Still trying to digest.
We were presented with 2 scenarios.
A. Studios and workspace, outdoor events, potential new cultural leisure and community uses - supported by new housing and shopping
or scenario B: studios and workspace on Popes Road with an extended indoor market - supported by new housing and shops
Spot the difference is/was my immediate reaction!
We were asked to feedback on all sorts of general aspirations and propositions such as ranking in order of preference affordable housing, local jobs, affordable workspace and retail, refurbished and improved railway station, new public realm (roads? pedestrianised squares?), sustainable employment/retail mix??, town centre parking (seems a divisive issue), culture and community (what that?), local energy network (some sort of combined heat and power idea), enhancing the Rec, an overground station (probably at East Brixton), continued (undefined) community development.
The presentations at the beginning of the meeting went way over time. We heard from Fluid's Steve McAdam, AECOM's Jonathan Rose and perhaps in most detail from Tom Bridgman a senior manager in Lambeth Regeneration, who had so much to cram in, his delivery was very rapid. Not good if your ears are bunged up like mine.
I felt, and still feel that we were being asked to vote on 2 rather similar concepts.
Major differences between the options are these:
International House - scenario A - demolish and build housing
- scenario B - refurbish for employment use
Canterbury Arms - scenario A - proceed with existing planning permission and use Ice Rink site for mix of cultural/educational/housing
- scenario B - seek to incorporate this into a bigger housing scheme for the former Ice Rink site
Car parking - scenario A - underground car park under Ice Rink site
- scenario B - "decked car parking" (mini-multi storey?)
Objections to scenario A: demolishing International House was energy wasteful - not energy saving.
Objections to scenario B: extending the indoor market area was risky - many existing indoor market uses are marginal and only open part of the week it was said.
Also losing some existing railway arch tenants would be foolish - they are situated in the large out-door arches because that suits their businesses.
Maybe
Gramsci or others can add other bits they recall?