please empty your brain below
In spite of your limited territory during lockdown, you're producing some very interesting local micro-studies - thank you.
dg writes: Fixed, thanks.
As DG has eloquently described, the new blocks are bland and almost bleak. Development doesn't have to look like this. The LLDC were entrusted with planning powers for this area, but on this evidence have arguably come up with something worse than if the local authorities had been in charge (e.g affordable housing, parks).
Whilst many London developments don't deliver enough affordable/social housing there are a few examples where the new blocks are at least more distinctive to look at and offer more attractive landscaping e.g. Collindale, Woodberry Downs.
The new Fish Island developments look unattractive and overpriced - I wonder if the difficult market conditions coming up may see the developers struggle to sell all the units.
Having watched the enormous change occurring around East London since before the Olympics, and taking an interest in the many and varied pieces of archive footage available on the internet and the iPlayer I feel unable to share in your pessimism.
The rise and fall, abandonment and subsequent regeneration of land seems to be an inevitable dynamic part of a thriving city. A metropolis does not exist without those who call it home, and in turn they cannot help but make it vibrant. We may laugh at hipster beards, artisan sourdough and organic microbrews but these things speak of a human desire for provenance, localism and sustainability - or in other words quality of life. As long as the new residents of these areas subscribe to the ideals of liveability over density, I do not fear for them.
Density on the other hand is a very serious matter in a big city but I am wary of laying all the blame for high-density housing at the feet of developers. Over a number of years London's planning authorities have become increasingly complicit in encouraging intensive development. I can think of a couple of examples in my local area where developers were specifically advised that a taller design would be considered more favourably than a shorter one. What we are seeing seems to be a conscious redevelopment of our city fit for a new urbanism more akin to that of the Far East (dense, communal, reliant on public transport) than that bucolic ideal of home, garden and driveway. Given high-density development then, perhaps the most salient question is whether the units we build are fit to live in, rather than nice to look at. I am encouraged by your recollections of the Open House visit. I do agree that the New London Vernacular style is drab on the eye, but I do not believe it's of lesser architectural merit than the workmen's housing and industrial architecture of the past. For better or worse, these developments seem suited to an insular, densely-built and industrial past.
Lastly, it seems the process begins again. Truman's, latterly of Hackney Wick, in need of a new site, found one at the extremity of the Victoria Line. A line of retail parks stretch along the Eastern edge of the Lea reservoirs North of Blackhorse Road station. This is the "Walthamstow Beer Mile". The hipsters have migrated, forced ever further out. I hope in Zone 4 they'll be able to stay a while.
TridentScan | Privacy Policy