I was struck by a comment from a reader called Paul on last week’s column about Greenwich Market, and think it deserves a wider circulation. He wrote of the danger that in the run-up to that longed-for event of which we all dream, the Olympics, Greenwich will become little more than a series of building sites.
As well as the market, there’s the Olympic development in Greenwich Park, the Ofer Wing of the Maritime Museum (which will also affect the park), the foot tunnel, the old Village Market site, the new pier, the Cutty Sark, Greenwich Reach. As Paul says, “no tourist will want to walk around a load of building sites for the next three years and it won’t be long before word gets out that Greenwich is closed. In the rush to celebrate the Olympics fortnight, it seems that a long-term overview has been thrown out of the window.”
There are plenty of places that are unattractive, provide inadequate public amenities and need lots of work doing to them. But Greenwich isn’t one of them. I think (I’m biased, of course) that it’s one of the nicest areas in London. It just doesn’t need “regeneration,” especially not the airport-terminal kind that awaits us in the market.
Naturally, there are grotty bits – in the town centre, I’d nominate that bland, faceless block which houses Somerfield. But those aren’t the bits they’ll be tearing down. Those are the bits they’ll be copying.
So why has everyone suddenly, it seems, decided that what Greenwich needs is a complete rebuild – all at once? As Paul suggests, the Olympics must have something to do with it. One of the worst things about the Games is the way that a single fortnight has come to dominate, even monopolise, official thinking, as if it is somehow more important than all the months and years which go before it and after it.
It isn’t, of course. The Olympics will be with us for two weeks. The new market could be with us for a century. But the way it’s looking, the priorities of the two weeks will mean that the project for the century is rushed through the planning process without proper scrutiny, then thrown up in months – and is, as a result, far worse than it should be.
We need to stop. We need to take our time. We need to tell ourselves that in the long run, the Olympics simply do not matter. Within months of the closing ceremony, they will be all but forgotten by almost everyone. The market, however, will be in our faces for decades. The short-term goal of a shiny Olympic fortnight is not remotely a good enough reason to compromise Greenwich’s long-term future.
We need to tell ourselves that even during the fortnight, the Greenwich end of the Olympics will not matter. The centre of attention will be on the athletics and the swimming, seven miles to the north. The horse events will get half an hour on TV. There won’t be many Olympic-related visitors to Greenwich – they’ll all be heading for Stratford. Greenwich Council may want to put on a show, but not many people will be coming.
Building white elephants at Stratford is bad enough. But at least some people will want to see them, and they will be safely out of sight of the rest of us. Building white elephants in the middle of a successful town centre is far worse – and the error is compounded by the fact that not many of the people the “improvements” are supposed to attract will even be interested.
PS: I forgot to give the address for objections to the market planning application last week. Emails should be sent to david.gittens@greenwich.gov.uk, quoting reference numbers 09/0829/F and 09/0830/C. Gittens’ postal address is Crown Building, 48 Woolwich New Roas, SE18 6HQ.
Act soon – you only have until 26 May.
The point of the London Olympics – and this has been said explicitly by several of those involved – is NOT to have amenities for two weeks and then abandoned, but to accelerate development projects and stimulate regeneration. It is the means rather than the end, and I welcome it.
At the market on the weekend I looked at the shoddy corrugated plastic roof, the dodgy cobbles and bric-a-brac on offer and couldn’t find it in myself to fight for the status quo. And the tunnel, with its broken lifts, smelly stairs and stained tiles is hardly a visitor attraction (the horrified expressions of the Japanese tourists I saw yesterday at the re-inforced north section of the tunnel said much!).
Greenwich centre is going over to the tourists – a success of sorts! – and there’s not much us locals can do to stand in its path. As such, Gilligan’s worries that tourists will abandon Greenwich because one or two of its amenities are being closed is hardly a worry (in fact, many of us might welcome a small drop in tourist numbers on the weekend!).
As ever, I’m left wondering whether Gilligan’s objections actually stem from small-c conservative politics, ie a despairing prejudice against collective action by political institutions. One day, it would be REALLY interesting to hear of an example where a government or council body had done something good, and it would be a benefit to the community to have a voice that supported collective action (where appropriate) rather than endless carping.
“Tom”, do you live in Greenwich? Would you really prefer to have a market that has the “modern, contemporary, airy” promised – when you can go down to Bluewater? Take a walk around Wetherspoons and MacDonalds, then tell us whether you prefer that to cobbles that are uneven because they’ve been neglected for a decade or two.
The real point here is that we won’t get decent modern buildings in the market, as we haven’t elsewhere in Greenwich, because the developments will be rushed though, built cheaply in order to make the Olympics deadline.
And as for the depressing, dirty run-up to the foot-tunnel, you must have a short memory. “Cutty Sark Gardens” – a garden with no trees and no plants, with its decaying decking and dirty concrete – was rush-developed in time for the millennium. Surely, “tom” you appreciate THAT regeneration, which has brought in SO many tourists and benefited the area?
“Accelerated” development projects are exactly what we do not need. Quick means shoddy. There is no pressing need to “regenerate” Greenwich at all, let alone quickly. It is, to use the jargon, already “vibrant” and “attractive.” I can think of a hundred other places in London that need regenerating more.
I’m all in favour of collective action to tackle Greenwich’s real problems – such as its underachieving schools – but that’s so much harder and less glamorous for the council than masterminding unnecessary and meretricious “makeovers.”
Although I can see Tom’s point about the Olympics supporting regeneration this doesn’t hold true for Greenwich. There will be no lasting legacy from the park closure (except perhaps for some damage to a historically sensitive World Heritage Site). The site is being used, despite being unsuitable, because it has great views and will look good on TV. It will also close the park at the height of summer to local residents and visitors
I’m also not going to argue that the indoor market is a great beauty. Indeed, I would be delighted to see some great design and an exciting re-think of the use of the space being proposed. What depresses me is the unimaginative and unappealing design that reduces the market space to a minimum so that a boutique hotel can be rammed in there. The proposed design of the space is tired and will date quicker than you can say “Its a shame what they’ve done to Greenwich” I would suggest that people lodge their thoughts with the on-line planning facility but it appears to be the victim of an unrepairable technical hitch (presumably until the end of May)
As I have pointed out before, Greenwich’s track record on urban design is definitely lacking to the point where it damages the towns aesthetic and environment. The DLR arcade is distinctly ugly, whilst, as Paul T points out, Cutty Sark Gardens is a joke and a bad joke on sunny days when all that concrete reflects the sun into your eyes, making it hard to take in the view or even open your eyes fully
Maybe the foot tunnel does needs a tidy up and a bit of work here and there. But, it needs sensitive restoration not a re-development. Good urban development should be about playing up an areas strengths – which in Greenwich’s case is its history and classical architecture. Nobody wants to put the town in aspic but neither do we want poorly thought out off -the-shelf architecture that becomes an eyesore in a few years – we have enough of that already, thank you. Somerfield/the aforementioned DLR arcade etc)
I was in Barcelona recently and walking round Barri Gothic I could only be grateful that Greenwich council weren’t in Barcelona in the run-up to the 92 Olympics or they’d have had all that ugly old mess down in a blink. How pleasing to see that the city of Barcelona (admittedly a city with a history of great architecture and imaginative planning) integrate cutting edge contemporary design without compromising the historical areas. I may also be wrong here but I doubt that they decided to plonk the equestrian event in the middle of Parc Guell just because it was pretty. I guess what it all boils down to is not a Price Charles like condemnation of modernism but a greater sensitivity to the character, the spaces, dynamics and uses of a town – a sensitivity that stakeholders have lost sight of – dazzled by the glare of the £. Regeneration and redevelopment are not just about new buildings but about the people who inhabit the place too
“I would suggest that people lodge their thoughts with the on-line planning facility but it appears to be the victim of an unrepairable technical hitch ”
If the online planning system isn’t working, Andrew has provided details above of how to make representations to David Gittens by email and post and has provided the reference numbers.
Paul T seems to imply that any voice disagreeing with him or Gilligan might not be a genuine Greenwich resident’s voice. I certainly am one – so no need for quotation marks or capitals please.
One reason I live in Greenwich, and have done for decades, is precisely because it reinvents itself and, from time to time, enables us to engage in the discussions that we are having here. As a resident I have lived with major building works for years as a fact of life. We should never rid ourselves of the desire to improve our environment – and that means building works, possibly for ever. Unlike Gilligan and Paul T I believe that most of the recent improvements have been for the better and amongst others I cite the DLR, the opening up and redevlopment of the Naval College site, Devonport House, the Maritime Museum and laying of york stone pavements. I have even found myself defending Pizza Express, the Novotel and the Weatherspoons developments because they are vast improvements on what was there before – not because I whole heatedly approve of their architectural style.
I would contend that recent alterations and developments have not copied Somerfield – far from it, you only have to look across the road at the Picturehouse extension to counter that line of argument. The proposed architecture of the market is sympathetic and, in places, bold.
Reading the last e-mail as I sat having a coffee in Greenwich I decided to walk back via the Weatherspoons and the Market. The Weatherspoons development is far from wonderful, but does have limited architectural aspirations, it is fully used, seemingly popular and was being cleaned as I walked through it. Walking to the market past Snappysnaps is far worse – shipping containers, ugly backs to the market buildings and bins. Interestingly the one concession to aesthetics in Durngate Street (I think that’s the name) is the floor, a striking modern design reflecting (I suppose, the Thames). Now look at the floor in the market itself where the york stone ends – two thirds not cobbles at all but nasty, uneven bricks! Not a thing to recommend those. Even the buildings on the Print Makers side are second rate and the roof is ugly. From the consultations I have been to and the plans I have seen almost every aspect is improved upon. This gives me great hope and I look forward to the foot tunnel, pier and so on with enthusiasm.
I am happy to live in a place that attracts discussion, architects and builders – if not I would have moved to the sub-urban pampas of Bexley or Bromley long ago. I am also prepared to live with mistakes that have been made in pursuit of those improvements. We certainly don’t need to stop. We need to press ahead, with a sensible momentum and due scrutiny, with schemes that seek to improve our environment. The Olympics does help to apply the required momentum. Millenniums come and go and so will Olympics, and I am proud to live somewhere that has/will be participaing in these international events.
Oh and above all else, something we can agree on? – Please can we all apply our collective energies to getting Somerfield knocked down with reckless speed.
pvj – I agree with some of your points but my argument would be that it is not acceptable for more planning mistakes to be made in the town. You seem to say that it is better that some attempts at improvement are made rather than leave things as they are. I on the other hand think that a lot more time needs to be spent on architecture and planning before any more adequate to substandard building takes place. Most Greenwich planning in recent years has seemed very ‘off the shelf’ and could fit anywhere in the UK – they don’t give thought to the character of the town or its surrounds. So rather than Greenwich Hospital rush into the re-development they should undertake a genuine consultation (I don’t count the PR/information day they held after they had submitted plans) with the public; perhaps artists and architects led, something that involves the residents that leads to something really exciting, not something that is merely OK or makes do.
I think we’d all agree that Greenwich Picturehouse is actually a vast improvement on the building that was originally built there, but, recent improvements to the building are a response to the original cinema (put up around 88/89?) being a poorly designed space and very typical of the make-do approach used in Greenwich. Picturehouses had to move in and make substantial changes to the fascia of the building to make it the building we all like today. This really does demonstrate how buildings put up with little thought aren’t really fit for purpose – a lot of time and expense could have been saved by making it a decent building in the first place and then it would not have to have been renovated a mere 15 yrs after construction
Sure, the DLR arcade is well-used, but then it has a LLoyds TSB and Superdrug in it, and, as you point out it is far from wonderful. Surely a little more imagination and a little less second rate architecture could have made it an interesting addition to the town instead of the miserable adjunct it is.
And finally, yes, if anything in Greenwich needs regenerating it is the eyesore that is Somerfield/threshers and that pedetrian unfriendly entrance to it. If there is regeneration money going I’m sure most people in the town would like to see it spent there
It is sad, in a way, that this argument always ends up with battle-lines drawn of “contemporary” versus “traditional”. The new-build is always sold as “vibrant” and “exciting” – but normally signals something that is hackneyed, cheap and not at all cheerful.
On a more pertinent note: the link for registering objections is now back up. (surprise surprise, no new objections in the last four days).
It’s here, in case anybody needs it:
http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/planningonline/acolnetcgi.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=61073
I find it deeply ironic that a responder to a Gilligan thread should question the validity of my view. If you don’t understand why, please use Google!
Anyway, “Paul T”, as I walked down the stairs of the foot tunnel today in Greenwich, inhaling the heady fumes of stale urine, admiring the hand-written “lift closed” signs (the lift has been closed for at least nine months now), and being asked by worried tourists whether the other lift was open (“hallalujah” she responded), it was difficult to see how anything could be much worse.
And to “Paul’s” view that being open minded to change means embracing McDonalds, such black and white views are barely worth considering.
There is the possibility of positive change, particularly if we push for it. I think the experience of Brockley (where I moved from a couple of years back ) where local residents and councillors have applied consistent pressure on Lewisham council is particularly educative.
who, me? I don’t recall equating open-mindedness to change with embracing McDonalds in any of my posts, but, hopefully, my views do still count to anybody who has actually read them rather than imagined their content.
All these “Pauls”! Apologies if one “Paul” is not the “Paul” that gave us this appetising choice:
“Take a walk around Wetherspoons and MacDonalds, then tell us whether you prefer that to cobbles that are uneven because they’ve been neglected for a decade or two.”
yes, that was another Paul. I will have to think of a new name to avoid confusion!
pvj, when the Wetherspoons block was developed, we were told it would be new and exciting. It isn’t either now. This represents a drab conformity to me. Wanting something more exciting or inspired is not conservatism.
Because we protested about the last, deathly dull Market proposal, we got something more exciting. Good. I like the new buildings (although the roof is a clunky design with no real rationale behind it). But the market space, as it is, works. The traders like it; visitors like it. The cobblestones in the centre (not the grey, chewing gum-splattered recent additions) are part of the story of the market – they contribute to its unique texture, as do the stables on Durnford Street.
Yes, I am cynical about Greenwich Hospital’s near-duplicity in several respects, and attempts to rush this development through; read about their history, speak to any traders or shop-keepers and you will understand why.
ha, and sorry, perhaps I should have ID’d the above remark as paul t
Tom
I dont want the tunnel to be a freaking tourist attraction I just want it to be a method of crossing the river. The lifts and staircases will always be smelly as people drop litter and relieve themselves there on a daily basis, at 6.15am there is usually a good couple of litres of fresh urine there. If Jap tourists dont like it the way it is then maybe they could go find a more pleasant tunnel to take pictures of?
The council insist on spending some money maybe they could just cut our council taxes instead. Oh sorry I forgot we have to pay for their unfunded final salary pension schemes.
Personally, I fail to see the link between the proposed redevelopments in Greenwich and the Olympics. Most of the proposed developments have been planned in one form or another for years. There way be a slight incentive to push these through quicker but I don’t see them as being driven by 2012 alone.
I think the argument that Greenwich doesn’t need regeneration is also pretty weak. I’m sure all of us who live here like the place, and with good reason, but there is no doubt that things could be better. I love London as a whole too but I don’t want it to be frozen in a time warp.
All of the proposed development sites are clearly in need of work and I find it hard to believe that Greenwich will be a worse place as a result. Of course there is a risk that the results won’t be perfect but that’s no reason to hold back on trying. The things that we all love most about Greenwich will still be largely unchanged. If 5 sites were developed, 3 ended up significantly better, one was no better or worse and one was a bit of a white elephant, I’d take that as a good result.
London as a whole is littered with developments that could have gone one way or the other. I’m sure plenty of people thought that turning an old power station on the South Bank into a giant gallery of Modern Art would wreck it and that building a Gherkin shaped tower in the middle of the City would be a blight on the skyline. But I for one think that London is an immeasurably better place for such projects and if suffering the odd Centre Point and (pre-O2) Millennium Dome is the cost then so be it.
Fat Cat – cos I ride a bike with cleated shoes, I now find it less stress to cycle to Canary Wharf via Tower Bridge rather than hobble up and down the reeking stairs.
And if you want an example of what good development can do, compare Hungerford Bridge of old – dangerous, cramped, noisy etc – with the bridges there today (funded by Londoners), one of the highlights of an integrated river development.
Tom said (14 May 2009 4:28pm), “less stress to cycle to Canary Wharf via Tower Bridge” – so what do you do now that Tower Bridge is closed indefinitely (according to the Evening Standard), following the lift accident?
I agree with many of your comments, and of course much of this work will be aimed at improving the place for the Olympics. I love Greenwich and I love living here. I don’t object to sharing it with the world for one summer. I feel that the Conucil (note NOT the 2012 team but the Council) are responsible for much of the building site issues.
The pier has been effectively shut for 18 months, nothing has happened as far as I can see in that time. The Cutty Sark has seen slow progress but that should be completed soon.
The area by the Gipsy Moth was closed for ages and lets face it that was long before the Olympics were won.
Greenwich is lovely but there is much that can be improved upon (the site of the outdoor market was hideous.
I think its time to accept that the Olympics are coming and if we all try really hard we could actually enjoy it and make it a wonderful experience for us and our children.
Indigo, Tower Bridge was re-opened the afternoon of the lift accident so I think you have got the wrong end of the stick there. The ride to Canary Wharf via Tower Bridge adds 5 miles to the journey distance compared with the tunnel, which is a considerable amount but not impossible.
I would be interested in speaking to any local resident/trader with views on the plan. Please email your number (in confidence) to me at andrew.gilligan@standard.co.uk and I will call you.