Keeping Brixton Crap: our public realm

[teuchter]

Let's take the following premises at the outset:

- Gentrification is real and is happening in Brixton
- It has real negative effects for many, and it's completely valid to resist certain changes on this basis.

What I want to talk about is whether it makes sense to oppose "improvements" to the public realm specifically. That means, the parts of the environment that are available for use by everyone - streets, public squares, parks.

I think this also includes the appearance of buildings that front onto those public spaces.

I'd like to try and separate this, as much as is possible, from arguments about the usage of the buildings or land that adjoins these public spaces. This is not about whether we should protect existing businesses or call for higher proportions of social housing in new developments.

I (increasingly) see opposition to general improvements to the public realm, and often it seems to boil down to a "Keep Brixton Crap" (I have stolen the slogan from the Hackney T-shirt campaign) argument. Essentially, let's not make the public realm more pleasant because it'll attract people and businesses with more money and therefore accelerate the changes that are taking place.

I see it in particular extending to schemes which involve making things better for pedestrians and cyclists. It was not the only argument made against the Loughborough Junction road closures but it was certainly one of them. I don't remember there being the same kind of opposition to the changes made to Brixton Road through the town centre when the pavements were widened and the barriers removed from the middle. Was that because it was prior to the latest gentrification surge, and therefore people saw these kinds of "improvements" as something positive for people who live here rather than something that would attract the wrong sorts?

Does it make sense to oppose public realm improvements on the basis that making things "nicer" is now counter to the interests of the local community?

Or do we need to be careful in separating out changes that benefit everyone from changes that only benefit a certain portion of society?

 

[Pickman's model]

yes

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This sounds a bit straw-mannish to me. Are there any specifics here?

 

[TopCat]

Let's take the following premises at the outset:

- Gentrification is real and is happening in Brixton
- It has real negative effects for many, and it's completely valid to resist certain changes on this basis.

What I want to talk about is whether it makes sense to oppose "improvements" to the public realm specifically. That means, the parts of the environment that are available for use by everyone - streets, public squares, parks.

I think this also includes the appearance of buildings that front onto those public spaces.

I'd like to try and separate this, as much as is possible, from arguments about the usage of the buildings or land that adjoins these public spaces. This is not about whether we should protect existing businesses or call for higher proportions of social housing in new developments.

I (increasingly) see opposition to general improvements to the public realm, and often it seems to boil down to a "Keep Brixton Crap" (I have stolen the slogan from the Hackney T-shirt campaign) argument. Essentially, let's not make the public realm more pleasant because it'll attract people and businesses with more money and therefore accelerate the changes that are taking place.

I see it in particular extending to schemes which involve making things better for pedestrians and cyclists. It was not the only argument made against the Loughborough Junction road closures but it was certainly one of them. I don't remember there being the same kind of opposition to the changes made to Brixton Road through the town centre when the pavements were widened and the barriers removed from the middle. Was that because it was prior to the latest gentrification surge, and therefore people saw these kinds of "improvements" as something positive for people who live here rather than something that would attract the wrong sorts?

Does it make sense to oppose public realm improvements on the basis that making things "nicer" is now counter to the interests of the local community?

Or do we need to be careful in separating out changes that benefit everyone from changes that only benefit a certain portion of society?

Burn the Dog Star and the Ritzy? Would that do it?

 

[Crispy]

It's like deciding whether to paddle with or against at 60ft wave. Either way it's going to drown you.

 

[teuchter]

This sounds a bit straw-mannish to me. Are there any specifics here?

Prompted by initiative just announced to "improve" Brixton Station Road. Proposals invited for making it friendlier to pedestrians/cyclists, removing street clutter, appearance of historic frontages. I already see negative comments against it on facebook for example.

If you could bear to read through the LJ road closures thread you'd see there was an element of resistance to making streetscape "nicer" on the basis that it would encourage gentrification.

 

[skyscraper101]

I'm not against changes to the street infrastructure or public conveniences in Brixton, but it must complimented each time with an opening of at least one new speedy noodle or pound stretcher, for balance.

 

[teuchter]

It's like deciding whether to paddle with or against at 60ft wave. Either way it's going to drown you.

The implication of your analogy is that the actions of the paddler don't have an effect on the progress of the wave. In which case it's not a difficult decision - support public realm improvements and enjoy them for as long as you stay afloat.

 

[sealion]

I think the longer term residents of Brixton are pissed off because f all has been done for years.Now the money is coming in Lambeth have started to spruce certain parts up whilst letting there estates/housing stock run into disrepair.

 

[teuchter]

I think the longer term residents of Brixton are pissed off because f all has been done for years.Now the money is coming in Lambeth have started to spruce certain parts up whilst letting there estates/housing stock run into disrepair.

In which case the argument is that any money spent on public realm improvements should have been spent on housing instead. Would that apply to money spent on the upkeep of Brockwell park, for example?

 

[sealion]

In which case the argument is that any money spent on public realm improvements should have been spent on housing instead. Would that apply to money spent on the upkeep of Brockwell park, for example?

Seeing as Lambeth make Shit loads of money from Private events in there parks/common land they should use the profits for public realm improvements not from other budgets they may dip into.

 

[teuchter]

Seeing as Lambeth make Shit loads of money from Private events in there parks/common land they should use the profits for public realm improvements not from other budgets they may dip into.

Why should the money from these events not be invested into housing, instead of public realm improvements?

 

[Pickman's model]

Burn the Dog Star and the Ritzy? Would that do it?

it's a start i suppose. but you seem to have forgotten the town hall and the police station.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why should the money from these events not be invested into housing, instead of public realm improvements?

always with the binaries

false dichotomy, teuchter, false dichotomy

 

[sealion]

Why should the money from these events not be invested into housing, instead of public realm improvements?

I am saying they should but private companies are taking the profits.

 

[snowy_again]

Burn the Dog Star and the Ritzy? Would that do it?

Then the Satay bar would go too wouldn't it? Fewer cocktails.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

It's like deciding whether to paddle with or against at 60ft wave. Either way it's going to drown you.

At least you could go out getting some gnarly board time

 

[teuchter]

always with the binaries

false dichotomy, teuchter, false dichotomy

It's a binary that was not introduced to the discussion by me.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's a binary that was not introduced to the discussion by me.

that doesn't alter your use of a false dichotomy.

 

[quimcunx]

I largely agree with crispy.

Using Brixton Station road as an example I have lots of questions. Where is the money coming from in this time of 'austerity'? Why spend it on this when there are other things public money could be spent on that would also improve people's lives locally or generally. Who decides what the money can be spent on? What is their motivation for doing it? Where was the money and will to improve streetscapes 5 or 10 years ago? Whose lives does it improve, in the short term, in the long term, directly, indirectly? And by how much will it actually improve people's day to day lives? What are the downsides, long term, short term, directly, indirectly, and to who? Not easy to measure, and not easy for your man on the Clapham omnibus to work out for himself. Why is there a will to spend money on this but not on improving council housing or other initiatives targeting people who have more need? On a list of things to improve local people's lives how high is improving a streetscape to people who are struggling to keep the bailiffs from the door? I can imagine it's a bit of an irrelevancy to many people who have bigger problems than whether BSR is prettified or not.


If you live in private rented accommodation in a gentrifying area there will be a number of variables that affect what your rent will be next year. Streetscapes will be one of them - by how much, who knows, but it might be one of the visible things or things you can ostensibly have a say on. What use is an improved streetscape to you if in a year's time you will have to move somewhere with an unimproved streetscape anyway? So yay, direct improvement (maybe) to how a street they walk down once a month has improved but indirectly it contributes to an increase in rent they can no longer afford. And of course the businesses there might change to ones that are of little use to them. They have to move away from family or friends etc. Landlords can charge more so their lives improve indirectly. Or you can sell your house for a little bit more if local prices are outperforming other areas.

Another indirect consequence to the gentrifrication public space improvements contribute to could be that as richer people move into the area they bring their tory votes with them. I'd rather have an untidy streetscape than that.

Ultimately maybe you're seeing objections because people look at proposed improvements and can see that they are simply not delivering improvements to them.

 

[quimcunx]

dp

 

[teuchter]

that doesn't alter your use of a false dichotomy.

If you put some thought into this you may come to realise that the point of my post was to highlight the possibility that the argument advanced by Sea Lion was based on a false dichotomy.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you put some thought into this you may come to realise that the point of my post was to highlight the possibility that the argument advanced by Sea Lion was based on a false dichotomy.

false dichotomies all round. but i was picking up on your use, Sea Lion's a veritable newbie and cannot be expected to know better, you by contrast are a veteran poster and should set an example for those who have but recently joined us.

 

[teuchter]

Why is there a will to spend money on this but not on improving council housing or other initiatives targeting people who have more need?

What are the relative sizes of the pot of money allocated to these kinds of street improvements and the pot of money allocated to council housing improvements? Why do you think it's disproportionate?

 

[quimcunx]

What are the relative sizes of the pot of money allocated to these kinds of street improvements and the pot of money allocated to council housing improvements? Why do you think it's disproportionate?

No idea.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why is there a will to spend money on this but not on improving council housing or other initiatives targeting people who have more need?

probably because they're running down council estates to flog them off i expect

 

[teuchter]

false dichotomies all round. but i was picking up on your use, Sea Lion's a veritable newbie and cannot be expected to know better, you by contrast are a veteran poster and should set an example for those who have but recently joined us.

Perhaps as a veteran poster you should set an example and make a constructive contribution to the discussion by explaining exactly why Sea Lion's dichotomy is a false one.

 

[teuchter]

No idea.

Why do you say there's a "will" to make street improvements but not housing improvements, then?

 

[quimcunx]

What are the relative sizes of the pot of money allocated to these kinds of street improvements and the pot of money allocated to council housing improvements? Why do you think it's disproportionate?

No idea.

That said I do appreciate that there are different pots and we don't get to decide what pots exist or what is in each pot and that rejection of one doesn't mean money will be redirected to something else. I have priorities on what I want my taxes/public money to be spent and there are a lot of things higher on my list than how pretty one particular street is.

 

[quimcunx]

Why do you say there's a "will" to make street improvements but not housing improvements, then?

Well this proposed streetscape improvement will cost money, so that money exists. It is available. Somewhere the decision was made to direct that money down a path where street improvements were an option but housing improvements not.