Tube access in south London is not great, why do some people oppose extending train lines to improve access to tube?
by Michaelmikes
Tube access in south London is not great, why do some people oppose extending train lines to improve access to tube?
by Michaelmikes
31 comments
I don’t think this is really anti-tube per se, it feels more like opposition to the perceived ‘gentrification’ that the Old Kent Road opportunity area will cause, as they intend to build a lot of new homes there.
I suppose the concern is, if you’re someone who has lived there your whole life, does the Bakerloo extension really bring benefits for you, or will it just drive up your rent prices and bring a whole load of new people into the area, changing the traditional area vibe and maybe creating pressure on other services?
It’s not a view I agree with, but it seems to be what this is saying.
It is catch up time for ‘South of the River’. If you look at the underground network North of the River, the North is far better served. The South has always been the Norths (perceived ) ‘ poorer’ relation. As in Historic times.
Nimbys gotta Nimby
It’s probably the least weird manifesto I’ve see stuck to a bus stop. Nothing about the rapture or vaccines at all.
NIMBY twats.
“I’ve lived here forever and I don’t want anything to improve or change because it’ll push up my rent.”
The uncomfortable conversation that no one wants to have is that yes, redeveloping an area means that some people will get priced out. The alternative is to do nothing and Old Kent Road remains an ugly dump.
Look at the language in that poster, they’re Communists
I mean, they kind of tell you what they think in the leaflet. They want the area to remain as it is and not to have more people move in, and they don’t want developers to make money from building new houses. They think a line extension will enable those things, which is probably correct.
When it comes down to it, a big section of the British public just instinctively oppose new development of any kind. Any given person or group might have a different service level rationale, but the vibe that underlies all of them is a desire to prevent change; we are quite a conservative people by and large.
In regard to this specific leaflet, I wouldn’t be too concerned cos it’s a fair bet to say these guys are going nowhere and getting nothing done in the foreseeable. What will be more of a threat to this project is when the Concerned-stakeholder Industrial Complex get mobilised and start lobbying the local MPs and councillors.
No, train bad!
Because this is a local city, for locals! There’s nothing for you here!
Construction is annoying. It’s loud, ugly, and disrupts traffic. Nobody likes when their neighbour has builders round or the council digs up the road or pavement. Most can accept it’s a part of life but some people are just unreasonable.
Building a train line means years of annoyance for the locals. Some of these locals don’t care about the future benefits and only care about the disturbance.
As a South East Londoner, I’ve got no idea why anyone would be against it. Unless you literally never leave your own borough, it’s really irritating having no Tube connections. No one I know is against this, so I’m assuming this is from a weird fringe group. Plus, posters on bus stops are usually put up there by nutters (see all the anti-vax and 5G ones that are usually there)
Because they don’t like gentrification. I still don’t get why people are against gentrification. If people have right to live anywhere in the country then it also means no one has right to live in any particular place
Botherers gotta bother
If they manage to stop the bakerloo extension, it won’t stop new buildings popping up. All I’m gonna say is good luck getting on a bus at old Kent road during rush hour.
They don’t know what’s good for them. Biggest problem in the UK at the moment.
The news report I saw on this had everyone they spoke to 100% in favour of the extension. So possibly it’s only a small, vocal minority who oppose?
Not everyone wants to live in highly densely populated areas.
Not everyone wants gentrification and higher rents.
(Edit, as the poster suggests now I’ve zoomed in).
Me; I’m all for it generally, but I understand why many people aren’t.
British condition: We can’t build new things because the existing infrastructure can’t cope!
Yeah that’s why we’re building this new thing. It will improve the infrastructure.
No we do not understand that! Don’t change anything!
It is because they want all of the benefits without any of the burden.
They want the area to remain as it is.
There have always been local committees opposed to the expansion of public transport in areas which are served poorly, like Barnes or Dulwich.
Their view is that they like it as it is, while better public transport would bring too many people and confusion for their liking, and would also bring more renters who may remain in the area for short periods and who won’t be as committed as the locals.
NIMBYs are a disgrace.
‘boardrooms of the powerful’ ha ha ha. I’ve worked with London planners and economic regen people in councils who determine opportunity areas. They will be earning £40-70k, less than electricians and plumbers, I can gaurentee it. Lol.
climate change? people need to move less, rather than more? the present arrangements conspire against freedom of movement, and that’s a good thing?
Find out what meetings they are going to with councillors and be the voice of reason and encourage the developments to happen as a local resident. Unfortunately the people who really want to stop developments to happen (NIMBYs) are the only people who bother to show up to meetings about them.
I recently went to one a local development discussion in Islington, and as a result of me and one other local person showing up who was pro-development against 100 or so anti-development people the Ham&High article about it said “Archway tower plans receive mixed reception from neighbours” instead of “Archway tower plans recieve condemnation from neighbours” or similar. As a result I had a chat with the Lib Dem MP who was very receptive to my thoughts, and even had a chat with Jeremy Corbyn for 30 minutes.
Better transport => Higher house prices.
Good if you own, bad if you rent.
>This is not the place for political organisations, journalists or activists
No activists please, said the activists
i used to be anti development just because all my friends were without really thinking about it… but then I started thinking… why? Is development always a bad thing?… it can involve displacing people but there is a lot of development that improves the area and its a natural part of a cities growth…responsible development is ok i think. I am not going to be anti something just because some poster me to without putting both sides.
It speaks volumes that the person who wrote this poster thinks “this is not a place for…activists” when what they’re suggesting will lead to activism…
Well the poster does say they want to prevent “the biggest wave of property speculation”, which has tended to happen when new lines are built. A sensible solution would be to build social housing next to the new stations and enforce the “affordable housing” rules that devlopers are supposed to include so that it really is affordable.
I can tell from the typeface alone this is a Marxist thing.
Aren’t the lines already there?
Probs bc the land use might have to change – demolitions and things will change “drastically”? i have no clue
They live in other countries and don’t want it to just keep extending around the world. It has to end somewhere.
Comments are closed.