If you want a Nando’s for a neighbour
One of the least palatable campaigns organised round here has been the drive, amongst some residents, to stop a branch of Nando’s opening on Stoke Newington Church Street.
In case you don’t know the place, Stoke Newington Church Street is the epicentre of one of Hackney’s most affluent areas. There are a few council estates nearby, but the High Street itself is characterised by residents who are young, professional, live in terraced houses, have families and - often - work in industries such as the media, advertising, PR and the like.
Nothing wrong with that.
It also means that there is no shortage of people who are willing to take a stand when amenities are threatened. I like that, because it means the Council tends to tread a little more carefully in that part of N16 than is often its habit in other parts of the borough. The “you’ll get what you’re given” attitude, which usually emanates from the Town Hall, has to be imposed with a little more care - especially as the area is predominantly Labour, but quite capable of switching to the Greens in protest (indeed, one adjoining ward does have a Green councillor - Mischa Borris).
One protest I sympathised with was the campaign to save the Vortex Jazz Club. It was a place I liked. It did excellent Sunday morning breakfasts and - best of all - it was a no talking Jazz club. If you were there to listen to Jazz, you shut up and listened and drank and tapped your foot in time to the music. If you were there to talk bollocks with your mates you were told to shut up and leave. Perfect.
So it was a shame when the club couldn’t renew its lease - the owner had sold the building and site to a developer, Richard Midda.
This is where things got rather complex. On the plus side, the Vortex was found a new home in the newly “regenerated” Gillett Square (a spruced up bit of N16 in the heart of Dalston, and until recently a haven for street drinkers). On the minus side, rumours about what was going to happen to the old site swirled round almost endlessly. One minute the place was said to be destined for a MacDonalds. Then Tesco. Next, more credibly, it was said that Starbucks were going to take over.
And then, whilst everyone was getting into tizzy about Big Bad Starbucks moving into town, a load of noisy squatters moved in to the site and started up on the rent-free community centre wheeze.
By this time, glad the Vortex was at least still operating elsewhere, I was quite pleased by the thought of a Starbucks opening. For a nappy valley like Stoke Newington there are precious few places with baby changing facilities - and at that point I was in regular charge of a baby that needed frequent changing. Starbucks always has space for a fold-down changing mat and a bin.
My point of view wasn’t popular; and, as you’ll soon see, I’ve since come to see things differently.
The squatters were quite rightly kicked out, but the developer then behaved appallingly and knocked down the entire building, contravening the planning permission he’d been granted. Stop notices were issued, Hackney Council’s planning department were as useless as ever and - in short - a new building, roughly resembling the old one, was erected. Here’s a picture of it, taken this afternoon.
The building is just waiting for its Nando’s signs, but at the point of which I write there was only one bit of information that wasn’t generally available - what the site would be used for.
Local blogger Kris was one of the first to broadcast the news that Nando’s would be opening a restaurant at the site. I thought it was an odd choice, but that was before I’d spent a couple of months tramping around all the streets and estates to the north of Church Street, sticking pro-Boris mayoral leaflets through doors. That, more than the last 9 years I’ve spent living round this way, gave me a much clearer idea of all the people who live on Church Street’s doorstep. In other words, there were lots of local people who didn’t treat Church Street as their local fiefdom, sent their kids to the schools on and around it, and could hardly be expected to fork out the prices charged by many of the independent shops that dominate it. People who might appreciate a reasonably priced restaurant that was happy to welcome their custom.
As soon as it was confirmed the chain was about to move in, the Stop Nando’s campaign went live. This site appeared (although all the comments and abuse seem to have vanished). The obligatory Facebook group popped up (look for it yourself). And a bunch of self-righteous tossers, not content with the positive coverage they’d had in the Guardian more than once, continued complaining that:
1) They wanted to preserve Church Street’s independent shops from predatory chain stores/companies/restaurants (1).
2) It was inappropriate for Nando’s to have an alcohol licence (2).
I find the first argument weird. Exactly who is Nando’s going to threaten on Church Street? Businesses like Oddbins? Ladbrokes? Fresh & Wild? Savills?
Nope. None of these chains (or the others) seem to cause a problem. Indeed, the biggest threats to Church Street businesses come from other independent chains. The Tea Rooms, The Spence Café, The Lemon Monkey (Café), Petit Coin (Café) etc (that’s why - now - I can see Starbucks might have been a problem). And then there are the many Indian restaurants: Rushi, Rasa, Rasa Travancore, Karnaphuli, The Anglo-Asian, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum. Or the hideously expensive baby shops: Born, Olive Loves Alfie [ffs], Frère Jacques… I could go on, but just read the list here.
No: chain stores, per se, can’t be a problem - if they were so evil, no-one would patronise them. And there is plenty of room for inter-competing independents to flourish.
What really appalled me was the recent attempt to stop Nando’s - which had fairly won the old Vortex site - from having an alcohol licence. Campaigners conjured up visions of drunkenness and disorder, which was dishonest. Are people really going to say to themselves “Fuck the Auld Shillelagh, The Lion, Ryan’s Bar, The Rose and Crown, The Defoe, Booth’s Bar. Let’s send the V sign to all the local pubs and restaurants and get hammered in Nandos, whilst eating chicken?”
No. Of course they’re not. The campaigners are trying to find reasons to stop people they despise from spending time in a street they’ve claimed for themselves.
The campaign isn’t about banishing chains - the street has enough of those. It’s not about protecting independent businesses - Nando’s isn’t in competition with them. It’s about keeping Church Street exclusive, expensive, homogenous and middle class. And an area with a very high average house price.
Heaven forfend that working class - and even black - parents from the local primary schools find a convenient, cheap, pleasant place to eat with their children in a street that makes its money from selling designer babywear at high prices. They don’t belong.
Nandos campaigners, you disgust me. I hope the restaurant got its licence yesterday. And much as I dislike its food - I’m going to be one of the first through the doors.
And I hope all haters of bigotry and snobbery will join me.
Published on 6th June, 2008
Vote for 2008’s Most Sanctimonious Vegetarian Celebrity
Personally, I blame Gmail. Someone sent me a message, in which they mentioned vegetarian sausages; and the next thing I saw was an advert for PETA’s stomach-churning Sexiest Vegetarian Celebrity 2008 competition.
I mean, what sort of bollocks is this?
Whether they chose to go veg to improve their health, to help end global warming, or to avoid contributing to the inexcusable cruelty to animals on factory farms and in slaughterhouses, one thing is for sure – all these vegetarian celebrities have won our hearts and the hearts of animals.
The hearts of animals? Yeah right. Nothing like a bit of anthropomorphism to get everyone feeling righteous and mushy. It must be a real bastard being a vegetarian in today’s countryside: you’d forever be mobbed by lovestruck sheep and grateful cows, not to mention the roadkill that would spring back to life as you approached, and pat you on the back with its bloody paws or wings.
In many respects, adopting vegetarianism is rather like giving up smoking. Either is fine by me, as long as you don’t take up preaching the minute you lay off cigarettes or meat. I abandoned the fags over two-and-a-half years ago, but I know that I’d help no-one give up by telling them how morally superior I am for stubbing out my last Camel Filter. Besides, I’m not.
That’s why remarks like this one from former school bully Stella McCartney, who wants to ban leather seats from British Airways’ first class cabins (what a difference that will make), do not win my support:
I consider sitting on a poor cow’s skin a throwback to earlier, harder times - not a luxury.
Indeed, the patronising idiocy of that sentence makes me want to rush out and buy as much leather as I can possibly lay my hands on. This would do for starters:
Personally, I think it’s weird to equate diet with sexiness. I don’t think any differently of people because they prefer beans to beef, or vice versa. But I do find sanctimony, bossiness and moral posturing distinctly unsexy.
That’s why I officially declare the competition for 2008’s Most Sanctimonious Vegetarian Celebrity open. In the first round of voting, you can declare which female celebrity would vastly improved by being force-fed foie gras. The second round will open when I’ve typed in PETA’s extensive list of male celebrities.
Online voting is now open, and you can vote as often as you like. And you most certainly will not be charged.
Published on 3rd June, 2008