Peckham multi-storey car park

[heartblock]

Read The Guardian article. Southwark selling the car park to Mayfair based property developers rather than an artist studio and the current organisers of art events bid. I'm glad that I'm planning to leave London, which is busy 'eating itself'.

[Lula]

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/10/council-rejects-plans-london-car-park-800-artists-studios-southwark-peckham

Yes, I was incredibly sad to read this too. It's a real shame that the council doesn't have the foresight to say yes to something that will make the area unique rather than another luxe housing/retail space ? blah!

[nxjen]

The losing bid was proposing 800, yes eight hundred, affordable artists' studios. Southwark Council was quoted as saying: "The car park is a public space and we didn?t just want it to become just a closed artist commune.? This would not have been in keeping with the wider Peckham community.

[BrandNewGuy]

Peckham Peculiar reported:

"Pop Community Ltd will be turning the space into a ?mixture of artists? studios and workshops, and co-work spaces, along with meeting space?, which will ?support a thriving community of artists, small creative businesses and local entrepreneurs?.

In addition to delivering over 50 affordable studio and workshop spaces along with pop-up retail and multi-use event spaces, the Pop Community team said it will deliver a number of benefits to the community.

Over 600 new jobs to be created on site; and all tenants will be independent businesses, drawn primarily from the local area, and will be required to invest at least one hour per week into community give back programmes.

New multi-use event spaces which will be available for use free-of-charge to local community groups for at least 25 per cent of the time; and 10 per cent of all scheme profits will be invested into a community fund to support local projects."

Sounds reasonable to me ? as long as they're kept to their promises.

[Jeremy]

I'm kinda on the fence on this one. I've heard that there are not enough artists studios in London to meet demand, which seems like a missed opportunity both culturally and economically. But on the other hand, tbh I think this is a better outcome for the majority of Peckham residents.

[Lula]

To be fair, BrandNewGuy, the blurb you posted above does sound okay. The Guardian article slant is definitely more negative. It will be interesting to see what actually gets built. The rents will have to be low so that independent businesses can afford them.

[JohnL]

It does need a bit of something public IMHO - under the Bold Home proposal I reckon some public things would have 'grown'

[DaveR]

What's the relevance of 'Mayfair based' other than to appeal to prejudice? There was another thread on here on the same topic and it was clear that there were serious credibility issues about Bold Tendency's proposals. Te Guardian article is disingenuous and IMHO misleading - it quotes the current occupiers as attracting '900,000 visitors' but it's pretty clear that that includes (and in all likelihood is dominated by) visitors to Franks, which AFAIK is an unconnected business.

[LondonMix]

DaveR can you link to the other thread? I'm interested and will read it during my upcoming lunch break!

[DaveR]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1566236,1569631#msg-1569631

[richard tudor]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> The losing bid was proposing 800, yes eight

> hundred, affordable artists' studios. Southwark

> Council was quoted as saying: "The car park is a

> public space and we didn?t just want it to become

> just a closed artist commune.? This would not

> have been in keeping with the wider Peckham

> community.

Would these artists have been paying current rents and business rates?

Or another subsidised at the moment fad.

Common sense seems to have prevailed for a change.

[LondonMix]

Thanks DaveR. In the end I suppose it comes down to if you think the better use for the space was to provide a space for artists in the capital or something more mixed reflecting the multiple interest in Peckham. I don't think there is a right or a wrong answers. I think London should provide artists space to keep the city culturally vibrant. I'm not sure Pekcham has a responsibility to provide such an oversized share of that space though with a unique public asset. The Pop proposal seems like a compromise of sorts that perhaps will be of more use to the local community.

Does anyone know what the future of the cinema is? Its really a shame if it closes. I think its great that ED and Peckham are getting new shops and amenities but it also makes me sad to see some of the more unique and interesting elements that gave this area a sense of place disappear

[pork chop]

"I think London should provide artists space to keep the city culturally vibrant. I'm not sure Pekcham has a responsibility to provide such an oversized share of that space though with a unique public asset."

Please say exactly where there are are similar initiatives taking place..?? I can't think of any.

This really saddens me. In London there is huge pressure on studio workspace as well as residential accommodation. While efforts are being made to address the chronic housing shortage, the loss of artist?s studios is not being tackled. Large parts of London no longer have the creative communities that helped make them desirable, and artists have nowhere affordable to work.

A related Evening Standard article is below.

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/design/space-odyssey-rohan-silva-is-leading-search-for-affordable-artists-studios-in-london-a3107766.html

[LondonMix]

I'm not saying there are any schemes anywhere else. If its really important to Londoners, protecting and developing artist studios should be mandated by law in planning. However, Peckham is not only for artists and while I agree artists are an important community within Peckham (and so support studio space being created) only catering to artists in community projects could arguably be seen as narrow rather than inclusive.

[pork chop]

I broadly agree with what you have said, but for anyone who knows how artist's studios operate in London (the key examples being ASC, ACME, Space, Acava) they provide workspace for multiple creative disciplines, including independent film makers, animators, graphic designers, jewellery designers, ceramicists, and a wide range of specialist craft activities, as well as activities that are seen as more conventionally Fine Art-based. You name it and studios help these creative activities flourish.

Community-based artists rent spaces just as much as any other type of artist, although such definitions are often problematic.

Often there is public gallery with regular curated exhibitions and a related education programme, bookable project spaces and sometimes a public cafe. Regular open studios are mandatory for all artist?s studios, as part of maintaining their charitable status.

So a description that sees a studio as an exclusive community and not inclusive (as Southwark council appear to) is failing to understand the extraordinary way that artist studios often 'give back' to a local area, and often in the most unexpected locations.

This is why in cities such as Bristol, Derby or Southampton councils have actively encouraged artist groups to occupy disused premises, as a bottom-up ?community? model for urban regeneration. But not in Southwark it seems?

[LondonMix]

I didn?t know that, and that?s interesting. However, do you really think that ?maybe? having a public caf? and having a gallery open to the public provides the broader non-artist community in Peckham with the same utility as having a multi-use event spaces free of charge to the community 25% of the time as well as various pop-up retail ventures and premises for various local entrepreneurs (irrespective if their new business is related to the arts) as the Pop Community Proposal provides? Hopefully, the 50 artist studios that are created as part of the Pop Community award will still include some element of gallery exhibition space.

I really am sympathetic to the need for more studio space for the creative industries and would be behind and order of protection for all existing spaces and requirements to include developing new studio space as part of new schemes in the city. However, Peckham is not comprised solely of artists. There are and always have been a lot of people living in Peckham before the CLF opened its doors and I think sometimes what they may want or need gets overlooked by the growing and vocal creative community that has moved in.

Unlike Detroit or other dying cities, Peckham Rye (while somewhat dirty and neglected) has been relatively vibrant. Well before the CLF existed the high street had lots of shops that were well used by both the local community and people from all over South London to meet their needs and it also had a large residential community. The artists who came here weren?t discovering an abandoned, vacant city to make entirely their own and use entirely for their own purposes.

I say all of that as someone who goes to the Bussey building and who really enjoys the events put on there and would like to see Peckham become one of London's artistic hubs. But everything can't be entirely oriented towards the arts without any consideration of what long standing residents may get more use of is all.

[pork chop]

I?m afraid this is starting to go round in circles - I provide a clear argument why artist studios are inclusive and extremely wide-ranging, and often community based, and you have portrayed them as closed and somehow anti-community (and presumably elitist). This is simply not true.

More commercial companies can also operate in them if the layout / access is developed accordingly, and there are good examples of mixed-use studio complexs, but usually on temporary leases and subject to being developed into designer flats when the land price goes up after a few years.

Of course the planning process is a discussion, and once the principle concept is agreed any requirements for specific community-based or mixed-use / commercial elements would always be possible, and probably not opposed.

I doubt if the majority of local Peckham residents frequent the night clubs of the Bussey Building, but this does not make this fantastic place anti-community. It actually provides something that does not exist anywhere else within the area, and regardless of how many locals may go is of value to all of South London.

[LondonMix]

I never said anything was elitist and I never said the Bussey building is anti-community. In fact, I said I go there myself and support Peckham becoming one of London's artistic hubs... Just because I disagree with something you say doesn't mean I am attacking everything you are about.

The point I am trying to make is that a facility offering multi-use event space 25% of the time for free to anyone in the community as well as work space regardless of industry to local entrepreneurs, and retail was going to be more useful for more members of the community than 800 artist studios offering gallery exhibitions, educational programs and maybe a cafe.

In assessing proposals, I think its right that Southwark take into account how many people in the community will be able to directly use and benefit from the space in recognition that Peckham's community is diverse.

I haven't seen the detailed proposal for the 800 artist studios, but if it was designed with a layout so that other non-creative entrepreneurs could also use them and with the expressed intention to lease them to any local business on equal footing that of course would be very different. Are you arguing that's what was in the proposal or the intention of the losing bid that was put together?

[henryb]

Yes very sad. I agree with pork chop - artistic hubs are not just for artists - art by it very nature is for everyone and key aspect of a successful urban environment. Nurturing cultural and creative life at the grass root level is incredibly important for the health of cities and will be increasing important in the future. London is not short of retail premises - it is short of the art studios space and increasingly so.

800 studios down to 50 is very big drop simply to provide some free community space.

I am not comparing to Detroit as it has been brought up the reason Detroit died was it totally focused on one industry to the detriment of everything else. Maybe if in it's hay-day it had actively encouraged other creative industries maybe it would have not met the same fate.

Out of interest was this a Cabinet decision?

[LondonMix]

Its not just free community space! Its free community space and significant work space for local entrepreneurs regardless of industry. If you are going to dismiss the benefits of the other proposal at least be fair in characterizing what they are.

Also, can you please explain how supporting all local entrepreneurs rather than just those in the creative industry reduces the economic diversity in Peckham rather than enhances it?

[henryb]

>

> Also, can you please explain how supporting all

> local entrepreneurs rather than just those in the

> creative industry reduces the economic diversity

> in Peckham rather than enhances it?

Slightly absurd argument if I am honest as you could apply it to any usage of any space or building. You have look at the picture across all of Southwark if not SE London.

There is a short of studios and Bold proposal seemed an great opportunity make a significant difference to that and at the same time create something unique and original. It seemed to come from the community far more than the Pop one did. It is disappoint LBS turned it down.

To be fair I don't know the Pop one in detail but like I said a drop from 800 down 50 is a lot.

[LondonMix]

You have highlighted perfectly what I see as the problem with the Bold proposal. I agree 100% that the lack of studio space in London urgently needs to be addressed by the way.

However, I don't think it is one community's responsibility to address it. Community projects in Peckham should still reflect what Peckham needs rather than trying to solve problems that are London-wide. For instance, if there were a shortage of manufacturing facilities in London, would it seem appropriate for a major community asset to be devoted 100% to supporting manufacturing (for instance) even though it didn't reflect what local entrepreneurs and artists here need? Of course not!

The arts is no exception to that. Just because London has a shortage of studios doesn't imply that all community assets in Peckham should be 100% focused on dealing with that shortage. That's not fair to the other local interests that exist in a very diverse community.

The problem needs to be addressed more systematically across London. I get that the arts have been priced out of other areas but they don't get to then claim all community assets for themselves in new neighborhoods just because they need them.

[LondonMix]

Manufacturing of course is a terrible example-- substitute manufacturing for insurance brokering or the like and hopefully the point will be clearer!

[richard tudor]

Perhaps the City of London should start converting offices into artist studios as we would not like to see they had not spread their wings into other cultural and creative options and gone bust.

800 individual business down to 50, perhaps it was looked at seen as creative hype.

A long term viable plan is what is required not one as now based on a now creative bubble.

[henryb]

You have missed the point - as has been said by other posters - being in the position of being able to create a large artistic hub is an opportunity for Peckham, it is not solving other peoples problem.

Community projects should come from the community. I see wide spread support for the Bold proposal - not any for the Pop one.