"What would you do to revitalise CHR?"Hi Helen. And hello, Haters.As you've said, you don't usually post on the forum, but I've mentioned many things over time. I will start with one that I know is shared by Ed Seaton:"Imagine if we could close King Street/ CHR completely to motorised traffic using it to bypass the A4/ A40 on journeys in and out of London. And make the residential streets, filtered quiet low traffic neighbourhoods"As to how this would actually work I'm not sure. But I think the current plans for CS9 are devoid of urban design discipline and, as such, circumvent a notion such as this. As to the existing CS9 design, I have often said I don't think it goes far enough - again, to Ed's point. I think the plan should be more visionary. I think it should allow for wider pavement (not at the expense of improved cycle infrastructure) and places for greening as well as places to gather. Sadly, it does none of those. With current proposals for large scale residential projects in the pipeline which would bring more people to the High Road, increased population makes these issues even more urgent. I have said that I consider King Street and CHR to be one and the same and efforts should be made to unite those working behind the scenes. I have actually made that effort. A plan such as this has the potential to completely re-invent the High Road and thus revitalize it. I think it falls short for being myopic.This idea would need to consider the many residential and business deliveries which are ever increasing given modern life styles. I know Hammersmith is looking at delivery hubs, but no details have emerged. Why isn't Hounslow looking at this??? I'm not sure how the myriad sources for businesses would plug into such a network. Think of it this way: every restaurant or cafe has similar yet not the same sources. So if there are 12 cafes you can expect at least 12 different coffee suppliers delivering to what is, ostensibly, one business model. And that's just one item on the supply list. How would all that traffic be consolidated into one hub vs how it is now being distributed up and down the High Road daily?And yes, I have spoken of parking. Other areas have better parking infrastructure for businesses. I don't believe cars are going anywhere soon. With advancements and regulations increasing for electric vehicles, I believe we will see more of them, not less. It might mean the same number of vehicles on the road only less of them petrol-powered. This, to some degree, addresses emissions issues but the arrival and departure by car would still need to be addressed. Hammersmith has parking. Brentford has parking. Chiswick will have less parking than it does now and less than either of those areas mentioned. That does not bode well for Chiswick, its residents, its businesses and its visitors. If visits to Chiswick aren't facilitated, especially for the largest percentage of road users - drivers - they will simply go elsewhere.I have spoken about zoning. There are plenty similarities with Main Street USA revitalization efforts. Ground floors should be limited to commercial enterprises, preferably those that bring continuous footfall to the area throughout the day. With shop hours often finishing at 6pm, that doesn't do much for generating energy for the evening economy. I think current retail shop hours are out of sync with how we live and yet retail in Chiswick pretty much closes at 6pm just when people might be inclined to go out for a quick shop. Maybe one night a week everything should stay open late. Westfield is open til 10pm with easy, safe and secure access. Chiswick is open til 6pm (other than restaurants many of which now deliver) and has catalytic converters stolen out of cars. The cinema will help enormously with this type of activity. Upper floors, particularly in older buildings, should be converted from office to residential. These buildings are, in a sense, no longer fit for purpose with regard to today's business infrastructure requirements so upgrading them to that standard is not easy nor prudent. Converting it back to residential (which I believe many of the spaces used to be) would be far easier and cost-effective from a developer's point of view. I think LBH made an enormous mistake with the MetroBank building. Aesthetics aside, that building should have been required to match existing buildings in terms of height. It should have required upper floors to contain flats, privately-owned or let. Any development within the CHR zone should be held to a consistent standard. That real estate now dies when the doors close. It should remain alive around the clock.Rents and rates remain a persistent issue, sadly. Rate relief has been granted and it can also be challenged but the trader has to shoulder that cost for correcting something that the government should be revising. That should be on every council's agenda annually until the issue improves. It is not. Rents may be (and I stress may be) beginning to show signs of improvement. But as it stands, these issues are chronic. So when I see initiatives that tie the hands of traders behind their backs - and they come fast and furious along with increased wages, increased licensing fees, increased rates, increased rents, increased supply costs - there are only so many ways traders can accommodate and only so many times costs can be passed on to consumers. And only so many times traders can "eat" them. To increase footfall you have to increase population density and access. And yet Chiswick remains in isolation to the entire Santander bike network which is expanding. Just not here. I once contacted them and asked why there was no rack in Chiswick thinking the enormous pavement outside ours would be an ideal location. But no, no demand. I was chastised when I said any cycle infrastructure plan should automatically include expanding this network. Told there were no funds to do so. Aside from the millions and millions of pounds (perhaps billions now) )being spent, this piddly line item was ignored. And now we find out there is money in the pot to expand the network. Just not here. And parking is set to be severely reduced. At a precarious time when traders need all the people they can get to generate footfall and, hopefully, capture their custom. I have advocated for a sustainable solution to these problems, one that could be easily and cheaply revised as the demands of the road network evolve. One that could allow for parking and, if it should subside, could easily be converted into public amenity. And it is one that allows for a cycle lane substantially safer than CS9 proposed because it eliminates "dooring" which CS9 does not.I hope that helps explain some of my position.But I have yet to determine why questions and suggestions let alone robust debate are misconstrued as criticism and being "anti." And I have yet to determine the efficacy of debasing those who are curious to know more about what gets proposed. I have yet to determine why my trade and my nationality are sometimes weaponized against me, as if a mere baker has no say nor any brain. What possibly could an American know? Apparently 15 years of trading in markets is akin to one singular Google search for Herne Hill. I do know this, though, that kind of behavior - the sophomoric bullying and trolling - fosters "us" vs "them" and a senseless class system which stands in the way of progress whatever the goal.But hey, I only wanted CS9 to be better. I only offered insight to assist those planning the Flower Market. What a stupid American baker am I.
David Lesniak ● 2443d