4 ms·

I used to live on the Isle of Dogs - just down and to the left from the intro photo on that article - on the Thames waterfront, albeit in a relatively modern 15

by Jedd 12y ago

I used to live on the Isle of Dogs - just down and to the left from the intro photo on that article - on the Thames waterfront, albeit in a relatively modern 15-storey, multi-building estate. I was always torn between wanting more access along the waterway edges - it would make a fantastic bicycle route into town, as well as further outwards - and wanting more privacy / protection from the kinds of idiots that thought partying in front of a residential building at 3am was acceptable behaviour. By partying I mean music, shouting, glass bottles being smashed, and so on. The estate was in on-going 'discussions' over the previous several years with the local council about gating half the street, and consequently access to the foreshore. It was moot in terms of providing east-west access, as estates left and right had already gated their access. And it's clear this is one of the problems being described in the article - the 'let's make it less appealing so you want to _use_ it less so you can _lose_ it more easily'. I'm back in Australia now, where I believe (IANAL and the information may be apocryphal) access to all tidal foreshore up to some distance, I think 30 metres? - was provided by law with two notable (military) exceptions. Whether that's the case or not doesn't affect the fact that it's practically impossible to obtain public access to foreshore areas in and around our capital cities.

right2roam 12y ago
I appreciate a few obnoxious folk might appear from time to time, as they do in all public places, but I think it is good they published this, and hopefully it will encourage more folk to do the riverside walks and explore London beyond the usual tourist, consumer and work zones. On a separate note - if any Guardian devs are reading HN these days - what happened to your site? Drowning in JS incontinence, so much so that instead of responsive design, you now have non-responsive design. KISS is not just a band, but a way to think about design and software engineering!
- Jedd 12y ago
  Agreed. However you can't legislate against inconsiderate behaviour, which is what leads some people to prefer other people are physically precluded from their vicinity. It's undeniably going to cause some contention. And, yes, I enjoyed many interesting trips along both north and south sides of the river, also both towards and away from the city - it was undeniably frustrating to have to make often quite large detours 'inland' just to get past a couple of hundred metres of fenced-off foreshore. Cycling through areas strewn with shattered glass wasn't much fun, either. Such a shame we can't all reach a 'let's not be arseholes' consensus.
  - smeyer 12y ago
    >you can't legislate against inconsiderate behavior Sure you can. In my own experience I've had good luck calling the police with noise complaints, although I recognize the response is probably worse in many other places. I'm not claiming you can legislate against all inconsiderate behavior, but it's not a problem that is inapproachable with legislation.
morsch 12y ago
Maybe having residential buildings at the waterfront in the middle of a super-densely populated mega city just isn't a good use of the space.
praptak 12y ago
Aren't UK police effective in dealing with small-scale nuisance like loud partying at 3am?
- Ntrails 12y ago
  Most likely people are noisy "in transit" rather than actually sitting outside a residence for several hours. It's unlikely you'll see a policeman in under 30 mins at which point they're just going to wake you up again to talk to you
- dazc 12y ago
  I'm guessing you're not a UK resident as the answer is absolutely 'no'.
bainsfather 12y ago
I guess I used to run past your flat - it was on my route home from work. It could have been a very nice route, but as you say, developers had built right up to the river in places. I had to keep shuttling onto roads away from the river, and then back again. What could have been a nice place, available for all to enjoy, was spoiled to enrich a few people. What sort of city planner would choose not to have a public walkway alongside the river?
- gd1 12y ago
  >developers had built right up to the river in places I also run that route, and what you say isn't true. The stretch under discussion has had warehouses built up to the river's edge long before urban hipsters started writing Guardian articles. In fact, most of the developments you refer to are converted warehouses. This isn't something that has been "taken away" from the public. Of course, they could knock the buildings down and create better urban spaces, but that would probably piss off the NIMBY crowd as well, who would then start a campaign in the Guardian to get them heritage listed.
  - Roritharr 12y ago
    Those places are called Wharf = WareHouse At River Front You'd think that would be a hint to some people.
    - bainsfather 12y ago
      Dictionaries disagree with you, e.g. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wharf http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wharf I fear you've been taken in by some creative tour guide! A wharf does not require a wharehouse, you'd think that would be a hint to some people.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      > Wharf = WareHouse At River Front These acronyms / backronyms are almost always bogus etymologies.
  - 12y ago

by Jedd 12y ago

right2roam 12y ago

I appreciate a few obnoxious folk might appear from time to time, as they do in all public places, but I think it is good they published this, and hopefully it will encourage more folk to do the riverside walks and explore London beyond the usual tourist, consumer and work zones. On a separate note - if any Guardian devs are reading HN these days - what happened to your site? Drowning in JS incontinence, so much so that instead of responsive design, you now have non-responsive design. KISS is not just a band, but a way to think about design and software engineering!

Jedd 12y ago
Agreed. However you can't legislate against inconsiderate behaviour, which is what leads some people to prefer other people are physically precluded from their vicinity. It's undeniably going to cause some contention. And, yes, I enjoyed many interesting trips along both north and south sides of the river, also both towards and away from the city - it was undeniably frustrating to have to make often quite large detours 'inland' just to get past a couple of hundred metres of fenced-off foreshore. Cycling through areas strewn with shattered glass wasn't much fun, either. Such a shame we can't all reach a 'let's not be arseholes' consensus.
- smeyer 12y ago
  >you can't legislate against inconsiderate behavior Sure you can. In my own experience I've had good luck calling the police with noise complaints, although I recognize the response is probably worse in many other places. I'm not claiming you can legislate against all inconsiderate behavior, but it's not a problem that is inapproachable with legislation.

morsch 12y ago

Maybe having residential buildings at the waterfront in the middle of a super-densely populated mega city just isn't a good use of the space.

praptak 12y ago

Aren't UK police effective in dealing with small-scale nuisance like loud partying at 3am?

Ntrails 12y ago
Most likely people are noisy "in transit" rather than actually sitting outside a residence for several hours. It's unlikely you'll see a policeman in under 30 mins at which point they're just going to wake you up again to talk to you
dazc 12y ago
I'm guessing you're not a UK resident as the answer is absolutely 'no'.

bainsfather 12y ago

I guess I used to run past your flat - it was on my route home from work. It could have been a very nice route, but as you say, developers had built right up to the river in places. I had to keep shuttling onto roads away from the river, and then back again. What could have been a nice place, available for all to enjoy, was spoiled to enrich a few people. What sort of city planner would choose not to have a public walkway alongside the river?

gd1 12y ago
>developers had built right up to the river in places I also run that route, and what you say isn't true. The stretch under discussion has had warehouses built up to the river's edge long before urban hipsters started writing Guardian articles. In fact, most of the developments you refer to are converted warehouses. This isn't something that has been "taken away" from the public. Of course, they could knock the buildings down and create better urban spaces, but that would probably piss off the NIMBY crowd as well, who would then start a campaign in the Guardian to get them heritage listed.
- Roritharr 12y ago
  Those places are called Wharf = WareHouse At River Front You'd think that would be a hint to some people.
  - bainsfather 12y ago
    Dictionaries disagree with you, e.g. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wharf http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wharf I fear you've been taken in by some creative tour guide! A wharf does not require a wharehouse, you'd think that would be a hint to some people.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > Wharf = WareHouse At River Front These acronyms / backronyms are almost always bogus etymologies.
- 12y ago