Harvester

[CataRosca]

I agree the Dulwich Estate does a good job in protecting the greenery around the area. That's exactly the beauty around here and it would be a pity to build flats on the site of Grove Tavern. Vote for the pub.

[steveo]

Are you joking? Who do you think allowed Wates to build all those crappy houses in the woods?

[Sue]

steveo Wrote:

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

> Are you joking? Who do you think allowed Wates to

> build all those crappy houses in the woods?

xxxxx

There are houses in the woods? Where??

[Whittler]

I like them, in fact i moved to the area SPECIFICALLY for a mid-century house that happens to be on the Dulwich Estate - here's some info on the architects that designed most of the Estate properties built by Wates from 1959 onwards http://www.themodernhouse.net/directory-of-architects-and-designers/austin-vernon/ if you're interested.

Most of the modern estates were built on the sites of existing, large properties whose leases had come to an end and most had fallen into disrepair after the war, so i don't think any existing woodland was taken to build them, in fact more land was probably given over to the woods as the gardens attached to the old properties became absorbed into them. They are lovely properties to live in. All a matter of taste, but 'crappy' they are not.

[MrBen]

I agree with Whittler. I happen to like old houses (grew up in one built in 1619!) and so tend towards that but I also like a lot of the mid century stuff on the Dulwich Estate. They're not much cheaper because they have lots of fans. And generally they offer more light and spacious living. Basically they are very "livable" properties if that makes sense....

[jimbo1964]

The Packermans Wood houses do look lovely. I'm a fan too.

[DulwichFox]

Sue Wrote:

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

> steveo Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Are you joking? Who do you think allowed Wates

> to

> > build all those crappy houses in the woods?

>

> xxxxx

>

> There are houses in the woods? Where??

Here:-

View Larger Map

Foxy

[Sue]

Thanks Fox.

They're not exactly IN the woods, are they?!

[DulwichFox]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Thanks Fox.

>

> They're not exactly IN the woods, are they?!

Almost surrounded by woods / trees. Built on the edge of the wood.

Assume woods were reclaimed to build Peckermans estate.

Once you take away the trees, no longer a wood.

Like can't see the wood for the Trees errh. Houses.

Foxy :)

[Whittler]

I doubt very much that trees were removed/land reclaimed, or certainly not on a grand scale, in fact all the modern estates had quite specific planting schemes (with specimen trees) around them on the communal amenity areas, so it was all very sensitively designed and well thought through - one of the more visionary things that the Dulwich Estate achieved, in my opinion. I was lucky enough to go to a talk by the architect at Dulwich Picture Gallery some years ago (he was in his 90's by then) and he said the Estate had pretty much given them carte blanche and there was no incentive to overdevelop the sites, which is why they are all so well placed and with plenty of space around them.

On our road there is an elderly couple who bought their house off-plan in 1959 and they've never moved, as, in their words, they've never found another house as nice to move to. As i said, it's a matter of taste, and domestic Victorian London architecture has never really appealed to me http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/p-health/bricks.htm

Anyway, i think what is important in relation to the Harvester is to say that whatever gets built there, i doubt it will happen quickly as the Estate move at a phenomenally slow pace and don't make quick decisions, well, not in my experience!

[east-of-the-Rye]

I think it is very sad that the owners have not had the sense to put in temporary guardians to protect the building instead of boarding it up to prevent squatting. Several companies (Camelot Property, Global Guardians) can put in guardians at very low or even no cost to the owner, and at no risk to the owner i.e. the legal agreement ensures that the guardians have to move on when needed. (I'm not connected to either company but have used them as a customer via my work.) It makes me really angry that land owners are campaigning to get the law changed to make squatting illegal in commercial properties, when they are holding the building empty in order to maximise their profit. (please do not start the I-came-home-from-holiday-and found-my house-squatted story, these were incredibly rare cases.)

[Jeremy]

MrBen/Whittler, when you're talking about mid-century houses on the Dulwich Estate... are you talking about the kind of houses you see on Great Brownings and thereabouts?

[Whittler]

Yes, Great Brownings is one. Here is an article from the Dulwich Society that covers some (but my no means all) of the post-war developments built on Dulwich Estate land....

http://www.dulwichsociety.com/newsletters/52-winter-2003/64-sixties-architecture

As you can see, it mentions that 3,000 new homes were built, and the area covered is very large stretching over to Gipsy Hill and Forest Hill (Little Brownings, Sydenham Rise, Tarleton Gardens).

Quite an ambitious programme of quality house building and as the writer of the DSoc article says, not well known even inside the area.

[julianrainov]

.