The Windmill has closed down

[parker]

The Windmill has now been closed and boarded up.
Hopefully Sainsbury's are definitely opening, not to have it stand there shut for years to come.

[G-Man]

Another pub gone forever. Sad times.



G-Man

[gerry]

Good - place was a dump full of dumpers

[Eagle]

Despite its faults a great shame.

I would also like to praise Mary for her great attempt to stop big business destroying our social meeting places and imposing , yet another , faceless supermarket.

[G-Man]

Good - place was a dump full of dumpers

The point is more, Gerry, that it could have been turned into something that was less than a dump. That opportunity has been missed. It is now another supermarket. These supermarkets are nothing to do with market forces and everything to do with enormous conglomerations buying up social space.

Here here Rod. Perfectly put.

G-Man

[hairybuddha]

Good riddance

[Eagle]

Not very polite or diplomatic from a hirsuit man of religion.

[goonerchamp]

Wasn't it the centrepin of upper Sydenham/ 'Kirkdale Village' (bloody Kirkdale village haha!) social life and stuff ? What will all those people do now?

[parker]

I think this story tells us a lot about Sydenham. I don't think we will ever have a night time economy and our houses will never be as valuable as those in trendy SW London town centres.

Imagine if a huge pub like The Windmill was available to lease in Putney or Northcote Road Battersea/Clapham Common, imagine the multitude of huge interest from all sorts of pub/wine bar/restaurant chains. Not even now, after all these many years of neglect and very recent regeneration I think it's safe to say Sydenham is not gonna be able to get off it's zone 3 backside. It's a crying shame but nothing really seems to work very well here. Something is wrong.

Are LBL to blame? Is the only major salubrious area of this borough Blackheath a roaring success because of neighbouring Royal Greenwich's input? Who knows.

[Nigel]

Rod
Fully agree - all of the pseudo economists who have banged on know nothing . All the "if this were Blackheath " nonsense too.
Simple fact is the pub was not doing well- could have done - and was owned by someone who had no interest .that is the real disease killing pubs .
Added to which the increasing weakness of local authorities and the unbounded power of large corporations .
I say three cheers for Mary - if there were more of her kind the pub would have been on its way to some kind of reincarnation . Instead of which it will be a poxy supermarket .
I hope the HairlessButters and their ilk enjoy their humdrum little commodities from Sainsburys
Good evening
Nigel

[Tim Lund]

One of the things I have found most strange about Sydenham in the 6/7 years I have lived here is how apathetic the people are. It really is the most passive place I have ever lived. I think there are a lot of professionals who use the place as a kind of dormitory.

I'm interested to know where you are comparing it with, and what evidence you would bring to support this assertion. I don't believe it is true, but if it is, why would that be?

[Tim Lund]

I think this story tells us a lot about Sydenham. I don't think we will ever have a night time economy and our houses will never be as valuable as those in trendy SW London town centres.

Imagine if a huge pub like The Windmill was available to lease in Putney or Northcote Road Battersea/Clapham Common, imagine the multitude of huge interest from all sorts of pub/wine bar/restaurant chains. Not even now, after all these many years of neglect and very recent regeneration I think it's safe to say Sydenham is not gonna be able to get off it's zone 3 backside. It's a crying shame but nothing really seems to work very well here. Something is wrong.

Are LBL to blame? Is the only major salubrious area of this borough Blackheath a roaring success because of neighbouring Royal Greenwich's input? Who knows.

I doubt if there is much difference between Lewisham and Greenwich when it comes to effectiveness of the local government. Blackheath, like the adjoining historic parts of Greenwich, just happens to benefit from a superb location. I'd agree that something is wrong, and Forum regulars will be able to guess what I suspect this might be, but I'm not in the mood to get into the same old arguments. Rather, I'd be interested to know of comparable locations where other people think things are done better. I don't think we have far to look - Forest Hill is clearly doing better than Sydenham - maybe some way to go yet until it's as trendy as Battersea, but not inconceivable. So what does make a difference, when the likes of Mary, for all her passionate campaigning, do not seem to?

[parker]

All these people moaning 'oh it was an opportunity missed', 'it could've been something'

Really, COULD it?

There WAS an opportunity to make it a better pub but nobody wanted it, or was there someone interested but the big corporation was so powerful it managed to bust some ass at LBL?

It's economics Nigel. Sainsbury's makes something called money, it keeps people employed, a cesspit of a pub doesn't, if it was a viable business then why didn't Antic or somebody similar take it on? ...? I'm sure they received enough emails.

I for one, don't want it to be a Sainsbury's, it's dull but I will use the building more than if it stayed as it was. All the bull I read on here about Sainsbury's having an alcohol licence would cause street drinkers and crime couldn't have been any worse than the trouble that was caused outside it many a night. At least footfall shall increase till 11pm if Sainsbury's open, deterring crime.

[Robin Orton]

I doubt if there is much difference between Lewisham and Greenwich when it comes to effectiveness of the local government. Blackheath, like the adjoining historic parts of Greenwich, just happens to benefit from a superb location. I'd agree that something is wrong, and Forum regulars will be able to guess what I suspect this might be, but I'm not in the mood to get into the same old arguments. Rather, I'd be interested to know of comparable locations where other people think things are done better. I don't think we have far to look - Forest Hill is clearly doing better than Sydenham - maybe some way to go yet until it's as trendy as Battersea, but not inconceivable. So what does make a difference, when the likes of Mary, for all her passionate campaigning, do not seem to?

As has been said many times before on this forum, Sydenham does less well compared with some of its neighbours in attracting a vibrant night time economy and a general sense of buzz because
a. it doesn't have much of the sort of housing which attracts young families with lots of money
b. it is geographically characterless (straggling up the side of Sydenham Hill in a rather boring way)
c. it has few attractive public buildings or parks (such as the Horniman Museum, Dulwich Woods, Forest Hill Pool, Horniman Gardens).

I love it all the same.

[G-Man]

I think a lot of the negativity being expressed here is probably why many don't post on this forum.

If you look at the demographic of the station in the morning it is changing dramatically. And we know a lot of young families that are moving to the area.

Forest Hill has taken years to get where it is and it's a smaller area, contained around the roundabout really. They have an excellent society who engage with people and also already have places people are excited about.

With regard it not having a night time economy, and never having one. Tripe. Look at Catford. Nothing. Then the Catford Bridge Tavern opens. Now been sold but turning into a brew pub. The Constitutional Club has just opened and you can bet more things will follow. Why? Because the demographic is changing. Like Sydenham's is. We just need to talk positively on here. Make it attractive to investors. Because if I read these and some of the Greyhound posts I certainly wouldn't get excited.

I also, which I have aired before, think the Sydenham Society need to use this forum more. Become more active and let us know what they are doing to help. As I'm sure they are doing lots but I haven't a clue.

G-man

[michael]

As has been said many times before on this forum, Sydenham does less well compared with some of its neighbours in attracting a vibrant night time economy and a general sense of buzz because
a. it doesn't have much of the sort of housing which attracts young families with lots of money
b. it is geographically characterless (straggling up the side of Sydenham Hill in a rather boring way)
c. it has few attractive public buildings or parks (such as the Horniman Museum, Dulwich Woods, Forest Hill Pool, Horniman Gardens).

I think Robin has been to a different Sydenham to the one I sometimes visit.
a. Sydenham has very mixed demographics. Upper Sydenham has particularly high income and some beautiful houses. The Thorpes continue to be popular with families (although possibly less 'young families' who may not be able to afford such properties), but across Sydenham there is roughly the same housing as in Forest Hill or East Dulwich.
b. I'm not sure that 'geographical character' matters at all. East Dulwich has no geographic character other than being somewhere between Dog Kennel Hill and the Horniman hill.
c. Wells Park is a particularly lovely park and Sydenham has at least as much claim to Sydenham Woods as Forest Hill does. There are some very impressive private buildings around Sydenham and one or two reasonable public buildings.

Sydenham has just had a new youth club built, the largest in South East London apparently. It has a nightclub, and it has a busy shopping area with a range of independent shops and national chains.

While I'm always keen to promote how lovely Forest Hill is, I'm also aware that Sydenham has a lot going for it. Both Kirkdale and Sydenham Road have bakeries, Sydenham has a fishmonger and a health food shop - all of these are missing from Forest Hill town centre. And while Forest Hill may benefit from the swimming pools and the museum, these are facilities that are easily accessible from Sydenham on the occasions you need a swim or a muse.

Sydenham has a lot of potential with a number of site that are idea for redevelopment (e.g. the sorting office, the regency club, the Greyhound). And the Sydenham Society plays a useful role in helping develop this potential, all I would say they lack is some more active and enthusiastic (and possibly younger) members to keep pushing things forward and getting things done as they have been doing for the last 40 years.

[Tim Lund]

Very little to object to in Michael's post here, apart from the omission of Mayow Park and Home Park from the list of actual or potential attractions of Sydenham.

[vizzle]

Well I'm about to move to Sydenham (hello, neighbours!) and I think it's got loads going for it. I love the feel of the place - and the houses are lovely. I looked at a lot of other areas, but going trick or treating, Wells Park and That's Amore sealed the deal!

[Robin Orton]

I agree about That's Amore - I had just returned from a most enjoyable (though, as always, temperate) evening there when I posted last night.

In the cold light of day, I accept that all the points which Michael and Tim have made on the other side of the argument are fair ones. In particular, I agree that East Dulwich is 'geographically' no more attractive than Sydenham, although I guess it owes much of its success to the fact that there is more upmarket housing, in East Dulwich and Dulwich more widely, relatively close by than there is in the case of Sydenham.

But I still think that, overall, Sydenham is relatively less well endowed geographically, socio-economically and in respect of the built environment than are most of the local areas which it likes to compare itself with.

[hairybuddha]

Crystal Palace may have a bigger pylon than us, but we have, architecturally, the most attractive High Street in SE London. It's what you do with it that matters.

The slightly worrying/depressing thing is, despite Sydenham High Street's inherent ugliness, you're probably right. The last generation of town planners have a lot to answer for.