As far as I can tell the proposed new units will take up less than half the frontage of the tunnel and will not interfere with those units that currently have a cultural use.
It is proposed that the street / tunnel be somewhat tarted up though and I suppose the increased use may not be completely compatible with the fumes of paint cans and the aroma of powerful-smelling cannabis.
If the street / tunnel is no longer considered a conducive location for street artists to express themselves they will surely just find more appropriate places instead? I imagine some of the best will be incentivised to continue to produce work there though.
Personally I thought it would have made an excellent mini-red-light district for London with alternative shops, clubs and bars and whatnot but I never got around to putting that idea to the consultation.
A mini red light district would have been great. I've decided when I'm 67 and retired it's cocaine addiction for me, a flaming red Ferrari and sleep with anything or anyone out there who will have me..
I'm struggling to see the argument here. Should property owners be prevented from developing viable sites so that it retains a sufficiently derelict feel to make street artists comfortable working there?
The consultation made noises about retaining street art in the street and much of the tunnel is untouched by the development. I accept that the development may change the atmosphere of the street / tunnel as it is but surely one of the points of street art is that there are many other places it can move to?