Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tim Godsmark on October 27, 2015 at 22:19

Having just been to the "consultation" (there did not appear to be a way of making my views known except verbally) I now know what they have planned.

If you did not make it they plan moving Colsec and the estate office into the community centre and turning the existing estate office and darkroom into flats. We therefore started out with four community facilities (community hall, community bar, Colsec and dark room) and end up with one, Colsec. This does not seem like progress to me and the argument put forward by the man at the consultation that they needed extra office space for Guildhall staff was an outrageous proposition, that their office needs should take precedence over the lives of people who help to pay their salaries.

They had drawings showing layouts of the community centre and the new flats. The argument for some of the community centre works was diabled access yet they presented a drawing showing a disabled toilet that was not wheelchair accessible. The proposed flat in the dark room did not meet the current statutory space standards and the basement in the community centre was divided up in such a way that would make mechanical ventilation necessary which would mean noisy and unsightly plant next to people's flats.

As all the works will need change of use planning permission as well as listed buildings consent I would think that they would have a difficult passage if there was sufficient opposition on the estate to this loss of community facilities.

What is perhaps most galling is that the City is prepared to spend money on the estate when it is for their own benefit but seems to be happy to let the parts where people live decay.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Godsmark on October 27, 2015 at 22:44

I have had a think about the wider implications of this.

When large social housing estates were first thought about as places to have a home rather than the barracks like tenements of the nineteenth century it was generally thought that providing community facilities would lead to a functioning society on the estates. When this stopped being theory a large scale housing came to be built the community facilities were the first things to be left on the drawing board due to cost cutting. This in part (along with housing policy and poor maintenance) lead to the disfunctional parts of our cities that are often being demolished today.

The he Corporation of London was leading the way when the estate was built in not cutting these facilities and partly because of this and their decision to go with an outstanding group of architects we now live in a much loved estate largely without the issues that have affected others. If the facilities are allowed to disappear will this continue? I don't know but I believe that it is a risk as small changes can have large and unexpected results.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Brian Hickman on October 27, 2015 at 23:53

They took away Middlesex Street Estate Community Centre and the Estate Office, with promises of improvements. What did they give us! Less access to Artizan Street Library and Community Centre, where the air conditioning has never worked and an Estate Office that does not allow visitors. Library staff pass messages to Estate staff who may come to you, if they decide to make themselves available.

Disabled people in flats without powered doors. My personal favourite, wheelchair accessible flats on floors without lifts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew Oldham on October 28, 2015 at 10:14

Well said Tim! I couldn't agree more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iain Meek on October 28, 2015 at 11:02

What is Colsec?

It sounds as if the drawings must have been produced in a bit of a rush if there are so many obvious mistakes.  Was there a name on the drawings?

Sadly the community centre seems to have been underused for some time.  I had proposed that it might be split into a saloon and public bar to serve the new communities on and off the estate.  However if Guildhall staff need the space, I assume the City will over-ride the residents' wants.  I shall be very sorry to lose such an anachronistic and charming place as it was one of my early discoveries before I even moved onto the estate.

I don't suppose anyone has found any legal documents with restrictive covenants on the use of the building?

I would hope that some space could be retained for social use by residents.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Godsmark on October 28, 2015 at 11:47

Hi Ian,
It's good to know that you are still around. Codec is the City of London Adult Education Service currently in the building between the Estate and Richard Cloudsley school.

I doubt that the Corporation would have set up any covenants for itself but you never know.

What is needed is for a community body ( GLERA?) to gather together residents ideas for the buildings and put a proposal to the Corporation. The community should be deciding what is happening to these facilities.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Line on October 28, 2015 at 14:52

When were you last in the social club Bijou?   You seem to want to keep propagating the MYTH that it is only ever used by some mysterious people from "other Estates", yet when I go in the majority are my neighbours from GLE.

A few facts rather then class prejudice might be nice???????

Like the fact that the cost of upkeep and repairs for the Community Hall will now fall entirely on service charges and rents rather than being subsidised by GLCA?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nico Macdonald on October 28, 2015 at 16:20

Tim: There is the Golden Lane Community Association (GLCA) which is a membership organisation which formally directed the Community Centre. Not sure how many members it had. I went to an AGM once, but didn't join. 

Tim Godsmark said:

Hi Ian,
It's good to know that you are still around. Codec is the City of London Adult Education Service currently in the building between the Estate and Richard Cloudsley school.

I doubt that the Corporation would have set up any covenants for itself but you never know.

What is needed is for a community body ( GLERA?) to gather together residents ideas for the buildings and put a proposal to the Corporation. The community should be deciding what is happening to these facilities.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martha Mundy on November 3, 2015 at 8:02

I very much agree with the remarks of Tim about the importance of common space for the Estate as a whole and the remarks of others about engaging with the future of the centre.  Where do things stand?  As I'm not always on site is there any way to see the plans and/or to be involved in the Corporation making such decisions without reference to residents of Golden Lane? Truly the space of the Centre should not be used to solve problems of the Guildhall. 

As someone who lives just opposite the Community Centre what appears is that the hall is used a huge amount more than it used it to be for exercise and dance classes during the daytime. This is a pleasant use of the building as those coming in are largely younger people and who seem to enjoy the access.  As for the downstairs bar, while once I have attended a meeting held in there, it too is used but could perhaps use a facelift as it is very long/large but with a rather low ceiling.  If it turns out that we have to sacrifice some space of that for the Estate Office, pehaps a corridor could be created leading to an office taking the deeper window area of the existing bar but preserving the bar for community use?  Honestly, while there are sometimes parties in the hall and occasional sounds from the bar (football matches on TV and the like) to complain of noise as a major problem is very exaggerated; I say this as someone who faces the Centre from the first floor of Stanley Cohen and should be first in the line of fire for noise problems.  The Centre is something to be valued and improved not abandoned for uses that the Corporation may see as priority given the needs of places outside the Estate. 

Martha Mundy

Tim Godsmark said:

I have had a think about the wider implications of this.

When large social housing estates were first thought about as places to have a home rather than the barracks like tenements of the nineteenth century it was generally thought that providing community facilities would lead to a functioning society on the estates. When this stopped being theory a large scale housing came to be built the community facilities were the first things to be left on the drawing board due to cost cutting. This in part (along with housing policy and poor maintenance) lead to the disfunctional parts of our cities that are often being demolished today.

The he Corporation of London was leading the way when the estate was built in not cutting these facilities and partly because of this and their decision to go with an outstanding group of architects we now live in a much loved estate largely without the issues that have affected others. If the facilities are allowed to disappear will this continue? I don't know but I believe that it is a risk as small changes can have large and unexpected results.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iain Meek on November 3, 2015 at 11:46

I heard from M G KETTLE, Housing & Commercial Development Manager, 020 7029 3944- that "we are holistically looking at several sites on Golden lane and their future uses. We are consulting with residents and intend to hold a drop in session on 27th October  to discuss proposals for the Community Centre."

Unfortunately I missed that sesion on the 27th.

I will email Mr Kettle to see  what the results of the consultation were.

Tim Godsmark said:

What is needed is for a community body ( GLERA?) to gather together residents ideas for the buildings and put a proposal to the Corporation. The community should be deciding what is happening to these facilities.

Like the fact that the cost of upkeep and repairs for the Community Hall will now fall entirely on service charges and rents rather than being subsidised by GLCA?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iain Meek on November 3, 2015 at 11:49

I also agree with Martha Mundy and Tim Godsmark about the need for community (and resident-use) facilities on the estate.

Martha Mundy said:

I very much agree with the remarks of Tim about the importance of common space for the Estate as a whole and the remarks of others about engaging with the future of the centre.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iain Meek on November 9, 2015 at 11:53

Mr Kettle was kind enough to send me the Barbican Area Strategy report 8 September 2015 which suggests landscaping at Great Arthur carpark and at Baltic Street West, but sadly none of my concrete poetry suggestions nor any enthusiasm for my architectural gem at Baltic Street West:
o Adoption by Court of Common Council : October 2015
Summary
The City has adopted several Area Enhancement Strategies as mechanisms for delivering public realm improvements in areas of significant change within the City.

If anyone wants a copy, email me.

Iain Meek  DipArch RIAS RIBA FBIS
iain@meek.demon.co.uk
07960 173903

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page