Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Greetings one and all.


What are your views on the potential arrival of another 'chain restaurant' onto LL? Gourmet Burger Kitchen has been around for a few years now and IMO compliments but does not override any of the existing independent restaurants and bars along the lane. There are a number of empty retail units currently, and I think out of all the chain restaurants Wagamama would be very successful in this area without damaging any existing businesses. I contacted them recently and they did not rule out this area, in fact they seemed very positive about ED, and considering it for future expansion, but obviously would not give information about future plans.


What does everyone else think?



Louisa.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25479-wagamama-restaurant/
Share on other sites

My bigger problem with Wagamamma, aside from stifling independent business by hiking up rents, would be their appalling food. Mass produced gunk-covered meat and pretty average bowls of soup-a-like for a big pile of golden nuggets.


I'd prefer a Pho if we must have some vaguely-east-Asian-cuisine chain.

And Wagamama's horribly overpriced - ?9 or ?10 for a bowl of ramen? I don't think I've been in one since they stopped doing their offers. There's way better for far less than their prices.


If a good value ramen/noodle/fusion-y place opened in ED, I'd try it, but it's so depressing that many people will only go to chains they've heard of. Same with coffee shops - many independents aren't very good, but some are far better than chains, but the brand-obsessed general public won't even walk through their door. Bonkers.

Unfortunately that is the world we live in. I would agree that there are some fantastic independent noodle fusion bars, but I for one think Wagamama is far fresher and tastier than most chain brands on our high street today. My point is that, having the odd chain brand isn't a disaster and if anything raises the profile of Lordship Lane as a great place to socialise, eat, drink and promote the area. Sure not every restaurant is to the taste of everyone, but my hope is that by attracting just a few 'decent' chains, it will in the long term provide us with a fantastic reputation for eating out in SE London and benefit the area by bringing in much needed revenue from neighbouring areas.


Louisa.

Some people have expressed concern at M&S bringing more people and their cars into the area.


At the weekend Lordship lane has reached Saturation Point..


Local people sufferer enough with late night revelers without attracting more people into the area.


And opening more restaurants will eventually affect established businesses.


It's alright for The Dulwich Village Clan to slum it up in E.D. Then return to the tranquility

of 'Village Life' where no one has to suffer the noise, litter and bodily functions.


Fox

DulwichFox I see your point entirely, this is one reason why it is my hope that the London Overground extension into Peckham Rye will see the regeneration of Rye Lane and more especially the station square which will hopefully attract many of these chains into that much bigger retail space with more parking facilities, in turn eleviating some of the pressure on the narrow and predominantly residential neighbourhood surrounding Lordship Lane. However, this is all pie in the sky stuff, and as such realistically growth is limited in SE London to gentrified areas such as ED.


What I fail to understand about the parking argument however, is that an existing much larger M&S is on the Walworth RD and this does not promote extra parking pressures to that predinantly residential area. And from my understanding, the new M&S would be a Simply Food format store, which tends to attract people on foot for passing trade such as lunchtime snacks and food to take home after work. I don't quite adhere to the argument a small Simply Food will put parking pressure on the area, any more than the existing Iceland already has.


A Wagamama would also tend to attract local people or those travelling on public transport as the demographic this type of restaurant is aimed at tend to be younger people and students and such like, many of whom do not drive.



Louisa.

I cant stand Wagamamas or GBK for that matter. I would prefer some of the independent "pop up" restaurants from Brixton Village to open up a second restaurant on LL. For example, Honest Burger would be a great replacement for GBK; they have already opened up a second store in Soho.


Also, I think we need a decent sushi restaurant. And not Yo Sushi!

I'd be keen for something of that ilk, but would prefer not to have another chain in area. More than that, though, I think Wagamamas is really boring! I never think the food has any flavour and, despite eating there a few times, have never been impressed. Rather not have a wagamamas....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...