tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5614832110829270140.post5055997541612798174..comments2024-01-11T17:05:24.759+00:00Comments on Lurking about SE11: Campaign to remove Vauxhall gyratory and Lambeth commits to 40% social housing in Vauxhall Nine Elms Area (Part 1)SE11 Lurkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01727961781290615066noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5614832110829270140.post-73859370069182138362011-05-11T00:13:38.365+01:002011-05-11T00:13:38.365+01:00The gyratory was in by at least 1981 (when Glenda ...The gyratory was in by at least 1981 (when Glenda Jackson still worked in the theatre): there is a Lambeth planning guidance document for the Effra site (now St George's) from 1981 which shows pics of the gyratory and explains that what is now the Kylun site was then laid out as open space (a hostel and other Victorian buildings on the site were removed) which was to compensate for the proposed high density development on the Effra site (in fact the density proposed then was about 1/3rd of what it has turned out). The Wandsworth Rd stretch of the gyratory was widened to 8 lanes when the ski-slopes were put in around 2003, and a lane was added to South Lambeth Rd side of the gyratory. The island/ Kylun was transferred to the GLC but was sold off when the GLC was wound up in 1986, with the open space use lost amidst a welter of hoardings.<br /><br />VNEB has a whole host of problems. It was initially (2002) to be focused on Vauxhall hub but Wandsworth weren't interested. By the time they got interested in 2007/08, especially after Boris Johnson was elected (fellow Tories) Lambeth had lost all interest - or, rather, members were unaware of the issues and wouldn't take a political lead. The Head of Regen at the time desperately tried to get senior members to take on Edward Lister (leader of Wandsworth Council since 1992 and chair of the VNEB board) on the transport issue and lobbied for priority for the gyratory plus a Victoria line spur from Vauxhall, but no one took any action (that officer went off to Newham to do the Olympics...). It was only in 2010 that Lambeth put a cabinet member on the board, and only in recent months that Steve Reed has finally taken up the cause. The result is that VNEB is extraordinarily weighted to Wandsworth and to providing a new central London enclave for City workers (which is why they want the northern line directly to the City) and pied a tierres. The fact that they are predicting such small numbers of children speaks volumes. <br /><br />VNEB is pretty oblvious to the need to regenerate the arc of deprivation stretching from Lambeth Walk through Oval to the Patmore Estate. The most noticable thing about the location of these poor areas is that they are generally far away from a town centre or shops and services - and yet VNEB proposes the most piddling town centre at Vauxhall, which in fact will be mainly delivered on the Covent Garden market site. Instead the focus on town centre activities has been at Battersea Power Station, where the proposed 60,000m2 of retail is so huge it is estimated that it will cream off 7% of the trade in Streatham and Clapham for at least 10 years (which will cause these centres to decline).<br /><br />The easist bit of VNEB to pick apart is the myriad assumptions loaded to support the absurd NLE. Assumption: e.g. no need for lots of money for secondary and primary schools to serve the 40,000 residents, since there will be few children, because (i) 15% affodable housing assumed (ii) a large proportion of families will use private schools (iii) the area will not be attractive to families. Result: £100m can be diverted from building schools and be spent on NLE. But of course the assumptions are silly and/or completely contrary to policy: it will simply not work out like that, but by then it will be too late and instead Lambeth will be tearing it's hair out trying to find sites and money to build new schools (no change there then).<br /><br />VNEB is most certainly with us - indeed it will the biggest and most visible change to London since Canary Wharf 25 years ago; the scale of the development is similar to CW; and CW's insularity and complete failure to resolve the deprivation around it will be replicated at VNEB.<br /><br />WAKE UP LAMBETH!!!michael WCDGhttp://michael.ball@wcdg.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5614832110829270140.post-11582139079925673592011-05-01T13:30:24.121+01:002011-05-01T13:30:24.121+01:001)"The VNEB is here to stay" - but does ...1)"The VNEB is here to stay" - but does it have to be at top density of 16.000 new dwellings and 25.000 new jobs (higher population density than Calcutta) and at the maximum height of 150 m for the cluster at Vauxhall Cross, putting huge pressure on infrastructure such as parks, schools, transport etc?<br /><br />2) "40% affordable gousing". The proposed Kylun Towers development's social/affordable housing (still waiting to go before the planning committee) has been adjusted downwards from 25% to 19%.<br /><br />3) "Removal of the "gyratory"; The gyratory was created at considerable expense about 10 years ago (when Glenda Jackson wwas transpoprt secretary) - who is going to pay for converting it back to a counterflow system, plus traffic calming measures; the TFL are facing massive cuts.<br /><br />While it is true that at times driving speeds on Vauxhall Cross are high, there is regular grid lock at peak times, or during lane closures for road works etc.<br /><br />According to the VNEB transport study Vauxhall Cross is a 'key strategic junction'. Basically all roads going into it are red routes! Does anyone really believe that traffic calming measures i.e. road narrowing will be enough to turn Vauxhall Cross into a pedestrian paradise?Andreanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5614832110829270140.post-59493640351718204882011-04-18T16:14:47.106+01:002011-04-18T16:14:47.106+01:00Removing the gyratory - creating 'two way work...Removing the gyratory - creating 'two way working' - will slow the traffic down. At the moment traffic can race around the one-way system at 40 or 50 mph. Two way working will result in traffic moving at 20 or 30 mph - more appropriate for a residential area in central London.<br /><br />There's a big debate to be had about whether slowing the traffic and reducing the junction's capacity will result in more congestion. Traffic engineering is an art rather than a science. It could be that some car journeys just disappear and there isn't resulting congestion - this has happened elsewhere.Cllr Mark Harrisonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5614832110829270140.post-27820712004565325172011-04-14T11:23:19.206+01:002011-04-14T11:23:19.206+01:00I may have missed the arguments, but while I fully...I may have missed the arguments, but while I fully support the improvement of the environs - wider pavements, narrower roads, trees, landscaping etc - i dont see what the necessity for scrapping the gyratory is? Why does it make any difference to anyone not in a vehicle which direction the vehicles are going?<br /><br />If Vauxhall goes the way that it already seems apparent that Elephant and Castle is going having removed their gyratory/roundabout system for traffic lights alone then the resultant chaos will only make for slower traffic flows, more stationary polluting traffic and the semblance of a car park in amongst the proposed aesthetic improvements.johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09405786878544068506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5614832110829270140.post-51788614156718870902011-04-13T12:30:44.559+01:002011-04-13T12:30:44.559+01:00I really hope that the TFL have fully consulted th...I really hope that the TFL have fully consulted the Kylun Towers and CLS design teams so that they can all develop concise and integrated proposals. The current skywalk suggestion from CLS, is stupid on so many levels I can't even startMichaelnoreply@blogger.com