Thursday, July 29, 2010

Greening the Estate: Something More Positive from WWM!

 (click on map to see larger version)

This is the map that Arthur from WWM Architects produced after the Estate Walkabout regarding the application for funds to "Green the Estate" with his version of ideas for various areas and the improvements that could be done.

Very sneaky to put on it  "WWM to look at options regarding re-location." of the garden marked as 10) on the map. As far as I am concerned the option is to relocate the path NOT the garden.

Anyhow that aside...

Surely we can come up with a more cohesive, comprehensive and interesting set of proposals for these spaces?

The more engaging and involving our ideas are the more likely the funding is to be forthcoming.

I shall be canvassing for suggestions at the TRA meeting this evening... and any ideas are more than welcome here...

We have to do it quick though... the window for funding is apparentely small.


  1. As I said at the TRA meeting last night (thursday) I am against the cycle path as I believe that it may encourage more crime, may be dangerous to the cyclists (and other road users)to go streight onto deptford church street and that the cycle path is not for crossfields community use, it is for greenwich, new tenants/owners of all the new builds around here, and tourists. As far as the 'greening' I will be proposing to the next meeting that a request be made for funding for two raised beds (I am disabled and can't garden in the usual way) to be added to the front of Browne House, so I can garden it and brighten up Browne House frontage. Chezovitch

  2. And as I didn't get a chance to say at the TRA meeting, I am in favour of the cycle path. But not to the extent that it causes friction about the ''community'' garden. As a regular cyclist, I find the fact that there is no direct access to Deptford Church Street from the estate deeply irritating. The current layout completely unsatisfactory from a cyclist's point of view - technically it is illegal to cycle on pavements so in theory cyclists heading west (currently along Giffin Street) should dismount and walk from the estate exit by Browne House. But when so little attention has been paid to properly laying out cycle routes, I don't bother dismounting. Because nobody else bothered thinking intelligently about cycling when they set up the route.

    What I don't understand is the architects' apparent desire for a straight line (sight line?) from Resolution Way/Mechanics Path and onwards towards Greenwich via the Ha'penny Hatch. I felt that it would be possible to run a path on the north side - ie, between the basketball courts and the railway line for a couple of arches and then returning to the architects' preferred route. This would not lengthen the cycle route significantly and in any case, the straight line ends when you get to the Hatch Bridge. Plus, the continuation into Greenwich will have to swap to the north side of the railway line anyway according to the maps the architects showed at the initial meeting we held in the Creekside Centre. So the straight line ''architects' ideal'' is already compromised a few hundred yards up the road.

    On another point, I have to say I don't understand the fears of increased crime arising from having a cycle path - I don't know whether the concern is about cyclists getting attacked or cyclists attacking pedestrians. I have witnessed a mugging with a decoy gun and the thieves disappeared along the part of the path that runs alongside the railway line. Already the police wouldn't have been able to follow, except on foot And I have also witnessed 2 youths on bikes using the existing entrance by Browne House to escape the police - who weren't able to follow along that route. So crime already happens, on foot and by bike, and the present arrangement does nothing to prevent this. I don't see where an amended layout would aggravate crime.

  3. Couldn't agree with you more. I think lol Your first first couple of sentences are a bit confusing. I'm guessing what you mean is that any opposition to the cycle path, as proposed, shouldn't impact on the chance we have for funding for Estate improvements...

    And so you point out exactly the painfully compromising position that I am put in personaly. This is why I have constantly tried to maintain the best and most constructive relationship with all parties involved.

    In a way it is unfortunate that I seem to be the only person who is, at present, actively interested in constructively persuing both these matters. I am bound to have a more "personal" and "emotional" response to the destruction of a garden that I love and cherish very very much...

    I have of course explained how I feel about this and agreed with Richa that, in theory at least, the two matters are completely seperate.

    As I say my personal position is roughly in accord with yours. I too am a regular cyclist and fully appreciate the problems of the current arrangement. Alternative routes, as discussed on the Walkabout, that achieve roughly the same aim have been my most realistic aim in all this.

    However I also feel that I have some responsibility to represent the various views that have been expressed to me by other people on the estate. And of course these views are wide ranging and diverse. Unless we have some kind of real consultation it seems that this is the only voice in this matter they have.

    These include people who have a genuine fear of crime along the route propossed due to the scary and threatening feel of the area along the arches. I have had people on the estate saying that there is no way they would feel safe walking along the proposed route in the evening. Others on the Estate have witnessed again and again the way that the route across Ha'penny Hatch is used by criminals escaping crimes on bikes and the police being unable to follow them. Their fears about the new path is that it will extend the opportunity for this kind of activity to occur.

    Fantastic analysis of the pointlessness of the "straight line" which has been the only reason given so far for not considering alternative routes. What struck me when Martin Hodge explained that the path was part of the East West link scheme. As this was described the "route" went Fordham Park, New Cross Underpass, Rachel Macmillan Park, Albany vegetable planters (!).... then err well surely the logic would be to continue along Giffin Street? But it takes a huge leap to the left along the High Street up to the Station..
    not very joined up.

    On a more particular point. Martin Hodge said that any alternative route that passed through any of the arches was considered problematic because Network Rail are apparently very reluctant to grant permission for a right of way that passes through one of their arches. Just go along the North side all the way from Church Street to Creekside then I replied!

    I'd LOVE a sign where the path deviated from the straight line that said something along the lines of...

    We are sorry that this path isn't straight but that means we are able to preserve a community garden. Why don't you pause on your journey some time and rest a while in this tranquil oasis...

    Wouldn't that be fantastic!