This forum has amazed me

[JoeLeg]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> The Supermarkets don't like bent carrots and the

> like so wont buy them from the Farmers..

>

> So there are those that fill up a Transit van for

> ?50.00 ? with wobbly fruit and veg and sell them

> for 3 times the supermarket price to those who

> believe they must be organic and taste better and

> in doing so

> they are also saving the planet..

>

> Foxy

They may not be saving the planet, but wouldn't you agree it's better to at least sell and eat those wobbly fruit and veg than chuck them away? If someone is willing to buy them than that's a good start. Personally I think the supermarkets should be prosecuted for what they do to some of their suppliers, but that's a different conversation.

[JoeLeg]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Apparently it's reversed snobbery when someone

> like me mocks the posh incomers who spend a

> fortune on coffee and organic carrots etc, but

> it's ok for them to change an entire neighbourhood

> and force house prices sky high and we should all

> shut up and not say boo to a goose.

>

> Louisa.

(...I'm probably going to retreat this...)

No one (at least not me) is saying we should shut up and accept it, doffing our caps deferentially to the new wave of ED money...but I'm interested in what you propose can actually be done?

I remember when Blue Mountain opened and my mum, a resident since the 60's, said it wouldn't last six months. Well, it's just had, what, it's 20th anniversary? I even worked there briefly! And after it came, well, everything else. What was the tipping point? There's plainly demand for these places and I agree it's driven out a lot of people, but it's happening all over London. Soho, Chinatown, Spitalfields to name but a few. With 'gentrification' usually comes jobs, and that tends to let people ignore a lot of what happens to a neighbourhood. But it also brings greed.

I readily admit I have no idea how to strike the right balance, so I'm genuinely interested in how you think it can be done.

[jacks09]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Apparently it's reversed snobbery when someone

> like me mocks the posh incomers who spend a

> fortune on coffee and organic carrots etc, but

> it's ok for them to change an entire neighbourhood

> and force house prices sky high and we should all

> shut up and not say boo to a goose.

>

> Louisa.

They can't just forcibly buy these houses however......the originals must sell and no doubt, make a tidy profit. I wonder if the communities they move to, label them as blow ins and blame them for changing the face of the neighbourhood.

Snobbery either way is tedious and unnecessary.

In tangible terms what is actually wrong with the changes.....let's discuss those because I'm sure there are solutions to them.

[Louisa]

JoeLeg and jacks09. I do not have all the answers, I am simply pointing out the questions and raising debate. I've been struggling with this issue on this forum for the best part of a decade now, and I have no idea what the solution is. I would encourage the incomers to be more accepting of the existing cultural aspects of a neighbourhood,rather than outright reject them and put their exclusive stamp on it. Look at Brixton and Peckham, under our very noses traditional working class neighbourhoods are being converted into wealthy enclaves, despite the demographic of the populus remaining relatively static. The planning departments should rate the attractiveness of proposed incoming businesses based on who would buy their goods, are they relevant to a majority of people living in that specific postcode? There are a number of things that could actively be achieved, but it seems money talks and the councils of London are quick to promote so called gentrification.

Louisa.

[jacks09]

agree, Not asking for all the answers - just want to be more explicit with the problems .

From above I'm assuming you think the types of shops coming in should be more carefully considered? I guess I would tend to agree with you but playing devils advocate - if these businesses are coming in and not being used by locals how are they in business? I would argue that people travelling to shop are going to out of town centres (Bluewater, Westfield etc) rather than travelling to Brixton or Dulwich?

In your opinion, is the demographic in Brixton staying the same, whereas here in Dulwich it's changing a lot?

[Louisa]

In East Dulwich I would say the visible population (especially on weekends) has changed dramatically in the last two decades. I don't think even my opponents would disagree with that observation. Behind the scenes however, I think the population hasn't necessarily changed that dramatically. Maybe a 10/15% change in overall demographics in that time (financially speaking). However, that small change has lead to the promotion of the area by media especially, for the people who can afford the do-me-up Victorian terraces. This in turn has pushed commercial rents through the roof, and consequently incoming businesses have (on the whole) been aimed at this relatively small percentage of incomers. Brixton is probably similar, although being on the tube would put the terraced homes close to the station at a premium so perhaps the increase has been quite dramatic there in comparison (I fear the same fate for Peckham).

Louisa.

[jacks09]

Interesting.

SO another tangible issue, I'm assuming, is the rise in commercial rents. On way around this would be to legislate that rentals must be linked to the value of the property but this has happened at a time of incredible rises in property prices, in London as a whole.

Sort of takes me back to my first point - that the originals, sold up and moved away..... it's really tricky to find an answer to that particular problem.

What other tangible issues do you see?

[Louisa]

But the originals have been selling up and moving on from London for generations, the fate of suburban neighbourhoods has historically always been up and down, the wider problem is the shortage of housing available in a city of this size. There is more than enough brown field to make up the shortfall, however it seems that the Victorian properties which are predominantly inner-London are now at a premium because they simply cannot be replaced, and remain limited in availability.

Of course we could legislate to prevent people from outside specific postcodes from buying there (unless they've lived,rented etc for x number of years). Perhaps we could promote councils actually buying up housing stock and transforming them into council properties for local people with a link to the area to rent, rather than selling off plots of land to private developers who will build flats for the private buyer/renter only. It's a vicious circle. Our councils have a lot to answer for too.

Louisa.

[jacks09]

Do you think it could be a micro version of the debate going on about immigration into the UK. You want to keep Dulwich for local Dulwich people. Control who can and cannot live here? The council should be doing more to keep Dulwich for Dulwich.......

[Louisa]

Perhaps, but when gentrification is so rapidly spreading across the boroughs of London how else do you prevent the next wave of oligarchs cash buying properties in trendy areas and leaving them dormant whilst families are unable to buy homes in the places they were born?

Louisa.

[jacks09]

I struggle to think of any oligarchs living in Dulwich....

I guess my point is, is it really THAT bad.

It sucks that most people can't afford to buy here, I'm one of them. But that seems to be more of the time, than of London boroughs

[IVAN EDAKE]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> There! You See Old_Bloke? THAT'S how you do it.

> You parody yourself so utterly that it isn't even

> worth anyone calling you an ignorant, bigoted,

> paranoid, half-witted, brain-dead tw*t.

>

> Live and learn eh?

So no one is allowed to have a different view from you? Stupid idiot.

[Willard]

Look at Brixton

> and Peckham, under our very noses traditional

> working class neighbourhoods are being converted

> into wealthy enclaves, despite the demographic of

> the populus remaining relatively static.

> Louisa.

Brixton and Peckham were not traditionally working class neighbourhoods, you can tell that by simply looking at the size of most properties in those areas. It just depends on how far you're prepared to go back in time. Rye Lane (as has probably been mentioned on here before) used to be called The Golden Mile due to its wealth and prosperity.

Areas change, for better or worse, history is often cyclical.

[JoeLeg]

IVAN EDAKE Wrote:

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

> maxxi Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > There! You See Old_Bloke? THAT'S how you do it.

> > You parody yourself so utterly that it isn't

> even

> > worth anyone calling you an ignorant, bigoted,

> > paranoid, half-witted, brain-dead tw*t.

> >

> > Live and learn eh?

>

>

> So no one is allowed to have a different view from

> you? Stupid idiot.

Stay classy Ivan.

[DulwichFox]

Willard Wrote:

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

> Look at Brixton

> > and Peckham, under our very noses traditional

> > working class neighbourhoods are being

> converted

> > into wealthy enclaves, despite the demographic

> of

> > the populus remaining relatively static.

>

> > Louisa.

>

> Brixton and Peckham were not traditionally working

> class neighbourhoods, you can tell that by simply

> looking at the size of most properties in those

> areas. It just depends on how far you're prepared

> to go back in time. Rye Lane (as has probably been

> mentioned on here before) used to be called The

> Golden Mile due to its wealth and prosperity.

>

> Areas change, for better or worse, history is

> often cyclical.

Brixton.. John Major claimed to be a down to earth ordinary bloke that was brought up and lived in Brixton..

Well there were and still is some very exclusive properties in Parts of Brixton not unlike some of the

properties in Grove Park Camberwell.

Dulwichfox

[Louisa]

As I said earlier, all neighbourhoods go through change. Peckham and Dulwich were poor farming villages for most of their early lives, it wasn't until the coming of the railways that their fortunes changed, then sunk again, and now are once more on the rise.

Louisa.

[Loz]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Look at Brixton and Peckham, under our very noses traditional working class neighbourhoods are being converted

> into wealthy enclaves, despite the demographic of the populus remaining relatively static.

Brixton was an upmarket middle-class area way before it was a 'working class neighbourhood'. Which is why it has such nice housing stock. Electric Avenue is named as it was the first London street to have electric street-lights installed. It was only because it was bombed so heavily in WWII that the area fell into decay, became an area of high council house building and the working class moved in.

So, it is not right to say Brixton is gentrifying. It is actually re-gentrifying.

[Louisa]

Oh absolutely Loz. I too remember visiting Morley's as a child and Brixton was very much a go-to shopping destination, long before any negative media attention. It was on the economic slide then, but strong hints of the past were still very much in place. It's just an ongoing process.

Louisa.

[DaveR]

"Apparently it's reversed snobbery when someone like me mocks the posh incomers who spend a fortune on coffee and organic carrots etc, but it's ok for them to change an entire neighbourhood and force house prices sky high and we should all shut up and not say boo to a goose."

These are two completely different things, though. One is you pointing the finger at people and saying 'you're stupid and/or wicked'. The other is someone deciding to buy a house that they then live in. The latter might affect you indirectly, but it's obviously different. And if you didn't insist on repeating the 'you're stupid' mantra over and over again, people might take you seriously.

Back on topic, I don't think anyone is denying that rapid change in a neighbourhood can be difficult and uncomfortable for long term residents who have got used to things being a particular way. The fact that over an even longer term the city has always changed doesn't make that any easier to deal with. It's also the case that the kind of gentrification that's been taking place across Inner London in the last 20 odd years has maybe been particularly disruptive, because it's coincided with massive changes in the way people shop and socialise; LL is evidence of that, with the massive increase in cafes/bars/restaurants and generally foodie places, plus upmarket and frankly twee gift type shops, generally replacing more 'down-to-earth' and often long-established businesses. And some of the new places are not overly concerned about offering value for money - it's more about lifestyle/aspirational stuff, as far as I can see.

But none of this has happened because people are bad, or stupid, or because there's some kind of giant anti-working class conspiracy, and most of it can't be stopped. Planning authorities can't stop shop premises changing hands (though they can, and have stopped shops converting to restaurants). Petitions generally won't stop commercial landlords charging market rent and getting in tenants who will pay it. Being snarky about people who have beards, or eat hummus, isn't going to make anybody change - it just makes you look sad and bitter. And it's never all negative - more money in the neighbourhood ultimately benefits most people.

[Ridgley]

for me its about balance in area although sometimes it hard to achieve.

[steveo]

'Being snarky about people who have beards, or eat hummus'

Snarky or Snorky?

[Louisa]

Dave I don't like repeating the mantra, but often times I can't help but bang it home time and again. I've even sacrificed my forum freedom to stand up for my beliefs. A substatial proportion of folk actively dislike me and make no secret of it on here. How many fucks were given? Absolutely none. Let me be frank here, my gripe has morphed into not just an anti-gentrification dig, but a more fundamental look at the evolution of London and indeed whether the city has a future if it continues on its current path. Recent changes have been ridiculous, and unless we talk about them they will continue at pace. If people cannot see the line between my mocking and scoffing of bearded hipsters and yummy mummies, (mostly in jest I hasten to add and please take note admin) and my serious concern at the death of inner London society as we know it, then it surely is more a problem for them than me!

Louisa.

[LondonMix]

Ever major city in the world is grappling with these issues. How can a city survive culturally, artistically etc if they are an exclusive enclave of the rich. Major cities in the US just a couple of decades ago had a lot more socio-economic diversity, were affordable for creatives and entrepreneurs, were much more dangerous and dirty as well. Places like New York are a shadow of what they once were. All the edge is gone from Manhattan which has its benefits but makes it a much less fascinating place.

Global cities like London, San Francisco, New York feel like they are at the very beginning of a slow but terminal decline. Maybe that's why I still really like LA. Though there is plenty of gentrification there too, its genuinely possible for all the struggling, artists, dancers, actors, models to live there. It has some grit (and unfortunately lots of crime) left.

[Otta]

Yeah, a while ago I was watching that Sonic Highways Foo Fighters series, and they were in Austin, Texas. Guitarist Gary Clark Jr (wicked player by the way) was saying venues that had been there for years were constantly being raided by noise police with decibel metres, or being closed down as a result of luxury apartments being built around them, and the new residents not liking the noise.

That is where gentrification goes too far, when it removes any fun from a place.

[LondonMix]

I've been told that's what the guys at the Bussey Building are afraid will happen with the luxury flats being developed. The developer's acoustic specialist confirm the intended sound proofing for the flats is adequate even during the night club evenings but I think the owners will need to mandate in the condo agreement that since the flats have mechanical ventilation, the new tenants can't open the windows and then complain about the noise. We'll see if they have made any changes to the planning application following meeting with the community a couple of weeks ago.