This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/jun/25/earls-court-how-to-do-regeneration-wrong

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Earls Court: how to do regeneration wrong Earls Court: how to do regeneration wrong
(about 9 hours later)
London’s worst major regeneration scheme, the massive Earls Court Project, continues to make uneven but destructive progress. The world famous exhibition centre, which had been the cornerstone of the area’s cultural and economic life since the 1930s, is now being dismantled to make way for a pseudo “village” of unaffordable flats. The admirably dogged Save Earl’s Court campaign has been demanding a halt to the demolition on public health grounds, but got no joy on Wednesday night from Kensington and Chelsea council, whose territory contains the site of the original C. Howard Crane exhibition centre building.London’s worst major regeneration scheme, the massive Earls Court Project, continues to make uneven but destructive progress. The world famous exhibition centre, which had been the cornerstone of the area’s cultural and economic life since the 1930s, is now being dismantled to make way for a pseudo “village” of unaffordable flats. The admirably dogged Save Earl’s Court campaign has been demanding a halt to the demolition on public health grounds, but got no joy on Wednesday night from Kensington and Chelsea council, whose territory contains the site of the original C. Howard Crane exhibition centre building.
To the south of Lillie Road the now former exhibition centre car park on Seagrave Road, just north of Chelsea FC’s Stamford Bridge ground, is in the process of becoming Lillie Square, where the starting asking price for one bedroom flats to be sold “off plan” was £595,000. Developer Capital and Counties (Capco) has been squeezing out local shopkeepers by buying up their premises and presenting them with the prospect of huge hikes in rents. The idea is to replace them with posher shops for the posher people Capco hopes will eventually move in. To the south of Lillie Road the now former exhibition centre car park on Seagrave Road, just north of Chelsea FC’s Stamford Bridge ground, is in the process of becoming Lillie Square, where the starting asking price for one bedroom flats to be sold “off plan” was £595,000. Developer Capital and Counties (Capco) has been squeezing out local shopkeepers by buying up their premises and presenting them with the prospect of huge hikes in rents. The idea is to replace them with posher shops for the thousands of posher people Capco hopes will eventually move in.
Meanwhile, not much has been visibly happening in the remainder of the project area, which comprises the Lillie Bridge London Underground maintenance depot, which is owned by Transport for London (TfL), and the Gibbs Green and West Kensington housing estates. TfL has concluded it can shift the Tube maintenance facilities elsewhere. This would, in theory, free up the land for another section of Sir Terry Farrell’s Earls Court project masterplan, though it may not happen for several years. Meanwhile, not much has been visibly happening in the remainder of the project area, which comprises the Lillie Bridge London Underground maintenance depot, which is owned by Transport for London (TfL), and the Gibbs Green and West Kensington housing estates, which are in mostly good condition and contain 760 homes. TfL has concluded it can shift the Tube maintenance facilities elsewhere. This would, in theory, free up the land for another section of Sir Terry Farrell’s Earls Court project masterplan, though it may not happen for several years.
Of more immediate interest are the ongoing conversations between Capco and Hammersmith and Fulham council (H&F) over the fate of the two estates. Against expectations, Labour seized control of H&F from the Conservatives last May and are endeavouring to honour a manifesto pledge to “aim to renegotiate” the deal struck by their predecessors over the estates’ sale (see page 23).Of more immediate interest are the ongoing conversations between Capco and Hammersmith and Fulham council (H&F) over the fate of the two estates. Against expectations, Labour seized control of H&F from the Conservatives last May and are endeavouring to honour a manifesto pledge to “aim to renegotiate” the deal struck by their predecessors over the estates’ sale (see page 23).
This is no simple task and if Capco is to be persuaded to spare some or all the 760 homes from demolition it will want something in return, probably in another part of the project area. Campaigners and residents have been hearing rumours of greater heights being permitted in the “village” or of the Capco-owned Empress State Building, which stands just outside the boundary of the project area but is effectively part of it, being replaced by something more spectacular rather than simply being converted from office use as is currently planned. The council, though, is keeping mum.This is no simple task and if Capco is to be persuaded to spare some or all the 760 homes from demolition it will want something in return, probably in another part of the project area. Campaigners and residents have been hearing rumours of greater heights being permitted in the “village” or of the Capco-owned Empress State Building, which stands just outside the boundary of the project area but is effectively part of it, being replaced by something more spectacular rather than simply being converted from office use as is currently planned. The council, though, is keeping mum.
Whatever settlement is reached over the estates and, in the longer term, whatever TfL does with its depot land, the Earls Court Project as a whole is already an instructive case study of the wrong way to do regeneration. From its conception way back in 2007 it’s been a top down, new-fangled urban clearance exercise in which the pursuit of private profit and the ideological convictions of the Tory right have defined what qualifies as a successful neighbourhood and what is of value in it, dismissing all opposition in the process.Whatever settlement is reached over the estates and, in the longer term, whatever TfL does with its depot land, the Earls Court Project as a whole is already an instructive case study of the wrong way to do regeneration. From its conception way back in 2007 it’s been a top down, new-fangled urban clearance exercise in which the pursuit of private profit and the ideological convictions of the Tory right have defined what qualifies as a successful neighbourhood and what is of value in it, dismissing all opposition in the process.
Walking around the project area, as I have countless times since I began reporting on it six years ago, it is easy to see that it could be improved. The original exhibition centre building had become dowdy, the estates are not of a design or density you’d build today and if TfL can relocate the depot facilities to enable the better use of precious, publicly-owned London land, what’s wrong with that? Yet when Capco, TfL and the intemperate Tories then in charge of H&F got together to explore their common interest in a “comprehensive regeneration” they either saw nothing to recommend the area as it stood or chose to dismiss it. How much better it would have been to have nurtured and enhanced what was good with the backing of local people rather than opting to tear everything down. Walking around the project area, as I have countless times since I began reporting on it six years ago, it is easy to see that it could be improved. The original exhibition centre building had become dowdy, the estates are not of a design or density you’d build today and if TfL can relocate the depot facilities to enable the better use of precious, publicly-owned London land, what’s wrong with that? Yet when Capco, TfL and the intemperate Tories then in charge of H&F got together to explore their common interest in a “comprehensive regeneration” they either saw nothing to recommend the area as it stood or chose to dismiss those qualities. How much better it would have been to have nurtured and enhanced what was good with the backing of local people rather than opting to tear everything down.
What has followed has been more or less a check list of regeneration sins. The plans were kept hidden for as long as possible and the developer put in the driving seat. The highly questionable argument - to which not only Conservatives subscribe - that destroying council estates and “creating mixed communities” in their place will benefit the poorest most was used to justify the decision to allow the estates to be demolished, despite huge opposition from their residents. Those residents were demeaned and the difficulties some of them face attributed to the fact they they live on an estate, providing a further false argument for arranging for their homes to be knocked down. What has followed has been a check list of regeneration sins. The plans were kept hidden for as long as possible and the developer put in the driving seat. The highly questionable argument - to which not only Conservatives subscribe - that destroying council estates and “creating mixed communities” in their place will benefit the poorest most was used to justify the decision to allow the estates to be demolished, despite huge opposition from their residents. Those residents were demeaned and the difficulties some of them face attributed to the fact they they live on an estate, providing a further false argument for arranging for their homes to be knocked down.
The list goes on. Critics argue that Tory H&F agreed to sell the land to Capco too cheaply. They contend, surely correctly, that the amount of additional affordable housing promised for the project area as a whole is far too low and believe the viability assessment it was based on should not have been accepted by either of the councils or by Boris Johnson. The Conservatives made large claims about the number of jobs the project would create but didn’t take into account the number that might be lost or the businesses that might suffer as a result of the exhibition centre closing. TfL has a right, indeed a duty, to make money from its land assets to benefit London’s transport network, and entering into joint ventures with developers looks a better bet than simply flogging stuff off. But it’s hard to see how the Earls Court “village” will be in the area’s of London’s interests and the mayor could and should have stopped or moderated it. The list goes on. Critics argue that Tory H&F agreed to sell the land to Capco too cheaply. They contend, surely correctly, that the amount of affordable housing promised in addition to replacements for the 760 is far too low and believe the viability assessment it was based on should not have been accepted by either of the councils or by Boris Johnson. The Conservatives made large claims about the number of jobs the project would create but didn’t take into account the number that might be lost or the businesses that might suffer as a result of the exhibition centre closing. TfL has a right, indeed a duty, to make money from its land assets to benefit London’s transport network, and entering into joint ventures with developers looks a better bet than simply flogging stuff off. But it’s hard to see how the Earls Court “village” will be in the area’s or London’s interests, and the mayor could and should have stopped or moderated it.
The same goes for Earls Court scheme as a whole, even if some of its worst elements are neutralised in the years to come. The true test of any big regeneration scheme is that it replaces what exists with something better. The Earls Court Project has failed it test already.The same goes for Earls Court scheme as a whole, even if some of its worst elements are neutralised in the years to come. The true test of any big regeneration scheme is that it replaces what exists with something better. The Earls Court Project has failed it test already.