Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Don't repeat the mistakes of the past at Thamesmead

Owen Hatherley

Peabody has the opportunity to remedy a pitiful mess at its development in Thamesmead but will it take it? asked militant modernist Owen Hatherley

Everyone, in the run-up to the election, agrees that many thousands of new homes are needed in and around London. Some are even so bold as to suggest that this should be done by social housing providers, or, shockingly, by local authorities. So we might expect a lot of new housebuilding after the election and, on cue, venerable housing association Peabody has announced plans to build thousands of homes in  Thamesmead, south-east London.  This was the location of a previous attempt to solve London’s housing problems, intended as a ‘new town’, but unfinished and demonised, largely on account of its role in Stanley Kubrick’s film of  A Clockwork Orange.

So what mistakes did Thamesmead make, and how can Peabody be certain it won’t make them again – or others entirely? Built on decommissioned Royal Arsenal land and named by a public poll, Thamesmead was a project of the Greater London Council, so was always dominated by council flats. But a large portion was always private – an early example of the percentage-juggling that now dominates ‘affordable housing’, although with the overwhelming emphasis then on the public provision, not, as now, on the private sale. Thamesmead isn’t wholly the ‘giant council estate’ of legend with a fair amount of private housing, because after the original, much-criticised ‘heroic’ Brutalist phase, it went through ’70s vernacular and then ’80s pomo incarnations, all of them making good use of water features – canals, ponds, lakes. It was supposed to be connected to the extended Jubilee Line in the 1970s, but the usual cost-cutting meant it will only get a rapid transit station when Crossrail arrives in 2018 – an obvious spur to this new redevelopment.

The ‘iconic’ image of  Thamesmead, used extensively in A Clockwork Jerusalem, last year’s British Pavilion at Venice, is Southmere Lake. Here were towers on podiums, a set of long, linked blocks of low-rise, stepped-section flats of the sort later favoured by Camden Council, a more linear deck-access block, a pub/social centre, and a dramatic health centre on pilotis, which found its way into the photo selection of the usually Modernist-hostile Bridget Cherry’s Pevsner: London South. Southmere Lake is where ‘regeneration’ started a few years ago, and the results were sad. Owners Gallions Housing Association demolished all the parts of the lakeside area most likely to be instantly listed, were they in NW1 rather than SE28 – first the Health Centre, then the Tavy Bridge shopping area and its linked flats, and finally, last year, the deck-access lakeside block.  What replaced this was the blandest of bland PFI health centres, and pitiful flats – all of them, on this flood plain, on the ground rather than on the podiums insisted upon in the original plan, and none of it even bothering to address the lake. A mere two towers were upgraded, the other 20 or so left alone. The result is a straggling half-demolished mess of crap spec housing, wasteland and forlorn Brutalist fragments.

Oddly, it’s this messy area between Abbey Wood station and Southmere Lake, rather than the empty spaces and distribution sheds of  Thamesmead West that the new masterplan focuses on. If GLC Thamesmead was made a ghetto by poor transport links and right-to-buy, the Peabody Thamesmead risks being yet another well-connected, ‘aspirational’ riverside dormitory, with some social housing. We ought to expect better, and insist that the Mecanoo/Proctor and Matthews plan makes something coherent out of this interrupted, smashed-up series of superimposed plans. Perhaps they could start by respecting and extending, rather than destroying, the social ideas and placid, Modernist-natural landscape of the original.



Readers' comments (2)

  • most grateful for the commentry on Thamesmead - which I have never visited: it has always been regarded as a soggy version of hell., where dwell people from another world, Farage country.
    Simon Norris

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I live in Thamesmead, abet the newer area of mainly houses and, thankfully, few tower blocks. However for years the area has been resigned to the scrapheap and become the land that transport forgot. What Thamesmead does not need is more housing without first addressing the lack of public transport routes and infrastructure. We have no trains, DLR, Tubes or Overground. Just overcrowded buses to get out of the area and to connect to railed transport. There needs to be more Medical Centres, Schools, local Shops and leisure facilities before more housing in built. Unfortunately the mere mention of the name Thamesmead conjures up the idea of a social engineering experiment gone wrong but it could actually be a nice area if the powers to be think of the areas residents first, before their profit or ego.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.