Brixton news, rumour and general chat - January 2015

[snowy_again]

PM's salary is always a salary terrible benchmark - you don't do the PM jobfor the cash, but for the director positions after you leave that role.
Most cabinet members earn more than the PM. Patten was on about 2.5 times PM when he was sent to Hong Kong.

 

[Pickman's model]

p's m on about 0.15pm

 

[editor]

Lots of familiar Brixton faces in this feature:

Nighthawks at the takeaway: Brixton

 

[editor]

Just spotted several plain clothes types with walkie talkie shuffling along Coldharbour Lane with intent. Hmm.

 

[Tricky Skills]

The Rushcroft Road refurbishment has found 'unforeseen structural defects.' An extra £1,345,511 is now needed for Homer, Granville and Oval Houses.

BBuzz piece.

 

[teuchter]

The Rushcroft Road refurbishment has found 'unforeseen structural defects.' An extra £1,345,511 is now needed for Homer, Granville and Oval Houses.

BBuzz piece.

I'm confused.

When the council say:

1. The tender pricing was unrealistic in the first place. Th total budget for this project of £4,693,018m, was more accurate. The increase is merely aligning the project’s budget to its spend reality. The increase is still below the total budget.

What do they mean by "the total budget" and when they say "was more accurate"? Does that mean they've had a budget since the beginning which has anticipated the likelihood of the necessity of extra structural work becoming apparent during the construction phase?

 

[leanderman]

I'm confused.

When the council say:


What do they mean by "the total budget" and when they say "was more accurate"? Does that mean they've had a budget since the beginning which has anticipated the likelihood of the necessity of extra structural work becoming apparent during the construction phase?

Yes

 

[friendofdorothy]

should strike a chord with some here........ http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/londons-poor-fetish/

That explains the drinking out of jam jars then.
Strangely, british working class food like tripe or jellied eels hasn't made it into fashion, yet.

 

[Dan U]

That explains the drinking out of jam jars then.
Strangely, british working class food like tripe or jellied eels hasn't made it into fashion, yet.

The Sommelier of a Michelin star restaurant in South London tweeted a picture of her cocktail in a jamjar in Kaff recently. Approvingly I think.

 

[teuchter]

Yes

If so then Tricky Skills's article is somewhat misleading, as by my reading it suggests the extra cost has come as a surprise and hasn't been budgeted for.

 

[Casaubon]

I've commented on the BBuzz piece thus:

“Surveys to the Rushcroft Road Mansions were limited as the properties were under illegal occupation and had been so for over 30 years.”

This is more blatant lies from Lambeth council. Most occupants of Rushcroft Rd were legal tenants, as recognised by the House of Lords (Bruton vs. London and Quadrant, June 1999). During our period of legal tenancy countless surveys were undertaken by London and Quadrant, the council and various consultants and individuals. I had 5 surveys conducted on my flat in the space of 6 years.
As ususal, the council were just too stupid, grasping and short-sighted to pay attention to what was right in front of their eyes.

 

[leanderman]

should strike a chord with some here........ http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/londons-poor-fetish/

The full piece on the writer's website is excellent

 

[leanderman]

If so then Tricky Skills's article is somewhat misleading, as by my reading it suggests the extra cost has come as a surprise and hasn't been budgeted for.

More a disappointment, and (over)budgeted for.

 

[teuchter]

I've commented on the BBuzz piece thus:

“Surveys to the Rushcroft Road Mansions were limited as the properties were under illegal occupation and had been so for over 30 years.”

This is more blatant lies from Lambeth council. Most occupants of Rushcroft Rd were legal tenants, as recognised by the House of Lords (Bruton vs. London and Quadrant, June 1999). During our period of legal tenancy countless surveys were undertaken by London and Quadrant, the council and various consultants and individuals. I had 5 surveys conducted on my flat in the space of 6 years.
As ususal, the council were just too stupid, grasping and short-sighted to pay attention to what was right in front of their eyes.

I'll not argue with you about the legal status of the properties' occupation but I would assume the point of their statement is that they weren't able to carry out the kind of survey that would reveal the full structural state of the building, while it was occupied (legally or otherwise). Of course, they shouldn't have let such a situation develop in the first place, that they weren't able to keep a proper tab on the condition of their own housing stock.

I expect that a large proportion of what they've had to put right would have been preventable with proper maintenance.

 

[leanderman]

I expect that a large proportion of what they've had to put right would have been preventable with proper maintenance.

Yep - roof seems to be a big issue.

 

[Casaubon]

I'll not argue with you about the legal status of the properties' occupation but I would assume the point of their statement is that they weren't able to carry out the kind of survey that would reveal the full structural state of the building, while it was occupied (legally or otherwise). Of course, they shouldn't have let such a situation develop in the first place, that they weren't able to keep a proper tab on the condition of their own housing stock.

I expect that a large proportion of what they've had to put right would have been preventable with proper maintenance.

They had countless detailed surveys to refer to, many of which had been carried out by themselves, or on their behalf.
The repossession and sale of the blocks was hurried through for political reasons and sheer bloody-mindedness, and they just didn't want the facts to get in the way of their short-term aims.
I don't think that 'a large proportion of what they've had to put right would have been preventable with proper maintenance'. The blocks were jerry-built in the first place, by dodgy developers out to make a fast buck out of an up-and-coming area (sounds familiar?) The materials were very poor quality and none of the blocks had a damp course. They're now around 120 years old, and rotten to the core. When I moved out 10 years ago most of the structural woodwork (e.g. lintels and joists) was frighteningly rotten. I remember a ground floor window lintel, a huge piece of timber about 200cm x 30cm x 40 cm, that was so rotten I could push my fist easily through its whole width.
Much as I love the blocks, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that they're well past their life expectancy, which was probably about 60 years.

 

[leanderman]

Much as I love the blocks, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that they're well past their life expectancy, which was probably about 60 years.

Sounds like a £3-4million restoration is reasonable value

 

[editor]

Chucka has a huffa.

 

[teuchter]

They had countless detailed surveys to refer to, many of which had been carried out by themselves, or on their behalf.
The repossession and sale of the blocks was hurried through for political reasons and sheer bloody-mindedness, and they just didn't want the facts to get in the way of their short-term aims.
I don't think that 'a large proportion of what they've had to put right would have been preventable with proper maintenance'. The blocks were jerry-built in the first place, by dodgy developers out to make a fast buck out of an up-and-coming area (sounds familiar?) The materials were very poor quality and none of the blocks had a damp course. They're now around 120 years old, and rotten to the core. When I moved out 10 years ago most of the structural woodwork (e.g. lintels and joists) was frighteningly rotten. I remember a ground floor window lintel, a huge piece of timber about 200cm x 30cm x 40 cm, that was so rotten I could push my fist easily through its whole width.
Much as I love the blocks, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that they're well past their life expectancy, which was probably about 60 years.

If the main problem is rotten timber, then it's a maintenance issue. It's rotten because water got in. Water got in because the building wasn't maintained properly. The absence of a damp proof course is irrelevant to the condition of roof structures and window lintels and any joists above ground floor.

There are plenty of buildings that are way more than 120 years old where the timber hasn't gone rotten. Because they've been looked after properly.

There may be fundamental structural issues that are a consequence of the building being shoddily built in the first place, and some of the work may relate to that, but I'd bet that it doesn't all, and that much or even most of the work is fixing stuff that could have been prevented.

 

[editor]

Simply failing to repaint the window frames and leaving the bare wood open to the elements can cause them to go rotten.

That's what happened in my block, and it cost a fortune to replace one window with some plastic thing that I very much doubt will last as long as the one it replaced (had it been maintained properly).

 

[teuchter]

And the same will almost certainly apply to the Carlton Mansions building. Leaving it unoccupied will allow problems to progress more quickly than they would, were it still occupied. But leaving a building to be squatted (or short life tenanted or whatever) rather than actively maintaining it inevitably lets it deteriorate.

 

[boohoo]

And the same will almost certainly apply to the Carlton Mansions building. Leaving it unoccupied will allow problems to progress more quickly than they would, were it still occupied. But leaving a building to be squatted (or short life tenanted or whatever) rather than actively maintaining it inevitably lets it deteriorate.

It doesn't deteriorate as quickly if it is lived in as you said. When squatted or short life or whatever, the tenants won't want to spend thousands on large repairs knowing full well they could be removed from the building at any time so although maintenance is done, it is never on the scale of an active owner doing substantial repairs. Having said that, short life occupants have spent thousands over the years maintaining their buildings.

Carlton Mansions will rot and be a pigeon's home very quickly.

 

[Casaubon]

Sounds like a £3-4million restoration is reasonable value

Well, let’s see what the final, total bill is. I'm sure we can rely on the council to provide full and accurate disclosure (pffffttt).

I think they’re throwing good money after bad, propping up rotting buildings which are woefully inefficient in their energy use and whose layouts are very wasteful of space and unsuitable for modern living.

I’d rather our money was spent on better quality housing, instead of shoring up the political reputations of those shifty wankers in the town hall.

Apart from anything else, economically-speaking new build has the distinct advantage over refurbishment of being VAT-free, while refurb attracts full VAT.

 

[teuchter]

I think they’re throwing good money after bad, propping up rotting buildings which are woefully inefficient in their energy use and whose layouts are very wasteful of space and unsuitable for modern living

I'd agree with you completely, if I didn't also think that there is important value in certain aspects of old buildings. As records of history and part of what makes a place a place. And while there's always a compromise somewhere, and it's by no means easy, it's possible to make old buildings work better and more efficiently without completely destroying them.

Unless you are saying that Lambeth should have sold these all off to the private market, and used the proceeds to do newbuild social housing elsewhere. But then people would be complaining that all the "best" housing (aka the inefficient rotting stuff) was going into private hands.

 

[Rushy]

It would be interesting to see what Lexadon is spending per unit and compare the finished products.

 

[CH1]

Chucka has a huffa.

I thought Chuka was right actually - but on balance it was a bit of a damp squib wasn't it?

Nothing quite matches John Nott vs Robin Day. What's is name from Sky has hardly got the panache of Sir Robin - or the twinkle in the eye.

 

[Manter]

Does anyone know a charity who could use an oven, hob or dishwasher?

 

[teuchter]

Does anyone know a charity who could use an oven, hob or dishwasher?

Is it a nice hob?

 

[teuchter]

It would be interesting to see what Lexadon is spending per unit and compare the finished products.

It would.

 

[CH1]

It would be interesting to see what Lexadon is spending per unit and compare the finished products.

Lexadon no doubt have inhouse builders and contract managers.

Lambeth used to have their DLO until they were forced to stop building council houses in 1986.

Mr Jerry Knight (Lexadon) is able to be efficient by running his business like a family firm.

Mr Ted Knight (Lambeth Council) was able to do these things efficiently by dictat.

Co-op Lambeth consultant capitalism seems to get blown off course very easily. Now Lambeth will be putting everything via consultants, architects and builders who each take a cut - and stand to benefit from every cost over-run.