 1949 that have not been formally recorded as rights-of-way by that date will be 'extinguished,' and lost forever?

No? Nor did I. And yes - that includes paths that have been around since medieval times and before.

It's all down to greedy landowners who don't like the hoi-poloy tramping across 'their' land. Apparently there are about 20,000 footpaths that we just assume are rights of way because they always have been - but which haven't been formally set down as such - usually because we didn't know we needed to.

At the time when the government passed the law (2000) they thought it might be a bit unpopular (can't think why) and so they started a project to start recording the most-used paths. But it proved really red-tapey and cumbersome and the project was quietly abandoned. Strangely, the law the project was brought in to counteract was not abandoned.

The Ramblers Association is at the forefront of a campaign to get rid of this law, and, given that no one seems to know it was actually passed, they're having a bit of an uphill trek.

One of the reasons this is so important to everyone is that it's not just pretty little country lanes that are in danger. It's those little cut-throughs and snickleways that we use every day, and just assume are ok. One day a builder closes it off, you assume it's just while a new development is going up, and yet somehow it never re-opens.

Don't assume that the path you use across the Angerstein Lane by Farmdale Road that leads over the flyover to Westcombe Park station is registered. Don't assume that that little path between Maze Hill and Maze Hill station will stay there for ever. I don't know about these two - or any others, as yet - for all I know they MAY be registered - but we can't assume anything.

A very interesting case is on the other side of Maze Hill station, eading to the south side, from Vanbrugh Hill. Will that path ever re-open now we have 'Seren park'? Who can tell.

I understand that it's a particularly complicated one and that, curiously, the two parties that the Ramblers usually see as 'baddies' are actually the 'goodies' in this instance.

It seems that both the developer and the council are happy to reopen it (I believe the developer actually had to make a special path as a Section 106) but South Eastern Trains themselves are putting up all kinds of barriers, wanting to close it completely forever. They claim, I understand, that the path belongs to a totally different railway company, but a little bird tells me they're being VERY obstructive.

I don't know the details, but this is one thing that mustn't go unnoticed. I have a friend up Vanbrugh Hill who has recently had a baby who has to hump a pram over the railway bridge, along past the pottery and back up over the footbridge just to get onto the platform. Shame on South Eastern.

But back to Countdown 2026. This is potentially a serious issue. We can do two things. We can sign the usual petition (I'm never sure how much good they do, but since it's there we might as well...) and we can look at the paths that we personally love. There are definitive maps of paths recorded so far. We can check that the ones we use and love ourselves are included on the maps, and if they're not, we need to use them and get proof that we did. The Ramblers Association will help.

We mustn't let this one slide. I understand that even marked footpaths and some famous paths are included on the 'at risk' list. If they are, then heaven help the little byways that, though they might not be the prettiest sight ever, we use every day and which make our lives that little bit easier...