Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dulwich is crying out for a decent car park, especially on Lordship Lane. As a local businessperson, free parking is an attraction to clients and a facility that helps to run the business more efficiently. Local shops, businesses and other amenities in the area would be greatly served by a good sized, commercially run car park.


If you consider that a car park would benefit the area, please add your comments below.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/43212-crying-out-for-a-car-park/
Share on other sites

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> I'm very impressed with Japan!


As ianr pointed out, that particular image is from Germany. Japan does indeed have many automated/robotic car parks, but they're not usually quite so glamorous... usually anonymous concrete towers.

srisky Wrote:

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

> If the car park is free, as the OP suggests it

> should be, what's to stop it becoming off-street

> parking for local residents or a place to park

> before catching at train at ED station?


OP seems a little confused. Begins by talking about a free carpark and then continues about a commercially run car park.

Tarmac over Goose Green?someone's having a laugh, ! hope!

Lordship Lane was, and should be about local shops and facilities, for local people.

Why would you need to driver there.

Again, it seems like this is driven by relatively new incomers to the area who are trying to turn the place

into something it isn't? a new Richmond!

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

    • It's called The Restorative Place. Also, the Fired Earth storefront is under offer too, apparently. How exciting...!
    • Perhaps the view is that there are fewer people needing social housing in London, going forward, or to cap it as it is rather than increasing it. We already see the demographic changing.
    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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