| Clissold House; Who is it for? |
|
All jokes aside though, most of the debate seems to be based on the fact that since it opened its doors again many people believe that its pricing structure, menu and the fact that it is now table service only, seems to be a deliberate policy to exclude those residents of the area that one traditionally associates with local parks. i.e mothers with young children and replace them with what is euphemistically dubbed 'ladies that lunch'. Another important issue, if one were to go by the abundance of lamp post and other adverts posted by the council, is their much vaunted Shop Local campaign. Being that the only companies allowed to tender for 'The House' had to have an annual turnover in excess of one million pounds, ths suggests that their idea of Shop Local isn't to do with helping small local companies in the area, but has more to do with helping themselves to what national chains and their like can give them in the short term, in what appears to be a national preoccupation by councils across the country to turn our high streets and local amenities into some sort of homogenised nightmare more reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. The Starbucks concession at the new C.L.R. James Library in Dalston is another high handed, self serving and anti Shop Local example of this. This project was funded jointly by Hackney Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund and as such should be an amenity that everyone in the area can take advantage of. As it stands this certainly does not seem to be the case and I would imagine that any contract that the council has with the new proprietors would be very costly indeed to break, no matter what public opinion has to say. Perhaps the council should licence another area of the park to a small local concern that can provide what a lot of people seem to want at a price that they afford. That is if of course they don't feel the need to charge an exorbitant rent for the privilege just to pretend that it's not financially viable. We, the public own this park, all of us. The council just look after it on our behalf. |
Comments
Having followed the debate pretty closely over the past few weeks, including the results of an online poll, I'd say that the majority of local residents who've expressed any view about it feel that the cafe is insufficiently inclusive.
For example: a cup of Earl Grey tea in Clissold House costs £1.85. A cup of similar tea at the excellent Hoxton Beach cafe at the nearby leisure centre (tea served in a large china mug, with a jug of fresh milk) costs just £1.
Many local residents have been priced out or feel intimidated by the deliberately fancy look and feel of the place.
Sorry if this seemed one-sidedand in all fairness, since writing this I have heard through the grapevine that the council have been looking into this issue, so the situation may change.
The point that many people have brought up is that they have been to Clissold House, have seen the menu, have seen the prices and still believe that the new cafe that is less accessible to the poorer members of our community than the cafe it replaced.
Obviously it is an 'amenity that everyone can take advantage of', but, can they afford to take advantage of it as much as they were able to previously, or not?
I personally believe that a publicly funded building such as this should be equally available to every member of the public, especially as we all helped to fund it.
This doesn't address the issue of national and international chains effectively being the only companies that can tender for these contracts simply by dint of their enormous turnover.
The house is clearly an "amenity that everyone in the area can take advantage of" ie it's a building in a public place with doors that you can walk through and get something to eat and drink.
There is also no need to "believe" in the pricing structure and menu when you can actually go and read it
Just to balance out this rather one sided article why not read
http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2012/01/clissold-house-reopens-following-a-9-million-restoration/