Development of John Jones Site / Sketch House

krappyrubsnif · March 2014

I think the least John Jones could do to atone is offer some significant sponsorship and equivalent trees for Arkady's Stroud Green Square outside Vagabond.

yagamuffin · March 2014

@JoeV You're right, paving over front gardens is an outrage, councils should be doing much more to put a stop to it.

Idoru · March 2014

Yes! They should all be planting wildlife gardens instead.

dion · March 2014

i am getting confused with misscara and massacre<div><br></div><div>should we care for the trees or massacre them?</div>

DillysDad · March 2014

@JoeV - I think the problem is that people who really give a toss about the environment are a minority. There was a fair amount of 'but it's progress, stop moaning' on this thread until a few more people spoke up. I agree, paving over gardens does my head in (and people wonder why we suddenly have more floods!?!?) The reason John Jones are getting a hard time is because these trees are imminently going to be lost to us so it's time sensitive and (for me) they appealed the councils original decision.

JoeV · March 2014

@DillysDad - I'm sorry, you have to at least put on the table that part of the reason JJ are being a hard time is because they can be given a hard time since they are a named, prominent organisation. It's not easy to avoid scrutiny with your name above the door and Kate Jones has tried to engage in some discussion in this forum. <div><br></div><div>The council's original decision was to approve the development and then it was rescinded, which is why JJ appealed unless there was something in the appeal specifically about trees that I'm unaware of. It's JJ'sright to an appeal and they shouldn't be faulted for that.</div><div><br></div><div>I've been critical of the student housing aspect of this project and made a point earlier in the discussion about how some of the more pro-development contributors here tend shout down any criticism, which I thought (think) is a bit unfair.</div><div><br></div><div>But these buildings are going up whether anyone here likes it or not and for me it's time to move on and wish JJ well. I'm not saying you should as well but there are other possibilities to explore as others have suggested to compensate for the lost if the tress can't be retained.</div>

Toddlesocks · March 2014

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">We have had some discussion on the concrete gardens, in the planning application thread for one.</font><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><font size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">http://www.stroudgreen.org/discussion/3664/stroud-green-planning-applications#Item_101</font></div>;

DillysDad · March 2014

@JoeV - That's absolutely fair. My point was more that the reason the trees are being talked about is because the signs went up a few days ago and the trees are due to be gone by Weds. Actually, my initial criticism was with Islington Council (the custodians) allowing this to happen (they're letting it happen all over the borough in the name of 'development'). As this is a JJ thread, Kate was obviously going to defend the development ... Hence the back and forth. I do, however, believe the development would have still gone ahead with a bit of tweaking and the trees remaining. But obviously that's just my cynical opinion. And yes, a wildlife garden would be the minimum they Gould be doing to compensate the community. That's a really good idea. However, if the trees go, a wildlife garden still wouldn't take the bad taste away.

miss annie · March 2014

A wildlife garden would be lovely.

jward · March 2014

To take a slightly different tack - isn't it amazing that John Jones don't recognise the commercial value of 10 mature street trees around their development? We know that they bring the 'softer' (and maybe more debatable) benefits of; shading/urban heat island cooling, rainwater attenuation, increased biodiversity, improved air quality and psychological well-being. But in the real world these simply get translated into an increased return on investment. We all know that "located in an attractive street lined with mature trees" is how you sell a property. As a large scale commercial development its perfectly possible to accommodate large trees in the street. The replacement trees will be of the spindly small kind now favoured by the risk averse council, and so will never replace the significant benefit of the trees that are being removed. Check out the fine trees in Fonthill Road that have flourished since planting about 10 years ago, part of the ongoing transformation of the street environment. (I think they are London Planes). The JJ replacements will never offer a decent replacement. Its easy to blame Islington council, but are JJ simple bystanders? If JJ had told their architects and engineers that they wanted to retain the trees to maintain them as an asset for the development then they would have achieved this.

quince · March 2014

Seriously, it's just a few trees, in a relatively leafy area, right next to a park. Regrettable, but probably excusable in the grand scheme of things. What's that saying about wood and trees? I forget.

TheMimsy · March 2014

@ Dion<div><br></div><div>More things I would recommend Hornsey Road for:<br><div><br></div><div>Organic Stall</div><div>The printers near the bike shop</div><div>The bike shop</div><div>The music shop near Ajani</div></div>

ADGS · March 2014

Loving the 'future crime scene' tape put up on the threatened trees.

miss annie · March 2014

Someone has started a Facebook page and a change.org petition to save the trees The petition is also available to sign at Vagabond, Boulangerie Bon Matin, the Post Office, Front Room and the Park Theatre. http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/jeremy-corbyn-stop-the-felling-of-the-8-trees-on-clifton-terrace-and-lennox-road-and-consult-the-residents-over-this-major-re-development?share_id=mfvpAFqhCP&utm_campaign=share_button_action_box&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

TheMimsy · March 2014

<div><br></div><div><br></div>... and in the porch of St Mellitus Church, too

DillysDad · March 2014

The park theatre got rid of the petition. They didn't give permission for it to be there. They were the ones who advised JJ as to how they should over turn Islingtons rejection. The tribune are doing a photo opportunity at 4pm today if anyone can make it.

DillysDad · March 2014

@Quince - Yes, it's all too easy to dismiss having trees. You've just proven the point.

Arkady · March 2014

Genuinely impressed by the level of social mobilisation. Good luck. I hope there's a way to save them and let the development go forward.

Sutent · March 2014

@arkardy The mobilisation isnt difficult. The JJ building is very unpopular in the local area. The tree issue is terrible and hopefully it can be saved.

Arkady · March 2014

What are you basing that on, Sutent? Have you done a survey?

Sutent · March 2014

Yes I have - but only with a small sample size.

Arkady · March 2014

How big?<div><br>The response on this site has been pretty evenly divided.<div><br>I can only report on the Haringey side, but I’ve informally asked on the issue while canvassing on Perth, Ennis, and Woodstock Rds (twice on the latter) as well as the lower thirdish of the Stroud Green Road. A few people were implacable, a few more would have preferred it to be smaller, but the overall response was decidedly positive. There was a lot of local concern about the old site being used as a tip, toilet, and drug dealing zone, and a general feeling that it improved the area (house prices were frequently mentioned, especially north of Woodstock which is mostly housing association stock).</div><div><br>I only bore you with this because I think it’s rather unfair and inappropriate to make unsupported assertions based on what one would like to believe, as you may have a teensy-weensy tendency to do. And I do wonder what evidence you have that could justify the rather significant and unqualified statement that the development “is very unpopular in the local area”.<br></div></div>

Sutent · March 2014

@arkady (I managed to spell your name right this time!). This debate is pointless now, but my statement is founded on a small sample size that it likely to be very biased based on my views and the Iocal residents that I have spoken to. I am glad your view is based on an extensive sample size and is very representative. I am slightly disappointed Arkady that you have been unable to remain impartial on the JJ matter, especially when you will are attempting to represent the local people. It is therefore not a surprise to me that there has been such support for the tree issue with JJ. I hope we can end this matter here as it is rather boring as it comes down to a highly selected opinion based evidence base

Arkady · March 2014

Why should I remain impartial? I think it’s a good thing, for reasons that I’ve made very clear, and I’ve gone out of my way to try to poll voters in my ward and they also seem broadly supportive. Isn’t it my *responsibility* to point that out, particularly in the face of unevidenced assertions? If I took one view and the residents of the ward strongly took the opposite view then that might be different, but that isn’t the case here (which was my point!).<br><br>For the record I’m entirely persuadable on the tree issue. If it can be shown that they don’t need to go to facilitate development then I will be genuinely overjoyed.<br>

Sutent · March 2014

@arkady your responsibility is to provide "evidence" based opinion, but you are willing to ignore the negative impact of the JJ site to the local area. I am very disappointed and saddened that you are unable to acknowledge this. I really want to close this matter as it is very dull. I hope like you I will be able to embrace the JJ site, but for the time being I will stay clear of the site. <div><br></div><div>Best of the luck with the tree campaign as they have my full support</div>

miss annie · March 2014

In fairness Arky speaks as an individual here, not with his councillor hat on so he can be as partial or impartial as the rest of us. I'm not surprised at all that voters a bit further away from the site would think it's a good thing. They may be visitors to the art centre and customers of JJ and may benefit from the rise in house prices. Sutent and I both live very near to the site, I can see it from the end of my road. The social housing tenants that live on top of it are not so thrilled (I talk to the residents of the houses opposite on my way to and fro). The more affluent, Haringey side might be amazed to learn that most of the other local neighbours I talk to have no idea what John Jones is, or what the plans are. Most think it's just another block of flats. Some people are amazed that anyone would make a fuss over just a few trees when they have been promised a spangly 'cultural hub', others are amazed that a property developer and a single council official can decide that mature, healthy trees that benefit all of us can be cut down for private profit to build an art gallery and suchlike. We've agreed to differ, as I've said before it's all a matter of perspective.

[Deleted User] · March 2014

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Arkady · March 2014

@Sutent – no, I won’t leave your unfair assertions to stand, as much as you would like me to.<br><br>A little earlier up this thread I pointed out to you that those who claimed a ‘negative impact’ rarely had an argument to back up their position, especially given the obvious and multitudinous positives – I suggested that they were merely basing their judgment on their subjective taste. You effectively responded ‘yeah but it’s tall’, which rather made my point. You’ve now done it again, and you still haven’t told me what the negative consequences were that I was supposed to acknowledge. <br><br>Subsequent to that exchange, the issue of the loss of trees has been raised again – I acknowledge that they will be a loss, albeit a temporary and carbon-neutral one. I hope they don’t need to go. As others above have argued more articulately than me, if the trees need to be removed and replaced in order to facilitate the development then I regard that as a short-term sacrifice worth making for a larger good. You are entitled to a different view. You are not entitled to claim that I am failing to acknowledge reality or am failing to properly represent people. That’s just character assassination to cover your lack or argument, and it’s beneath you. Shape up<br>

Brodiej · March 2014

<P>The trees have been felled to ensure that Islington Council is able to continue producing the residential magazine that we receive through our doors. Its all a knock on effect of the austerity measures imposed on them by the tory government. The only way they can keep going is to pulp the trees and turn them into paper. The edition concerned will feature a special on the John Jones development and a full page ad for the Park Theatres new production.</P> <P>Im a supporter of the development. However, what is that orange writing all about? Its like a shop that's about to go into liquidation advertising a sale.</P> <P> </P>

Arkady · March 2014

@Miss Annie - thank you. Small point, but the residents of Woodstock can see it from there road too. It was the new view of the Vista building that made me think to start polling people.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Development of John Jones Site / Sketch House

Comments