Jump to content

Recommended Posts

pecknam has been chock full of artists for a long long time- one of the issues with the proposed siting of the tram sidings in SE15 all those years ago was that it would uproot an established art community ( amongst other fings blates). Louisa has a solid point - its not the artists who are the problem, its the leeches that feed on genuine creativity that distort the demographic. shitty galleries, overpriced coffee shops and bespoke third reich grocers arrive to supply the arriviste lice needs. pretty soon, the artists jump ship to somewhere more affordable, leaving the area populous, wealthier but a genuine cultural desert, brimming with scummer parasite needy facile media savvy hangers on and their ilk.Like vultures arrivng to feast on rotting carcasses.

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> She doesn't have a point- all of those areas are

> completely socially mixed- all have 'working' and

> 'middle' class enclaves.



s'true - but the divisions in those areas are more marked than ever- at least there is a degree of interaction in teh bellend road/ South peckham area at the minute.

It's all moot anyway- this is how London develops and shifts, and will continue to do so. Art students will populate cheaper areas within reach of art colleges (Camberwell, Goldsmiths etc), the areas will start to become interesting, middle classes and money will follow.


Should the working 'classes' have areas that no other 'classes' are allowed to move to? Working class ghettos? Now there's an idea.

ah bollocks.

If there was a tribal identification with neighbourhood then there'd be no gentrification.


No one is being cleansed, they're cashing in and buying nic big properties in on the Medway and the Thames estuary.


Same with the facile arguments about village invasions in [lots of nice places around britain]


Don't torch the house of the person who bought it; beat up your mate who sold it for a big fat profit and moved out of his crumbling ancestral home to a jolly nice little 2 up 2 down in Swindon and finally got a proper job.


I'm getting a bit sick of hearing it, change the fecking record Lousia, just 'cos all your mates abandoned you, don't blame the blow-ins.

Those saying this is how London develops are way off base. London is the most socially mixed major city I've ever been in. The policy that every area has to have social housing ensures that not even the poshest parts of London become anything like Paris. Nottinghill's housing stock for example is still 38% socially rented-- http://www.mouseprice.com/area-guide/housing-stock/w11


Areas change in London without the total cleansing you see in other big cities. This is one of the most admirable things about the city.


Louisa Wrote:

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

> LadyDeliah, I'm not blaming artists for social

> apartheid, far from it. I'm suggesting that this

> process of regeneration followed by an art

> movement followed by inflated property prices is

> what always happens when gentrification has taken

> hold. It's a process which has been seen in

> Notting Hill, Islington, Hackney, Clapham,

> Battersea, Chelsea, more recently Shoreditch and

> Hoxton. All solidly working class neighbourhoods

> which have been 'gentrified' and are now not

> socially mixed any longer and unaffordable to

> large numbers of people.

>

> Louisa.

I'm with LM. I recommend a series of books called 'The Making of Modern London' for a true understanding of how London has formed, with it's suburbs and social mix of enclaves door to door. The excellent series 'The Secret History of our Streets' also demonstrated the demographic phases that areas go though.


In London, the overwhelming reason for gentrification in the last three decades has been the desire to find lower property prices (I'll stop short of saying affordable). Artists and the art movement have played no major role in that process. Deregulation of mortgage restrictions and cheap credit have been the major factor there.


Louisa you should know better than anyone that Rye Lane was once the second Regent Street of London, aimed exactly at the kind of people and money that you are now complaining about 'taking over'. The older architecture alone on the neighbouring streets also is a clue that the area was born as a middle class suburb. You have also complained before about the multi-ethnic make up and the cultural diversity of Rye Lane. So now you don't want middle-class people of a certain ilk there too? Well just who do you want there and what kind of economy do you expect them to drive?

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Louisa you should know better than anyone that Rye

> Lane was once the second Regent Street of London,

> aimed exactly at the kind of people and money that

> you are now complaining about 'taking over'. The

> older architecture alone on the neighbouring

> streets also is a clue that the area was born as a

> middle class suburb. You have also complained

> before about the multi-ethnic make up and the

> cultural diversity of Rye Lane. So now you don't

> want middle-class people of a certain ilk there

> too? Well just who do you want there and what kind

> of economy do you expect them to drive?


So true. Personally I find it very sad that Rye Lane has lost all the wonderful shops that it used to have (which posters have listed on this forum in other threads). I'd like to see it going up in the world again.

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

    • I have sympathy with any voter, anyone, who having witnessed the last 14 years and then Labour in the last year and wonders just how can things be this bad  unless a) they voted for brexit b) voted Tory after 2010 c) is thinking of voting reform  because anyone who thinks reform won’t make things a thousand times worse after voting for the previous?  It is they who are the problem.  They are the reason the country is in the doldrums with an embarrassingly-timid Labour government 
    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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