Everybody has a right to live somewhere and if they have the money to do so, why not... Just because they have money why the hostility? They earned it surely as they have the right to live wherever they please... As for 'more beneficial' - for whom? I do agree that the towers are more than likely to put the green space in shade but there are other areas to sit in the sun if indeed that is what you really want. As for a 'cultural attraction' I am struggling to think of something long-term that will be as beneficial to a large number of people. Even the Tate Modern doesn't cater for everyone as not everybody is interested in that vein of art.
I'm not disagreeing with you kyliedog (not completely) - just I do not se who will benefit from park extensions and cultural attractions - other than shopkeepers, burger van owners and ice cream salesmen...
<<Everybody has a right to live somewhere and if they have the money to do so, why not...>>
Poppycock! It's our responsibility (delegated to the council, the Govt, etc) to make some decisions about where we want houses to be built (and what spaces we want to be left empty, or made into parks, or used for civic buildings).
A lot of people on here who object to the plan to build flats on the Fields are objecting because they think the Sth Bank is built up enough as it is, and do not think it is appropriate to build ANYTHING there (and, by implication, that the council should never have let that land be sold to developers and should do whatever it can to reverse the decision).
When my 27 horse accumulator comes up, should I be able to build my dream house in the middle of Hyde Park?
As I understand it, part of the site Berkeley wish to build on is currently owned by the council. The Lambeth College site and the part of the coach park nearest the college is, however, owned by Berkeley.
I don't just want to sit in the park for the sun, if that were the case I could sit on the grass in the middle of my estate(along with all the lovely dog t*rds, but thats another story).
I prefer to sit in Potters field because most of all, it has fantastic surroundings (ok - not the coach site at present, but I'd rather that than the tampon towers), the mixture of people & the relaxing atmosphere.
I don't think having the money - so I can live where I want is a valid enough reason to build more residential homes on this site. As Ivanhoe(or Cathy) expalined - the South Bank is already built up too much.
Has anyone noticed that in the existing Southwark UDP, one of the objectives (excuse me if I haven't used the correct jargon word) is to increase open space in this area. In the proposed new UDP, this has been taken out and replaced with simply endeavouring to improve existing open space. Object while you can, all those who see fit - your very last chance is nigh!
Having said this, I do agree with Lang Rabbie that the forces which have created this dearth of greenness and openness are not the UDP but are more financial in nature (see my post on part 1 of this thread). While I think that, as one way of trying to change things its worthwhile objecting to the UDP if done with other people and support from organisations and councillors etc, and done at the best time which in this case has already passed, I think that those of us who would like to see more green space need to think of other, perhaps more innovative and creative ways to achieve our aim (assuming none of us have the money to buy out the developers). Coin St Community Builders did it with housing, against the odds. Burgess Park was carved out of built-up land, albeit in an area less desirable to developers. Residents in Scotland have bought the land their communities are on. All examples where people were no doubt told their idealism was unrealistic and unachievable.
I would be interested in other peoples' ideas about possible ways forward in view of the high land prices locally. Its going to be a hard battle - so lets make sure we are putting our energies into the right areas. I dont believe its impossible or unrealistic, I think its very difficult but essential if we want to create an area people will continue to want to live in once the current vogue for SE1 has passed.
Poppycock? Let's see - you clearly don't have the capital or the ability to realise anything of this nature so are therefore unable to put yourself in that position. Hyde Park and Potters Fields are poles apart.
Give an alternative Ivanhoe that isn't going to upset somebody just like you. Rights of light, green space, architectural difference, high density, expensive property, planning, interpretation of UDP... Dress it up how you like and choose your argument but there is nothing you can do that will stop what will happen. Post as much as you like - unless you have solid ground for opposition it's a losing battle.
Most people on this thread are preaching to the converted and have presented no plausible argument except to slag off the architecture and the developer. Doesn't hold much really does it?
at the risk of entering a rather heated saloon bar, i thought that there was a proposal to have some sort of children's theatre/drama/puppet space possibly designed by frank gehry (sic?) in a landmark building that would not tower over the bridge (pun intended) and would not block the sun from the grass - was this just my imagination?
by the way after about 11 the sun is over near guy's tower and is pretty free from any development by BH/the evil empire - so you can develop your melanomas and wrinkles almost whatever gets built...
Your somewhat dismissive attitude to those who support something for the community on this important site is undimmed. Perhaps you would be kind enough to remind us all again of your reasons, and more importantly, motivation, for supporting the proposal.