Thanks for that - you're a mensch!
Will PM to arrange how & when etc once the recording's been done.
Lambeth's plans to demolish Cressingham Gardens and other estates without the consent of residents
- Thread starter Brixton Hatter
- Start date
Will PM to arrange how & when etc once the recording's been done.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That's much-appreciated. Thank you.
I'm hoping to take footage with two cameras - a static one on the speakers, and a mobile one on the audience, so I'll probably rough-edit the footage first, and sync a separate audio recording to it - for some reason, built-in mics on cameras suck arse.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
An interesting and entertaining talk, even though only one of the speakers turned up.
My camera failed (
), but I did get a good audio recording, which I'll clean up, then post so that it can be downloaded.
My camera failed (
), but I did get a good audio recording, which I'll clean up, then post so that it can be downloaded.
What the very sunny natured VP didn't say is that the probable cause of camera failure was a late arrival bumbling into it. C'est la vie.<snip> My camera failed (
Still, at least the audio seems usable.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I'm no expert, but it looks very promising.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The plan itself is well worth a read (15 pages, but not closely-spaced!) once it's published (next Tuesday). The case we set out is well-researched, and takes account of the council's stated aims and development criteria, as well as the wishes of our community and extant London and national development legislation.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
As the page says, people are welcome to come along to the Rotunda to check the Plan out.
High Definition
Active Member
I've been looking at the People's Plan. Agree that the Plan seems well-researched and includes lots of good ideas.
However, I'm not happy about the plan to replace Crosby Walk North (two storeys now) with a building rising from four storeys to five. For me, as a friend of the Brockwell Park as well as a supporter of the Save Cressingham Campaign, this seems like a really bad idea - for four reasons.
1. One of the great things about the existing estate is that it respects views of the south west boundary of the park, with most building on the park boundary just one and two storeys high, so they aren't visible from high points in the park. The proposed four/five storey building would sit immediately next to the park boundary and would stick up like a sore thumb in views from the park.
2. It would mean that the tenants living in maisonettes at the end of the block - who told me last winter that they'd like to stay on the estate - would lose their homes and probably have to move off the estate. Why should they be sacrificed so that everyone else can stay?
3. It would create very few additional homes. The text says that the four/five storey option would provide 17 flats. However, it would would involve the demolition of a block which contains around 12 flats and maisonettes now (some void and some still tenanted). So that's an increase of just 5. By the way, LB Lambeth's figures for net housing gain at Cressingham (464 new homes, less 306 demolished = 158 net additional, of which 15% at council rents = 23) included the voids in Crosby Walk in the figure for existing homes - so we have to the same if we're comparing like with like
4. The void maisonettes in Crosby Walk have big cracks running from ground to roof level which appear to be the result of subsidence. This needs to be checked out before we look at rebuilding on the same site.
I hope the architect who came up with the idea of a four/five storey block replacing Crosby Walk North can be persuaded to go away and have a rethink.
it
However, I'm not happy about the plan to replace Crosby Walk North (two storeys now) with a building rising from four storeys to five. For me, as a friend of the Brockwell Park as well as a supporter of the Save Cressingham Campaign, this seems like a really bad idea - for four reasons.
1. One of the great things about the existing estate is that it respects views of the south west boundary of the park, with most building on the park boundary just one and two storeys high, so they aren't visible from high points in the park. The proposed four/five storey building would sit immediately next to the park boundary and would stick up like a sore thumb in views from the park.
2. It would mean that the tenants living in maisonettes at the end of the block - who told me last winter that they'd like to stay on the estate - would lose their homes and probably have to move off the estate. Why should they be sacrificed so that everyone else can stay?
3. It would create very few additional homes. The text says that the four/five storey option would provide 17 flats. However, it would would involve the demolition of a block which contains around 12 flats and maisonettes now (some void and some still tenanted). So that's an increase of just 5. By the way, LB Lambeth's figures for net housing gain at Cressingham (464 new homes, less 306 demolished = 158 net additional, of which 15% at council rents = 23) included the voids in Crosby Walk in the figure for existing homes - so we have to the same if we're comparing like with like
4. The void maisonettes in Crosby Walk have big cracks running from ground to roof level which appear to be the result of subsidence. This needs to be checked out before we look at rebuilding on the same site.
I hope the architect who came up with the idea of a four/five storey block replacing Crosby Walk North can be persuaded to go away and have a rethink.
it
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The block that would be demolished is 12 flats - 47-58 Crosby Walk - no maisonettes. The nearest maisonettes are further south, up the estate. 6 flats are long-term void. 2 of the remaining 6 have already been voluntarily decanted, sadly, by Lambeth.
Yep, Lambeth have given housing priority to any tenant wanting to move off of Cressingham. Sod if you've been on the list for years. Lambeth's potential profit from property speculation comes first!
17 is the maximum. From the drawings, 14 looks better, and you're missing an important point (that's pointed out in the literature). That's 14-17 2-bed flats, replacing 12 1-bed flats. So, only 2-5 extra homes, but 14-17 extra bedrooms - important given current demographic demands.
We'd never have thought of that!!!
Sorry, but you just had me giggling like a loon after reading that!
The cracks haven't grown or moved in the coming-up-to 17 years the 6 flats furthest from the park have been bricked up. As our surveyor and architect have both remarked, "subsidence" (as the council categorised it) is unlikely to cause a one-off, non-worsening issue. What seems more likely to have been the cause is the heave created when the old petrol station had new tanks fitted in the late '90s (and apparently left the old ones in situ to degrade), as well as when Lambeth cleared a load of trees from the backs of road-adjacent properties at the same time - we've had to rely on old-timers recalling stuff to find this out, as Lambeth barely seem to keep records of current work, let alone of work from 2 decades ago.
Hope that goes some way to reassuring you that we've bothered to do our homework.
He (the architect) said "she's a bit fierce!". I corrected him and said "she's passionate".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
High Definition , I should have added to the above that I'm pretty sure (I've just checked the latest illustrations) that the 4-5 storey building is actually 3 and a half storeys at the profile that will be presented to the park (apparently using Hollamby's principles of higher further away from the boundary actually worksin terms of [in]visibility!). It will be no higher than Longford Walk, which also abuts the park. The new-build will also be designed to fit to the prevailing style of the estate.
Do please, if you can, come along tomorrow. I made sure that all interested local bodies got both organisational invites and - where we knew personal e-mail addies like your own - personal invites to some members of that organisation. We want critique. Nothing is set in stone!
Do please, if you can, come along tomorrow. I made sure that all interested local bodies got both organisational invites and - where we knew personal e-mail addies like your own - personal invites to some members of that organisation. We want critique. Nothing is set in stone!
Single Aspect
Member
High Definition , I should have added to the above that I'm pretty sure (I've just checked the latest illustrations) that the 4-5 storey building is actually 3 and a half storeys at the profile that will be presented to the park (apparently using Hollamby's principles of higher further away from the boundary actually worksin terms of [in]visibility!). It will be no higher than Longford Walk, which also abuts the park. The new-build will also be designed to fit to the prevailing style of the estate.
#FatherTed
Do please, if you can, come along tomorrow. I made sure that all interested local bodies got both organisational invites and - where we knew personal e-mail addies like your own - personal invites to some members of that organisation. We want critique. Nothing is set in stone!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'll have you know that I haven't had a Dougal haircut for decades!
High Definition
Active Member
VIolent Panda: thanks for comments and additional info about the Crosby Walk infill and what's there now.
I'm still concerned about the height of the new block, however. Yes, three and a half storeys on the park boundary is about the same as Longford Walk, also on the boundary. However, the option with 14 flats includes a block which steps up to four storeys with a roof extension - which would make it taller than any of the existing buildings on Cressingham. As this section of Crosby Walk contains 12 flats now, the net gain would be just two flats (accept your point that these will be larger flats).
I think the idea of coming up with suggestions for new housing through infill is an excellent one and like the idea of flats in the unused ground floor level car parks. As campaigners pointed out at Cabinet last year, Lambeth's preferred option for the estate will deliver just 23 additional flats at Council rents - so if we can show that additional homes can be produced without demolition, this will go a long way towards undermining Lambeth's arguments for their regeneration scheme. The 25 new flats in the unused car parks could achieve this on their own - without the two extra flats in Crosby Walk.
Thanks for the invite to the meeting this evening (which i got last week). Will be there.
I'm still concerned about the height of the new block, however. Yes, three and a half storeys on the park boundary is about the same as Longford Walk, also on the boundary. However, the option with 14 flats includes a block which steps up to four storeys with a roof extension - which would make it taller than any of the existing buildings on Cressingham. As this section of Crosby Walk contains 12 flats now, the net gain would be just two flats (accept your point that these will be larger flats).
I think the idea of coming up with suggestions for new housing through infill is an excellent one and like the idea of flats in the unused ground floor level car parks. As campaigners pointed out at Cabinet last year, Lambeth's preferred option for the estate will deliver just 23 additional flats at Council rents - so if we can show that additional homes can be produced without demolition, this will go a long way towards undermining Lambeth's arguments for their regeneration scheme. The 25 new flats in the unused car parks could achieve this on their own - without the two extra flats in Crosby Walk.
Thanks for the invite to the meeting this evening (which i got last week). Will be there.
I know, isn't it amazing how quiet the council has kept that little bit of information?
editor
hiraethified
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Nope. Sorry to gainsay you, and be pedantic, but not "taller than" Hardel Walk. Also,the stepping has been calculated, I believe, to not be "in your face"
We also have that disgusting brick oblong on Tulse Hill, directly west of Crosby Walk, which while tall and ugly, doesn't affect the view from the park,even if it does loom over Crosby Walk.
Again, apologies for being pedantic, but the net gain is 8 flats, given that 6 of them may exist as bricks and mortar, but haven't been used for a generation - they effectively don't exist as housing, just as a monument to Lambeth's stupidity.
I look at this from a different perspective to you, I suppose. I'm painfully aware - in the way that all our residents are - of the occupancy issues and pressures on the estate. I see those "two extra flats" as a small price to pay for getting that space at the north of the estate back into full use and housing as many as 8 additional families, and in a way that's architecturally-sympathetic to the rest of the estate.
Great!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
6 flats bricked up for 17 years?
dunno why but that really struck me for some reason. idiotic use of housing stock (or lack of use)
good luck to you all with the peoples plan and your consultation
All down to the belief (my emphasis) that there was subsidence, and that it'd be more expensive to remedy, than to take out of use.
Of course, it's Lambeth subsidence - a uniquely horrible type that causes a problem once, then never strikes again or worsens, lying in wait until someone is foolish enough to attempt remedial or building works...mwahahahaha!
And thanks for the good wishes!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So...
...commensurate with their original decision to demolish, the outcome of Lambeth's "re-consultation" of Cressingham's residents is...demolish.
Oh well, time for the gloves to come off...
...commensurate with their original decision to demolish, the outcome of Lambeth's "re-consultation" of Cressingham's residents is...demolish.
Oh well, time for the gloves to come off...
As mentioned on this thread,An interesting and entertaining talk, even though only one of the speakers turned up.
My camera failed (
Housing Bill - mp3 of talk by Simon Elmer of Architects for Social Housing
VP managed to clean it up and reduce the size a lot as there was only one person speaking. Big thanks to Winot anyway for the offer.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Council recommends 'total redevelopment' of Cressingham Gardens estate - Brixton Blog
(And I still don't get why it's cheaper to knock down 300 properties than fix them up)
(And I still don't get why it's cheaper to knock down 300 properties than fix them up)
Surely you realise by now that reason, logic, and maths as they exist outside this borough become reasy-weasy, logy-wogicy, and mathy-wathy inside Lambeth. The very air within this borough's borders seems to have the power to distort madness and incompetence until it appears (to the eyes of those with the most power and influence around here) to make perfect sense.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It isn't, unless (as the "regeneration manager" and the "cabinet member for housing" appear to believe, going by the conversation I had with them) "cheaper" means "not having to pay for it immediately".
Arrogant sods also said how Lambeth residents of the future would be grateful for what they were doing to Cressingham and Central Hill.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'll be happy to help 'em with that.
