But, please explain why this is ‘fine real’ street and this isn’t:
Nowadays some established UK practitioners, guys who re-popularised "street photography" in this country, are referring to it as "candid public photography". I find that pretty convincing, as it distinguishes it from photography that merely shows something in a street. (See
here for
street photographer Nick Turpin's thoughts)
But I would also define the "street photography" style as including an element of irony or humour or something that provokes questioning. After all, a photojournalist would also do candid public photography. What makes a picture "street" is some sort of amusing meaning and relationship between the elements of the frame.
So to get to your question, it's that second aspect that makes Stamper's photo more "real street" for me, and that's principally because the man's head is slightly inclined, making the viewer ask "what's he saying?" or noticing the contrast. I think it could do more of this, for example if the man was twisting his body and apparently/unwittingly countering the rigid lines, but I think there is less irony for the viewer to chew on in your image (no offence intended).
John