Forum Topic

perhaps should apologise as lax terminology on my part may have led to a misunderstanding. To me while possibly not technically correct, "Acton Gardens" is typified by the blocks north of Bollo Bridge Road, and to the West of Strafford Road up to Enfield Road, which rather conveniently ties in with figurea indicative of the politicians and planners *intentions* for the area rather than the reality. As quite possibly given the high cost there are presently far fewer people living there than there were before.

The intention being to cram in as many people as possible into the smallest areas.

And yes, former tenants of the old blocks are very pleased with their new homes. As is only to be expected given that they're all fitted out with brand new kitchens and bathrooms  all designed and fitted out to the highest standards. Certainly as compared with the kitchens and bathrooms in their former homes which will have been allowed to run down in the run-uo to demolition. And at rents they can presumably afford, which may not apply elsewhere.

So no its not all bad - South Acton redevelopement overall that is. The blocks on Palmeston leading down South Acton Station are very attractive and liveable looking varying in size and treatment rathet then the dull uniformity to the North,

Yes there's a Sainsburys Local. Only its noticeable that while that's been there a couple of years now its still the *only* local shop of any kind. And while that may simply  reflect commercial reality nowadays the presence of shops does indicate confidence in an area. Usually decline in any area is typified by shop closures - here unforttunately as in many modern devlopemnents it seems the problem is in persuading any to open in the first place.

Yes there's a Conmmunity Centre. As there wss one before. Except now it seems to serve mainly to take up a small allocation of the copious office space provided in the developement, which along with the shop space still remains largely unoccupied.

Yes there are schools. Berrymead Infants and Juniors, Marvelllous examples of late Victorian School Buildings.
Very high ceilings and very large windows, with a timeless appeal to architecture and nostalgia buffs such as myself. Now maybe there actually are advantages in teaching very small children in rooms with very high ceilings, but otherwise are the children's interests best being served ?

Yes TfL are being squeeszed for cash and have little alternative but to build as high as they can. Point taken

But otherwise, the devlopements taking place over the whole of South Acton, squeezing in as many people as possible without at the same time positively improving the local transport infrastructure, road, rail* whatever can only lead to congestion, there and elsewhere. Simply suggesting everyone should ride bicycles and supporting that idea with ill-conceived initiatives which simply make things worse, inconvenience everyone else, and waste money is no answer at all.     

michael adams

*Simply because Acton Town is on the doorstep won't make the trains any longer or run more frequently. The point about the proximity of the Chiswick Business Park across the track is well taken howver as there is back entrance in Bollo Lane, which was formerly an entrance to Chiswick Works*

"London on The Move" BT Films Collection Vol 10 BFI. *One for One*  On sale at an Amazon near you. £ 24.98 (Gulp. I'm sure I never paid that much )

   

Michael Adams ● 555d

John Hall explained:" So let's be clear Maggie, whilst you can't name a single person who has left Chiswick because of the cycle lane,"At a wild guess, as soon as they were financially able to do so, many people left Chiswick because of the increasing levels of traffic which cysle lanes have done absolutly nothing to alleviate - despite all claims to the contrary - but have simply made worse.He then pointed out:"demand to live here continues too increase as evidenced by the substantial rise in house prices."Exactly! As evidenced by the truly wonderful Acton Gardens Developement to the North West. East Germany on our own doorsteps ! Which is set to provide 3,463 new homes. That's almost 7,000 more people in two person households. And what do more people mean ? More traffic ! Not just in buses taxis or cars to transport them about to their work etc but in lorries on the roads bringing the goods they're all going to buy to the shops, and or courier vans, refuse trucks carting away all the rubbish they're going to generate. And then there's the outdated infrastructure that will be needed to service all these people - so more holes in the road while effecting more patch-ups and so even more traffic holdups.The objection is not to the traffic itself but to the insistence on the part of the hard-of-thinking such as Runaway Tom Pike, Champagne Socialist and Alpine Skiing Motorist Paul Campbell, and their ilk, that all these problems can be solved by the simple expedient of persuading everyone to ride bicycles instead.Of course policians will fall over themselves to add weight to such hair brained schemes. Which solve all their traffic and pollution problesm at a stroke while make everyone fit and healthy at the same time thus reducing pressure on the NHSThe fact that it would require turning 10,000 years of human progress and developement on its head to achieve is simply a side issue apparently. Hint: riding bicycles is what they stiil have to do in "underdeveloped" countries. But it certainly isn't going to be achieved by building a cycle lane on an already busy road and taking out a whole lane of traffic.The fact that this anti-car policy has also seemingly given rise to a whole genertion of objectionable yobboes who feel they have the god-given right to ride their bicycles ebikes and escooters wherever they please, on pavements, paths wherever is simply another factor which has seriously diminished the quality of life in Chiswick, as elsewhere. Although perhaps unsrprisingly Runaway Tom Pike and Champagne Socialist and Alpine Skiing Motorist Paul Campbell are totally silent on that particular topic      So that who, given the choice i.e. other than economic necessity, would really want to go on paying Council Tax to subsidise such stupidity?  Unless of course that person had lived all their lives in Chiswick and has all their friends here - a consideration which appears to have flown straight over the top your head.michael adams  

Michael Adams ● 558d

"It was just a general observation."Thanks for clarifying you were making a random point.No Tom it wasn't a random point. My spellchecker remark was a general observation concerning the many regrettable spelling errors, evident in my posts. It was you yourself, who in your evident desperation sought to deliberately, and rather unconvincingly, misinterpret  that remark as applying specifically to "lucky" and "unlucky".It's noticeable that you've decided to totally ignore the question I posed to you in my last post, concerning the statistic upon which you based your "twenty times as likely claim.So again just to be clear Tom, approximately how many women are you claiming were actually killed by motor vehicles while walking down streets, paths, or allies ?What the discussion so far has overlooked of course, and thank you Tom for getting back to me on this, is the "very big difference" between the number of women who are murdered and the number of women who are killed in motor accidents.The point about murder Tom, although presumably the thought had never occured to you, is that murders aren't the unintended consequences of otherwise beneficial activities. They're deliberate and are only ever carried out for immoral purposes.Road fatalities on the other hand Tom, are the unintended consequences of the othjerwise beneficial activity of allowing people to travel around; a necessity in an advanced economy, lacking adequate public transport. The fact that *you* personally along with your friends insist everyone should ride bicycles instead is an irrelevance. In *the real world* and in the absence of sensor technology where cars are of necessity being driven by people of varying ability and skill, and not always applying themselves fully, accidents are inevitable; whatever your friend Khan says.Thus there was and is no basis for comparisn between the two. Which it might have been thought, was obvious from the start. But clearly not.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 559d

" Your tortuous explanation for your tortured logic is a bonus, Michael. There's no "tortured logic" involved Tom. Given your seeming obsession with road accident statistics, it seems quite plausible that you should seek to console the relatives of a murder victim with the "fact" that she was much more likely to have been the victim of a road accident than she was to have been murdered. That she was in fact "lucky" to have survived for so long, but obviously "unlucky" in the end to have been murdered.Tom Pike explained -" The fact that remains that a women walking along a street is on average twenty times more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than murdered."According to the statistic you posted earlier, to which I was respondingquote" Eight women were murdered on a street, path or alley in last year’s statistics.In comparison 346 pedestrians were killed in road collisions."unquoteThat's road collisions not necessarily pedestrians walking down streets, paths or alleys.  And presumably includes pedestrians *crossing" streets. Which it might be assumed would constitute the highest proportion of fatalities.So just to be clear Tom, approximately how many women are you claiming were actually killed by motor vehicles while walking down streets, paths, or allies, as othjerwise your 20 to 1 figure is clearly open to question. Tom Pikes opening salvo..." blaming your writing "lucky" instead of "unlucky" on a spellchecker, that's truly desperate!"Which I didn't. It was just a general observation. But *I* did call *you* desperate first. Your simple repetition by way of response, merely serves as confirmation.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 559d

Tom Pike suggested"  A classic pair of posts, Michael, the fatuousness nicely highlighted by getting the punchline completely wrong, and then further emphasised with a correction to leave little doubt. "Er no Tom, there was no "Punchline". Clearly a female murder victim could be seen as "lucky", inasmuch as she had already survived the much greater chance of being involved in a motor accident before eventually being murdered,However she could be seen as "unlucky" inamuch as her death was deliberately inflicted, a cause of great suffering and would presumably cause her relatives greater distress.(And thank you for giving me the chance to explain the correction, which was made simply for fear of being misunderstood)You see Tom these are the sort of questioins which arise when opportunists such as yourself try and impose a bogus equivalence between events which bear absolutely no realationship to one another; except that they involve the deaths of women.It was a nasty tasteless comparison Tom. So its maybe not surprising that you'd seek to distract attention away from that fact.  A clear mark of desperation Similar to your references to carriage returns and my posts about the Queenwhich bear no relation to the matter in hand. (There's no spellchucker either, at least in Firefox but you seem to have overlooked that one )As to statistics  There were an estimated 1,560 road deaths in the UK 2021: While according to ROSPA " every year across the UK, there are approximately 6,000 deaths as a result of home accidents. That's four times as many !And what's more " more accidents happen in the lounge/living room than anywhere else in the home.https://www.rospa.com/home-safety/advice/general/facts-and-figures That's what the statistics say anyway. And gven that you're supposedly so concerned with people's safety, would you advise them to stay out of their lounges/living rooms aswell ?michael adams

Michael Adams ● 559d