iwca article on brixton

[easy g]

If you think that this board is a place where posters can call women "bitches" and threaten to burn their houses down just because they disagree with their opinion, you're in the wrong place.

People who do that get banned, whoever they are.

But seeing as you've (predictably) waded in again, perhaps you might explain your specific complaint in this instance. Exactly what are you whining about?

Or do you think we should let people make such threats and call women bitches if they're your friends?

Is that what you want here?

first class....

won't someone think of the birtches though....

 

[Dubversion]

But calling me a cunt and a twat is ok?

i reckon so

 

[editor]

first class....

If you're incapable of conducting an intelligent conversation or addressing any of the points, there's really not much point you posting here, you know.

 

[easy g]

If you're incapable of conducting an intelligent conversation or addressing any of the points, there's really not much point you posting here, you know.

well you chose to ignore some of my post....but of course that's different isn't it, my apologies....

 

[IntoStella]

going on and on about entirely different, unrelated comments made by posters who haven't even contributed to this thread isn't going to help you either.

How does that compare with, oooh, let's see, you calling fanta a "disgusting bigot" on an entirely unrelated thread?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You talk as if it's a historical cycle of rich to poor to rich, with the implication that at some stage in the future, Brixton will become poor again.

Funnily enough (given that Donna has just mentioned the previous epic-length gentrification thread) I recall mentioning that there actually is a historical cycle where the moneyed circulate from periphery (the suburbs) to centre and back again. Gerry White (former journo who wrote a book on London and its people) mentioned some research (from Middx uni??) about it.

I'm willing to bet though, that you can't point to ANY London area (inside zone 3, at least) that has become MORE affordable to those on low to ordinary incomes, within the last 25 years.

If the poster can point out such an area, could they also please tell me the winning numbers for the lottery on saturday, please (via PM, pbviously! )?.

 

[newbie]

You talk as if it's a historical cycle of rich to poor to rich, with the implication that at some stage in the future, Brixton will become poor again.

I'm willing to bet though, that you can't point to ANY London area (inside zone 3, at least) that has become MORE affordable to those on low to ordinary incomes, within the last 25 years.

Were there not plenty in the previous 25 years? Postwar London depopulated not because it wasn't affordable but because life was better outside. Least, that's my understanding.

I don't think it's impossible to imagine that happening again.

 

[editor]

How does that compare with, oooh, let's see, you calling fanta a "disgusting bigot" on an entirely unrelated thread?

You've got that arse about tit again, but no matter - it's got absolutely nothing to do with this thread and seeing as I've no interest in whatever it is you're going to start whining on about, you may as well keep it to yourself.

Better all round, that way.

 

[articletwo]

...with god incomes moving into the area ...

Who has the divine income, I wish I did ....

Nevertheless it has to happen - you can't expect people just to say "well, just in case anybody's offended we won't broach the subject".

I agree, and I don't mind being offended. What I object to is the way that the article played the men not the ball (as it were). If there are specific complaints :

schools, gated developments, the winnowing out of locals' pubs in favour of bars, the undertones of the council's advertising policy

then tackle those specifically.

there is a process going on in which certain types of people are seen to be more welcome and certain other types are not. If some people feel they are among the first kind and feel they are resented for it, then, to some degree - well, you've got to take the rough with the smooth, I'm afraid.QUOTE]
A "process" makes it sound organised and deliberate, I am not sure that is the case: other than maybe the council (and many residents) would like it if there were more businesses based here, and hence more jobs, and that the instictive reaction of most non-residents to the word "Brixton" is not "drugs". I haven't felt "more welcome" than anyone else seems to feel.

 

[articletwo]

You talk as if it's a historical cycle of rich to poor to rich, with the implication that at some stage in the future, Brixton will become poor again.

I'm willing to bet though, that you can't point to ANY London area (inside zone 3, at least) that has become MORE affordable to those on low to ordinary incomes, within the last 25 years.

Maybe it will become poorer. Maybe it will become richer. Maybe a flourishing set of creative industries will develop that employ local people. Who knows? You don't, I don't.
You may well be right that in the last 25 years nowhere in London has become realtively cheaper: the economy here has boomed for almost 15 years, which has been very good in some ways - unemployment down to about 3% - but bad in other ways - it has created huge pressures on affordable housing. So there has to be some compromise solution - like insisting developers make 25% - 40% of any new housing stock affordable.

 

[catch]

like insisting developers make 25% - 40% of any new housing stock affordable.

affordable to who?

 

[fela fan]

Please excuse me for coming in here, for i don't even live in the country any more, but i've just read the article that this thread was started over, and i also remember hatboy on urban75, and i would just like to offer my commiserations to those who live in brixton and feel their way of life is being cancelled out by the 'progress' that the writer talks about.

Anywhere that allows those who are different, or who want to be different, is a good place in my book, and when i hear about such places being attacked by marketing people and marketing speak and all that other fucking tosh, then i can only commiserate.

That council woman sounds like a complete wanker to me. 25 quid a ticket and fenced off replacing a fun free day for all says a lot about how i perceive britain to be heading.

I hope brixton folk are able to keep the town the way they want it. I am now determined to pop in and see the place on my next trip back to england.

Great article that, hope it makes a difference.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

A "process" makes it sound organised and deliberate

Well first, no it doesn't. Second, while not being organised or deliberate as such, I'm not convinced that the basic reaction of a lot of better-off residents (and the council) to the worse-off residents is anything more than "who cares?" Oh, everybody will say in theory that the latter shouldn't be elbowed out: but when it comes to specifics, it always turns out that this is just the way things are. And - pace yourself - we can't have the poor people imposing on the better-off, can we?

 

[newbie]

A "process" makes it sound organised and deliberate, I am not sure that is the case:

Do you think that knocking down schools while granting planning permission to all these bars and clubs isn't part of a broad strategy?

Look at the population bulge.

Suggestions you've made on this thread, as possibilities for improving the area, have included expanding the night economy which caters for young people who "come to Brixton from elsewhere for a night out", building "a flourishing set of creative industries" and increasing the supply of so-called 'affordable housing' (which will be snapped up by the 20s/30s that can best afford it, the ones with decent West End media jobs, not the 50% of kids who don't get 5 A-C grades at GCSE and don't have either a high asset or high income background).

No disrespect, because I don't think this stuff needs personalising, but you've recently arrived and now you're handing out demands which will all contribute to creating a Brixton in the image of you and your peers, precisely the bulge group in the population. They have little or nothing to do with addressing the problems gentrification has wrought.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Do you think that knocking down schools while granting planning permission to all these bars and clubs isn't part of a broad strategy?

Look at the population bulge.

Suggestions you've made on this thread, as possibilities for improving the area, have included expanding the night economy which caters for young people who "come to Brixton from elsewhere for a night out", building "a flourishing set of creative industries" and increasing the supply of so-called 'affordable housing' (which will be snapped up by the 20s/30s that can best afford it, the ones with decent West End media jobs, not the 50% of kids who don't get 5 A-C grades at GCSE and don't have either a high asset or high income background).

No disrespect, because I don't think this stuff needs personalising, but you've recently arrived and now you're handing out demands which will all contribute to creating a Brixton in the image of you and your peers, precisely the bulge group in the population. They have little or nothing to do with addressing the problems gentrification has wrought.

Good post newbie. I had the misfortune to attend an area committee meeting of my local council last night to hear a council official say that to give additional housing points to the immediate relatives of those that live in an area was discriminatory.

 

[pooka]

I'm not convinced that the basic reaction of a lot of better-off residents (and the council) to the worse-off residents is anything more than "who cares?"

This really is perniciously simplistic, Donna.

As far as I know, most councillors spend 80% of their surgery time dealing with the problems of 'worse off people' (housing benefit, council tax benefit, and so on) and their are certainly plenty of council officials engaged in the same areas. The biggest net expenditure head, after education, is social services.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It is, but I'm thinking of the direction of council policy and the reshaping of Lambeth it envisages.

It's quite possible for an autority to not give a stuff about the poor and yet spend much actual time and money on them. Think for instance of the Conservative Government - loathed the poor (or loved them so much, it created a millions more of them) and yet of course spent billions of pounds on their health, education and social support.

It's not just simplifications that are pernicious.

 

[newbie]

Good post newbie. I had the misfortune to attend an area committee meeting of my local council last night to hear a council official say that to give additional housing points to the immediate relatives of those that live in an area was discriminatory.

You'll lose all credibility around here if you compliment my posts

I'm not a big fan of 'sons & daughters' policies (there was a big P&P IWCA thread about this a while back, possibly before you joined us), but I sure see why they're a demand.

At least they promote something relevent, which makes a whole lot more sense than expecting everybody to be able to work in some form of 'creative' industry.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

You'll lose all credibility around here if you compliment my posts

I'm not a big fan of 'sons & daughters' policies (there was a big P&P IWCA thread about this a while back, possibly before you joined us), but I sure see why they're a demand.

At least they promote something relevent, which makes a whole lot more sense than expecting everybody to be able to work in some form of 'creative' industry.

Lose?? I was trying to gain some!!!

 

[newbie]

I'm just pointing out that your strategy is flawed.

You're oop norf somewhere aren't you? Is yours one of the areas that shows the opposite population profile to Lambeth, with too few 20/30s, where 'sons & daughters' might help to stop the brain drain?

 

[William of Walworth]

You talk as if it's a historical cycle of rich to poor to rich, with the implication that at some stage in the future, Brixton will become poor again.

I'm willing to bet though, that you can't point to ANY London area (inside zone 3, at least) that has become MORE affordable to those on low to ordinary incomes, within the last 25 years.

Were there not plenty in the previous 25 years? Postwar London depopulated not because it wasn't affordable but because life was better outside. Least, that's my understanding.

I don't think it's impossible to imagine that happening again.

I think it is. Well maybe not impossible, but very, very unlikely, given population demographics (more households, more demand), predominant property price trends in London particularly, etc

 

[William of Walworth]

Maybe it will become poorer. Maybe it will become richer. Maybe a flourishing set of creative industries will develop that employ local people. Who knows? You don't, I don't.
You may well be right that in the last 25 years nowhere in London has become realtively cheaper: the economy here has boomed for almost 15 years, which has been very good in some ways - unemployment down to about 3% - but bad in other ways - it has created huge pressures on affordable housing. So there has to be some compromise solution - like insisting developers make 25% - 40% of any new housing stock affordable.

I stand by my earlier prediction about the extreme unlikelihood (OK not impossibility maybe) of housing/inner London areas becoming affordable to those on low to medium incomes, as many areas were in the past.

Why are all the 'affordable' housing expansions planned for the Thames Gateway, expansion of Ashford, etc.? (OK there are various reasons for that, but the era of new social housing being built in inner city areas is well and truly gone).

Very little for us planned for round here, beyond the bare mimimum of replacing existing social housing (eg at the Elephant) with some housing association properties, as part of a larger, more private development.

I do think this is one case where you can't extrapolate the future from what happened back in the immediate post war period.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

I'm just pointing out that your strategy is flawed.

You're oop norf somewhere aren't you? Is yours one of the areas that shows the opposite population profile to Lambeth, with too few 20/30s, where 'sons & daughters' might help to stop the brain drain?

It's more to do with the lack of afforable housing (both rented and mortgaged) for that age group and where there are strong familiy connections and a sense of community cohesion.

 

[newbie]

cheers Chuck, just curious really.

William, think back to pre- Congestion Charge, pre-TfL London. It was becoming somewhere that exasperated people to the extent that they were considering their quality of life being better elsewhere, even if they didn't have access to the same levels of buzz. A few years of transport chaos- say, Oxford Circus tube station, or maybe the Circle Line was closed for whatever reason, would see a lot of people looking to get out. As would a significant amount of innercity rioting, or a major increase in crime, or a progressive collapse of overstretched GP services, or... Maybe even simple economic recession.

Or- and this is the real challenge the government won't address seriously- policies designed to move jobs, opportunities and prosperity back to the old heavy industrial areas, and to regenerate the countryside so that it offers more than retirement and second homes.

Cities are fragile, living organisms and the overheated popularity London has experienced for the past decade or so is built on the premise that the streets are paved with gold, that life is better here. I'd like to see it made sufficiently better elsewhere that London isn't so attractive to young singles and dinkies.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

In order to do that, you'd have to have a regional policy.

In order to have a regional policy, influential people would have to be aware of the existence of the world outside London.

 

[newbie]

To be fair I get the impression Prescott is, but he loses most of the battles with Brown.

 

[JTG]

In order to do that, you'd have to have a regional policy.

In order to have a regional policy, influential people would have to be aware of the existence of the world outside London.

Spot on.

Some day somebody somewhere will decide to develop the country outside of SE England. But not before most of it is underwater..

 

[grosun]

In order to do that, you'd have to have a regional policy.

In order to have a regional policy, influential people would have to be aware of the existence of the world outside London.

Hmpff.. I think many of them are.. a lot of 'em grew up elsewhere, & there have been numerous "regional development" initiatives over the years... but the trouble is, people in certain industries want to be physically close to others in the same business, or their clients. These happen to, for the most part, be overwhelmingly concentrated in London. I thought the internet revolution would change that, but people still seem to like face-to-face contact. I can't really see *any* viable strategy a government could adopt in order to shift things out of London, apart from say, deliberately fucking the transport up, or imposing a "London tax", both of which might be as likely to shift business out of the country as they would to move it to Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow or Newcastle.

It's easy to go "rah rah, why don't the government *do* something", but what do you want them to do?

Sorry to be so negative, it just bugs me.. I used to think the same way, but now I'm not sure there's any point, as I really can't see any way the government can exert sufficient influence, apart from adopting severely authoritarian & business-fucking-up policies.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Sorry to be so negative, it just bugs me.. I used to think the same way, but now I'm not sure there's any point, as I really can't see any way the government can exert sufficient influence, apart from adopting severely authoritarian & business-fucking-up policies.

When you say "authoritarian", do you mean "taxes"?

 

[newbie]

Sorry to be so negative, it just bugs me.. I used to think the same way, but now I'm not sure there's any point, as I really can't see any way the government can exert sufficient influence, apart from adopting severely authoritarian & business-fucking-up policies.

I've heard it suggested that your postcode affects your life chances more than any single other factor- certainly far more precisely than generalised concepts like class or race. If that's the case, directing planning initiatives and targetting investment should be doable, given sufficient will.