London SE1 community website

Councillor Stanton's Failure at Potter's Field

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 5 of 16
Sunday 27 May 2007 3.27pm
Well then it's my land too and Southwark Council should do a deal with anyone, Berkeley or Berkeley's successor doesn't matter, only the nature of the deal. What we all agree on is that it's time for action. I believe there's a consensus on a 43-story, dalek-shaped, vibrating, car-park with the ground fascia reserved for building societies, estate agents and gentlemen's clubs, a 'no rich Arabs' sign + a statue of Ken Livingstone on top.

http://pottersfields.blogspot.com/
Sunday 27 May 2007 4.35pm
david200 wrote:
Thanks for the aerial reference. It confirms Southwark control the Potter's Field site and that Berkeley Homes can't go ahead without our approval. Our weak leader is likely to give it

So, you admit that the proposed scheme is dead in the water unless Southwark sells the land? Incidentally, Cllr. Stanton is not your 'leader'. Whatever happens will be ultimately decided by the council as a whole.

david200 wrote:
Take away the word Arab and just say “build a Housing Estate” opposite a world heritage site. Berkeley Homes won't give a damn about that and the Tower of London and all this stuff about UNESCO is a sideshow it won't change a thing. It's all about money.

I really don't understand this. The Tower is surrounded by mostly modern office blocks. There are any number of housing estates around and opposite the world heritage site that is Greenwich.There's nothing wrong in principle with housing, offices or any other construction around such a place. Let me point out right now that it's not that long ago that there were nothing more cultured than warehouses on the this site. Ultimately I really do not understand why this site of any importance to the context in which The Tower is seen.

david200 wrote:
The whole point about this thread is that after 4 years of dithering

4 years? The site has been derelict for a longer than that. The dithering about what to do with it has been going on for decades. It's been going on since the end of World War 2 at the earliest and certainly since the Pool of London ceased to be port.

david200 wrote:
....is likely to COMPROMISE and do a deal for MONEY with Berkeley Homes and they should not be allowed to! It's our land! Surely that should concern the people of Southwark! It certainly concerns me.

I agree that that it is our land. However compromise is the best you can expect and the place of money is inevitable in any decision about what happens. It's not so simple as the money that Southwark may make out of selling the land. It's also about what, exactly, it will cost the citizens of Southwark, not just today, but for the decades if not centuries to come.
Sunday 27 May 2007 6.34pm
Not a sports museum, please!! It would be as inert as the (mercifully closed) Theatre Museum in Covent Garden, or the (mercifully closed) MOMI on the south bank. Or the Tennis Museum in Wimbledon, with mannequins dressed up to look like Dorothy Lambert Chambers and Fred Perry. Except now it would be sponsored by Nike or Adidas.

High density housing on a mixed-use site would be much better, and if that means Berkeley Homes getting a piece of the action, why's that such a bad thing? The more residential central London becomes, the livelier and more interesting it gets. So, bring on a deal of some sort, either with BH or whoever they sell their bit to, and let's get going.
Sunday 27 May 2007 7.02pm
I've just got back and read the thread. I should tell you I've seen the design for the sport museum Simon Hughes is talking about, it's a beautiful building. The design sits perfectly with tower bridge. Certainly better than BH anyway, which is not hard. Anyway most importantly it sounds like they have the money to start now.
Sunday 27 May 2007 8.15pm
boroughbloke while you may think you are well informed and it's been interesting to engage in discussion, there is a difference to 'being informed' on an issue and actually DOING something about it. You and Cholmondley seem to share Southwark's top brass complaceny by just keeping abreast of the issues and showing a willingness to discuss, but not to actually DO anything. It's an apathetic approach that will end up with a use for that land by Berkeley Homes that has no benefit to the community.

Stanton should stand up tomorrow and publicly declare his opposition to the Berkeley Homes scheme and confirm that he is not going to do a deal with them.
Sunday 27 May 2007 8.38pm
david200 wrote:
boroughbloke while you may think you are well informed and it's been interesting to engage in discussion, there is a difference to 'being informed' on an issue and actually DOING something about it.

What am I expected to do? Buy Berkeley out?

david200 wrote:
Stanton should stand up tomorrow and publicly declare his opposition to the Berkeley Homes scheme

I believe he's already publicly stated his opposition to the proposed scheme.
Sunday 27 May 2007 8.44pm
janeinbutler's wrote:
I've just got back and read the thread. I should tell you I've seen the design for the sport museum Simon Hughes is talking about, it's a beautiful building. The design sits perfectly with tower bridge. Certainly better than BH anyway, which is not hard. Anyway most importantly it sounds like they have the money to start now.

A beautiful counts for nothing if no one uses it. It counts for even less when when its lost cause is being paid for by the tax payer.
Sunday 27 May 2007 9.14pm
So we Have a design for a sports museum ,

well that's the real news,


When will it be made public,

And I have to say I still find this thread a bit strange when there are clearly moves to create alternatives to the Berkeley development.

also
I haven't seem the Southwark news for a long time Has the design been in that.
Monday 28 May 2007 12.06pm
i don't think it's been in the paper. not sure though as i have been away. i would ask southwark council to see the designs. By the way, from what i've heard the sport museum is privately funded.
Monday 28 May 2007 10.28pm
janeinbutler's wrote:
By the way, from what i've heard the sport museum is privately funded.

Given the failure of the FA Premier League Hall of Fame at County Hall, which closed quietly in 2000 after barely a year of operation, what unique selling point will this new "museum" have that will prove more successful in attracting visitors?
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 5 of 16

This thread has been closed
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions