Heygate Estate

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 5 of 11
Tuesday 18 October 2011 12.50pm
The regeneration was founded on the principle of being sustainable - as it has easy access to two tube lines, national rail, about 100 bus routes (and walking and cycling journey of under 40 minutes to hundreds of thousands of jobs) it was viewed that this was a suitable location for a car free or car light development. I agree.

Strata showed that this doesn't stand in the way of successful sales. Plenty of developments in SE1 have minimal car parking.

Very few people need a car when so much is/will be provided so close. Car clubs also exist, and where it is essential - absolutely - they should can buy them, but the idea of parking for all is out dated and unnecessary and in this case is creating a new 'barrier' through the site - the removal of which was ostensibly a key reason for demolition in the first place.

It's no good the council moaning at TfL about the roundabout if they then introduce an extra 4,000 cars into the neighborhood.
Tuesday 18 October 2011 2.37pm
I'm with Mapmaker on this one; why should plumbers, electricians, taxi drivers, and others who need a vehicle for work or to get around or even just because they want it be excluded.
Tuesday 18 October 2011 2.41pm
I don't think anyone said they were, but are half the residents going to be plumbers, electricians, taxi drivers?

If not, we don't need that much car parking.
Tuesday 18 October 2011 3.14pm
nobody is saying there couldn't be an off-site (5-10 mins walking distance)underground car park for those who need it. what is extremely regressive is the idea that, if you own a car, you should be able to open your front door and walk into it, regardless of the fact that you having a car right there means a child has less outdoor space to play in, or one less tree/plant, that a grown up has less space to walk through, that a local shop will have less footfall because a car in a public space is a physical obstacle, etc. and that's not even starting on the damage to pollution, our health and our safety.
Tuesday 18 October 2011 3.16pm
sorry, was going to attach/insert this, hope it works?
Tuesday 18 October 2011 4.32pm
jamesup wrote:
The regeneration was founded on the principle of being sustainable - as it has easy access to two tube lines, national rail, about 100 bus routes.

What exactly does "sustainable" mean in this context, and what does that have to do with the number of car parking places that are provided?
Tuesday 18 October 2011 4.37pm
You ask southwark council what they meant, but I think this article sets out the vision.
Tuesday 18 October 2011 4.49pm
Cars / Parking:
I think the idea of providing seriously reduced amount of parking in high density developments is absolutely sensible and needed. The issue is density / the amount of people living on a rather small footprint of land where it becomes impossible for everyone to have a car.

Strata serves as a good local example as it has 400 apartments and a very small footprint it stands on. Imagine if say every apartment would have the right to have one car. The problem starts already where would you park all those cars? What would the additional stress on surrounding roads be if suddenly 400 additional cars pop up out of the nowhere – even if not used on a daily basis?

The Heygate (which is already a fairly dense development with the existing 12 or so storey slabs along it's perimeter) has only a small amount of garages as far as I know compared to amount of flats present. Unfortunately I don't know the current numbers of flats and garages provided on the estate but hope someone could fill me in on this. If I remember correctly the amount of flats placed on that plot of land will approximately double – now imagine if every single new flat had a right of parking one car somewhere….. Where would it all go and what would it do to our surroundings and already existing traffic jams?

I think the comparison of private gardens in houses and courtyards in high or higher density housing developments are fundamentally different things and not valid. Houses are traditionally on average 2-3 stories tall. Housing developments usually start at 4-5 stories and only the sky is the limit. Therefore the visual impact of housing developments on it's surroundings and the loss of light and visible sky are far greater than it would be from houses. The amount of people living in the neighbourhood will also be far greater and in line with this there should also be more people visiting their friends etc. Therefore the environment created by housing is far different from traditional houses.

As for the Heygate the issue is that the existing grounds are rather extensive and open to everyone. Green space is a very important amenity and the denser developments are the more important becomes access to green spaces – not only for the people living in said developments but also for people living adjacent to those large developments they have to look onto on a daily basis, whilst probably also being overlooked and overshadowed by.
The other point about courtyards being private means they form barriers within the community and segregate instead of the opposite which I thought was one of many aims about the regeneration to enhance community. Large blocks with closed off courtyards are impenetrable barriers meaning everyone always has to walk around the entire block on the street – walking through a nice green courtyard would be so much nicer and shorter and lift the feel of the entire neighbourhood. Suddenly a grey streetscape neigbourhood can become rather pleasant if sprinkled with tended green walk through pockets. I think this would make for a very nice neighbourhod and one I would like to live in opposed to grey streets with lot's of gates and no entry signs projecting a harsh and unfriendly vibe.
Tuesday 18 October 2011 4.54pm
^ Good post.

I was of the opinion that we should wait and see how the courtyards idea is implemented, but you raise some very good points - this should be a no unless we're talking about very specific types of buildings (a manson block, say, often has a inner courtyard), but not what is proposed here.


If the Cllr has his numbers right, 80% of Walworth CC don't own a car - so a provision of 20% parking looks like a good upper limit.
Tuesday 18 October 2011 5.22pm
jamesup wrote:
You ask southwark council what they meant, but I think this article sets out the vision.

Key points from your link:

• The development has its heart in spatial planning, considering the place as a whole and not just in terms of land use
• A detailed evidence base was created to support development principles
• The development will be zero carbon growth, despite tripling the available floorspace
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 5 of 11

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