Keeping Brixton Crap: our public realm

[sealion]

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.

Is it a fallacy that Lambeth are neglecting there housing stock?

 

[teuchter]

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.

It's not just about prettiness though. It's also about accessibility and congestion and pollution. Improvements in those areas benefit nearly everyone so inevitably make the area more attractive to people who might not come/be here otherwise. And that's the basic question here - is it valid to weigh those considerations against each other.

 

[teuchter]

Is it a fallacy that Lambeth are neglecting there housing stock?

I await Pickman's model who I am sure will explain to you why he feels raising this question in the context of this particular discussion invokes a false dichotomy.

 

[Pickman's model]

I await Pickman's model who I am sure will explain to you why he feels raising this question in the context of this particular discussion invokes a false dichotomy.

i don't as it doesn't

 

[sealion]

I await Pickman's model who I am sure will explain to you why he feels raising this question in the context of this particular discussion invokes a false dichotomy.

Okay ta.Im off out.

 

[Pickman's model]

Okay ta.Im off out.

see my post 34 first tho

 

[teuchter]

Anyway: discussion about the costs of public realm improvements is a diversion from what I wanted to talk about here.

I wanted to talk about the notion that making these improvements (even if it doesn't cost anything) is negative in itself. See this comment on facebook. It doesn't seem the objection is to the cost but to the fact that an intervention is being made at all.

 

[sealion]

Anyway: discussion about the costs of public realm improvements is a diversion from what I wanted to talk about here.

I wanted to talk about the notion that making these improvements (even if it doesn't cost anything) is negative in itself. See this comment on facebook. It doesn't seem the objection is to the cost but to the fact that an intervention is being made at all.

View attachment 91794

How representative is facebook in regards to the overall community?

 

[teuchter]

How representative is facebook in regards to the overall community?

That's from the Reclaim Brixton page. How representative readers of that are, I can't tell you. It's not the only source I have of gauging general feeling. There's stuff I see on facebook and there's stuff I see on urban, and there's stuff I hear people say in real life. I'd make no claims about any of those being representative overall.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to my question though. I just want to look specifically at whether it makes sense to object to public realm improvements on the basis that making public spaces more attractive has negative effects that outweigh the positive ones.

I feel I see people making that kind of argument. How many people subscribe to that argument is independent of whether it makes sense.

 

[twentythreedom]

Anyway: discussion about the costs of public realm improvements is a diversion from what I wanted to talk about here.

I wanted to talk about the notion that making these improvements (even if it doesn't cost anything) is negative in itself. See this comment on facebook. It doesn't seem the objection is to the cost but to the fact that an intervention is being made at all.

View attachment 91794

I bet that's just a snap response to the word "regenerate" in the title.


If it was titled using boring technical language the response would be different, a bit, maybe.

Council plan to make busy road junction cleaner, brighter and safer for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. It's not very snappy though tbf

 

[isvicthere?]

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

The Ritzy has been trading (not always at the current premises) for north of 100 years, so I don't think it counts as an engine of the recent hyper-gentrification.

 

[redsquirrel]

I completely agree with the OP, all these terrible complainers. I mean why are workers always complaining when managers just want to improve the workplace, who wouldn't want to work in a more flexible workplace. And don't get me started on those unions, always carping and obstructing, just think of what we could achieve if we all worked together.

 

[Manter]

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.

I miss speedy noodle. Even though it was, objectively, crap

 

[teuchter]

I completely agree with the OP, all these terrible complainers. I mean why are workers always complaining when managers just want to improve the workplace, who wouldn't want to work in a more flexible workplace. And don't get me started on those unions, always carping and obstructing, just think of what we could achieve if we all worked together.

Very well, as far as I can make out you want to imply that improvements to public spaces, presented as aiming to make them safer, more accessible to all and more pleasant in general are analogous to workplace changes imposed on a workforce which doesn't want them, where they are presented dishonestly as being in the interests of the workers rather than the employers.

But why not explain how and why, in your opinion, improvements to the public realm don't in fact benefit the people that use those spaces, and who it is that really benefits.

 

[Miss-Shelf]

I completely agree with the OP, all these terrible complainers. I mean why are workers always complaining when managers just want to improve the workplace, who wouldn't want to work in a more flexible workplace. And don't get me started on those unions, always carping and obstructing, just think of what we could achieve if we all worked together.

Quite
Who doesn't want to work agilely on a flexible contract with a higher workload? Who?

 

[Miss-Shelf]

This thread makes me think that we should keep the fly tipping in Thornton heath boohoo BigMoaner

 

[wurlycurly]

I miss speedy noodle. Even though it was, objectively, crap

It was, objectively, Heaven after six pints.

 

[redsquirrel]

Very well, as far as I can make out you want to imply that improvements to public spaces, presented as aiming to make them safer, more accessible to all and more pleasant in general...

(my emphasis). Perhaps, like many workers whose experience has told that that it's wise to be suspicious when flexibility starts to be banded about, many of those in the community have learned to be, rightly, suspicious when terms like regeneration are banded about by councils. Especially council that are know to have a history to destroying social housing, cutting funding to local services and generally attacking the working class.

Not that the OP is interested in any of this of course, it's just another pathetic attempt to further his beef with the editor.

 

[teuchter]

(my emphasis). Perhaps, like many workers whose experience has told that that it's wise to be suspicious when flexibility starts to be banded about, many of those in the community have learned to be, rightly, suspicious when terms like regeneration are banded about by councils. Especially council that are know to have a history to destroying social housing, cutting funding to local services and generally attacking the working class.

Yes, it's understandable that people might be suspicious of terms like regeneration.

That's not really what I'm asking about though.

I'm asking - having acknowledged and set aside the issue of choice of language to describe proposals - if it is agreed that a set of proposals would improve the public realm for those using it, then is that fact in some cases a good reason to resist the proposals? The basic argument being that if somewhere is made more attractive for people to live or visit, its increased desirability will cause problems for those already living there - problems that outweigh, for those people, the benefits.

 

[Gramsci]

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?

I would say yes to this.

It really does not help when Lambeth say this:

de-cluttered, safer, more pedestrian and cycle-friendly streets” with “an attractive environment for walking, shopping and cycling that will support the economic well-being of the area.”

As another poster pointed out if Lambeth had just said street improvements to make it better for pedestrians and cyclists that would have been fine. But no the brains in Lambeth have got to put in economic well being - who in Lambeth writes this shit.

At a time when a controversial scheme has led to the destruction of a row of shops its the height of insensitivity by the Council to word it in this way.

Nor do I understand why this requires an architect. Surely this is a job for a traffic engineer? Unless the real reason for this scheme is to tart the area up.

 

[Gramsci]

Reminded of reading the Evening Standard property pages. When I can bring myself to as they are nauseating. But its worth it to see how the enemy thinks.

One article was praising Boris bikes docking stations. As if one was put near your house ( and in the ES the assumption is you are a home owner) it would put up the value of your house 2 grand. Crossrail is another ES favourite. Sole purpose of Crossrail is to put up property prices. ( A good thing in ES eyes).

Just two examples. I think its understandable that people have become negative about any improvements. Its not in there interests. Its likely to contribute to the further gentrification of the area they live in.

 

[Gramsci]

Talked to a market trader last weekend. Complaining about the now delayed works on Electric Avenue. I saw no enthusiasm from him for these works.

Told me that his trade is reduced. Brixton is not what it was. Its being gentrified.

So I would say people have become more sceptical about improvements to there areas over last few years. Justified in my opinion.

 

[ska invita]

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.

BTW intresting back story to where Keep Hackney Crap slogan came from - credit goes to Fozzie Bear
Keeping Hackney Crap

"Last year there was a bit of a set to, when Childrens’ Laureate and all round good guy Michael Rosen had the temerity to criticise the Council’s plans to “regenerate” Dalston:

“But it hasn’t been ‘regenerated’ for the people living and working there. They’ve been shoved out. The only thing that’s been regenerated are the profits of the property companies and it’s the Labour council tipping our money into their pockets that has enabled them to do it. Regeneration? Degeneration, more like. ”

Obviously the control freaks at Hackney Council weren’t going to let that go, any more than they were going to let Iain Sinclair launch his latest book Hackney: That Rose Red Empire from one of its libraries. The False Mayor [Mayor of Hackney, Jules Pipe] branded Michael Rosen part of the “Keep Hackney Crap Brigade”

To which he very sensibly responded:

“The point is, I don’t think Hackney is crap. I’ve never thought Hackney is crap. I’ve never thought that the wrong people were living in Hackney. However, I do think the council is crap. The accusation arcs back to Pipe himself. Perhaps he thinks Hackney and its people are crap and it’s his job to see it bulldozed, replanned and the people moved on. A different matter altogether.”

 

[Mr Retro]

This "mini-Holland" initiative is in full force up here in Walthamstow. This article Waltham Forest ‘mini-Holland’ row: politics, protests and house prices from 9 months ago explains the situation fairly well. Despite the opposition the scheme continues apace.

I'm sure the opposition to it is as strong as it ever was. However as the council have pushed on with the scheme it has become apparent that people adapt quickly and the sky hasn't fallen down. My personal view is its making Walthamstow an increasingly more pleasant and safer place to be.

 

[Mr Retro]

Talked to a market trader last weekend. Complaining about the now delayed works on Electric Avenue. I saw no enthusiasm from him for these works.

Told me that his trade is reduced. Brixton is not what it was. Its being gentrified.

So I would say people have become more sceptical about improvements to there areas over last few years. Justified in my opinion.

I don't think talking to a market trader can be extrapolated out to "people" being more sceptical about improvements to their area.

 

[redsquirrel]

- if it is agreed that a set of proposals would improve the public realm for those using it, then is that fact in some cases a good reason to resist the proposals?

Who has agreed that this proposal is in the best interests of the community? The council/employer?

This rather reminds me of the EU ref, liberals telling the people Cornwall that they were idiots for voting Leave because they benefitted from the EU. Ignoring the fact that many people hadn't experienced these supposed improvements, and that they had had no say in the proposals.

 

[Winot]

Who has agreed that this proposal is in the best interests of the community? The council/employer?

One of the challenges of democracy is knowing who to listen to. Sometimes leadership is needed to push something through that is initially unpopular but ultimately beneficial, eg Livingstone's congestion charge or possibly the Walthamstow example above. But yes it's true that Lambeth are crap at listening generally.

 

[Gramsci]

I don't think talking to a market trader can be extrapolated out to "people" being more sceptical about improvements to their area.

I was using it as one example of the kinds of things I hear.

 

[Pickman's model]

Talked to a market trader last weekend. Complaining about the now delayed works on Electric Avenue. I saw no enthusiasm from him for these works.

Told me that his trade is reduced. Brixton is not what it was. Its being gentrified.

So I would say people have become more sceptical about improvements to there areas over last few years. Justified in my opinion.

Ime market traders are frequently better informed about what's going on than they're given credit for

 

[Mr Retro]

I was using it as one example of the kinds of things I hear.

Sure, but it's easy to filter out the kinds of thing you hear so you only hear what you want to. As an argument for or against something its wholly useless.