Brixton Rec/central Brixton consultation and the 'Rec Quarter' proposals

[Gramsci]

One thing I did notice about the report is that it says project will be done with OPL principles.

The report also says the OPL (One Planet Living) principles will be used for this project.

The One Planet Living Principles are here

Health and Happiness
Equity and local economy
Culture and Community
Land use and wildlife
Sustainable water
Local and sustainable food
Sustainable materials
Sustainable transport
Zero Waste
Zero Carbon

Its a good list. I wonder if Council realise how much they have to do to fulfill it. They come out with OPL in their reports a lot but I do not see them doing much about it in reality.

So the question is how will the Council make sure this project to refurbish the Rec will meet these principles?

Will the Council use an outside assessor to see how these principles are applied and independently report on how the Council is doing? Said reports to be made public?

Bioregional can do this

 

[Gramsci]

Two other issues from the report:

The Council are putting in £9 million to replace plant etc. But there is nothing in the report how they will raise funds to do all the rest of planned refurbishment.

Secondly:

The report does say that around 60% say that they are satisfied with charges. But that is of those who use Rec. The report also says that due to local area being deprived area some do not have time or funds. The report says that the wide range of socio economic users means that improvements to Rec need to be done in a sensitive manner.

Around 60% being happy about cost of Rec means 40% are not. Which is a lot. How will Council address this in future? As report says the aim is to make the rec self sustaining. Will this not imply higher charges?

 

[Gramsci]

I really like the idea of them trying to tackle the problems of unused interior space, the strange atrium, poor circulation and entrance issues.

But I also like the climbing idea, if feasible.

One of the climbers is an architect. He reckons its feasible. I think they said it would make Brixton Rec climbing wall the largest indoor one in London. There would be lot of climbers who would come from other parts of London to use it.

The atrium. It used to have a lot of plants. You can still see the spaces for them where the balconies are. The space was originally a bit like the indoor garden at the Barbican.

I agree the entrance is an issue. The original design was based on the walkways connecting to rest of the new tower block Brixton that never happened. So its never been a great place for entrance.

When it was first opened it was open to general public more as well. No big security or gates.

 

[Mr Retro]

I've recently joined the Rec for the weights room and gym. The biggest problem there is groups of friends using the weights room and generally being fucking dickheads and anti-social. They treat the place as if they own it, preening and posing, hogging the machines, leaving weights where they drop them, lumps of tissue (for whipping down equipment) on the floor.

I don't give a fuck but I wouldn't like my wife to go into that atmosphere. It should be controlled and it wouldn't take £9m to do it, it would just take the current staff to do their job.

 

[uk benzo]

Thank you Gramsci for taking the time to read the document and summarising it for us : )

 

[harrinh]

Hello, I am new to this forum and I dont live in Brixton currently but I am curious about all this consultation and participation stuff. It seems to not be working very well, and I would like to know what you guys think would be more successful way of getting your opinions across or listened to more?

 

[Greebo]

Hello, I am new to this forum and I dont live in Brixton currently but I am curious about all this consultation and participation stuff. It seems to not be working very well, and I would like to know what you guys think would be more successful way of getting your opinions across or listened to more?

To give you some background, at least in this borough, an awful lot of consultations and surveys have been done in the last 10 years, but IMHO there's been bugger all feedback about the information gathered and even less noticeable action afterwards (unless it was in line with what the council wanted).

I'm sick of being expected to wade through yet another heap of information and expected to spend my free time giving my views on it, as all that seems likely to happen afterwards is the square root of sweet FA.

 

[harrinh]

To give you some background, at least in this borough, an awful lot of consultations and surveys have been done in the last 10 years, but IMHO there's been bugger all feedback about the information gathered and even less noticeable action afterwards (unless it was in line with what the council wanted).

I'm sick of being expected to wade through yet another heap of information and expected to spend my free time giving my views on it, as all that seems likely to happen afterwards is the square root of sweet FA.

Fair Point Greebo! And thank you for your reply!

I think its a tricky one really. Basically I am an architectural student doing my postgrad at the moment, and I am looking into this idea of participation- and if there needs to be more of it in our profession to act more on the behalf of the people and get less stuck in the trap of developers. But in my research it seems communities dont like consultation either so I guess I am just trying to analyse how as architects we can find a sneaky way to act for the people more (or as much as we can- since the people who hire us are developers etc).

Basically I want to see how architects can extend our duty of care towards the people more when we dont necessarily even have that power or involvement to the completion of a project (which many people may not be aware of)

 

[harrinh]

One thing I did notice about the report is that it says project will be done with OPL principles.

The report also says the OPL (One Planet Living) principles will be used for this project.

The One Planet Living Principles are here

Health and Happiness
Equity and local economy
Culture and Community
Land use and wildlife
Sustainable water
Local and sustainable food
Sustainable materials
Sustainable transport
Zero Waste
Zero Carbon

Its a good list. I wonder if Council realise how much they have to do to fulfill it. They come out with OPL in their reports a lot but I do not see them doing much about it in reality.

So the question is how will the Council make sure this project to refurbish the Rec will meet these principles?

Will the Council use an outside assessor to see how these principles are applied and independently report on how the Council is doing? Said reports to be made public?

Bioregional can do this

Were you around for the previous master plan in 2008/9 where Bioregional were involved in the development of that version? Do you know why did that one not go ahead with Stockwool architects as the urbanists/master planners or whatever you want to call it?

 

[wjh]

I think its a tricky one really. Basically I am an architectural student doing my postgrad at the moment, and I am looking into this idea of participation- and if there needs to be more of it in our profession to act more on the behalf of the people and get less stuck in the trap of developers. But in my research it seems communities dont like consultation either so I guess I am just trying to analyse how as architects we can find a sneaky way to act for the people more (or as much as we can- since the people who hire us are developers etc).

Basically I want to see how architects can extend our duty of care towards the people more when we dont necessarily even have that power or involvement to the completion of a project (which many people may not be aware of)

The problem you've articulated there is that as architects your responsibility is to your paying client, not the people who end up living in the built results. Consultation (in as much as I've seen it in Lambeth over the last ten years or so) is basically the worst kind of manipulative public relations. I've never seen it as part of an iterative design process and people get rightly annoyed when they spend a lot of time involved in a consultation only to be ignored, as Greebo said.

It would be great if architectural practices could convince their clients to use a Participatory design (co-design) methodology but when the fundamental aim of a developer is to maximise their return or in the case of Lambeth, to reduce ongoing costs, I doubt we'll ever see a design process like this that is perceived as high risk.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fair Point Greebo! And thank you for your reply!

I think its a tricky one really. Basically I am an architectural student doing my postgrad at the moment, and I am looking into this idea of participation- and if there needs to be more of it in our profession to act more on the behalf of the people and get less stuck in the trap of developers. But in my research it seems communities dont like consultation either so I guess I am just trying to analyse how as architects we can find a sneaky way to act for the people more (or as much as we can- since the people who hire us are developers etc).

Basically I want to see how architects can extend our duty of care towards the people more when we dont necessarily even have that power or involvement to the completion of a project (which many people may not be aware of)

The issue of consultation is, to say the least, fraught. Some of the primary problems (in my opinion) are:

• Managed consultation: this is where the foundation of the consultation - the information offered to the public regarding the matter under consultation - is filtered through the desires and requirements of the body that is legally-obliged to hold consultations (in this case the local authority), usually through the employment of (ironically!) consultants.
• Re-consultation: where the legally-obliged body gets a result from consultations that it doesn't like/want, and reformulates the consultation process in a more tightly-managed way.
• Lack of independent and neutral management of the consultation process and arbitration of dispute(s).
• Legally-obliged bodies adopting a "minimum publicity" approach to publicising consultation. We've seen a fair bit of this in Lambeth, where a single public notice is placed on-site in an inaccessible place or not facing where major foot traffic will pass, alongside being (statutorily, I believe) published in the local paper.

Communities "don't like" consultation because we generally have experienced the above, not because we're opposed to consultation per se.

 

[harrinh]

The issue of consultation is, to say the least, fraught. Some of the primary problems (in my opinion) are:

• Managed consultation: this is where the foundation of the consultation - the information offered to the public regarding the matter under consultation - is filtered through the desires and requirements of the body that is legally-obliged to hold consultations (in this case the local authority), usually through the employment of (ironically!) consultants.
• Re-consultation: where the legally-obliged body gets a result from consultations that it doesn't like/want, and reformulates the consultation process in a more tightly-managed way.
• Lack of independent and neutral management of the consultation process and arbitration of dispute(s).
• Legally-obliged bodies adopting a "minimum publicity" approach to publicising consultation. We've seen a fair bit of this in Lambeth, where a single public notice is placed on-site in an inaccessible place or not facing where major foot traffic will pass, alongside being (statutorily, I believe) published in the local paper.

Communities "don't like" consultation because we generally have experienced the above, not because we're opposed to consultation per se.

Yes its true! Basically the whole system needs a shake up and architects need to be more involved from the top- ie in the GLA and more in planning!( but alas there is only so much I can take on in an essay- i fear i have already scuppered myself with too much haha)

There are many architects out there who have been rallying for more meaningful participatory work and methods for decades(such as Jeremy Till and many more), and I know many of my colleagues feel the same as myself - it involves a change in the role of the architect but also we can change but it won't make enough difference until the system changes more. We can only encourage and push this approach more and I guess for the mean time that is what I am trying to say - it is changing and it will change but its taking time unfortunately. But do have hope as there are plenty architects out there that do want to help communities and develop good cities- we are just sometimes as stuck as you guys are- which was actually the starting point for my essay lol.

Overall I think I am still trying to say that architects should use participatory work more as a tool in our toolbox to help for the greater good and as a mechanism in trying to push the developer in better directions, until such time all developers become as sensitive as Argent St George ....

Could i ask- in Brixton with the involvement of FLUID- at what stage in the whole process did the participation start? Were there plans at first? Was it just a fact finding mission the first few times? How far has the process gotten now? Has the master plan been approved, and how involved were the community in that?

 

[Gramsci]

Were you around for the previous master plan in 2008/9 where Bioregional were involved in the development of that version? Do you know why did that one not go ahead with Stockwool architects as the urbanists/master planners or whatever you want to call it?

Yes I was.

The Brixton Masterplan is not a statutory planning document. It was agreed by Cabinet of Council as what should be aimed for in developments.

So OPL should be a part of developments. I do not see it happening. Trouble is a lot of well meaning aspiratons are never put into practise.

In my experience a limited number of Lambeth officers are really interested in consultation. Most officers regard it as a pain. There is still officers know best mentality. Which would be all right if they wanted to build loads of Council homes. Nor do I feel Lambeth is well served by the top regen officers. ie Sharpe and Foster (OBE- says it all). They are more powerful than some Cllrs.

Its not that the Brixton Masterplan did not go ahead. It always was a document to be referred to in the future.

Out of the Brixton Masterplan consultation came the Council setting up Future Brixton. The Brixton area in the Masterplan is divided up into separate area.

Council was thinking of setting it up so whole area of the Brixton Masteplan would be developed under one over arching body. This would mean that assets could be pooled.

The way the Council is developing Masterplan is by doing each section separately. Town Hall, Somerleyton Road and Brixton Central.

Each one is being consulted on a different ways using different consultants.

Fluid are doing Brixton Central. Igloo are development management team for Somerleyton road. The community supposedly being represented by Brixton Green. Town Hall "consultation" is limited. Town Hall site came under Lambeth Councils office strategy. ie selling off land.

As someone who saw the other side of Lambeth ( Carlton Mansions eviction) I am all to aware of the powers that Councils have invested in them.

 

[Gramsci]

Yes its true! Basically the whole system needs a shake up and architects need to be more involved from the top- ie in the GLA and more in planning!( but alas there is only so much I can take on in an essay- i fear i have already scuppered myself with too much haha)

Could i ask- in Brixton with the involvement of FLUID- at what stage in the whole process did the participation start? Were there plans at first? Was it just a fact finding mission the first few times? How far has the process gotten now? Has the master plan been approved, and how involved were the community in that?

Fluid were hired as consultants by Council to produce a development brief for the Brixton Central site. Not just consulting residents and small business for a masterplan.

So they looked at Brixton Masterplan. The other big landowner is Network Rail. So they talked to them. They also had preliminary talks with residents groups.

Then residents were consulted. As previous posts have pointed out Fluid is not without criticism.

The bottom line issue is imo not so much design for a lot of people( though I think its integral) as building affordable housing. Affordable housing is top of issues in consultation. A lot of issues raised are to do with making sure new developments are affordable. That includes affordable space for small business and retail. Otherwise however well designed a development is it will just lead to more gentrification of area.

So when u say architects need to be more involved at top not sure what u mean.

Secondly there is what I call over designed environment. New developments need to be done with "secured by design" criteria. ie designing out crime. It ends out with Hausmann type developments like "Windswept" square by the Ritzy.

There is something to be said for a less organised environment. For example it was put to Fluid consultation that development of Brixton Central area could be done piecemeal (CH1) rather than one large regeneration project.

 

[Gramsci]

I think its a tricky one really. Basically I am an architectural student doing my postgrad at the moment, and I am looking into this idea of participation- and if there needs to be more of it in our profession to act more on the behalf of the people and get less stuck in the trap of developers. But in my research it seems communities dont like consultation either so I guess I am just trying to analyse how as architects we can find a sneaky way to act for the people more (or as much as we can- since the people who hire us are developers etc).

Basically I want to see how architects can extend our duty of care towards the people more when we dont necessarily even have that power or involvement to the completion of a project (which many people may not be aware of)

Well this raises more questions than it answers.

Architects do not have so much influence now in general. Large projects used to be architect led. Now architects are more like hired professionals working under a management team. There are a few celebrity architects like Zaha Hadid.

When u say on "behalf of the people" and "duty of care" that needs definition.

Have you seen (the free) exhibition at Tate Britain about the 1953 ICA exhibition Parallel of Life and Art.

This artists and architects looked at how art/ architecture and social criticism can overlap. It was still top down. The photos of East End were not about consulting actual people but looking at how they lived from outside and drawing conclusions for street layouts and building communities from that.

Post war, it has to be remembered, through to late 60s was a time when the consensus was that there would be no return to 1930s economic. Then along came Thatcher and neo liberalism. So building schools and affordable housing was taken as a given by architects up to Thatchers time. Architecture takes place within a wider political climate.

 

[Gramsci]

Getting back to the Rec.

Given this helpful blog post about what Passivhaus is and is not.

Its about energy efficiency and comfort. Its not like BREEAM which covers a lot of issues and is points based.

Passivhaus is simpler and more difficult as its pass or fail. You cannot get points in one area to make up for losing points elsewhere. So it ends up doing what is promised at the beginning.

Its about comfort as its possible to have energy efficient home- ie using a lot less gas for heating- that is not warm throughout the whole building. Or a building that is either to hot or cold at times.

So its not hair shirt green technology. End result is comfortable environment to live or work in. A healthy environment.

What Passivhaus does not do is deal with "embodied energy". That is the energy that is used to make building materials. Its a performance standard. Not a carbon reduction building standard. This does mean the building materials and design are flexible.

Its does deal with a major element of CO2 emissions which is heating.

 

[leanderman]

While you are all theorising, I'll grab a brush and whitewash that dismal red brick interior.

It'd be as good a way as any to start.

 

[editor]

A photo feature:
Underneath the arches – a look around Brixton’s gentrification-threatened Valentia Place studios

 

[Tricky Skills]

The comprehensive response from BRUG to the Lambeth Council commissioned survey on the future of the Rec is well worth a read. The criticism is that the survey is patchy and not evidence based. Plus it also looks at cuts, rather than investment.

BBuzz piece.

 

[Dexter Deadwood]

The comprehensive response from BRUG to the Lambeth Council commissioned survey on the future of the Rec is well worth a read. The criticism is that the survey is patchy and not evidence based. Plus it also looks at cuts, rather than investment.

BBuzz piece.

They used agency staff to conduct the survey and those staff that I interacted with had no idea about the nature of the survey.
This is typical of corporates and hollowed out government and it's actually a soul destroying, market driven way to interact/consult; it's insulting.

 

[Dexter Deadwood]

I like this;



Taken from the article above, hope to attend as I have issues with the changes regarding the Sauna.

 

[Gramsci]

Latest edition of the Brixton Rec Users Group newsletter.

Topic are; Afewee boxing club classes, possible listing of Rec, how to complain and over 55s day.

Tricky Skills has done this piece for Buzz re the latest newsletter.

Its important to note however that the BRUG committee do not have a position on listing at this time. The article is start of a more public discussion of the issue.

Its also an issue for those interested in architecture who are not necessarily users of the Rec.

This group called Docomomo are holding meeting next week about the Rec and listing issue.

 

[gaijingirl]

I didn't really know where to put this but I am worried about the Rec. We go weekly and it is getting worse and worse. For ages now (probably since before Easter) the showers have been a mess - either scaldingly hot, or freezing cold - yesterday the family showers were not heated at all - actually freezing cold. The showers for washing before you get in the pool were scalding. The showers in the ladies' changing seem to pretty much be ok all the time thankfully. The spinny machine was broken (ok - not the end of the world but just one more thing). The pool was like swimming in soup - so cloudy and horrible. The swimming instructor for my daughter's class didn't turn up leaving a poolside duty manager and the other instructors dealing with lots of angry parents first thing on a Sunday morning. The second kids' pool was closed down. The security guards were let go a few months ago so the sauna is now controlled by a code door which is causing all kinds of problems. We have thrown in the towel and cancelled our daughter's lessons there and when we went to talk to staff there they were downhearted, saying they had been passing on concerns to managers for ages but were being ignored. We used to get our teas/coffees etc from the cafe - but that is gone now, so one of us goes out to Cafe Max for drinks and brings them back whilst we do softplay (there is a tea/coffee vending machine but it's horrible). In other leisure centres we'll use cafes to feed the kids as they're often an affordable meal out - but not at the Rec. I don't understand it as it's always busy with families and swimmers early on a Sunday - so it's not like the demand isn't there - it just feels really deliberate.

 

[Tricky Skills]

The boiler issue is hopefully being addressed. The Council is spending £156k on replacements.

£6m investment is needed over the next ten years. Where this money comes from is still being 'identified'.

Hopefully we'll find out more when the delayed outcomes from the Cultural Consultation are announced. This should be sometime next month.

 

[leanderman]

On Saturday, the family showers were scaldingly hot.

Over the summer, lessons were cancelled without notice because of staff problems.

We've not noted any water quality issues though.

 

[gaijingirl]

On Saturday, the family showers were scaldingly hot.

Each week now for months they've either been scalding or freezing - you never know. To the point where we can't wash the kids. Tbf... this was the first week with horrible water quality but it just felt like there were SO many things wrong at once.

I get so annoyed/upset that it seems so unloved when it's such a great place. I worry about how long it will be before there's another attempt to grab the land and replace it elsewhere with something smaller and "more profitable".

 

[gaijingirl]

The boiler issue is hopefully being addressed. The Council is spending £156k on replacements.

£6m investment is needed over the next ten years. Where this money comes from is still being 'identified'.

Hopefully we'll find out more when the delayed outcomes from the Cultural Consultation are announced. This should be sometime next month.

good - I really hope this is going to happen. I think many people don't see beyond the red-brick and realise what good stuff goes on in there. It needs some love and hard cash!

 

[snowy_again]

It's still Fusion / GLL run isn't it?

They seem to be having their never ending series of problems in actually delivering anything against their budget and the staff are the ones who seem to end up suffering, through demotivation etc.

 

[gaijingirl]

Yeah - I felt really sorry for the staff (who had turned up) on Sunday - they were having a really hard time of it. Gaijinboy went to talk to them at reception (he's gentle but there were some really angry people there) and they seemed really dejected.

 

[brixtonscot]

It's still Fusion / GLL run isn't it?

The Rec is run by GLL
Unite for Public Services - When privatisation goes wrong