6 ms·

I grew up and live a short 5 minute walk from Battersea Power Station - I have some fond memories of playing in the (admittedly quite unsafe) industrial estate

I grew up and live a short 5 minute walk from Battersea Power Station - I have some fond memories of playing in the (admittedly quite unsafe) industrial estate around that area. It's quite sad to see what it's become now; as much as I support the development of the local area, they had to add a bunch of shopping outlets, restaurants, and very expensive boutique outlets. It's completely antithetical to the local identity of the area - literally opposite a council estate. The area is essentially unaffordable and has transformed into a sort of camden/southwark esque hellscape of bourgeois gentrification. Everyone I know has been either priced out, or will be in the next couple of years. I anticipate having to move due to developers wanting to demolish this council estate - I get letters every day asking about private purchasing agreements.

easytiger 4y ago
Don't understand this view. For a start clearing up the area to make it buildable cost somewhere in the region of £1bn. If you are harking back to a time when it was an undesirable wasteland I can't agree that that constitutes a better world. Much of London complaining about gentrification is complaining that the postwar desolation of London was a good thing; because that's what they are "benefitting" from.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  The displaced people still have to live somewhere, even if the bougies like to pretend otherwise.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    There's no "displaced" people if the space was unused for 40 years.
    - ChrisKnott 4y ago
      It wasn't even residential it was an industrial area
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lmm 4y ago
    Everyone has to live somewhere. The idea that those who were lucky enough to be born somewhere that's become desirable are entitled to live there forever at low cost, while those who were born elsewhere can never be allowed to buy a home there, has always struck me as odd.
- mmarq 4y ago
  Yes, that area was an obscene wasteland, right in front of that monstrosity on the other side of the river: Churchill gardens. Before the power station was renewed, the only place with something to do in the entirety of the Wandsworth borough was Northcote road (and 15 years ago not even that).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
detritus 4y ago
This seems to be the case across much of London, sadly. 'Synthetic' is the word that comes to mind whenever I see these developments. Frankly, as much as the effort impresses me from a technical point, I'm content enough only ever seeing it from afar when I pass vaguely nearby on a train going south. I suspect I'll never actually walk through it. Having 'argued' with people on HN about this sort of thing beforehand, I know that my view isn't exactly unanimous, so clearly some people like this sort of 'development'.
- 202206241203 4y ago
  In a second-world country, they would just demolish the building and maybe sell some of the control room knobs on e-bay. It might be as good as it gets in terms of involving private capital. I personally think that mid-century technological artefacts are underappreciated.
  - LightG 4y ago
    The UK is a second world country.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Yes I love this era of technology. Just look at the photo of the control room. It feels like it's really scaled to be usable by humans. The large dials, levers and switches, all styled artistically as well as functionally. The natural light, marble walls, all the detail in the ceiling, floor, and woodwork. It looks like a very comfortable room to be in. Compare to the more modern sterile industrial control rooms, windowless, cold, everything run on screens and keyboards, no sense of a connection with the massive machinery being operated.
  - stevoski 4y ago
    “Second world”: the former communist block consisting of the Soviet Union and some countries in eastern Europe.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
MrsPeaches 4y ago
Not to mention that the view of the power station from Chelsea bridge is completely gone due to the development. Such a shame, it was one of my favourite views in London.
walrus01 4y ago
This is what happens when real estate developers and commercial landlord equity firms capture the interest and begin directing the activity of your local politicians. The almost inevitable result is bougie commercialization of something into a bland market palatable shopping district. Look at the parts of NYC that are being gentrified for similar examples.
- gffrd 4y ago
  East New York is the new LES!
  - walrus01 4y ago
    not to be confused with west new york, which confusingly enough, is in new jersey
pcrh 4y ago
I lived nearby for a few years many years ago. While I appreciate the sentiments you express, I can say that the site was all but abandoned for many many years. For a while it seemed likely that the iconic towers would be demolished, as there was no economic case to be made for keeping them. So I'm glad they were saved, somehow. Even so, I agree that the recent developments south of the river are rather soul-less. Areas such as 9 Elms and along the river towards Wandsworth are particularly lacking in visual or any other interest.
mmarq 4y ago
I’m not sympathetic at all with this idea. They shouldn’t have built shops and restaurants because there’s a council estate? On gentrification, if you own your flat then you have won the lottery, for its price is 8 times what it was 20 years ago. Similarly if you can use the so-called “right to buy”. If you are renting privately, you should get you MP to vote the abolition of section 21, which is an uncivilised law. That should sort out all issues related to people being priced out of the area.
- nly 4y ago
  I really don't understand what the hate is with respect to Section 21. If you own property then you should be able to do whatever you want with it, whenever you want, provided you meet your obligations under any tenancy agreement. As a tenant myself I have always accepted the possibility that my landlord could serve notice as my fixed term approaches its end. It literally says the landlord has the right to do so in the document I signed.
  - jlokier 4y ago
    For HN readers, section 21 eviction means a landlord can send a "no fault" eviction notice to their tenant at (almost) any time, and the tenant must leave fairly quickly (2 months), which is not long enough to plan around. As a result, no tenant is secure where they live. I would guess most people who do not own property have had to move several times with little notice, usually to another area of town because it's not that easy to find somewhere else nearby at short notice. This can be particularly rough on families because it means the children must change school, and on people with care needs because their (typically unpaid) carers who live nearby don't live nearby after the move. And it's just generally shitty to be unable to settle into a community long term anywhere. The move to remove section 21 in its current form (set the bar higher for a landlord who wants to reclaim the property), is a tenants' rights move. It's disagreeing with the parent comment that a person (or a corporation such as a pension fund) who owns properties should be able to do "whatever they want, whenever they want" because that results in unacceptably bad living conditions for tenants, who almost universally have no choice about being tenants, and no alternative type of tenancy available to them. One of the most obviously questionable aspects of section 21, which would be easy to change without harming reasonable landlords, is that a landlord can evict a long-term tenant for no reason just to replace them with a different tenant, just because they feel like it. There is no requirement that the landlord intends to use the property for something else. In practice, because these evictions are easy and common, sometimes they occur because the property agent (intermediary between landlord and tenant) feels like it, because it nets the property agent some extra fees to start a new tenancy. Sound unlikely? It happened to me a few years ago where I am currently living. It's only because I accidently met a representative of the landlord that we realised the property agent had lied to both of us, and the landlord intervened to let me renew!
OhyeahIfrgot 4y ago
My grandfather grew up in Battersea - just off Park Road - in the 1920s, and he told me that his first 'proper' job after leaving school was as a 'telegram boy' and that one of his first deliveries was to the base of the 'rear left' tower (as you look at it from the river) while it was still only about half way finished, to one of the stone masons. I have photos of him in his uniform and cap and its lovely to imagine him climbing up the scaffold to deliver the telegram.
fumblebee 4y ago
I’m reminded of the (fantastic) documentary about a building I once lived in: Aragon Tower in Surrey Quays [1]. Since it was built in the 1960s, it was one of the tallest council estate buildings in all of London, but ~twenty years ago private developers bought it out and converted it into “luxury” flats. At the base of these flats however, is the notorious Pepys council estate, of which Aragon Tower was once a part of. The documentary aims to shine a light on the disparity between the varnished lives of glossy marketeers and new residents of those in the “upgraded” tower, with the folks forcibly removed, and those in the Pepys estate with exceedingly hard lives. Highly recommend. [1] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4asu6x https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4asu6x
- niffydroid 4y ago
  Reminds of another documentary where something similar happened in Greenwich. Or maybe it was this one...
  - fumblebee 4y ago
    Very possibly! This is the Thames side of Deptford, so very close to Greenwich.
_dain_ 4y ago
What, so everything has to be rubbish just because there's a council estate next door? If the area had remained undeveloped, that would have just made everywhere else even more unaffordable, due to the reduced supply. London has to build. I mean, you were reminiscing about playing in an abandoned industrial wasteland, so to hell with the "local identity". I'd bloody love it if this happened to where I grew up. You southerners don't know how good you have it.

easytiger 4y ago

Don't understand this view. For a start clearing up the area to make it buildable cost somewhere in the region of £1bn. If you are harking back to a time when it was an undesirable wasteland I can't agree that that constitutes a better world. Much of London complaining about gentrification is complaining that the postwar desolation of London was a good thing; because that's what they are "benefitting" from.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
The displaced people still have to live somewhere, even if the bougies like to pretend otherwise.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  There's no "displaced" people if the space was unused for 40 years.
  - ChrisKnott 4y ago
    It wasn't even residential it was an industrial area
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lmm 4y ago
  Everyone has to live somewhere. The idea that those who were lucky enough to be born somewhere that's become desirable are entitled to live there forever at low cost, while those who were born elsewhere can never be allowed to buy a home there, has always struck me as odd.
mmarq 4y ago
Yes, that area was an obscene wasteland, right in front of that monstrosity on the other side of the river: Churchill gardens. Before the power station was renewed, the only place with something to do in the entirety of the Wandsworth borough was Northcote road (and 15 years ago not even that).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

detritus 4y ago

This seems to be the case across much of London, sadly. 'Synthetic' is the word that comes to mind whenever I see these developments. Frankly, as much as the effort impresses me from a technical point, I'm content enough only ever seeing it from afar when I pass vaguely nearby on a train going south. I suspect I'll never actually walk through it. Having 'argued' with people on HN about this sort of thing beforehand, I know that my view isn't exactly unanimous, so clearly some people like this sort of 'development'.

202206241203 4y ago
In a second-world country, they would just demolish the building and maybe sell some of the control room knobs on e-bay. It might be as good as it gets in terms of involving private capital. I personally think that mid-century technological artefacts are underappreciated.
- LightG 4y ago
  The UK is a second world country.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Yes I love this era of technology. Just look at the photo of the control room. It feels like it's really scaled to be usable by humans. The large dials, levers and switches, all styled artistically as well as functionally. The natural light, marble walls, all the detail in the ceiling, floor, and woodwork. It looks like a very comfortable room to be in. Compare to the more modern sterile industrial control rooms, windowless, cold, everything run on screens and keyboards, no sense of a connection with the massive machinery being operated.
- stevoski 4y ago
  “Second world”: the former communist block consisting of the Soviet Union and some countries in eastern Europe.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

MrsPeaches 4y ago

Not to mention that the view of the power station from Chelsea bridge is completely gone due to the development. Such a shame, it was one of my favourite views in London.

walrus01 4y ago

This is what happens when real estate developers and commercial landlord equity firms capture the interest and begin directing the activity of your local politicians. The almost inevitable result is bougie commercialization of something into a bland market palatable shopping district. Look at the parts of NYC that are being gentrified for similar examples.

gffrd 4y ago
East New York is the new LES!
- walrus01 4y ago
  not to be confused with west new york, which confusingly enough, is in new jersey

pcrh 4y ago

I lived nearby for a few years many years ago. While I appreciate the sentiments you express, I can say that the site was all but abandoned for many many years. For a while it seemed likely that the iconic towers would be demolished, as there was no economic case to be made for keeping them. So I'm glad they were saved, somehow. Even so, I agree that the recent developments south of the river are rather soul-less. Areas such as 9 Elms and along the river towards Wandsworth are particularly lacking in visual or any other interest.

mmarq 4y ago

I’m not sympathetic at all with this idea. They shouldn’t have built shops and restaurants because there’s a council estate? On gentrification, if you own your flat then you have won the lottery, for its price is 8 times what it was 20 years ago. Similarly if you can use the so-called “right to buy”. If you are renting privately, you should get you MP to vote the abolition of section 21, which is an uncivilised law. That should sort out all issues related to people being priced out of the area.

nly 4y ago
I really don't understand what the hate is with respect to Section 21. If you own property then you should be able to do whatever you want with it, whenever you want, provided you meet your obligations under any tenancy agreement. As a tenant myself I have always accepted the possibility that my landlord could serve notice as my fixed term approaches its end. It literally says the landlord has the right to do so in the document I signed.
- jlokier 4y ago
  For HN readers, section 21 eviction means a landlord can send a "no fault" eviction notice to their tenant at (almost) any time, and the tenant must leave fairly quickly (2 months), which is not long enough to plan around. As a result, no tenant is secure where they live. I would guess most people who do not own property have had to move several times with little notice, usually to another area of town because it's not that easy to find somewhere else nearby at short notice. This can be particularly rough on families because it means the children must change school, and on people with care needs because their (typically unpaid) carers who live nearby don't live nearby after the move. And it's just generally shitty to be unable to settle into a community long term anywhere. The move to remove section 21 in its current form (set the bar higher for a landlord who wants to reclaim the property), is a tenants' rights move. It's disagreeing with the parent comment that a person (or a corporation such as a pension fund) who owns properties should be able to do "whatever they want, whenever they want" because that results in unacceptably bad living conditions for tenants, who almost universally have no choice about being tenants, and no alternative type of tenancy available to them. One of the most obviously questionable aspects of section 21, which would be easy to change without harming reasonable landlords, is that a landlord can evict a long-term tenant for no reason just to replace them with a different tenant, just because they feel like it. There is no requirement that the landlord intends to use the property for something else. In practice, because these evictions are easy and common, sometimes they occur because the property agent (intermediary between landlord and tenant) feels like it, because it nets the property agent some extra fees to start a new tenancy. Sound unlikely? It happened to me a few years ago where I am currently living. It's only because I accidently met a representative of the landlord that we realised the property agent had lied to both of us, and the landlord intervened to let me renew!

OhyeahIfrgot 4y ago

My grandfather grew up in Battersea - just off Park Road - in the 1920s, and he told me that his first 'proper' job after leaving school was as a 'telegram boy' and that one of his first deliveries was to the base of the 'rear left' tower (as you look at it from the river) while it was still only about half way finished, to one of the stone masons. I have photos of him in his uniform and cap and its lovely to imagine him climbing up the scaffold to deliver the telegram.

fumblebee 4y ago

I’m reminded of the (fantastic) documentary about a building I once lived in: Aragon Tower in Surrey Quays [1]. Since it was built in the 1960s, it was one of the tallest council estate buildings in all of London, but ~twenty years ago private developers bought it out and converted it into “luxury” flats. At the base of these flats however, is the notorious Pepys council estate, of which Aragon Tower was once a part of. The documentary aims to shine a light on the disparity between the varnished lives of glossy marketeers and new residents of those in the “upgraded” tower, with the folks forcibly removed, and those in the Pepys estate with exceedingly hard lives. Highly recommend. [1] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4asu6x https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4asu6x

niffydroid 4y ago
Reminds of another documentary where something similar happened in Greenwich. Or maybe it was this one...
- fumblebee 4y ago
  Very possibly! This is the Thames side of Deptford, so very close to Greenwich.

_dain_ 4y ago

What, so everything has to be rubbish just because there's a council estate next door? If the area had remained undeveloped, that would have just made everywhere else even more unaffordable, due to the reduced supply. London has to build. I mean, you were reminiscing about playing in an abandoned industrial wasteland, so to hell with the "local identity". I'd bloody love it if this happened to where I grew up. You southerners don't know how good you have it.