Brixton news, rumours and general chat

[CH1]

Brixton's strange Maoist Cult in 5 minutes BBC Four TV. (Repeat)

BBC Two - The Cult Next Door

The extraordinary story of a strange cult which came to light in 2013.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[urbanspaceman]

Probably be even lower energy if it wasn't throbbing and animated!
But I don't mind it either, even though I wish KFC didn't exist.

Just KFC, or chicken shops in general ?

 

[editor]

Just KFC, or chicken shops in general ?

Chicken shops on the grounds of the hideous, unacceptable cruelty of factory farms, and also for the rat attracting bones, remains and litter that many patrons of such establishments like to deposit on the ground.

 

[friendofdorothy]

Its 25 years since the Brixton Bombing on 17/4/1999.

The Hate Crime Awareness charity 17-24-30 (so named after the dates of the bombs in Brixton - Brick Lane - Soho) is organising a small event on Electric Avenue outside Iceland at 6pm on the 17th April.

This is today at 6pm.

 

[urbanspaceman]

Chicken shops on the grounds of the hideous, unacceptable cruelty of factory farms, and also for the rat attracting bones, remains and litter that many patrons of such establishments like to deposit on the ground.

I so agree with you. The type of people who patronise chicken shops are simply ghastly.

 

[jimbarkanoodle]

I feel sorry for workers in the chicken shops. On the increasingly rare times i am in one, there is always at least one, sometimes an entire group, of gobby little cunts who harass and intimidate the poor chap behind the counter in getting far more than the £2.50 they have paid for. Apparently calling a poor bloke who spends their whole day getting paid fuck all in a smelly, oily chicken shop 'Bossman' means they can demand extra this, extra that and if they don't get it, its fine to then give them some abuse

 

[urbanspaceman]

I feel sorry for workers in the chicken shops. On the increasingly rare times i am in one, there is always at least one, sometimes an entire group, of gobby little cunts who harass and intimidate the poor chap behind the counter in getting far more than the £2.50 they have paid for. Apparently calling a poor bloke who spends their whole day getting paid fuck all in a smelly, oily chicken shop 'Bossman' means they can demand extra this, extra that and if they don't get it, its fine to then given then some abuse

 

[friendofdorothy]

 

[Rushy]

Good to see Lambeth's revolutionary kerbside strategy in action.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Good to see Lambeth's revolutionary kerbside strategy in action.

View attachment 420430

It's so magical to see them return to roost each evening.

 

[editor]

Good to see Lambeth's revolutionary kerbside strategy in action.

View attachment 420430

That's insane.

 

[editor]

Air ambulance just landed in Wyck gardens.

 

[Mr paulee]

Behind the doors of an almshouse in Brixton

Photographer Jim Grover's latest exhibition, Behind the Blue Doors, looks at the history of an almshouse in Brixton.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[CH1]

Herne Hill thread or here?

City Splash Festival returns to Brockwell Park

A festival celebrating Caribbean and African culture is returning to Brockwell Park. City Splash Festival will host artists performing reggae,

southwarknews.co.uk

 

[CH1]

Herne Hill thread or here?

City Splash Festival returns to Brockwell Park

A festival celebrating Caribbean and African culture is returning to Brockwell Park. City Splash Festival will host artists performing reggae,

southwarknews.co.uk

Beenie Man - rang a bell for me.
There was an issue rumbling on for years with him and Buju Banton's hate lyrics Songs of hate - Buju Banton / Beenie Man - MiamiHerald.com | Equality Florida

Beenie Man: 'I'm not homophobic'

Jamaican dancehall star Beenie Man tells Matilda Egere-Cooper his violently anti-gay lyrics have been misunderstood

www.independent.co.uk

This Pulitzer Centre report from 2012 suggests anti hate music campaigners (who include Peter Tachell and also Dirg Aab-Richards and Ted Brown from Brixton) have scored a hit by virtue of Beenie Man's apology https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/jamaica-beenie-man-apologizes-gay-community

Nevertheless even in this very supportive interview Beenie Man seems to be saying - "that was when I was young - I am now a man - I have to go with the flow"


Remember the days when Channel 4 and "The Word" had a similar place in the market to GB News? [in the sense of stirring it up to get views]

 

[GarveyLives]

Herne Hill thread or here?

City Splash Festival returns to Brockwell Park

A festival celebrating Caribbean and African culture is returning to Brockwell Park. City Splash Festival will host artists performing reggae,

southwarknews.co.uk

The alleged "festival celebrating Caribbean and African culture" appears to be a one-day reggae party / concert in Brockwell Park. There seems to be a thread here:

Brockwell Park news, festival updates and more...

 

[Angellic]

Apologies if this is already on another thread

 

[skyscraper101]

Good to see Lambeth's revolutionary kerbside strategy in action.

View attachment 420430

These things are a menace. They should either be sat in docking stations or off the street entirely.

 

[Tulster218]

Apologies if this is already on another thread

NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Who's standing up for the people who might want to live there when it's finished?

 

[Crispy]

Apologies if this is already on another thread

This is one of 24 site allocations in this planning doc: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/de...allocations-development-plan-document-psv.pdf
Details here (including more views of the massing model from that tweet): https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/de...eth-sadpd-psv-sa20-tesco-13-acre-lane-sw2.pdf
(also attached here cos these things tend to be ephemeral)

Supermarket and (smaller) carpark to be retained. 35% affordable housing, however Lambeth defines that these day I don't know.
Max height 9 storeys (32m) which is a bit taller than the new town hall building, but shorter than the new flats where Olive Morrid house used to be.
This is merely Lambeth's suggestion and developers would have freedom to change it.

It's a totally appropriate use of the site.

consultation here: Have your say on the Site Allocations Development Plan Document Proposed Submission Version (SADPD PSV)

 

[alex_]

It’s a fucking car park, build as many flats as you want.

Alex

 

[teuchter]

I also think it's an appropriate site for development but can see why, say, residents of Porden Rd might be worried about being hemmed in on all three sides by tall buildings.
A quick look at the SADPD document confirms that they will be judging daylight impact in the way that seems to have been accepted for all of these sites:


That means that a developer building on on one of these sites can overshadow neighbouring terrace-housing streets more than would be allowed normally (eg if a homeowner wants to build an extension on one of those same streets).

This issue arises in Zone-2 and 3 type locations which really were originally built as semi-suburban areas with lots of low-rise housing.

I've never really managed to find out exactly how you decide whether a site can be deemed an "inner-urban/urban location". When they say "established parameters" what do they mean exactly? In many cases it appears that you make it an inner-urban location by building your high-rise development on it.

I think it's a mis-use of that principle (which you find in BRE daylighting guides which I think refer back to various British Standards documents). I think the concept of lower standards for daylighting in inner urban sites was intended to reflect the lower expectations of people living in city centres which aren't predominantly residential and are already densely built up.

If you decide to live in an area of 2-3 storey housing then it's perhaps reasonable to have different expectations. But it turns out that now, if you are anywhere vaguely near to a local centre, you are deemed to live in an "inner urban" location and therefore no problem to reduce your levels of daylight below those previously considered acceptable

 

[CH1]

I also think it's an appropriate site for development but can see why, say, residents of Porden Rd might be worried about being hemmed in on all three sides by tall buildings.
A quick look at the SADPD document confirms that they will be judging daylight impact in the way that seems to have been accepted for all of these sites:

View attachment 421227
That means that a developer building on on one of these sites can overshadow neighbouring terrace-housing streets more than would be allowed normally (eg if a homeowner wants to build an extension on one of those same streets).

This issue arises in Zone-2 and 3 type locations which really were originally built as semi-suburban areas with lots of low-rise housing.

I've never really managed to find out exactly how you decide whether a site can be deemed an "inner-urban/urban location". When they say "established parameters" what do they mean exactly? In many cases it appears that you make it an inner-urban location by building your high-rise development on it.

I think it's a mis-use of that principle (which you find in BRE daylighting guides which I think refer back to various British Standards documents). I think the concept of lower standards for daylighting in inner urban sites was intended to reflect the lower expectations of people living in city centres which aren't predominantly residential and are already densely built up.

If you decide to live in an area of 2-3 storey housing then it's perhaps reasonable to have different expectations. But it turns out that now, if you are anywhere vaguely near to a local centre, you are deemed to live in an "inner urban" location and therefore no problem to reduce your levels of daylight below those previously considered acceptable

I am a member of the Brixton Society and I am totally disillusioned with the overdevelopment of Brixton.
Not that the Brixton Society made a partricular fuss about the bits that most affect me, LJAG were highly active at all stages of the planning process of Higgs Industrial Estate (supported by several people on here) and the result is a disaster.

I am sure Lambeth and Tescos can cook up a Higgs type scheme for Acre Lane, maybe private not Peabody too.
If not US-style, Lambeth Town Hall now seems to be imitating Australian standards of street design

 

[edcraw]

Apologies if this is already on another thread

If you’re describing nine stories as skyscrapers think you’ve lost the plot.

 

[alex_]

If you’re describing nine stories as skyscrapers think you’ve lost the plot.

NIMBYs gotta NIMBY

 

[technical]

I'm slightly surprised Lambeth are proposing to increase the number of units on the site, but their approach is reasonable. It's a town centre site, with very good public transport links so it totally makes sense to redevelop it from the really inefficient use as a car park.

Think 9 storeys or just over 30 metres is okay on this site as well. It will enclose Acre Lane a bit particularly as you head towards the town hall but its a pretty dense urban area already. The problem is likely to be when developers come forward with proposals - they often see the guidelines in a site allocation as a starting point rather than a maximum.

 

[CH1]

Tescos was already built on the site of the oldest house in Acre Lane (1803). But heritage issues seem to have slipped down the priorities of some posters on here. Time to bring back Inner Ring Road 1?
An artist's impression of Brixton town centre, post-redevelopment, seen from the South Cross Route. Note the piddling St Matthews Church and Lambeth Town Hall to the right.
In fact this was why the Brixton Society started in the first place - Rushcroft Road and Saltoun Road were up for demolition (already majorly CPO'd). Parts of Coldharbour Lane lane already gone.
Some selfish community do-gooders dared to oppose!

 

[Rushy]

Tescos was already built on the site of the oldest house in Acre Lane (1803). But heritage issues seem to have slipped down the priorities of some posters on here. Time to bring back Inner Ring Road 1?View attachment 421385
An artist's impression of Brixton town centre, post-redevelopment, seen from the South Cross Route. Note the piddling St Matthews Church and Lambeth Town Hall to the right.
In fact this was why the Brixton Society started in the first place - Rushcroft Road and Saltoun Road were up for demolition (already majorly CPO'd). Parts of Coldharbour Lane lane already gone.
Some selfish community do-gooders dared to oppose!

I've seen that before but never noticed the church and town hall - cheers for pointing it out. I can see that they are in other views too. Does anyone know where I can get good quality scans of these images for printing?

 

[alex_]

Lambeth needs a lot of homes, if putting a couple of hundred on top of tescos doesn’t work - nowhere works

 

[teuchter]

Lambeth needs a lot of homes, if putting a couple of hundred on top of tescos doesn’t work - nowhere works

Probably most people would agree that fitting some homes onto this site would be a good thing, and also that there would be such a thing as too many (ie at some point most people would say "that's too high").

What's tricky is finding the balance. Unless you genuinely believe that any amount is ok, then there does have to be some discussion about where that balance is. Just dismissing any objection as "nimbys gotta nimby" is an easy way out of actually engaging with the problem of deciding what's appropriate and how to approach that decision. Of course an absolutist "no change anywhere" is also completely unhelpful but that's rarely what's being proposed by amenity groups or others who object to stuff.

I think the Brixton Society's tweet posted above is perhaps a little alarmist. But what are the motivations for objecting? It's not usually just selfish ones. It's about trying to protect an area from harmful development that makes it a worse place for everyone who lives there...including the future residents of newly built housing.

We read all these complaints of housing provision being severely restricted by nimbys and planning rules. But anyone who's paid attention to planning policy over the last 10-20 years or so will know that restrictions on height & density have already been massively relaxed, compared to what the norms were before.

Many of these sites, 15 years ago the argument would have been about whether 4 storeys could stretch to 5. Now it's about 8 vs 10 or 15 vs 20.

The results of this change in policy have been fairly dramatic across the more outer regions of london. Some people might even enjoy the increasingly common vistas of 2-storey victorian terraces with massive high rise looming immediately behind. Maybe this relaxation of approach is fully justified by the additional housing capacity it has allowed. Myself I find it hard to come to a firm opinion. But I really don't think there is any easy answer when it comes to assessing each site. It's not as easy as dismissing any objection as NIMBYism. Unless your position is that the principle of town planning should be discarded entirely - and when you start to question the "just build more" absolutists on that, it nearly always turns out that they actually don't like the idea of a complete market driven free-for-all (and for some reason they very often have very conservative aesthetic preferences when it comes down to it). They are usually applying a simplistic solution to something they haven't actually thought through the complexities of.