AS THE proposals to redevelop Greenwich Market start their journey through the planning process, we need to be clear about two things.
Firstly, the current plan is not substantially different from Greenwich Hospital’s discredited 2006 scheme to demolish the Market, dropped after a public outcry. The main difference is that this time the PR operation has been smoother.
Secondly, the plans – whether you like them or not – represent a fundamental transformation, changing a nineteenth-century market into a 21st-century shopping precinct with added market stalls.
“But it’s not nineteenth-century,” I hear you say. The buildings lining the two longest sides of the market are from the 1950s.
That is, of course, perfectly true. But somehow, despite that. the market feels old. The key to that feeling lies in two things – the low ceiling, and the cobbled floor. In the new scheme, both of those things will be destroyed.
Artists’ impressions of the scheme show what is now the central market area covered with a high, contemporary, plastic or membrane translucent roof, supported by at least sixteen thick stainless-steel pillars.
The current roof hides the Fifties buildings. The new roof would be at least two to three storeys high, exposing the new contemporary buildings to be constructed either side.
It looks like a closed-sided version of Stratford bus station – a building I admire, and which works well in a modern setting like Stratford, but which is wholly out of keeping with the historic centre of Greenwich. It is a world heritage site, folks – you do know we’ve only got four of them, don’t you?
The lowness of the current roof contributes greatly to the intense, warren-like atmosphere of the market, a place which feels like a hunting ground for hidden treasure, or at least scented candles. The new version has as much intensity and excitement as the central square at Bluewater.
The other thing that makes the market feel old is the cobbles. These, too, will be ripped up, in favour of standard setts and slabs. Health and safety, that evergreen answer to every blandifier’s prayers, is being cited in support of this vandalism.
The brochure promises to “increase the total amount of retail space” – not necessarily a bad thing, and it does seem from the plan that the new shops will still be quite small. Good; but I have a nasty feeling that they may not stay small in the finished scheme.
The main difference from the 2006 scheme is that instead of being “luxury flats,” the new buildings around the market are now to be a 100-room “boutique hotel.” A hundred rooms is actually almost 25% more than at the existing town centre hotel, the Ibis, which has 82 rooms. A hundred rooms isn’t a boutique, chaps – it’s a department store.
What will the new hotel buildings be like? If they are supposed to be in place by the Olympics, that doesn’t leave much time for niceties like decent design and careful construction. They are high, at least four storeys, potentially overshadowing the listed buildings on Church Street and King William Walk. My concern is that they will be the same kind of blank structures that line the pedestrian passage at Cutty Sark DLR station, and that the public spaces between them will be as charmless as that passage.
The hotel, in fact, could be where the Hospital’s grand plans prove, in the end, unworkable. Greenwich Council may never have shown much concern for the town’s heritage – but I don’t imagine (I could be wrong about this) that they want Greenwich to be an even worse traffic jam than it is already.
The main entrance of the hotel could cause just that. It will be right on the busiest part of the one-way system, on King William Walk. The Hospital claims that most guests will arrive by public transport – surely nonsense. Few people carrying luggage for a stay in an expensive hotel (I think we can assume this hotel will be expensive) want to, or can, carry it on public transport. Most will arrive by car, by taxi or perhaps, if they are in a party, by coach.
There is nowhere to unload such vehicles except right in the middle of the traffic flow (and the hotel entrance also has the distinction of being opposite a bus terminus, further narrowing the available space.) Rather like the fluttering butterfly wings in South America which caused the proverbial earthquake in Japan, the arrival of a coach containing fifty tourists and their luggage in Greenwich will be felt all the way back to Tower Bridge.
The other main difference from 2006 is that Greenwich Hospital has made a better fist of its PR. Back then, Nick Raynsford, the local MP, told me that the plans were a “fundamental change to the character of the area” which would make people “up in arms.”
That fundamental change, as I’ve suggested, remains. But Mr Raynsford now seems less unhappy about it. He’s one of the “stakeholders” that the Hospital’s PR firm has managed to butter up.
Ray Smith, from the Greenwich Society, is quoted by the PRs as saying that the proposal will “help revitalise Greenwich town centre.” But it is impossible to see how the market – teeming, buzzing, thronged – could be any more vital than it is already. Indeed, in 2006, a certain Nick Raynsford told me: “The market is hugely popular. You only have to go down there at the weekend to see that it’s absolutely packed and it makes a big contribution to the character of Greenwich.”
So what’s changed? Perhaps the local worthies have been persuaded by the results of the “consultation” the Hospital conducted. They shouldn’t be: the questions were so loaded as to be almost worthless.
The lack of fuss, so far, can also be explained by some of the core reassurances being made about the development. The latest brochure claims that “the overall objective of the plan is to maintain all the principles of Greenwich Market.” There’s only one problem with this: it is just not true.
But the Hospital’s need to say it does unwittingly reveal another truth: that it knows most people in Greenwich do want to “maintain the principles of Greenwich Market.” If you are among them, it is time to start objecting to this principle-destroying development.
“The latest brochure claims that “the overall objective of the plan is to maintain all the principles of Greenwich Market.” There’s only one problem with this: it is just not true.”
Maybe this is just another reader of yours that needs reading lessons, but I’m struggling to understand which ‘principles’ you believe the ‘worthies’ are going to break? Low ceilings and uneven floors?
I’ll object to something if I know what I am objecting to!
I agree that whilst Greenwich Hospital have been very careful with their wording this time round, the design itself will take away all character from the market. I also suspect that there will be very little room left for an actual ‘market’ – perhaps a few market stalls – but not a market.
I am also greatly concerned about timing. In the rush to get this constructed for 2012 does that mean that the market space will join the long – list of Greenwich building sites (to which we will soon be able to add Greenwich Park and the foot tunnel)
I am greatly concerned at the impact all this building will have on small businesses who rely on tourism. It will also greatly effect the quality of life for .After all, no tourist will want to walk around a load of building sites for the next 3 years and it won’t be long before word gets out that Greenwich is closed. In the rush to celebrate the Olympics fortnight it seems that a long-term overview has been thrown out the window. Its time that some consideration was truly given to the character of the town and not just how many new shops can be constructed before the Olympics
I get the romantic attachment to cobbled streets but as a carer for an elderly relative in a wheelchair, I could happily live without them. If you make a space more accessible that means more people can enjoy it and shop there.
It’s a balance, isn’t it, Anon, between accessibility and character? If the only way to make a place accessible is to totally destroy its character, then we’re getting the balance wrong. No point in making something accessible if it’s no longer worth accessing.
And Tom: maybe I didn’t make clear enough that the current principles of the market are that it is a tightly-packed, buzzing, traditional-feeling sort of place. The floor and the ceiling are integral to that. These proposals would sweep all that away.
Glad you picked up on this.
The perimeter of the market has new slabs; they could reconstruct these in recyled slabs and there would be good wheelchair access to most of the stalls. But that’s not what they want: they want to replace the whole thing and have iit all nice and new.
I spoke to the architects about this and they have no sense that the floor matters, no interest or understanding of the texture. Their first argument was that the market traders didn’t like the floor; only when I rounded up a bunch who found the idea ludicrous, did they drop that argument and bring up the Disabled Access arguemtn. The architects don’t want a mix of old and new; they want [i] everything [/] nice and new. Their idea of heritage is to have a plastic cover that “looks like sails.”
I should add that I love modern design – I just don’t like bland modern design which replaces something that has magic, and resonance.
Also, don’t forget the buildings on Durnford St… VIctorian stables that were a vital part of the market a few years ago, but are now “unwanted”, “unsafe’ and destined for demolition. Funny, isn’t it, that Greenwich Hospital only mention “50s buildings” being demolished?
I am strongly against destroying such a beautiful and successful feature of Greenwich. Please let me know how to protest further.
HI Lucy
Go to http://www.thegreenwichphantom.co.uk/
and find the entry for 29 April, this carries a link to Greenwich Planning where you can log your complaint.
In your submission, do make sure you mention you are objecting to TWO allied planning applications, 09/0929/F AND ALSO 09/0830/C.
A direct link to Greenwich Planning is here:
http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/planningonline/acolnetcgi.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=61073
For some reason, both the greenwich phantom and Greenwich planning sites are unavailable today (Sunday), I would of course be the last person to suggest that a cyberwarfare offensive is accompanying the PR one…
Could anybody give me the Architects details for this project? CED is one of the leading natural stone suppliers in the UK with over 30 years experience. We have supplied many prestigious projects within London and the Uk. Some projects have the need for nice contemporary materials, other projects, such as Greenwich Market, have lots of local history and other factors which need to be taken into account before deciding on which materials to use. There are definitely products we can put forward which would fit within the health and safety guidelines, but at the same time would help maintain the character within the market. I have visited the market personally many times and completely understand what a special place it is.
We would be very interested to speak to the Architects to discuss material choice, any information anyone can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Bang on, Andrew. I couldn’t agree more with your article. I’m too depressed even to bother to look at the new plans – your description is enough to suggest they’re just the standard corporate issue, however clever they may be.
It is absolutely all about keeping some character (bogus or not) — otherwise what’s the point? It’s a double whammy for Greenwich after the very sad loss of the open air market. Where is the drive on the Council to do something about this blandification of our unique town centre? Have they been conned that easily by the PR, or are they just not bothered enough? And how on earth did they let the other market just go and board up such a prime location?
The planning website very oddly always seems to be down. Lets hope that the council manage to rectify this error before the cut off date for comments on the proposals
I would be interested in speaking to any local resident/trader with views on the plan. Please email your number (in confidence) to me at andrew.gilligan@standard.co.uk and I will call you.
Andrew – Destruction of the historical central market, the little bit that is left of beauty in Greenwich, will not help the traffic which is the real blight of Greenwich. The traffic is a filthy polluting monstrosity that no one appears to want to do anything about. Do not get me going on the Olympic destruction either – Bob E14
why waste good money on something that is already truely beautiful. leave it alone and use the money on something that is more pressing