Blog: Girdwood – What a Who-ha

Written by Jackie Redpath Friday, 25 May 2012 09:21

What a "who ha" in the media around the Girdwood housing proposals and whether the principle of "housing need" has been abandoned.

So let's try to get past Nolan's bluster and the SDLP's "holy" outrage, even though Alban Maginnis was part of the picture party at the announcement.  Let's shine some light in, instead of all the heat produced, by posing a few questions and maybe providing some answers.

Girdwood is a unique site, an abandoned army base with huge regeneration potential, in the heart of an area formerly wrecked by sectarian violence.  Do we want this potential to be shared by ALL the neighbouring communities?  Should it therefore be a shared space?  I imagine the unanimous answer is yes!

If so, would building 200 homes for Catholics, and none for Protestants, secure the shared space vision?  I think the answer is no!  In fact, on the basis of "need" argument, why not follow the ultimate logic and cover the entire site in housing for Catholics – never mind 200, make it 500 houses!!  Would that be shared space for a shared future?

And then there's the issue of lower Oldpark.  It's in a grossly dilapidated state, with the existing community living among brutal dereliction and horrible conditions.  Should it be left to rot and continue to decline?  The answer must be no!  Is there a waiting list for lower Oldpark at present?  Again the answer is no.  Would you want to live there?

What I think Minister Nelson McCausland is promoting is not only providing housing on the basis of need, but as a catalyst for regeneration.  In this scenario "need" is not simply defined as "names on the waiting list" but as the "needs" of people, families and communities for regeneration, renewal and sustainability.

Lower Oldpark sits in the wider context of the Shankill, an area that was decimated by the planners through the 1970's and 80's, with its people scattered to the "four corners".  Since then community workers have consistently argued that housing–led regeneration is critical to the future – it's called building sustainable communities.  Can anyone object to that as a principle and approach?

Nelson McCausland has given expression to this in Lower Oldpark.

The bluster around the Girdwood housing proposals failed to pick up, as Ian McLaughlin pointed out on Nolan, the painstaking work that has gone on over the past few years, to building better and genuine relations across communities bordering the site.  This has been intense work and has helped create more peaceful streets and an atmosphere in which compromise became possible.

Finally, was there a "deal" or understanding between the politicians involved?  Probably!  It's called politics!!  Like it or not, politics are about trade-offs, transactions and hopefully, honourable compromise.  Would we prefer a continued "stand -off" at either end of the Girdwood site by the politicians, or have them stand together on the same piece of earth, having "done what must be done" to make progress possible?

They should be congratulated, not pilloried for their "deal" – it is defensible. Perhaps their only mistake was not to defend it publically!