Station approach - new toilet

[Shaunj72]

Fwd:

Hi Shaun,

Thank you for this question and for the photos which obviously make it far easier for me to see what the issue is.
I have forwarded this to the project manager and his team for comment, however, the person who is dealing with this is off until July, so I may not be able to get answer straight away (I am trying though).
I can however, guarantee that this will be followed up and that you will be provided with an answer.

Regards,

Paul

(Fair enough. SJ)

[gillyjp]

It looks decidedly second hand to me. It's all bashed and broken. Was it one of Croydon's rejects?

[Pally]

Fwd:

Hi Shaun,

Thank you for this question and for the photos which obviously make it far easier for me to see what the issue is.
I have forwarded this to the project manager and his team for comment, however, the person who is dealing with this is off until July, so I may not be able to get answer straight away (I am trying though).
I can however, guarantee that this will be followed up and that you will be provided with an answer.

Regards,

Paul

(Fair enough. SJ)

Yes reasonable and helpful. I was waiting until home to contact councillor but wont bother now. Lets hope a positive solution found

[Shaunj72]

Make of this what you will... (read upwards)

I honestly think that if this carbuncle was uprooted and stolen tomorrow or converted to a pigeon loft or potting shed, no one in the council would know or care.

It's not Paul Gale's problem to try and sort out, but it clearly isn't any council officer's at the moment, unfortunately.

Any suggestions?

- - -

10 June 2015 14:01
RE: Public toilets on Station Approach

Hi Shaun,

Having made a few enquiries before the assembly meeting I think that it is best to wait for Tom to respond when he returns from leave. Many of the officers involved in the Sydenham works are no longer with the Council due to the cuts, indeed as far as I am aware Tom is the only person that has been involved since the outset.
Please feel free to give me a ring if you wish to discuss further.

Paul

Paul Gale
Local Assembly Manager
Lewisham Cultural and Community Development
2nd Floor Laurence House, London SE6 4RU
T: 0208 314 3387 | M: 07525 671183


From: Shaun Jones [mailto:shaunjones72@gmail.com]
Sent: 10 June 2015 12:35
To: Gale, Paul
Cc: Henry, Tom
Subject: Re: Public toilets on Station Approach

Hi Paul,

Thanks for getting back to me.

My wife and I weren't living in Sydenham in 2012/13, but I take your word that there was a consultation process, although what seems to be a poor outcome for Sydenham suggests the process may have been somewhat flawed.

In terms of the damage, is the council aware of how it happened or is it more a case of the contractor saying they didn't do it? It's so high up on the box, in 2 separate locations where one would think that it's practically impossible for it to have been done by a member of the public. A really disturbed or aggressive pigeon, possibly.

Jokes aside, the door of the toilet still has plastic film half peeled off and the sign above the door is barely legible because it is mostly covered in an opaque film (as shown in the pic attached to my first email) and there is litter wedged under the door. It basically looks like it's not available for use and probably never has been.

Presumably the council are now paying for someone to clean & maintain it. Would you be able to prompt them to give it some attention or perhaps direct me to whoever is responsible for it while Tom is away so I can chase it up?

Kind regards,

Shaun


On 10 June 2015 at 08:30, Gale, Paul <Paul.Gale@lewisham.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Shaun,

Apologies for not getting back to you, no excuses, it just slipped my mind!
There was a consultation about this and Highways Officers did visit attend traders meetings, visit an assembly and liaise with the key stakeholders to run through the plans for the works on Sydenham Road and Station Approach, including the toilets. There were regular meetings during the 2012/13 period regarding these works and as part of this it was decided to go for the Wessex design toilet.

Regarding the damage, I have been told that it occurred post installation, but I have reported it to Highways.

The lead Highways officer is Tom Henry tom.henry@lewisham.gov.uk he is off until next month, but I think that it would be best for you to liaise with him direct as obviously I am not a Highways Officer and so I cannot comment too much about this.

Kind regards,

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Shaun Jones [mailto:shaunjones72@gmail.com]
Sent: 09 June 2015 21:34
To: Gale, Paul
Subject: Re: Public toilets on Station Approach

Hi Paul,

Any sign of (ahem) movement on this yet?

Kind regards,

Shaun Jones

[Shaunj72]

FYI Tom Henry's out of office states that he 'plans to return by 20th July.'

[leenewham]

I walked past this for the first time yesterday.

It's nothing like what was talked about at the assembly meetings. It's the cheapest, nastiest, poorly thought out bit of crap I've seen in ages. I thought they were going to consult with SEE3, local cllrs and the Sydenham Society on this! Either this hasn't happened or they have made a boo boo!

Is it not working yet? it still has the plastic over the door.

The detailing of the high street scheme in Sydenham is poor. I'm not a fan of the lights, although I know some like them, but they seem like they were left over from another project. The benches, set too high and for some reason facing into the traffic are both ugly and poorly sited.

These in Ruislip Manor look far nicer and are better sited. They face each other so people can have a chat and face up and down the road rather than the traffic and have arms so people can't lie down on them. The materials are nice.



But the toilet is the worst thing I've seen in a high street scheme in a while. It is totally without any thought. The toilet is…toilet.

But there is a way forward and it could end up looking like an asset rather than a bog standard off the peg toilet (normally with advertising attached).

They could put planters next to it and grow things up it like Jasmine, Clematis, Boston Ivy, Whisteria etc. This would promote butterflies and bees etc while covering the carbuncle.



They could clad it in art filled metal panels (below is an example of one we worked on in Northwood Hills with artists Collet & Sarson who based this on our ideas and branding and installed them as enamel panels). We suggested this years ago to SEE3 for station approach (we got as far as the sign for On The Hoof), nothing really happens with SEE3 in Sydenham).


(we also did the cafe with a tiled sign and cab office).







Please post other ideas here (and lets try to keep comments positive and what can solve this).

If councils are pro active and local groups receptive and positive, great things can happen. I've seen it in area after area, high street after high street. Wouldn't it be great if exciting things happened here.

[mosy]

leenewham - might I ask what suggestions you have put forward and to whom so far? You make good ones so I assume you're following through with your credentials in support.

I did ask for ideas earlier in this thread and unsurprisingly not many were forthcoming on how to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, or what you (positively condemning it) describe as: "...the cheapest, nastiest, poorly thought out bit of crap I've seen in ages." Which is what we all think hence this thread. Should we be seeking "improvement" or for it to be replaced entirely?

[leenewham]

Realistically, it's not going to be removed and changed. I'd be very surprised if it was. Councils don't like admitting mistakes or spending money to rectify things like this. Lewisham are especially difficult in this regard.

I haven't put forward any of these ideas to Lewisham or SEE3. I've put lots of ideas to SEE3 and other local bodies but nothing was followed up or happened. So I'm probably not the person to suggest stuff, even when paid as an advisor on high street regeneration to the GLA (which I had previously offered to do for free, but was ignored).

But if lots of people do come up with and back ideas for the 'black turdis' in station approach, then something may eventually happen. Hopefully the post above may stimulate a discussion about making it better.

I rate Paul Gale highly by the way, Lewisham has some really good officers (and some not so good ones), but it has terrible red tape and ridiculous procurement problems, which I know frustrates those who are trying hard within the authority to do amazing things.

[Shaunj72]

Councillors have many demands on their time but if we could get just one of them to witness, close up, how truly Ill conceived and poorly delivered the Turdis* actually is I think Sydenham might have a fighting chance of getting some kind of positive change.

*Wish I'd come up with that

Does anyone know any of the local ward councillors?

[Shaunj72]

I know who they are, but does anyone know any of them to talk to? If not I will email them anyway.

[admin]

The formal way of doing this would be through the Sydenham Assembly when all three are normally there to answer such points. There was one last week - was this subject discussed? Sadly I couldn't make it so there is no report from me.

Admin

[leenewham]

Some more green screen stuff to cover up the 'turdis'.

Here is a link to a company that does green screens:
http://www.hederascreens.co.uk/products/green-screen/

And another
http://www.treebox.co.uk/products/green-screens.html

And another
http://www.impactplants.co.uk/ivyscreen ... ivyscreens

More information:
http://www.labmonline.co.uk/features/pu ... Xqzx-tx6wc

Lewishams highways department can be a bit defensive and give countless reasons why things can't be done, partly due to their ridiculous procurement red tape.

The fact is, anything can be done, but it wont happen if it's not supported.

I get the impression that Cllr Rachel Onikosi is a can do person, she's probably the go to person for Urban Realm.

[Shaunj72]

Hi Admin,

I emailed Paul Gale to ask him to raise the issue at the Assembly last week. As you will have read he came back with some information but I don't know if it was put to the councillors or not.

[mosy]

No mention on the Lewisham website of even draft minutes from the Assembly on 2 Jun yet. Maybe you could ask to be notified when they appear?

leenewham: Wouldn't the turdis look equally as daft (if not dafter) if living-green-screened since it's been plonked in the middle of the paving stone walkway (goodness knows why)? Not to mention that greenery is either dead or tatty (insects/pollution) half the year or if rampant evergreen would bury it unless given a haircut very regularly? If it were set back against the wall as the old one was it'd be different, meaning it'd work very well.

They renovated the Forest Hill pedestrian station underpass with enamel screen facings. Dunno what you think about those. I note that they leave a "nice" gap at ground level just enough for rats to run along (seen two since it was done) and they wishy-washy painted over the rather good "Peace" graffiti to add insult to injury. I'd rather support a stucco coat for the turdis (if we are stuck with tarting it up), in a finish that'd make it "invisible" with the paving stones. Then, a green screen could be attached to the station wall (or just ivy planted this side) as a distraction, and a tree (dangling birch?) planted behind, i.e. the face you see walking up from the station exit.

I always come back to the same thought though - unravelling the Gaudian knot when simpler just to move it.

[leenewham]

Personally, no. Although people might get stung by bees, so perhaps best leave it as it is.

I hate the blank panels on the Forest Hill Underpass. I like the printed ones at various stations on the Overground near Shoreditch and the ones Collet and Sarson produced for Forest Hill that we were involved with.

Don't you think a stucco coated bock in the middle of the pathway would look rather daft? What if people bumped into it because ether didn't know it was there because it blended in too well with the pavement?

Lol...

[mosy]

Maybe the FH panels were for expediency - easier to hose down periodically since they even make it look like a toilet. If so, then if panels were put on the turdis they'd probably be cheapskate blank ones too

Yes, a stucco'd block would look daft, like an old air raid shelter probably that'd been left there. After all, no-one would believe that someone had deliberately put a box in that position would they? It'll look daft stuck there whatever is done IMO. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that such a good stucco job could be done so as to make it completely invisible though, even after a few

I did wonder about those clever cameras you'll have seen on TV that record a view from one side and project it on the other side (a seriously expensive take on "all done by mirrors"), but there isn't even anything worth reflecting at the moment. If the bridge corner bit were planted, a mirrored front could reflect that.

It might be just me, but anything with a dome or canopy on top always looks better than an "unfinished" box, like a cake that should have icing. Perhaps start at the top and work down?

[parker]

Can't someone just take the toilet away, we'd do better without? It's an eyesore and would probably remain filthy after a week of people passing it and feeling bilious for it looking so vile. I'd doubt anyone will want to use it anyway, it's hardly a situation where there were queues for the old one in the first place. The area would look cleaner and brighter with nothing there instead.

[leenewham]

I doubt it. A large concrete slab was poured with all the services put in place. The toilets themselves are VERY expensive.

I know some new, rather funky looking ones in the USA were $100k plus $12k maintenance fees. I'm not sure how much they are in the UK, although I was told one in Hillingdon had an advertising contact with it and stopping the contract a year early to get rid of it (it was ugly) would cost the council 90K!

Councils don't like to be seen to be wasting money. So to have an about face would reflect badly on the council and local cllrs, so I can't see it being totally removed. Them most important thing to a council is the council, not the people who elected them. Especially one with just one brand that controls it.

However, public toilets are expensive to run. Camden spend £400k maintaining 27 public toilets a year. This means each one costs £14,8134 to maintain. So it might change due to cuts and replaces with a community toilets scheme, where each business get paid around £600 a year to offer their toilets to the public. We have one on place in Sydenham, but I don't know who is part of it.

http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/docu ... 20repo.pdf

[stuart]

Can't someone just take the toilet away

No, no. Just paint a picture on it of the person responsible and signed as the [John Doe] Memorial Bog. Won't make it much prettier but I sure bet it stops it happening again.

Stuart

[alburt.c]

no good for take bog away if cross leg screem for pee. if no bog only wall for use ha ha

picture on bog is bettar ideer. sydenham must having many artiste for this soon becom masterpeece.