East Brixton station (formerly Lougborough Park): abandoned station off Coldharbour Lane

[cybertect]

I don't know about "wealth of the empire" directly - the railways were all private companies, out to make a profit, when they were built.

To be perfectly honest, lots of people lost their shirts in the railway boom of the 1840s. It was like the Internet Bubble at the end of the 1990s with massive inflows of capital and very small returns being made on it.

The shake-out was with us all the way through the government legislated formation of the 'big four' railway companies (LNER, LMS, GWR and Southern) after WW1 and the nationalisation of rail after WWII through to the Beeching cuts of the 1960s when most of the smaller, wildly unprofitable lines disappeared.

 

[netbob]

Are you going to wait for a glossy magazine from the council before you vote on this thread?

You mean this one

 

[Dan U]

but Newbie what about the new areas of work that will be opened up by better transport links?

would you deny those people the chance to get better jobs just because you dont want to see Brixton gentrifying?

were you born in Brixton? or did you migrate in yourself? its a transistional area and has been for at least the last 50 years.

 

[THE WARRIOR]

but Newbie what about the new areas of work that will be opened up by better transport links?

As well as opportunities to travel faster than a 345 bus, by having interchange stations at all nodal interchanges the radial rail route can provide an efficient way to travel if a key route into central london is closed or experiencing delays, thereby saving a fortune in losses incurred due to transport delays, yet I do not think any finance model for a new station/interchange takes this into account

 

[netbob]

For anyone who hasnt seen it before, this is what the transport map is due to look like one day (PDF):

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/press-releases/putting-transport-onthemap.pdf

One thing to bare in mind about the ELL not stopping in Brixton is that it isn't going to be a tube service, but a railway service run by TFL. Therefore it is bound to have less stops.

 

[newbie]

Are you going to wait for a glossy magazine from the council before you vote on this thread?

I don't have enough of a view either way to vote. I can see some advantages, some disadvantages, but overall I'm unclear, just now in 2006 when Revitalise, the road layout and the tram are all undecided, what the future of Brixton holds. I'll do a kneejerk vote if you like, in which case it's against because the case for hasn't been properly made or proven. But that's preliminary.

I don't understand why people lurch into a particular camp without asking, and expecting answers to, fundamental questions. And what's more fundamental than 'whose interests does this serve'?

When the council or TfL produces a glossy I'll be asking the same question.

 

[newbie]

but Newbie what about the new areas of work that will be opened up by better transport links?

would you deny those people the chance to get better jobs just because you dont want to see Brixton gentrifying?

add that to the Pro side of the equation: better access for locals to jobs.

There are lots of positives and negatives I haven't mentioned. I'm trying to widen the discussion, not produce a definitive report. A bunch of people saying they'd like to be able to get to Clapham Junction or Peckham easier than now is merely skimming the surface of this.

were you born in Brixton? or did you migrate in yourself? its a transistional area and has been for at least the last 50 years.

I was born north of the river, but you might try explaining why the answers to the questions I've put are dependent on where I was born. The questions are fundamental, who asks them isn't. Whenever someone plays the man not the ball (as ts1 has been doing throughout) it's usually because their own arguments are poorly thought through and based on sectional self interest.

 

[Maggot]

The authorities are correct in reporting that the proposed East London line does not share the line of Loughborough Junction or Brixton Station as its "on the high line" that crosses these two other lines.
HOWEVER the line rises from ground level after it runs along the north side of Ruskin Park before getting high enough to go above Thameslink just south of Loughborough Junction Station. This patch which is beside EMPTY land - parallel with Bengworth Road (which has no residential dwellings) would be an obvious cheap place to put in a station (there are signs that there used to be one called "Cambria Road"). There would then be a three to four minute walk to the existing Loughborough Junction station (and on many underground interconnections the walk between lines is as far).
This would be a cheap and possible solution - but don't expect the powers that be to look at the really feasible answers for then the aurgument about costs would be revealed for what it is - an excuse!

The land I think you're talking about has a huge London Electricity depot, on it and part of Kings College hospital, so it's not exactly empty.



I didn't know there was Cambria Road station, I used to live there.

 

[Dan U]

I was born north of the river, but you might try explaining why the answers to the questions I've put are dependent on where I was born. The questions are fundamental, who asks them isn't. Whenever someone plays the man not the ball (as ts1 has been doing throughout) it's usually because their own arguments are poorly thought through and based on sectional self interest.

sorry, i wasnt playing the man and not the ball intentionaly.

the point i was trying to make is that Brixton has always been an area that has changed, people have left, people have come. it appeared to me from reading your posts that one of the reasons why you didnt want this interchange was a reluctance to see any further change in the area in a certain direction - i.e losing its feel and spirit and turning into just another clone suburb.

That I can understand, but only to a point.

connecting to an improved transport infrastructure is a bit of a no-brainer in my books, particularly this scheme.

As I've already mentioned about access to jobs (inwards and outwards) and also reduced traffic flows on the E-W roads - such as the S Circular has got to be a good thing.

I dont neccesarily think it follows that a new station will be swiftly followed by an army of developers waving cheque books - can you see this happening in West Croydon when they get the tube (for example?)

There may be an increase in house prices i would agree but that isnt a big enough negative for me when balanced against all the positives.

anyway thats my views on it.

 

[Maggot]

If it's not practical to build a station in the brixton area, then surely the whole argument about whether you want one or not is irrelevant.

 

[newbie]

sorry, i wasnt playing the man and not the ball intentionaly.

the point i was trying to make is that Brixton has always been an area that has changed, people have left, people have come. it appeared to me from reading your posts that one of the reasons why you didnt want this interchange was a reluctance to see any further change in the area in a certain direction - i.e losing its feel and spirit and turning into just another clone suburb.

That I can understand, but only to a point.

no problem

You're confusing me with someone else, possibly someone who no longer posts here. I have some sympathy with the view, but it's not my primary concern, though it could be consequential.

Desireability is increasingly polarising Brixton into an area lived in by an uneasy mix of people in social housing- who have limited choices- and youngish, prosperous people from elsewhere, who tend to stay for a few years and then move away.

Some of the more vocal members of the latter group push schemes which benefit themselves and others like them, but which ignore, or harm, people who aren't like them. That is, they ignore the majority of people who live in the area.

So IMO it's worth being suspicious. This is particularly true when major public investment is to be spent on something claimed as explicitly good for business and property owners.

 

[articletwo]

You previously criticised a poster on this thread for "sweeping generalisations ". So let's examine this post against that test:

Desireability is increasingly polarising Brixton into an area lived in by an uneasy mix of people in social housing- who have limited choices- and youngish, prosperous people from elsewhere, who tend to stay for a few years and then move away.

What evidence is there that the mix is "uneasy" - e.g. is there opinion polling data that has examined this? What evidence is there that the mix is different from elsewhere in London, a city where rich and poor tend to live cheek by jowl? What evidence is there that people moving here are "youngish" - what is the average age of someone who moves to Brixton? How does that compare with the average age of people that move to London as a whole? What is the average length of time that people live in Brixton? What is the average length of time that people live in Brixton who have moved here in the last five years (to differentiate the average length of stay of an "incomer" from a long-term resident)? How does that compare to London as a whole?

Some of the more vocal members of the latter group push schemes which benefit themselves and others like them, but which ignore, or harm, people who aren't like them. That is, they ignore the majority of people who live in the area.

What evidence is there that one particular group is pushing particular schemes? Who are these vocal members? How do you know that some schemes ignore the "majority of people"? Examples please, with numbers benefitted and numbers dis-benefitted.

So IMO it's worth being suspicious. This is particularly true when major public investment is to be spent on something claimed as explicitly good for business and property owners.

Evidence of the explicit claims of particular benefits to "business and property owners"? The TfL brochure on the ELL is headlined "Integration … Regeneration … Sustainability", and goes on to say that the "project will provide a catalyst for regeneration in some of the most deprived parts of the city."

Finally, the open-minded remain sceptical, examining the evidence. Only the paranoid are suspicious.

 

[newbie]

there's this if you're after stats- the 'people' and 'housing' tabs paint the picture.

If that doesn't work http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk search on Lambeth (or on specific wards).

For the rest, I didn't come out of the egg yesterday and thems my observations. You're welcome to find any evidence you can to show this station as universally a good thing.

Finally, the open-minded remain sceptical, examining the evidence. Only the paranoid are suspicious.

Neat. I'll try to remember that in future

... whilst noticing that no-one is rushing forward to say that this station isn't likely to boost property prices and further squeeze housing for locals on lower incomes.

 

[citydreams]

Newbie, with all your sitting on your hands waiting for the evidence (which I'm sure you'd be well qualified in producing) to materialise one can only assume that you're against the idea of a station until proven otherwise.

 

[newbie]

I think that's exactly what I said above (#78): I'm open but agin it until someone shows different. The onus is on those who think it's a good scheme to come up with some convincing reasoning about the social consequences.

 

[citydreams]

The onus is on those who think it's a good scheme to come up with some convincing reasoning about the social consequences.

Not at all. The honus is on those that oppose change to prove that the status quo is better than the bright future.

We're not talking about whether we should dig up the roads, or close post offices - this is about transport links for local people. It's a no-brainer. I could tell you how many man hours it would save to allow people a train-stop and you'd still prevaricate because not everyone has given their opinon yet.

*puts fence on the the pyre of local governement*

 

[newbie]

You could but you haven't (and frankly you're a lot better at finding evidence than I'll ever be). The social makeup of 'local people' will change if this station is built.

If a transport hub is such a no brainer why is increasing property prices the only wider social consequence anyone has suggested? No-one seems prepared to think out loud about how it will affect those that aren't (currently) property owners. I've watched prices shoot up and I've seen people reluctantly leave because they can't afford to move (buy or rent) within the area. I don't see that as a no bainer good thing, sorry if my concerns are different from other peoples.

 

[timothysutton1]

...The social makeup of 'local people' will change if this station is built.

Why not? If the social makeup of 'local people' hadn't changed we would still be living in a field.

...increasing property prices is the only wider social consequence anyone has suggested?...

Wrong, I suggest you re-read.

 

[tarannau]

Why not? If the social makeup of 'local people' hadn't changed we would still be living in a field.



Wrong, I suggest you re-read.

Jesus Timothy, you're beginning to remind me of that patronising mini-git in that abysmal 'Sorry' sitcom.

Whilst I'm not entirely in agreement with Newbie, there is a real issue about the changing characteristics of Brixton's population, which - for better or worse - has become an area heavily associated with immigration and a sense of community absent in many parts of London. The Windrush generation and a many generations of locals deserve better than to displaced by ever rising property value and a profit-before-community approach to property sales.

It's a wider issue than Brixton no doubt, but the discussion certainly deserves better than a shittily reductive jibe about people 'living in a field.'

 

[timothysutton1]

edit

 

[timothysutton1]

...deserves better than a shittily reductive jibe about people 'living in a field.'

I am not being patronising or trying to make a cheap jibe. All I am trying to point out is that it was not that long ago Brixton WAS a green field:

Building started when Vauxhall Bridge first made the area a commutable suburb back in 1816. With the completion of the railway and tram in the late 1800s Brixton expanded radically and became a popular middle class neighbood. With the social upheavel of the turn of the century the middle class moved out and the working class moved in. By 1925 Brixton had become the major shopping and entertainment centre for South London with a notable Jewish population. Then in the 1940s and 1950s many of the immigrants who came to Britain from the West Indies settled in Brixton.

As you can see Brixton has, and always will, change. It's how it works.

 

[tarannau]

Most of us are aware of the history of the area thanks. You're still coming across as a patronising twazzock. Either that or you really believe that grossly oversimplified nonsense about it having to work like that.

I'm not sure what 'it' is meant to be, but development doesn't necessarily have to follow the pattern of the past. Nor is it necessarily beneficial to hold your hands up and take no action to shape what happens next.

 

[editor]

I am not being patronising or trying to make a cheap jibe. All I am trying to point out is that it was not that long ago Brixton WAS a green field:

Err, I think regulars to this forum are fully acquainted with Brixton's past.

http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/index.html

 

[Giles]

It's not only property owners who would benefit from better public transport links, surely? Anyone who commutes for work, or goes to and from to see friends, go out, etc, would also benefit. Might even mean less people driving, which is probably a good thing.

Giles..

 

[Streathamite]

true; but the same could be said of the good folk of lewisham, camberwell, peckham, greenwich etc; the key thing is how would S London benefit as a whole from the various proposals....

 

[lang rabbie]

It is only because Ken (and various other politicians of all colours) have been promoting the various routes proposed for the East London Line as a tube line that the estate agents and local papers have been over-selling it as a good news story for property-owners.

This is a big lie.
It will NOT run to tube frequencies
It will NOT have tube-type trains
AND (unless they completely reconstruct Canada Water's platforms, for which no budget has been identified) it will be limited to four car trains.

It will be operated as an overground rail service by a network rail franchisee, with the Mayor's "London Rail" division of TfL providing some revenue funding.

Despite this, I'm in favour of a Brixton station because it will give Brixton residents easier access to jobs in East London/Docklands.

 

[timothysutton1]

Brixton's past

...acquainted with Brixton's past.

http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/index.html

Does this mean that you agree that change is inevitable?

 

[tarannau]

Does this mean that you agree that change is inevitable?

Do you only deal in gross, boneheaded oversimplifications timothy?

Of course some change is inevitable, but it's a nonsense to suggest that you can't help shape change.

Without the efforts of squatters and the resistance of others for example- and I'm sure you'll know this from your local history - central Brixton would have almost certainly turned out into another Elephant and Castle style concrete nightmare of high rises and flyovers.

 

[timothysutton1]

...boneheaded oversimplifications?...

A simple "I agree" would have been more polite.

 

[tarannau]

A simple "I agree" would have been more polite.

But I don't agree with your statement, certainly not in the limited and leading way it's phrased.

As for politeness, may I suggest that you engage with the debate and the points made, not write smartarse leading statements in a patronising, oversimplified manner.