The Planning Issues

Our aim is to try to reflect as closely as possible what the community tells us they want for Archway, so please Contact us.

Rebuilding or Regeneration

Who Should Develop the Site

Type and Scale of Redevelopment

Buildings and Open Space

Dominant Type of Accommodation

Types of Retail Units and Space

Other Types of Retail Unit (non-food)

Leisure and Community facilities

Public Transport

Road Layouts and the Roundabout

Strategic changes to improve the wider area

Rebuilding or Regeneration?

Redevelopment options	Pros	Cons
Islington Council is proposing demolition and rebuilding of the Archway mall site and possibly beyond.	Getting rid of the tower is probably the top priority for Archway users, followed by getting rid of the concrete spaces next to it. Pressure from the Mayor's Office for good design, particularly in large developments, will encourage any developer to produce something better designed than the current buildings. The big development option is popular with the council because they are seeking a 'gateway to Islington' development at the point where the A1 reaches the borough.	Demolition itself is not particularly expensive but the presence of asbestos may add significantly to the costs of demolishing a building like Archway Tower. Rebuilding to a similar height is expensive so whatever replaces it needs to be profitable and that means building much more on the site than is currently there - around five or six times as much. Whatever shape that might take, it will mean a very large mass of buildings in the centre of Archway. In practice because of the council's altered policy on heights for Archway, it may mean building at least as high as the current Archway Tower but in two or three blocks instead of one. Building such a large development would be extremely disruptive, taking at least three years by current council estimates, in practice probably double that once the work is started. During that time there would be a great deal of noise and dust, as well as loss of business to local shops and traders. Facilities like the pool and library would probably be lost for much of that time. The tube would almost certainly close for at least some months. The council reports that to ensure profitability there would almost certainly be a supermarket . Other big chain businesses are also proposed (a hotel and cinema). Chain businesses remove money from the areas where they operate (what customers spend goes to head office, whereas locally based businesses tend to recycle money within the local economy). If chain stores dominate an area it can cause other, smaller businesses to close, causing degeneration rather than regeneration. If a big development is badly planned, as was the case with the previous redevelopment of Archway, it can be very difficult to put right. This is particularly true if there are a lot of extra buildings. Unless these become completely derelict, they are very expensive to buy up and demolish, unless you plan to build even more on the site to make yet more profit (the current plan for Archway). A big development will increase road traffic. Even if the proposed residential flats are not allowed to use cars (and if they are they might have as many as one per unit - up to 700), a big supermarket would have to have parking. The proposed size of store would be permitted 180 spaces under the Greater London Authority's London Plan. In addition there would be regular food truck deliveries, probably throughout the night.
Simply rebuilding will not necessarily help support the elements of Archway which have remained successful despite the area's drawbacks. These include a flourishing range of small businesses and a keen sense of loyalty to the area felt by many people who live and work here. Unless new building is supportive of both existing business and social activities it could damage rather than regenerate the area. (For more detail see Dominant Types of Accommodation and Types of Retail Units and Space.)	Simple changes like re-routing the main flow of traffic ( the A1 and traffic going between Highgate and Holloway Road) away from the main shopping and public transport area, would help change the feel of Archway and make it more visitor friendly. This should be paid for by Transport for London so would not be dependent on the council seeking alternative funding. Alterations to street level buildings (changing the material in which they are clad from concrete to wood, brick and glass for example), could make significant changes to the attractiveness of the area. Simple changes are not disruptive to existing businesses and the effects can be monitored as they are introduced. A feature of Archway which the community particularly enjoys is that its businesses are almost entirely independently run. This is becoming rare and is increasingly prized. Small scale and incremental improvements would allow this to continue to be the case as any increase in rents from a growing attractiveness of the area could be met by the increased profitability created in a more attractive environment.	Regeneration takes time because although local government can make changes to facilitate it, businesses do not grow more successful immediately. Regeneration does not offer the council a big bang story for voters.

Click here to add your comments to the BAF online forum on this subject.