Rye Lane

[PokerTime]

But Louisa, you shoot yourself in the foot by contradicting yourself. You clearly despite the working poor and you clearly hate the better off. That to me only means one thing.....ME ME ME and ME (AKA as inverse snobbery). And btw, I am working class through and through, but thankfully have managed to escaped the kind of narrow mindedness that so many of my kind are unable to move away from.

The North peckham Estate was not a social experiment. It was built to deal with a real housing problem. It replaced slums and delapidated buildings (like many other similar developments) and those that were first to move into the homes were impressed with the imporved living standards. Sadly by the end of the 60s and into the 70s the country had hit recession. Traditional industries were collapsing and the traditional labour market for exactly the kind of people in North Peckham was disappearing fast (ergo factories and the east end docks).

Louisa, you seem to have no conception as to why socio-economic change occurs. To blame bricks and mortar over industry and economy is just plain ignorant. The working classes are also every person that owns or works in one of those small businesses on Rye Lane that you bemoan. There are many ways for local people to influence town planning and local government. Sat in the comfort of your own home whining on a local forum isn't one of them.

[Louisa]

PokerTime how do I shoot myself in the foot? Explain please. I don't despise the working poor, I do my best to stand up for them on this forum when you look at all the changes brought to the area by wealthy cash buyers. How is it about me? Lots of people feel as I do, are you suggesting that they are all ignorant for holding these beliefs, and you are somehow enlightened in some way because you feel differently? Patronising beyond words.

FYI the North Peckham Estate WAS a social experiment. Many of the old dilapidated homes in Peckham had a strong sense of community and those communities were broke up because the government presumed knocking down rather than renovating was a good idea, destroying working class communities and sending them off into the suburbs. The traditional industries had been on their way out for years and they felt it was acceptable to come to an area like Peckham, Deptford et al and destroy that community because they 'knew best'. As a result of poor planning and sociological political decisions Peckham had a fragmented population (as did East Dulwich). And how are the businesses on Rye Lane working class? Have you done a survey of them? I was very vocal back in the 80s and 90s and it fell on deaf ears with our council. They didn't care about the working class areas of London until it becomes a big media thing or posh people want to buy up housing stock.

Louisa.

[KidKruger]

So basically I like Rye Lane as it is - regardless of how it got there - and you want it to be how it was 40 years ago because you liked it then.

And you're wondering why no-one listens !

[Louisa]

KK I'm not the only one who "liked it as it was". So presuming no-one listens to me for that reason is a bit ridiculous. I don't like Rye Lane as it is, and I know exactly how it got there.

Louisa.

[KidKruger]

You SAID on your post that no one listens to you !!

I'm not presuming anything !!!!

[PokerTime]

So in your belief Louisa, governments deliberately set out to destroy communities by clearing substandard housing and building an 'experiment' ? Whilst I agree that with hindsight, there were fundamental flaws in the design of large 60's estates, exacerbated by economic decline over the following decades, any suggestion this was intentional on the part of the planners is nonsense. Many of the design ideas came from Europe, part of a movement that had to address housing provision, and fast. There was genuine reason for removing substandard and delapidated homes, many of which had no indoor toilet and poor bathroom provision. Let's not be nostalgic about the homes they were replacing. The move was right, even if with hindsight the means were flawed.

I think also, the argument plays on a notion that these communities would somehow have continued to be unfractured, yet technology and the way life has changed now sees just as many broken communities in the many streets that didn't see the wrecking ball. To think that architecture and redevelopment alone has broken community spirit is just not born out by evidence. Neighbours just don't need each other in the way they did in 1960. Where community spirit can be found is where people actively engage to create it. Again, architecture plays little part in facilitating or stopping that.

You might not like Rye Lane without it's chain stores, but many other people do. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it intrinsically bad. What you are are saying is very different from genuine comments about litter and parking. You are the only person on this thread that seems to hate everything about it. That is what I am having great difficulty making sense of. I may be wrong, but I suspect your dislike goes deeper than the range of shops.

[Louisa]

Perhaps not deliberately PokerTime, but local and national government seem to use experimental methods to deal with the working poor, and always have done. The middle classes would be up in arms if a compulsory purchase scheme popped up in an affluent area because an important rail link needed to be built. Just as they have with regards the station redevelopment at Peckham Rye. You don't think of them as being mad for wishing to protect the artists studios and incoming businesses aimed at a the Shoreditch blow-ins, and yet I am considered slightly insane for suggesting the condition of this street is diabolical and has needed addressing for years? One rule for some, another for someone else.

Housing provision in the 1960s was a big issue, and during this period inner London had a falling population because they called these communities slums- despite the fact most of the people were hard working. They tore families apart because rather than invest in making these areas better by improving the buildings they found it easier to move all the people out of London to new towns, pull it all down and stick up sub standard concrete slabs with no thought behind the damage it would be doing to the people who would eventually be forced to live in these large concrete prisons. Your point about neighbours not needing each other as they did in the 60s is not relevant here. That's an organic change over time. These places had the heart ripped out of them when communities and families living close to one another were still important aspects of city life.

Rye Lane isn't just about a lack of chain stores. I understand retail isn't an immobile beast. It is adapting and changing all the time. I have two conflicting things I so dislike about Rye Lane. The first being, yes it does fit the demographic of the area as it is today, but does that mean it has to be dirty and smelly just for the sake of it? Why can it not be clean and tidy with people obeying the rules regarding parking and refuse collection? Why should anyone be forced to shop in such a dirty environment? My other main gripe is that this is the largest remaining retail plot of land for a good few miles and as the demographic of the area is constantly changing it should reflect that in every sense. Most of those businesses down there are all of the same kind, why can there not be room for others to open up? Why does Lordship Lane have the same problem? Estate agent after estate agent. Mixed retail representing everyone should be the answer and council can play a role in facilitating this. I do not wish to have to travel miles out of my way to do my shopping just because everywhere around me is so pointless. It shouldn't have to be this way.

Louisa.

[aquarius moon]

I agree with Louisa about mixed retail.

Lordship Lane is great if you eat out regularly or want to buy/sell a house.

Peckham is great if you want to get your nails or eyebrows done and shop in poundshops.

Personally I don't do either so there needs to be a limit to the number of similar shops opening up.

Out of the two, I still prefer Rye Lane by a mile & I actually like the music & atmosphere it creates when shopping.

[DulwichFox]

With chicken carcasses piled high and foul smelling fish I certainly would not by food from any outlet on Rye Lane.

Fresh Fish should Not smell of Fish. It should smell of the sea.

By comparison, on a recent visit to Brixton, I strolled through the so called 'Brixton Village'

There were two Wet Fish Shops where the Fish on display smelt fresh and looked fresh. Eyes bright and clear.

Fish being laid out on ice and clearly labeled and priced up.

Rye lane is disgusting .. Many outlets need to be closed down.

DulwichFox

[aquarius moon]

I don't buy fish or meat so can't even look in those kind of shops full of dead things.

I look the other way when I walk past!

[Louisa]

am absolutely mixed retail should always be the aim of every high street. We seem to do it so badly in this part of south London. Rye Lane could be a good example to other areas when you look at the capacity of the area as a whole. A restoration of the shop fronts should also be top priority, there is no need for smelly meat and fish displays out onto the streets, I find it really disgusting. I also agree with Fox, if Brixton market can do it so well why can't Peckham? There is NO excuse for the dilapidated state of that street whatsoever, and neither is there for the samey dull cheap nasty shops selling smelly food items.

Louisa.

[JohnL]

The demograph is changing now and Rye Lane will change - maybe slowly as it has before.

I moved here in 2007 and since then we lost Currys, Woolworths, WHSmith that I can remember.

I don't deny I'd like a few coffee shops etc - notice the burned out shop/house and the old

Greggs next to it is still burnt out, never mind the terrace behind the bus stop(rats live there)

- there's room certainly.

[Jah Lush]

Dulwich Fox has that spot on. I wouldn't buy any meat or fish along Rye Lane. It stinks and gives the impression of being rotten and dirty.

[JohnL]

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Dulwich Fox has that spot on. I wouldn't buy any

> meat or fish along Rye Lane. It stinks and gives

> the impression of being rotten and dirty.

I'd buy vegetables only too :)

But no proof of that, other then the recent temporary enforced shutdown of one of the shops.

[Louisa]

That's when the environmental health people can be bothered to go down there. So many of those shops must be selling out of date 'fresh' food items, because as Dulwich Fox points out, a fishmonger for example should smell of the sea- not gone off fish. The romantic image of Rye Lane is grating. It isn't romantic, it's disgusting.

Louisa.

[StraferJack]

"I moved here in 2007 and since then we lost Currys, Woolworths, WHSmith that I can remember. "

everywhere lost woolworths

most places lost dixons/currys

a lot of places lost Smiths

not much unique about Peckham in that regard

[Louisa]

Forest Hill still has one SJ, and that's hardly a major retail destination. Currys still have a shop in Surrey Quays too as far as I'm aware.

Louisa.

[Nigello]

I'm glad people are speaking openly on this topic. I'd like it if a shop-owner would join in as well. Anyone...anyone....?

[KidKruger]

I get my goat and fish there.

Also in the summer you can get HUGE African live snails to boil-up, mmmmmmm good.

I'm not comfortable with the inferences equating smells with disarray - I think that's your own boundaries being threatened there, it's been there years and works fine but the reason to change it shouldn't be because you don't like it.

Go to Moxons if you wanna pay 3x !

Or just don't buy there if you think it's sooooo dodgy.

[StraferJack]

yup Louisa - I didn't say those shops had closed everywhere, just in many places

WHSmiths would have looked at the figures and decided it wasn't worth keeping that store open. So people might want variety of shops but it would appear the bigger chains don't get the custom

Forest Hill is no shopping destination but the locals appear to use WH Smiths enough to warrant it staying open (for now) (it's smaller and probably cheaper to lease/rent as well)

[KidKruger]

I'd guess that with the discount / pound shops selling stationery, stalls selling blank digital media etc. the shoppers couldn't see the point of paying WHSmith prices.

[Louisa]

KK I want to be able to shop there, but currently I cannot because of the smells and the condition of the streets. I think much of it is a health hazard and needs to be upgraded. The shop fronts need putting back and the lazy open shutter nature of the place has to change. Not just for me and my tastes, but for the benefit of the whole community. It isn't just smells that create a feeling of disarray, it's a whole number of things. I go to Soapers in Nunhead, I wouldn't waste my money on Moxons. Soapers don't have the same issue with regards smells of gone off fish (edited to clarify some of the shops along rye lane do smell of gone off produce, I wasn't referring to Moxons, I just think Moxons is overpriced).

SJ I agree that Smiths probably didn't think the area was viable any longer, however, as demographics change in an area chain go and come back again. Some of the chains are leaving at a major junction in the road ahead for Peckham, and I personally can only conclude it is because of other factors associated with the nature of Rye Lane and it's reputation for being one dimensional in terms of its shopping options.

Louisa.

[KidKruger]

The open shutter nature you speak of may appear lazy but it's more efficient from the shopkeeper's perspective and is often a part of the culture, whether it be Afghanistan, Indian subcontinent, SE Asia or Africa.

It's common in these places for the shopkeeper and family to live / sleep in the shop space when the shutters are down and also move their car in there at night (too cold in UK).

It will all change, sadly, so you'll get your wish in the next 5 - 10 years for sure.

A sterile honky-focused high st selling the same crap as every other high st.

[KidKruger]

It's up to environmental health to address hygiene concerns (which is the point of the comments about smells, right ?).

If EH are happy with those shops, they stay open.

A lot of these comments come across as very us / them, just because you don't like another culture's habits don't try and squash them into how you want it to be.

Maybe if you bought the produce and cooked it and ate it you'd be more accepting ?

Thousands of shoppers daily are managing for the two decades I've known about it !

No, stop. Someone says it's smelly.

[PokerTime]

Good debate.

With reference to goverments experimenting on the poor Louisa. It is the poor that most often need investment and help from governments. Finding solutions to poverty, poor health, infant mortality, poor sanitation (and let's remember many of the demolished homes nationwide had no indoor toilets or modern bathrooms) has been at the fore of pretty much every social reform going back 150 years. Add to that better working conditions, because let's not forget too that this golden age of tight knit communities was also an age of long working hours for pay so low (and often in conditions dangerous to health) that those workers were at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords. People had those communities because they had to depend on each other to get by.

The middles classes have never needed such help. They are also more often than not, more articulate and better at fighting their cause. That's why they do better at lobbying local government. The Unions used to play the same role for the working class and public sector workers. Now a growing slice of the labour force has no Union protection. These are all changes that bring us to where we are today.

Peckham only began to exist as residential and growing retail area when Peckham Rye Station was built. It is the whole reason that Rye Lane exists in the first place. Can't see how that has ever been a bad thing.

Writing things like 'So many of those shops must be selling out of date 'fresh' food items, because as Dulwich Fox points out, a fishmonger for example should smell of the sea- not gone off fish.' doesn't really help. The smell of off fish and meat is so strong that it would be very obvious. I know for a fact that Environmental Officers DO regularly inspect retail outlets there.

Just on Chains. Chain stores are not interested in communities. They exist for profit and many of the big ones are now owned by multinational corporations. They often kill off small retail businesses (there's plenty of evidence of that nationwide). They do though create jobs and have a place. 'Clustering' which is the term given to retail outlets of similar nature operating within the same area is a natrual feature of free market competition and is actually good for the consumer in keeping prices competitve. It has always been the case that if one shoe shop opens and does well, another will open to try and cash in on business. Banks have done it. Departments stores, jewellers, cafes and so on have all worked to that same theory when deciding where to locate outlets. We are seeing the same with the Pound Shops. They can't really undercut each other on price, so they try to compete for customers with ranges.

KK is closer to my thinking on all of this. I do think there is an element of us versus them in the debate. The idea that only sterile and uniform environments are safe to buy from is nonsense. But everyone is entitled to their own take on all of these things.