Jump to content

Recommended Posts

OK EDF'er,


I was browsing around ED on Streetmap the other day to see if there was anything I hadn't yet discovered about our beloved ED. I ended up looking over Peckham Rye Park/Common and noticed something interesting; did you know that Peckham Rye Park (the nice part of the green) and Common are actually (mostly) within SE22? So why the crap name? Is it because it's named after the road (which is also in SE22) rather than the suburb?


I know that Peckham Rye Common/Park has a bad perception with a lot of people, especially us ED snobs who would rather venture to Dulwich Park instead (if you like prams and dog poo). Personally I love Peckham Rye Park - it's a hidden treasure that not many people know about. They see the Common (the Peckham end of the green) and think it's all just a blank green for people to play footy on, but it's not. The Park is beautiful with a pond, private areas to picnic, lovely gardens, ducks and playgrounds.


I wonder what everyone's thoughts would be on renaming Peckham Rye Park/Common to East Dulwich Park/Common

( http://www.foprp.org.uk/ blood begins to boil I'm sure)? I think it would improve the perception of the Park with ED'ers AND it would simply be aligning it to the suburb in which it actually IS - East Dulwich!


So forumites - what do you think? Am I off my rocker or do I have a point?


Check it out: http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=534750&y=174750&z=1&sv=534750,174750&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf

Quaywe Wrote:

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

> OK EDF'er,

>

> I was browsing around ED on Streetmap the other

> day to see if there was anything I hadn't yet

> discovered about our beloved ED. I ended up

> looking over Peckham Rye Park/Common and noticed

> something interesting; did you know that Peckham

> Rye Park (the nice part of the green) and Common

> are actually (mostly) within SE22? So why the

> crap name? Is it because it's named after the

> road (which is also in SE22) rather than the

> suburb?

>

> I know that Peckham Rye Common/Park has a bad

> perception with a lot of people, especially us ED

> snobs who would rather venture to Dulwich Park

> instead (if you like prams and dog poo).

> Personally I love Peckham Rye Park - it's a hidden

> treasure that not many people know about. They

> see the Common (the Peckham end of the green) and

> think it's all just a blank green for people to

> play footy on, but it's not. The Park is

> beautiful with a pond, private areas to picnic,

> lovely gardens, ducks and playgrounds.

>

> I wonder what everyone's thoughts would be on

> renaming Peckham Rye Park/Common to East Dulwich

> Park/Common

> ( http://www.foprp.org.uk/ blood begins to boil

> I'm sure)? I think it would improve the

> perception of the Park with ED'ers AND it would

> simply be aligning it to the suburb in which it

> actually IS - East Dulwich! Not to mention what

> it would do for ED house prices near it.

>

> So forumites - what do you think? Am I off my

> rocker or do I have a point?

>

> Check it out:

> http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=534750&y=17475

> 0&z=1&sv=534750,174750&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&s

> earchp=newsearch.srf



Personally I've never found this park inferior to Dulwich Park. As a person who enjoys outdoors, since moving to this part of London I've made a concerted effort to discover as many green spaces as possible, so I've explored these two parks along with Horniman Gardens, the fantastic Dulwich and Sydenham Woods, Crystal Palace Park, Nunhead Cemetery and even One Tree Hill. I know a lot of these aren't in SE22 but they are lovely anyway.


Peckham Rye used to be a lot bigger than it is now, and if I'm not mistaken, even the land stretching up to Goose Green once formed part of the greater common land, before being eaten up by housing development in the late 19th century.

Quite right! How dare such a nice and well-kept park be associated in name with the shame of Peckham - despite being so-called for 100 years. In fact, we could grab the park and then re-name all of SE22 as 'Chelsea Borders' - to 'help' with house prices.

Did anyone on the forum actually buy a house here to just.. you know.. live in it - without constantly obsessing about its value?

I did, I bought a home for me to live in and I think that's one reason I like East Dulwich so much is that it's not an "investment stop-over" for me.


But this is about Peckham Rye, I like it too, I like playing football on there and just walking around it. If the name Peckham Rye keeps people away then I'm quite happy that people who are put off because of a park's name stay away. Makes it less busy.

Er EDKiwi


As you asked, you are off your rocker.


As long as a green space is well kept, reasonably dog free (speaking as a runner) and the kids are not hanging out in gangs sniffing glue (some chance), I don't care what it is called.


I agree with Bob. Relax....

EDKiwi are you joking!? I love it when people come to visit and their preconception of Peckham Rye Park (a patch of dead grass with a burnt out Escort) is totally shattered by what is, in my opinion, even better than Dulwich Park (apart from the lack of Cafe and London Recumbents). Why disassociate ourselves from Peckham? Who cares what snobby people think?

Quaywe Wrote:

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

Not to mention what

> it would do for ED house prices near it.



Seriously, enough about house prices Kiwi. The only people who really benefit from this are people who are planning to leave the area and cash in. Which makes the situation worse for those of us who would like to make this area their permanent home.

hey, thats a great idea you've got there - rename something so as to attach a greater value to it on the basis that the neighbouring property or area is far more salubrious/wealthy/has greater economic value.


i hereby rename your country of birth "East Australia" and you shall from this point forth be called "EDEastAussie". Sounds like a fair application of your theory to me?


Seriously.

beth Wrote:

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

> Plus what about the literary associations i.e.

> 'The Ballad of Peckham Rye'


That's right Beth and William Blake had his "visions" on the Rye too. In fact I used to go there to pick shrooms so I could have my own "visions". Highly recommended though after a stroll on the Rye is a pint or two in the Clockhouse or further up the road the Herne Tavern.

swiders Wrote:

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

> i hereby rename your country of birth "East

> Australia" and you shall from this point forth be

> called "EDEastAussie". Sounds like a fair

> application of your theory to me?


Swiders - The "West Island" has nothing on us folks from the mainland ;-)


Try and think of it this way: If England was within the boundaries of Wales it surely wouldn't be called England would it. Surely the Welsh would want to called it Aberwwjjtteraflyyd or something Welsh wouldn't they?


Anyway, I get the general consensus - Peckham Rye Park should stay as it is. A bit of healthy debate a wonderful thing though! :)

Off your rocker I'm afraid. While Peckham Rye Common is in SE15 and Peckham Rye Park is in SE22 I think you'll find that the area surrounding the park has always been called Peckham Rye:) Peckham and Dulwich were around as villages before East Dulwich. When developments spread we got East Dulwich West Dulwich etc. Perhaps we sould rename East Dulwich South Peckham!!


Growing up in Peckham we used to 'go up the park' or 'go down the swings' at least twice a week and the park was a busy place and you didn't dare upset the park keepers. Glad to see it have its recent makeover but it was a bit of a shock when we first went back recently to see parents allowing their kids to run through the flower beds.

Peckham Rye Common and Park are absolutely lovely. Its a huge space and there are quite a few people out and about there at the weekend, but its still peaceful - nice in summer when Dulwich Park gets a bit overun. I live slap bang in the middle of Dulwich Park and Peckham Common so its nice to have a choice.


The gardens were all spruced up about a year ago with a lottery grant but it was still nice even before that. The name should be kept, especially with the history of William Blake having a vision of angels there.

James Wrote:

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

>even better than Dulwich Park (apart from

> the lack of Cafe and London Recumbents)


The new build on the Rye (between the one o'clock club and the recycling bins) is going to be a cafe - confirmed on the smart new map they have put up next to it.


Could this be where Starbucks are re-locating too?

My mum remembers the Rye being ploughed and used to grow crops fairly unsucessfully during the war and the huts up near the park entrance housed Italian POWs. Although they weren't really prisoners as they were allowed out and about during the day.

Its only fairly recently that the old concrete bomb shelters were filled in on the corner of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Road. I still call that junction the Kings Arms although the pub is long gone.

Peckham Rye park was orignally Homestall Farm, which was bought by the London Development Corporation in 1880, whcih was an addition to the common which was being slightly overstretched. Peckham Rye is technically a parish and a ward, which has been in existance ever since this part of London was taken out of Surrey. "Peckham Rye" is actually a place, hence the confusion with the train station in Peckham also going by the same name.. I think in geographical terms, Peckham counts as anywhere north of rye lane, and Peckham Rye anywhere to the south bordering ED. I think people who live around that area consider themselves to be mostly Peckham Rye folk, rather than ED or Peckham, so therefore, despite the SE22 postcode, it is a very distinctive community.

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

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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