Focus Groups Reports

In March and April 2005 a BAF member with experience in this field ran a number of focus groups in the Archway area. These covered both residents in social housing and in privately rented and owned accommodation, office workers and traders. In August 2005 a further set of focus groups were run to discuss the various options for improving road layout at Archway.

	The full results of the first Focus Group meetings can be read in this PDF file.
	The full results of the second Focus Group meetings can be read in this PDF file.

Alternatively the highlights are summarised below:

The Big Picture

• The disadvantages of total redevelopment (massively more building on the site and years of disruption) were felt to outweigh any possible – but not guaranteed – advantages.
  
  
• There was significant concern about the length of time total demolition and rebuilding might take, about the amount of new buildings which might be fitted on to the site, and about the effect on local traders, especially if the tube station had to shut for a long time.
  
  
• Some people pointed out that if there are going to be tall buildings on the site we might just as well keep the one we have, but reclad it and block to spaces underneath to get rid of wind blight, and make sure that it includes public spaces at ground level to give it a more human feel.

Design and Layout

• When it comes to any new building the vote was for lower or mixed height development.
  
  
• The main area people wanted to see changed was at ground level where they particularly wanted an attractive public space, suitable for markets and public events, but also upmarket cafes and eating places.
  
  
• The preferred choice was for having both office and residential on the site because the office workers offer valuable business to local traders and provide employment and keep the place busy during the day. New housing was seen as a good idea on the site because it brings money into the area and keeps it lively in the evenings.
  
  
• A mix of housing was popular, including luxury flats and housing for low income groups and key workers. Luxury flats are seen as a good idea because they could improve the status of the area, and are would help make the redevelopment economically viable.

The Feel of Archway

• Everyone liked the area’s small scale character, the small shops and businesses. They also liked the existing community facilities – the swimming pool and the library. They thought it was vital to preserve all of that, and if the pool or library had to be demolished, they insisted they should be rebuilt, perhaps putting the library in a more attractive area.
  
  
• The things people didn’t like were the derelict Mall, the area around Archway Tower, the high crime rate, and the traffic and parking problems. They wanted to make sure that any redevelopment either reduced or got rid of all of those problems.
  
  
• Everyone agreed that the area needs more, properly maintained, green space. There was a lot of enthusiasm for a public open space such as a piazza as a focus for the area, with seating, cafes and good restaurants where people could relax. They was also a lot of support for the idea of using any suitable open space for markets of different kinds.

Retail

• Contrary to early reports from the Council, which indicated that support for a new supermarket might be split 50:50, one thing that the majority agreed on was that an extra supermarket would be bad for the area because it would destroy the small shops. By contrast they wanted more independent small shops selling items not already available in the area.

Road Schemes

The BAF focus groups devoted to this subject found that out of six groups there was a clear preference in favour of Option 2, a relatively simple rerouting of the A1 to run to the east side of the Archway roundabout. The alternative known as Option 3. of completely rebuilding the roads in the area, including a road through the centre of the main Archway site, received very little support. Indeed, there was greater support for making no changes to the roads at all.

• Three and a half groups had a clear preference for Option 2.
  
  
• One group expressed no preference.
  
  
• One group did not want either.
  
  
• Only half of one group supported Option 3; these were members of the group which was split between this and option 2.

The groups who wanted Option 2 thought that it was simpler and cheaper to implement than Option 3, which was seen as complicated, disruptive and expensive.

Other Concerns

• There was a clear call for better security in the area, with a local police presence sought, especially in the open space areas.
  
  
• There was also real concern about the impact on parking of any sizeable redevelopment, especially for the suggested supermarket, but also for the proposed housing.

Other Ideas

• Areas where opinion was more divided were whether it was a good idea to include a private health/leisure centre, an NHS clinic, a hotel, or a cinema.
  
  
• Almost everyone agreed that it would be good to include some kind of arts facility, but suggestions ranged from a full scale arts centre to draw visitors to the area, to providing some kind of outdoor space for the occasional performance.
  
  
• Other ideas included a community centre and provision for young people, a skateboarding park, a development trust to run a community business, a sports hall, and making Archway a gateway to the many historic areas and parks nearby.