Agree Dorothy! When I saw you the other day I had spent 10 mins looking for a rack/lamppost and was going to be late for an appointment so had to take my bike with me on the train. I couldn't use the bike park as I'm not a member (I don't want to pay to park it - kind of defeats the object of having a bike). I've noticed the bike park only gets about 25% full at any time.
On a plus note, I actually saved time at the other end by not having to walk. Decided to cycle back and discovered the Pymmes Brook Trail which was very enjoyable.
Maybe we could design some bike racks for Stroud Green? Here are some good examples...
Wig & pizza shaped?
I've used plant lock in a lot of pub gardens. They're a bit awkward if someone else is already using them and take up a lot of space. They are a good idea though. I just think it would be better if the bit you lock on to came up from rather than out of the side of the planter. Difficult to explain what I mean.
Terrible news. The currently charting Ed Sheeran used to live above there and play at the open-mic most weeks. This recent publicity shot of him may be one of the last pictures of the old sign:
@ADGS I doubt it was listed as I think they only put it up in about 1998 when the place was opened.
I'm hoping to do some work on this tonight. Busy busy at the moment. I have a best man's speech to write too.
I know someone who will design the bike racks, maybe some other stuff too if plied with enough beer and chocolate.
I have approached Hornsey Historical Society about recruiting John Hinshelwood to our prospective first meeting. I'm hoping to persuade him to give an abbreviated version of his history of Stroud Green talk – with slides – focussing on the urban development of the area. Perhaps he'd sell a few books too.
It had occured to me to also invite an advisor from a Hornsey Architectural Mouldings on Tottenham Lane to give some professional advice concerning restoration. We might learn something, and they might be lurred by the prosect of future business.
I've contemplated contacting the Victorian Society, who might be able to advice us on tactics. Obviously we should ask the conservation officers from Haringey and Islington.
Any other candidates for an invite?
OK, here's the proposed mission statement. Everything including the name is up for debate. Anything obviously need amending, removing or adding?
THE STROUD GREEN PRESERVATION SOCIETY
1) The Stroud Green Preservation Society (hereafter SGPS) holds the following to be true:
a) That Stroud Green (hereafter SG) is an attractive north London suburb characterised by varied Victorian architecture.
b) That SG would benefit from an organisation dedicated to the preservation, restoration and beautification of its urban environment.
2) SGPS Policies:
a) That the Haringey and Islington Stroud Green Conservation Areas, and that of Tollington Park, should be better co-ordinated and enforced. They should also be expanded to encompass those Victorian buildings on Stroud Green Road and neighbouring streets not currently covered by those conservation areas.
b) That funding and volunteers should be sought, and landlords and councillors engaged, for the purpose of preserving, repairing and restoring SG's Victorian and Georgian architecture. Projects to include:
i) repair and repainting of plaster moldings and other traditional features
ii) restoration of traditional shop-front uniformity
c) That SG's streetscape should be improved, for instance by:
i) removing unnecessary street clutter, while seeking new sites for cycle racks
ii) ensuring that appropriate and attractive streetlamps and other necessary features are selected by councils
iii) re-planting suitable London planes in unused tree-pits, and seeking other appropriate sites for planting.
d) That proposals should be developed and implemented for a public square on Stroud Green Road to replace the current utility road (Charter Court) and plantings currently bounded by Stroud Green Road, Osborne Road, Upper Tollington Park Road and the neighbouring post-war building.
e) That low-quality or inappropriate new developments should be resisted in those areas where Victorian buildings are predominant.
f) That current low quality, underdeveloped post-war structures should be advocated as candidates for redevelopment.
Too much? Too little? Pointless ramblings? All of the above? I'm going to bed.
@Mirandola: Point taken. I could remove the last two points altogether if that’s the general feeling – perhaps it could be discussed at the meeting. As you know, I am not opposed to new development – very keen on John Jones etc. My personal ‘policy’ would be:
a) Brownfield sites that are not dominated by architecture of a particular period or style are perfect candidates for modern developments, as long as they are respectful of scale. Sometimes a bold contrast works, a other times developments can benefit from referring to their surroundings with colour and materials. Much of this is subjective of course.
b) Where architecture of a particular style and/or period predominates then new or redevelopments should match that style to maintain uniformity of the streetscape. This is the policy in the centre of Bath, which gets prettier by the year.
Arkady - i think policy points a-d are excellent. Pointed and specific; something concrete to work towards. Although I think agree with what you are saying, I think e & f are a bit vague and could be received by the council (and others) as potentially obstructive to almost any development. This might not help the concept being accepted. But, as you say, these points can be honed during later meetings.
As much as I admire the architectural legacy in SG, I think we've some way to go to get it considered in the same bracket with Bath!
I think this is great stuff; the type of civic initiative possibly all too lacking in London these days.
Cheers. Though perhaps working in concrete is something we should be opposed to! :-)
I agree that we should discuss whether to refine or remove e)-f). I am very much pro-development and have strong views on what sort of development is appropriate in different places, but I’m aware that unless carefully handled they might become divisive points.
Still waiting to hear from HHS. If anybody happens to make it to the talk at SG Library on Saturday perhaps they could raise the prospect then, and take some contact details.
Yes it has, and they’ve done an excellent job. Even the window frames are different colours!
I also noticed that the scaffolding is going up at the World’s End, presumably for the much–delayed fourth floor project.
Sorry to have been a bit quiet about the SGPS project; it’s been a crazy couple of weeks. Also I’m yet to hear back from HHS. If necessary I will go down there myself at the weekend.
It occurred to me to approach Paks, whose frontages so dominate lower Stroud Green Road. If they could be persuaded to get on board and paint & repair the plaster mouldings between their buildings it would set a good example that could be used to persuade other businesses. I don’t suppose anyone has contacts at Paks, or knows which of their many premises is the right one to go and ask in?
I think someone from Paks posted on here a month or so ago? - something to do with the Finsbury Park Business Forum / Association.
Thanks, now I know to ask for a gentlman called Peter.
Incidentally, Peter was trying to set up a trading association alligned with finfuture. this took me to the Finfuture website, which appears to have been hacked by douchebags: http://www.finfuture.co.uk/about_us.php
I hope this isn't too tangential, but if you are interested in planning, it might be an idea to respond to the national consultation on the new proposed framework. This, if legislated, will remove the prioritization on brownfield/urban development and allow for unrestrained development on any greenfield site that is not either designated Greenbelt or a Site of Specific Scientific Interest; i.e. the majority of greenfield sites in this country. Couched in platitudes on 'sustainable development', the framework essentially ties local councils' hands by enforcing them to give a default go-ahead to all greenfield developments.
It is a totally inappropriate response to both the housing shortage and the current economic climate. It hands over the countryside to the developers and side-lines local communities. It is short-term and environmentally damaging.
You only need to go to coastal resorts in Spain or Greece to see what decentralized, "light-touch" planning laws can deliver.
I have written to Lynne, who has in turn written to Dave on my behalf, and she for one (not sure about Lib Dems in general) is supportive.
But you can make your own mind up and respond here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/draftframeworkconsultation
Are we going to see a slashing of sign clutter in Stroud Green Road?