"Mamma Mia: The Party" coming to Coin Street?

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3
Current: 3 of 3
Saturday 11 November 2017 10.17am
"My, my, I tried to hold you back but you were stronger."

Cue said 500 punters standing on Waterloo Bridge belting out every lyric.
Saturday 11 November 2017 1.54pm
boroughonian wrote:
]
I know, I was just pulling your nose chain.


Hm, somehow I suspect you weren't but kept that as an excuse in case I didn't react the way you wanted. I think you were trying to Swindle me.
Sunday 25 March 2018 3.24am
boroughonian wrote:
Looks like it's going ahead.
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9446

I am struggling to see how it will impact on the local residents too much. Surely the revellers will be shuffling along Stamford street towards Waterloo at the end of the night.
I take the political points regarding what the land was supposed to be for, but I bet the residents around St Mungo's would swap.

Honestly, if you are fortunate enough to live there, right by the studios and Festival Hall etc, you have to embrace this. I don't see that the kind of people that will attend will be the trouble making type, somehow.

Stamford St is lined with homes, mostly social housing or cooperative homes. Many didn’t have a choice of where to be housed and this could be a good thing if you don’t like sleep and peace and quiet, or a bad thing if you were allocated a home on a heavily polluted main arterial road. Regardless of this, the site is in a designated character residential area - as per Lambeth’s SPD (planning manifesto). Take away local residents’ homes and you’re left with a theme park. A disaster for any community and appallingly bad urban/town planning - wrenching the heart out of Waterloo. How much more must local communities be exploited by private developers wanting a piece of land left to the community for social housing? It doesn’t help to have trite statements from those who haven’t experienced the constant threat to their homes - homes that existed way before greedy developers decided to pilfer from long established communities. Developers have influenced wayward council staff to destroy the character of the area for a fast buck and sell out local residents. Just because homes are placed geographically in a place that you personally covet/envy or judge to be ‘lucky’, it doesn’t mean the people who live in them are ripe or fair game for exploitation by anyone, let alone another bullish celebrity.
Sunday 25 March 2018 10.32am
qwerty wrote:
boroughonian wrote:
Looks like it's going ahead.
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9446

I am struggling to see how it will impact on the local residents too much. Surely the revellers will be shuffling along Stamford street towards Waterloo at the end of the night.
I take the political points regarding what the land was supposed to be for, but I bet the residents around St Mungo's would swap.

Honestly, if you are fortunate enough to live there, right by the studios and Festival Hall etc, you have to embrace this. I don't see that the kind of people that will attend will be the trouble making type, somehow.

Stamford St is lined with homes, mostly social housing or cooperative homes. Many didn’t have a choice of where to be housed and this could be a good thing if you don’t like sleep and peace and quiet, or a bad thing if you were allocated a home on a heavily polluted main arterial road. Regardless of this, the site is in a designated character residential area - as per Lambeth’s SPD (planning manifesto). Take away local residents’ homes and you’re left with a theme park. A disaster for any community and appallingly bad urban/town planning - wrenching the heart out of Waterloo. How much more must local communities be exploited by private developers wanting a piece of land left to the community for social housing? It doesn’t help to have trite statements from those who haven’t experienced the constant threat to their homes - homes that existed way before greedy developers decided to pilfer from long established communities. Developers have influenced wayward council staff to destroy the character of the area for a fast buck and sell out local residents. Just because homes are placed geographically in a place that you personally covet/envy or judge to be ‘lucky’, it doesn’t mean the people who live in them are ripe or fair game for exploitation by anyone, let alone another bullish celebrity.

Yes I know, I've lived here all of my life, in social housing and feeling quite threatened now.
As I stated before, I take the political points and stand by the rest of what I wrote, I consider myself very fortunate to be living where I do, but would swap for one of those Coin Street places tomorrow.....if you're offering.

Wanna swap?
Sunday 25 March 2018 10.52am
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
boroughonian wrote:
]
I know, I was just pulling your nose chain.


Hm, somehow I suspect you weren't but kept that as an excuse in case I didn't react the way you wanted. I think you were trying to Swindle me.

Not at all, I don't play games like that. The Stranglers were a proper band as were many others, Vibrators and Ramones were others. A lot of these bands jumped on the punk bandwagon, a bit like The Who did with the Mod scene, but they were musicians.
Monday 26 March 2018 4.56pm
We locals are often accused of resisting new additions to the area for the sake of it, it pains me to say it but I happen to believe that there is some truth in that and this situation sums it up for me.

There seems to be this pre conception of the clientele, like they will be coming out and singing ABBA songs at the top of their drunken voices, or am I missing something? I live near the Old Vic and I am constantly woken by those pesky revellers citing Shakespeare and shouting OH no I didn't..Oh yes you did, during panto season.

I went to "see" Wicked a few weeks back and fairly danced out the door and into the streets.

Anyway Qwerty, are you a local resident?
Saturday 7 April 2018 1.23am
Certainly am. And your bizarre example of the Old Vic is a very poor comparison.

And unlike you, I’m not basing any of what follows on preconception:

People aren’t objecting to this “for the sake of it”; there are very good reasons for opposing this inappropriately placed nightclub. Incidentally, can you provide evidence to support your sweeping statement that the local community who overwhelmingly object to MMTP are doing so “for the sake of it”?

It seems you’ve not taken on board legitimate concerns of the original intent for the land i.e. that it is meant for housing key workers. Truly affordable housing is scarce here and I find it incomprehensible that you live in the area yet are willing to step aside and relinquish residential land - our land - for the whim of an egotistical celebrity and a private developer (Coin Street Commercial Builders who incidentally are desperately needing funds to build a skyscraper full of private luxury apartments in Doon St, none of it cooperative/social housing. Oh, on community land again. Garden Bridge - ahem!).

Most people have no objection to the MMTP concept at all as long as it is not in a designated residential character area - which this proposal is.

To be clear, it’s not about being opposed to change which is what you breezily proclaim. The proposal is in the wrong location. Planning permission has been unethically sought using underhand methods by an aggressive team of developers who have bullied their way through the community and the planning process.

One can be progressive and be open to new ideas without stamping on people in the process; unfortunately that hasn’t been the case. MMTP and Bjorn Ulvaeus have blocked and alienated the community and it seems CSCB simply haven’t learned anything from the Garden Bridge fiasco in regards to shafting local people.

Anyway, you seem to be confused: on the one hand you say you feel threatened by the lack of social housing and on the other, you say ‘bring it on’ to private commercial developers. You say you take on board the “political points” yet the issues of covenants and intent of the land etc. are not political. It’s about democracy, equal opportunity and fairness. If you’re a fully signed up member of the local community then why are you advocating the exploitation of your neighbours and where they live (through no fault of their own)? Sounds like sour grapes. You’ve alluded more than once to the green eyed monster in you but this meek acceptance of an insidious seeping gentrification by unethical developers, really is a step (and a contradiction) too far.
Saturday 7 April 2018 10.08pm
qwerty wrote:
Certainly am. And your bizarre example of the Old Vic is a very poor comparison.
And unlike you, I’m not basing any of what follows on preconception:

People aren’t objecting to this “for the sake of it”; there are very good reasons for opposing this inappropriately placed nightclub. Incidentally, can you provide evidence to support your sweeping statement that the local community who overwhelmingly object to MMTP are doing so “for the sake of it”?

It seems you’ve not taken on board legitimate concerns of the original intent for the land i.e. that it is meant for housing key workers. Truly affordable housing is scarce here and I find it incomprehensible that you live in the area yet are willing to step aside and relinquish residential land - our land - for the whim of an egotistical celebrity and a private developer (Coin Street Commercial Builders who incidentally are desperately needing funds to build a skyscraper full of private luxury apartments in Doon St, none of it cooperative/social housing. Oh, on community land again. Garden Bridge - ahem!).

Most people have no objection to the MMTP concept at all as long as it is not in a designated residential character area - which this proposal is.

To be clear, it’s not about being opposed to change which is what you breezily proclaim. The proposal is in the wrong location. Planning permission has been unethically sought using underhand methods by an aggressive team of developers who have bullied their way through the community and the planning process.

One can be progressive and be open to new ideas without stamping on people in the process; unfortunately that hasn’t been the case. MMTP and Bjorn Ulvaeus have blocked and alienated the community and it seems CSCB simply haven’t learned anything from the Garden Bridge fiasco in regards to shafting local people.

Anyway, you seem to be confused: on the one hand you say you feel threatened by the lack of social housing and on the other, you say ‘bring it on’ to private commercial developers. You say you take on board the “political points” yet the issues of covenants and intent of the land etc. are not political. It’s about democracy, equal opportunity and fairness. If you’re a fully signed up member of the local community then why are you advocating the exploitation of your neighbours and where they live (through no fault of their own)? Sounds like sour grapes. You’ve alluded more than once to the green eyed monster in you but this meek acceptance of an insidious seeping gentrification by unethical developers, really is a step (and a contradiction) too far.
Hear hear.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3
Current: 3 of 3

Related news & features


To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

Proud to belong to

Independent Community News Network