Brockwell Park loses a chunk due to junction alterations at Herne Hill Junction
- Thread starter gaijingirl
- Start date
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Another way of saying this would be 'Those most directly affected by it'
As I've said several times on this thread, the FOBP and others have used hyperbole and spin constantly in their campaign against a development which will take less than 1% of the actual green space from the park, and make a better, safer interchange for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and cars.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
The park is 128.5 acres or 520,000 sq.m.
1100 sq.m. (the area FOBP state will be removed) is 0.21%
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The other thing as well is that '1100' is a big number - that's like 1000m!!!
What people don't appreciate is that 10mx110m isn't that big a space...in fact, it's basically the space taken by the sprint section on a running track.
What people don't appreciate is that 10mx110m isn't that big a space...in fact, it's basically the space taken by the sprint section on a running track.
goldengraham
Well-Known Member
Actually loads of people in Herne Hill are in favour of it - perhaps they are just not quite as motivated to sign petitions etc, as it has always seemed likely that the scheme would go ahead anyway.
That said, I admire the FOBP for acting on an important principle, but sometimes you just have to let the head rule the heart.
If it was any other junction and any other bit of park I'd probably be dead set against it. But the fact is, it is that (very dangerous) junction and that (very scummy) bit of park.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
If the aim is to benefit the area, a car park that size would have a hundred or more spaces. That would be more useful than gobbling up the space to widen the road.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
The junction could be made a lot safer by the provision of proper pelican crossings. Far cheaper, too.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
No, it's rough grassland at the edge of the park. That grass is kept long and rough for the benefit of the ecology and of wildlife. Destroy that strip, and a similarly wide rough strip will be needed to replace it.
All the fixing the junction really needs is to have proper pelican crossings.
christonabike
Elm Park Bencher
Aye, I said this a few moons ago
It's not hard it is to cross a road safely with proper crossings provided. I see that there are none there now, was this to make it unsafe and ensure this goes ahead?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
It's not just the pedestrian crossings that need fixing though. The road junction is a bottleneck - for buses as well as cars. The proposal creates more space for passing traffic and lets buses going from Norwood to Dulwich road bypass the lights entirely.
christonabike
Elm Park Bencher
I have no trouble with them sorting stuff out but I feel it is appeasing the car brigade by taking away some of the park. How about massive bus lanes and a ban on cars around that junction
(that'd be mental, I know!)?
Did they really take away the green man crossings there to make it unsafe so the scheme would go ahead? I lose track
[QUOTEBut the fact is, it is that (very dangerous) junction and that (very scummy) bit of park.][/QUOTE]
Both untrue
(that'd be mental, I know!)?
Did they really take away the green man crossings there to make it unsafe so the scheme would go ahead? I lose track
[QUOTEBut the fact is, it is that (very dangerous) junction and that (very scummy) bit of park.][/QUOTE]
Both untrue
goldengraham
Well-Known Member
teuchter
je suis teuchter
How much of the strip that will be taken out comprises "rough grassland"? Not very much I don't think. Most of it is tarmac anyway.
That doesn't really help buses and cyclists though does it?
Structaural
in Chatsubo
Why can't the 2nd proposal go ahead then, that only uses 50% of that parkland and still allows the development of Herne Hill? It is not a scummy part of the park, it's full of rosebushes, grasses and benches. If you push into the park, then another part of the park will become wino-land anyway.
I think it's fucking sad when urban green spaces are given up for cars in any situation, and the parkland is going to make a two lane sliproad.
I think it's fucking sad when urban green spaces are given up for cars in any situation, and the parkland is going to make a two lane sliproad.
christonabike
Elm Park Bencher
I would have no problem with this scheme if they added to the park somewhere else, by digging up a road and making it part of the park
This ^^^
In a few years time I expect this as an example of the park being taken away for car flow, and it to be repeated
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
One lane sliproad
The rosebushes and flower beds will have to go in either layout, although the toilet block is retained in the FOBP proposal. Both schemes will require redesign and replanting of the entrance area, and the amount of parkland taken up is miniscule in both schemes. I'd be happy with either of them.
The rosebushes and flower beds will have to go in either layout, although the toilet block is retained in the FOBP proposal. Both schemes will require redesign and replanting of the entrance area, and the amount of parkland taken up is miniscule in both schemes. I'd be happy with either of them.
What seems particularly pig headed to me is that FOBP have come up with a fallback design that meets the objectives (and so keeps everyone happy) and that Lambeth have 'reviewed' it using the people who came up with the original plan. So unsurprisingly Lambeth have decided not to budge.
Well actually everyone who lives locally crosses at that junction regularly - including me. So we all have an interest in getting it sorted out.
It's more that the people in Rhymer / Hurst streets like the idea of losing traffic going past their front doors - which will ultimately go past somebody else's front door now...
Structaural
in Chatsubo
There's already a one-lane slip road, it must become two lane, surely, to allow the traffic going south from Dulwich road (as they are blocking off Railton).
I look forward to the redevelopment of Herne Hill, but as the original Lambeth plan didn't allow for this and was purely road widening/park stealing I think they've found this way round it as evidenced by ignoring the updated plan. This is more for traffic improvement to the South Circular (and gentrification) than anything else. Call me a cynic with regards to Lambeth Council.
It may be miniscule compared with the total size of the park, but who counts percentages anyway? I think losing it will quite noticeable, especially to those who've used that entrance for the past 30 years.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Gentrifying Herne Hill? Cos it's so run down now.
Incidentally, the A205 is nowhere near Brockwell Park, so I don't quite know how improving the junction at BP will alter traffic flow at the crossroads at Tulse Hill...
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Dishonest bullshit emphasised.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
My guess: because nuLabour voting home-owners are happy to destroy parkland if it helps them pocket a hefty profit by improving house-prices in the area.
Hence, I suppose, the downright misinformation posted here
Jonti
what the dormouse said
So that's pretty much 60% of the land is "green", and about 30% public paths in the traffic free environment of the Park. The remaining 10% is for public convenience.
All this is to be destroyed for the benefit of through traffic.
Of course, the paved areas inside the park just inside the exit gate will need to be relaid when the exit gate is moved a staggering 10m or so inside the present park boundary.
It is dishonest of the promoters of the "parkland for slip roads" policy not to count this further paving as parkland destroyed by their scheme. It is dishonest to claim that "most" of the area to be lost is already tarmac. And it is dishonest, and manipulative, to have failed to introduce simple pelican crossings to make the junction safer for foot traffic.
This is not about people, local facilities and local trade. It is about speeding the flow of through traffic through the wider and faster slip road (which will therefore be more hazardous to foot traffic entering and leaving the park). Great, we lose the public conveniences , and parkland. We gain a junction with faster moving traffic and poorer pedestrian facilities.
And the traffic that has slipped round the corner more smoothly will get to the next bottleneck at the junction of Brixton Water Lane and Effra Road/Tulse Hill, oooh, maybe three or five minutes more quickly. Where it will, of course, be delayed for longer (being as more will be queued up there).
The usual great sense of priorities from the motoring lobby, then
All this is to be destroyed for the benefit of through traffic.
Of course, the paved areas inside the park just inside the exit gate will need to be relaid when the exit gate is moved a staggering 10m or so inside the present park boundary.
It is dishonest of the promoters of the "parkland for slip roads" policy not to count this further paving as parkland destroyed by their scheme. It is dishonest to claim that "most" of the area to be lost is already tarmac. And it is dishonest, and manipulative, to have failed to introduce simple pelican crossings to make the junction safer for foot traffic.
This is not about people, local facilities and local trade. It is about speeding the flow of through traffic through the wider and faster slip road (which will therefore be more hazardous to foot traffic entering and leaving the park). Great, we lose the public conveniences , and parkland. We gain a junction with faster moving traffic and poorer pedestrian facilities.
And the traffic that has slipped round the corner more smoothly will get to the next bottleneck at the junction of Brixton Water Lane and Effra Road/Tulse Hill, oooh, maybe three or five minutes more quickly. Where it will, of course, be delayed for longer (being as more will be queued up there).
The usual great sense of priorities from the motoring lobby, then
Similar threads
