Greenwich is a place of paradox – at the same time very familiar and yet unknown. Mention Greenwich to people living elsewhere in Britain or indeed overseas, and it will almost always strike a light. The home of time, site of the Prime Meridian, location of some of the country’s finest baroque architecture, the magnificent Royal Park with its unparalleled views over London. These are just some of the characteristics that make Greenwich world famous.
But much of the locality remains largely unknown beyond the Borough boundaries. The acres of formerly derelict land on the Greenwich Peninsula might until recently have been part of a different planet. The terraces of housing in East Greenwich nestling at the bottom of the Blackheath escarpment are equally unfamiliar. And traveling east towards Charlton, the swathe of retail and commercial buildings lying between the Anti-Gallican Pub and the river – once the historic ropewalk, so redolent of Greenwich’s naval history – are as anonymous as similar sheds in countless other cities.
When I was first elected MP for the area in 1992 another paradox of Greenwich was brought home to me brutally by an event which shocked the country. The murder of Stephen Lawrence just across the constituency boundary in Eltham, but very much part of the Borough, was a savage reminder of the problems confronting the area. Greenwich had suffered more than most parts of London from the collapse of the traditional heavy industries that had once provided the area’s economic bedrock. In the atmosphere of decline and despair that appeared endemic at that time, it was hardly surprising if racism and inter-communal conflicts reared their ugly heads.
It taught me early on in my time as an MP, the importance of bringing investment, economic development and regeneration activity that would not only create new jobs, but build aspiration, skills and hope. Transport was clearly critical. The shortage of efficient and reliable links to central London and across the river was a major obstacle to new investment. The arrival of the Jubilee line, the DLR and a long overdue riverbus service has begun to redress the balance. Better bus links and easier interchange between different transport modes as oystercard is extended to surface trains will also help. So too will continuing improvement in the reliability and frequency of South-Eastern train services.
But if improved accessibility is vital, so too is the replacement of the largely defunct 19th century industrial base with employers likely to thrive in the very different economic climate of the early 21st Century. Creative industries are an obvious example, with strong links to higher education. So the arrival of Trinity and Laban, the University of Greenwich on the old Royal Naval College site, Ravensbourne College and the O2 on the Peninsula have made and will continue to make a very significant impact on the local economy as well as the area’s cultural vitality.
Another paradox has been tourism. While Greenwich is internationally renowned, it has not realized the full economic benefit of that fame. Most visitors come as ‘day trippers’ admiring Greenwich but returning mainly to central London in the evenings, where the great bulk of their spending also takes place. Yet Greenwich is a beautiful place to stay, and local businesses would benefit from more overnight visitors, so the development of a wider range of hotels is also vital to the area’s long-term economic strength.
The key to successful regeneration is effecting change while protecting and preserving the best from the past. In Greenwich more than almost anywhere else on earth that is the challenge to which we must rise.
A donation was made to the Greenwich Association of Disabled People in lieu of payment for this article.
It’s great that Greenwich remains vibrant, with new people coming in. And that we have good new development – hopefully the new University buildings, at Stockwell Street, will be an example of how this can be done.
But I do hope, Mr Raynsford, that in “while protecting and preserving the best from the past” you will prevent the ripping up of the market floor, and demolition of stables at Greenwich Market?
These buildings are an example of the people’s Greenwich; if we just keep the grand buildings, we give a distorted view of the area’s rich, diverse heritage.
I agree with most of this but a better balance has to be found between catering for overnight guests (ie: a 4th hotel in Greenwich being built in the indoor market space) and keeping what they are actually coming to see. By cutting back on the bustling markets Greenwich is actually losing attractions that encourage people to visit.
Another point about overnight visitors is that Greenwich nightlife is actually very poor. We have a handful of decent pubs and an even smaller number of decent restaurants. The pubs tend to be aiming at the 18 – 25 market when there should perhaps be more live music or cabaret nights to add variety and interest to the nightlife here
“By cutting back on the bustling markets Greenwich is actually losing attractions that encourage people to visit”.
The Village Market site was private land that had a temporary planning permission for market use which was not renewed by the former or new owners. The loss of the village market is therefore the will of the owners.
The closure of the village market was sad but I appreciate it was the landowners decision and I think the Greenwich University School of Architecture could be a good thing. I do suspect though that the undercover market developments will lead to it losing its character and, potentially, its footprint, to make way for the hotel. Sadly, I think the days of being able to talk of Greenwich’s markets are behind us now.
The very smug Raynsford visited the covered market last Friday, rather like Caligula dining with the victims he was to put to death the next day.
We so desperately need decent restaurants in Greenwich. We have a couple of nice ones but the rest are terrible mexican and chinese takeaways. It can’t be that hard…. Greenwich needs to get out of this mode of being a weekend seaside tourist place (ie get rid of the Blackpool feeling and more a Richmond/Blackheath vibe).
Only then Greenwich will become a cool place to live and attract decent types of people and restaurants. Unfortunately Greenwich/Blackheath is surrounded by undesirable areas and full of chavs and undesirables! The more council blocks that can come down the better in my opinion.
The Greenwich peninsula can only be a great thing and restaurant wise, the new visitors centre and Greenwich Meantime brewery establishment sets a new standard for how Greenwich should evolve. The Greenwich indoor market should def not be lost as it a real benefit… sure tart it up a bit but the core feel must remain.
I used to live in East Dulwich, which used to be tatty but now is such aa trendy area with a fantastic high street. Greenwich is SUCH a nicer plan than East Dulwich, so why can’t it change. Hopefully with all the peninsula stuff, and new pier/museum extension/cutty sark upgrade/gardens etc etc, we may finally get on a roll to finally get a Greenwich we really want (and hopefully chav free).
Miles is just the kind of tosspot poseur coming into Greenwich that we don’t need. It’s a cool place exactly BECAUSE it’s surrounded by poor areas. I welcome the advent of the new Old Brewery, a decent fish shop etc, but the grittiness of the surroundings is what makes the area. A Hawksmoor church doesn’t look right unless it complements a down-on-its-heels council block.
Greenwich is already cool, like Brick Lane is cool- has been for decades, when actors, artists and conmen lived here, the buildings were left gap-toothed from doodlebugs, and there was a brothel in one of the rambling villas on Hyde Vale. The last thing we want is some airbrushed themepark with all the poor people taken away because they offend our delicate sensibilities.
It’s a shame that Greenwich has attracted people like Miles. Hopefully he won’t stay long and will take his deeply unpleasant opinions about ‘undesirables’ back to East Dulwich if they’ll have him – which I strongly suspect they won’t.