Millwall on the move?

the 800 seat auditorium won't be big enough when we play them 

Henry Irving said:

TL:DR

So is Millwall's ground being gentrified?

You can’t polish a turd

https://fb.watch/b7mn6bCzRW/

RodneyCharltonTrotta said:

BR7_addick said:

Mega Mosque in the corner of the ground I’ve heard.  

Great...then when the media and society roll out the periodic lambasting of football fans for expressing/ holding outdated homophobic and sexist views they'll also now  be able to pop next door to also extend the (correct and welcome) vocal condemnation to other such institutions well in need of it.

In all fairness, it's more likely to be a 'Church of Our Dear Faithful Lady Nothing To See Here' type of place.

Had a quick look at Millwall online north stand banter to get the Spanners' take on their potential new neighbours. Not many comments, but concern that the development could lead to them being bought out by an Arab or Russian looking for the next Man City. 
Their thread 'Quotes from Charlton No Life', which is an obsession for several of their 'well known members' (and great for an evening of belly laughs) is still going strong.

rananegra said:

Karim_myBagheri said:

seth plum said:

Three thirty storey tower blocks.
They also want to put a 15 storey tower block opposite the Tigers Heads at Lee Green.
When I went there to the ‘exhibition’ for the (much needed) development and asked every representative what exactly was the price of an ‘affordable home’, nobody could answer, but every person took my contact details and promised to get back to me, or get in touch. It hasn’t happened of course.
I asked them to relate affordability to the wage of a senior nurse in Lewisham Hospital, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The closest I came to any honesty was one Galliard representative letting slip that affordability was related to profitability for them.
Locally we have the nouveau Ferrier that sells matchboxes for half a million each, and central Lewisham now resembling New York where by all accounts the high rise flats have endless problems with lifts and services.
Affordable homes huh?

hate what the council have done to Lewisham, especially up Loampit hill/vale. feels so claustrophobic now with all the tower blocks. 

I heard that the current Lewisham Mayor hates it too. It is awful, should be called Bullockville after the Lewisham Mayor who promoted it. 

On a related note - who thinks Spannerville is a better name for the proposed new station than Surrey Canal Road?

Yeah, I can believe that. Lewisham Gateway was approved in principle in 2009, so when the second phase - with that crappy-looking 30-storey tower - went for detailed approval a couple of years back, the current councillors weren't happy because there was very little they could do other than nod it through. The "affordable" housing in that second phase is a bit of a joke and far below what they'd push for now.

Spanner Park Road, surely.

soapy_jones said:

They should go for a more traditional name for that station.

Cnut Halt.

That's very nearly an anagram of Charlton 

I asked someone a couple of years back about Croydon and the policy of endless empty office space in countless tower blocks, this person was involved in the reconstruction of East Croydon station and the surrounding area, guess what it, is all about the amount of money this sort of development makes for the councils. It's criminal when you take on board the housing crisis.

seth plum said:

Three thirty storey tower blocks.
They also want to put a 15 storey tower block opposite the Tigers Heads at Lee Green.
When I went there to the ‘exhibition’ for the (much needed) development and asked every representative what exactly was the price of an ‘affordable home’, nobody could answer, but every person took my contact details and promised to get back to me, or get in touch. It hasn’t happened of course.
I asked them to relate affordability to the wage of a senior nurse in Lewisham Hospital, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The closest I came to any honesty was one Galliard representative letting slip that affordability was related to profitability for them.
Locally we have the nouveau Ferrier that sells matchboxes for half a million each, and central Lewisham now resembling New York where by all accounts the high rise flats have endless problems with lifts and services.
Affordable homes huh?

Often wondered how 'affordable housing' was defined, as it usually seems anything but! How can you define 'affordable' by the developers' profit??

If you take £25k as an average salary and a 4.5 multiplier, you get £112.5k. Add say a 20% deposit gets you to £135k. Even two 25k salaries and a 2.5 multiplier only gets to £150k with the same deposit. Surely a cost of around £150k is therefore 'affordable' for a small 2 bed flat, as applied to an average salary. Which is not unreasonable if you consider the Thatcher principle of the masses owning their own homes instead of renting.
I know modern mortgages allow higher multipliers and terms longer than the traditional 25 years, but this is surely down to low interest rates over the last 25 or so years? But you can't predict future interest rates and they were well into double figures 30+ years ago.

I also seem to recall at least one south London council stating death of high rise housing when they started to demolish some of the notorious high rise estates? Think the reasons given included poor design, vandalism and unsocial behaviour and the difficulties in controlling the last two in a high rise setting.
So what has changed policywise if so many towers are now being built? Apart from developers' profit? I can see living on the 30th floor might be nice for a single person or couple, but add two small kids, pushchairs and a broken lift and the fun will disappear quickly! Assume some of these towers will house families?
Irrespective of my points above, the no doubt 'world beating' British housing policy is broken beyond repair and the helpline to get it fixed is constantly engaged!

Load of unfilled new builds in Deptford(Lower Road) already, with building works paused on one new development due to low take up. Not sure who they think will fill more expensive flats in the area. 

£650k for a 2 bed with no outdoor space on that one.

Friend Or Defoe said:

InspectorSands said:

Lewisham Tesco tower is 34 storeys - a messy tale: https://853.london/2020/01/28/lewishams-34-storey-tesco-tower-approved-by-minister-after-public-inquiry/

Same company had a 27-storey tower thrown out in front of Woolwich Tesco (but will probably get 15 instead)

Side tracking from the thread, but it's more interesting than millwall, the shopping centre hasn't got long left so expect more flats and perhaps a public square!

https://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2021/11/17/2500-homes-coming-at-lewisham-shopping-centre/

I wouldn't expect the wrecking ball to come to the Lewisham Centre any time soon as the progress on Lewisham Gateway (the towers by the DLR station) has been glacial. Plans are certainly in motion, though: https://lewishamcentral.commonplace.is

RickAddick said:

seth plum said:

Three thirty storey tower blocks.
They also want to put a 15 storey tower block opposite the Tigers Heads at Lee Green.
When I went there to the ‘exhibition’ for the (much needed) development and asked every representative what exactly was the price of an ‘affordable home’, nobody could answer, but every person took my contact details and promised to get back to me, or get in touch. It hasn’t happened of course.
I asked them to relate affordability to the wage of a senior nurse in Lewisham Hospital, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The closest I came to any honesty was one Galliard representative letting slip that affordability was related to profitability for them.
Locally we have the nouveau Ferrier that sells matchboxes for half a million each, and central Lewisham now resembling New York where by all accounts the high rise flats have endless problems with lifts and services.
Affordable homes huh?

Often wondered how 'affordable housing' was defined, as it usually seems anything but! How can you define 'affordable' by the developers' profit??

If you take £25k as an average salary and a 4.5 multiplier, you get £112.5k. Add say a 20% deposit gets you to £135k. Even two 25k salaries and a 2.5 multiplier only gets to £150k with the same deposit. Surely a cost of around £150k is therefore 'affordable' for a small 2 bed flat, as applied to an average salary. Which is not unreasonable if you consider the Thatcher principle of the masses owning their own homes instead of renting.
I know modern mortgages allow higher multipliers and terms longer than the traditional 25 years, but this is surely down to low interest rates over the last 25 or so years? But you can't predict future interest rates and they were well into double figures 30+ years ago.

I also seem to recall at least one south London council stating death of high rise housing when they started to demolish some of the notorious high rise estates? Think the reasons given included poor design, vandalism and unsocial behaviour and the difficulties in controlling the last two in a high rise setting.
So what has changed policywise if so many towers are now being built? Apart from developers' profit? I can see living on the 30th floor might be nice for a single person or couple, but add two small kids, pushchairs and a broken lift and the fun will disappear quickly! Assume some of these towers will house families?
Irrespective of my points above, the no doubt 'world beating' British housing policy is broken beyond repair and the helpline to get it fixed is constantly engaged!

It's political. Pretty much anything from a 20% discount on sale price down to traditional council rent is "affordable" in planning terms. The system is completely broken and largely unfathomable to most people, including some of those making decisions. 

Some of the more expensive "affordable" stuff is coming to the old garage space at The Heights, above The Valley - work due to start this year - from a company that's been given a massive grant from City Hall to do this kind of thing. https://charltonchampion.co.uk/2021/02/17/pocket-living-micro-flats-for-the-heights-passed-by-greenwich-council/

As for high-rises - the population's bigger and younger than it was, there are more single-person households, it's an efficient use of land, and desirable if it's next to a station. Simple as that. And most of the outer London boroughs don't want development in their town centres (hello Bromley), so all the pressure gets put on the brownfield sites in inner London. 

Some of the newer high-rises aren't great, but I'd take most of them over the dull places Bexley Council destroyed part of Old Farm Park in Sidcup for.