Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The blood test facility is very good. The staff are really quick and friendly (no waiting times at all when I have been the last three or four times) and it is genuinely painless. The area itself is a bit shabby but it's clean. It is much preferable to going to King's but given that it is usually empty I wonder whether it will last.

but given that it is usually empty I wonder whether it will last.


That very much depends, in my experience, on when you come. First thing it is often very crowded as it has people who go to work, and people who have had to 'starve' before the test. By about 10:45 you often have to wait only one or two people, but there is a steady throughput - enough to occupy 2 and sometimes 3 phlebotomists. I've never seen it completely empty or gone straight in without at least a one-person wait. That's actually ideal and shows it is effectively staffed. Neither the patients', nor the phlebotomists' time is being wasted.

I have been three times when I have walked in and no other cubicle has been being used. The other time I was seen immediately but one other cubicle (of three in all, I think) was used. Perhaps I was lucky in my choice of time. Busy or not, the staff are good at what they do and are cheery and this is important.

There's a number of old threads which you may be able to find which discuss the planned demolition - here's one that has some useful links and background. https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,999444


As I understood it back in 2012/13, the existing structure was found to be too expensive to maintain and renovate, as well as not being fit for modern use, so the decision was taken to retain the entrance way and replace the rest.


https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,999444

The main 'chateau' entrance building is remaining and will be an integral part of the school. The wings will be demolished. Talking to the one of the past NHS architects who drew up plans 10 years ago. The original hospital was constructed under the Poor Law and built to a low standard such as one brick thick. The cost to renovate those wings would be astronomic.

Several previous attempts have been made previously to have it listed 'Save the onion domes' being one of them. Listing was refused - https://www.dulwichsociety.com/journal-archive/91-summer-2012/723-dulwich-hospital

Captain Marvel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Plenty of money around for resurfacing roads that

> don't need it, for banners on lamp posts and

> propaganda magazines.

>

> No money to renovate a wonderful old building


You think the costs of renovating a poorly built Victorian hospital are comparable to putting down a bit of tarmac?

Poorly built? It's over a hundred years old and the only thing bringing it down is the wrecker's ball


It was robustly built, but without false floors and ceilings through which to run cable, pipework etc, etc. to support a modern 'connected', heated and cooled, establishment, and being built in a way which was not consistent with the zero-carbon/ fully insulated mind-set of today, creating a modern health establishment inside its shell would be a very expensive option. It is, of course, a lovely building, and would still be fit for many purposes, but not, I suggest, a modern health centre offering quasi hospital services. I would tend to agree that it wasn't 'poorly built' certainly for the standards of the time and even now, but it is no longer appropriately built.

'It is, of course, a lovely building, and would still be fit for many purposes'


Exactly. Some things just need preserving for their own sake. In East Dulwich, there are precious few old buildings and one of them is to be levelled without so much as a whimper


Pulling that down is vandalism and demonstrates the same poverty of imagination that permits the construction of identikit flats all over the borough

Captain Marvel said "poorly built? It's over a hundred years old and the only thing bringing it down is the wrecker's ball"


How I agree ! However fit for purpose, super insulated and environmentally friendly together with being supposedly low maintenance I can absolutely guarantee that it won't last 50 years.

Whilst I accept that preserving our heritage is important, in London where land and property prices are very high compared to other parts of the country and there is a demand for services which I feel should be housed in modern, fit for purpose premises, we need to be less sentimental about old buildings. A building designed for the needs of healthcare in the 19th century is not going to be state-of-art for 21st century. It?s running costs, maintenance requirements and carbon footprint are all going to be higher than the modern equivalent.

IMO, the retention of the central ?chateaux? is a pure concession to assuage local outrage but it was opined by James Barber that retaining it was a ?a key aspect to get planning permission?. Perhaps these are one and the same. Anyways it?s use as part of the school is unclear.


We should take pictures, videos and maybe even use VR technology to create an archive of the building, inside and out so that future generations can see what was there, even if they are unable to experience it for real. Then we should get rid of it.

Having worked for many years in Dulwich Hospital - when the wards were there and afterwards when wards transferred to Kings, some of the facilities were basic. Toilets which needed to be updated, windows which were difficult to open. Temperamental heating, lifts which were not operational at times. Not all water taps were for drinking and water tasted metallic.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...