Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Champagne & Fromage opening in Brixton soon

C'mon. The thread judges the place and the people on what you imagine champagne to symbolise. It's not that different from laptops, cameras and smartphones, which are all acceptable to people here.
What does a laptop symbolise, exactly?
 
C'mon. The thread judges the place and the people on what you imagine champagne to symbolise. It's not that different from laptops, cameras and smartphones, which are all acceptable to people here.
"The thread judges the place and the people on what you imagine champagne to symbolise" - well no, the thread doesn't do anything.

Whatever, "It's not that different from laptops, cameras and smartphones" is absolutely not the case.

You've not read it have you? That's okay, it's nearly 80 pages long. But shut up about it, ta.
 
What has this grand red herring has to do with the socio-economic impact of a champagne bar opening up in the poorest ward in Lambeth?

I doubt C+F, or Brixton Village for that matter, has much of a socio-economic impact compared with the very much bigger picture of London's housing crisis.

Rents, for example, would have gone up anyway. It's not clear to me that housing costs have accelerated any more here than in East Dulwich, Balham or Tooting.

Besides C+F is here basically because Claphamites have been priced out of Clapham.
 
"The thread judges the place and the people on what you imagine champagne to symbolise" - well no, the thread doesn't do anything.

Whatever, "It's not that different from laptops, cameras and smartphones" is absolutely not the case.

You've not read it have you? That's okay, it's nearly 80 pages long. But shut up about it, ta.

Oh, you decided that your opinion is fact? And if I don't agree, it's because I haven't read the thread.

If you say so.
 
I doubt C+F, or Brixton Village for that matter, has much of a socio-economic impact compared with the very much bigger picture of London's housing crisis.

Rents, for example, would have gone up anyway. It's not clear to me that housing costs have accelerated any more here than in East Dulwich, Balham or Tooting.

Besides C+F is here basically because Claphamites have been priced out of Clapham.
I think it's going to have a noticeable impact within the market space and the locality, even if it is only acting as an accelerant for the already-occurring process of fast-rising rents and the pricing out of traditional businesses. I expect more expensive, upmarket businesses to follow them into the market.

Great news for some, no doubt, but it depresses the hell out of me, what with there being a soup kitchen just around the corner.
 
I would rather Nandos burnt down than ChampFro. There, I have said it.
My fantasy conflagration* would take in ChampFro, then the Wine Parlour and Tique Booty. Nandos is so far out of town for me, I don't even notice it.

(*this is of course meant in a jokey manner and at no point would I want a business - no matter how repellent - to be burnt down)
 
Actually, on balance, it's another attempt to distort the arguments involved. We saw this previously with the bizarre "but the Albert serves champagne" thing - that was attempting to redefine the argument against C&F as some sort of "anti-champagne" one. (As well as being weirdly personal - "your pub serves champagne".) Now it's trying to redefine the opposition as one about spending money on anything at all. You bought a thing how dare you complain about people buying things because that is what you are talking about here despite everything else you say.

I bought some shoes the other day. I'm such a hypocrite.

I have been thinking about the gulf between the two sides of this debate and why it has arisen. I suspect in reality that both sides are pretty au fait with issues of inequality/poverty and share the same concerns about them.

I think on one side we are looking for intellectual consistency - what is it *exactly* that makes C+F the tipping point? That leads to arguments about price of champagne in other venues, whether there were earlier tipping points etc.

On the anti-side however, it's more of an emotional reaction - C+F just *feels* wrong - that this time things have gone too far. And if it feels that wrong, then the arguments about consistency from the other side feel like the other side are missing the point. Whereas actually we are just looking at it from a different perspective.
 
I'm a bit baffled by Nando's; it's not complete crap but it's a bit meh; lots of people seem to love it though.
there was an almighty fuss when Nandos planned to open in Stoke Newington, a lot of people on FB hated the idea of it - C&F would not prompt such protest
 
I have been thinking about the gulf between the two sides of this debate and why it has arisen. I suspect in reality that both sides are pretty au fait with issues of inequality/poverty and share the same concerns about them.
I don't agree with that I'm afraid. There's an absurd level of stereotyping of opposition to this - you hate champagne! (and the Albert serves champagne!) YOU ARE BULLIES LEAVE C&F ALONE you have phones !!!!11±!!!!! what's wrong with cheese?????? - it's just a joke.

I don't think "both sides" are au fait at all - I think there are a bunch of people who want to pretend that it's all some weird imaginary class war hate campaign that has nothing to do with them or anything that's going on ever, and they will take any opportunity to say it's the middle class, it's the unemployed, it's not Brixton people, it's Brixton people who don't realise things have changed, Brixton people have sold the property for profit and none of them are being kicked out, etc etc

The position has been made very, very clear and if you're claiming it's otherwise (e.g. Yelkcub) you're the enemy. Work it out if you don't want to be.
 
The position has been made very, very clear and if you're claiming it's otherwise (e.g. Yelkcub) you're the enemy. Work it out if you don't want to be.

I don't mind being the enemy. It makes no difference to my life. But, there's some first class hypocrisy that so obvious to someone as uninvolved as me, it's impossible to comment without pointing it out.
 
I have been thinking about the gulf between the two sides of this debate and why it has arisen. I suspect in reality that both sides are pretty au fait with issues of inequality/poverty and share the same concerns about them.

I think on one side we are looking for intellectual consistency - what is it *exactly* that makes C+F the tipping point? That leads to arguments about price of champagne in other venues, whether there were earlier tipping points etc.

On the anti-side however, it's more of an emotional reaction - C+F just *feels* wrong - that this time things have gone too far. And if it feels that wrong, then the arguments about consistency from the other side feel like the other side are missing the point. Whereas actually we are just looking at it from a different perspective.

I think its partly when people using the 'emotional reaction' start using the price argument that they get unstuck..£40 for a champagne tasting session may seem a waste of money to you.. , but actually argue on your own terms.

Though this also supports Yelkclub's line - because if we're talking about what's 'inclusive or not', "cultural invasion", then inequality and exclusion in the form of latest brand/version mobiles does work in a similar way really.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom