Keeping Brixton Crap: our public realm

[Gramsci]

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.

Another example is LJ.

The opposition to the road closures was partly driven by feeling that this was a step towards gentrifying the area. That the road closures were being pushed through by a group of middle class do gooders working with a New Labour Council. That they wanted , as one said, "us out" of the area.

Its not about filtering things out. On the other side (LJAG) they have different view. I hear both.

Up in LJ its widespread on the estate that improvements are not in there interest. They see what’s happened to Brixton and do not want it on there patch.

 

[teuchter]

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

What proposal? I'm not talking about a specific proposal. I'm talking about a general principle.

I would not say that all proposals are in the best interests of the community. My question was, *if* we agree a proposal would lead to improvements that everyone benefits from, does it still make sense to oppose it because those improvements will accelerate the processes of gentrification.

The obvious problem with that approach is that it condemns people to live with congestion, pollution, and the rest, for ever.

 

[Mr Retro]

Another example is LJ.

The opposition to the road closures was partly driven by feeling that this was a step towards gentrifying the area. That the road closures were being pushed through by a group of middle class do gooders working with a New Labour Council. That they wanted , as one said, "us out" of the area.

Its not about filtering things out. On the other side (LJAG) they have different view. I hear both.

Up in LJ its widespread on the estate that improvements are not in there interest. They see what’s happened to Brixton and do not want it on there patch.

I lost the will to live reading that LJ thread. What do you think of the article on Walthamstow I linked to? It seems to me the changes, when people got used to them are very positive.

However this is only from talking to a few friends up here who will think along the same lines as me so not in anyway scientific.

If I understand your point I think it's very sad people feel they need to keep things "crap" in order to feel they are able to safely stay in their houses or neighbourhood. That they think improvements to their standards of living equals gentrification equals them being forced out.

But you need to be careful taking this stance. Another example (sorry from Walthamstow again) is the area across the road from Wood Street station is apparently crap. So it's going to be totally bulldozed. Not saying the residents there objected to improvements but a rundown area can be subject to far more drastic "solutions" than one that has kept itself up to date with continual improvements (for want of a better way to put it).

 

[Gramsci]

I lost the will to live reading that LJ thread. What do you think of the article on Walthamstow I linked to? It seems to me the changes, when people got used to them are very positive.

However this is only from talking to a few friends up here who will think along the same lines as me so not in anyway scientific.

If I understand your point I think it's very sad people feel they need to keep things "crap" in order to feel they are able to safely stay in their houses or neighbourhood. That they think improvements to their standards of living equals gentrification equals them being forced out.

But you need to be careful taking this stance. Another example (sorry from Walthamstow again) is the area across the road from Wood Street station is apparently crap. So it's going to be totally bulldozed. Not saying the residents there objected to improvements but a rundown area can be subject to far more drastic "solutions" than one that has kept itself up to date with continual improvements (for want of a better way to put it).

I wasn't saying I took this stance on LJ road closures.

I have friend in Walthamstow who has house in bit that has the Dutch style Road calming. So have seen it. As a cyclist I do support what Walthamstow are doing.

I also thought the failure of the scheme in LJ Road scheme was a missed opportunity.

I can understand why people on the estate feel improvements are a threat.

 

[redsquirrel]

What proposal? I'm not talking about a specific proposal. I'm talking about a general principle.

So was I. Who is involved in the decision making, unless we are in the realms of fiction (which you seem to want to be) it's not going to be the local community is it, it's going to those in power whether an employer, a council, a government.

I would not say that all proposals are in the best interests of the community. My question was, *if* we agree a proposal would lead to improvements that everyone benefits from, does it still make sense to oppose it because those improvements will accelerate the processes of gentrification.

Who is the 'we' here? FM summed it up on the first page, this is castles in the air.

 

[Gramsci]

If I understand your point I think it's very sad people feel they need to keep things "crap" in order to feel they are able to safely stay in their houses or neighbourhood. That they think improvements to their standards of living equals gentrification equals them being forced out.

As I get told often. Its not that simple. Its not that the estate wanted to keep things crap.

Its that, as with Atlantic road, there is/ appears more to an improvement than meets the eye.

The measures to reduce road traffic were linked to making LJ a "destination". ( The Atlantic road one is linked to "economic well being"). Instead of suggesting improvements to reduce traffic it was mixed in with other ideas. Which definitely people on the Estate saw as leading to gentrification. I remember people from the estate telling me this.

As redsquirrel points out its who is making the decisions. Council did not listen to concerns about proposals. Never took seriously concerns about LJ becoming a "destination" ( a pet scheme of LJAG). Some people on the estate I talked to did think traffic was an issue. But debate got polarised by the end.

I remember telling one of the Cllrs that the underlying issue of people on the estate was future of the social housing they lived in and concerns that LJ could be gentrified. Also these long time Council tenants felt that no one had listened to them for years. So I suggested the Council do some research/ consultation to find out what peoples fears were for the future and what they thought would be good improvements.

Despite consultation on various issues in LJ no one in power has really asked people on estate what they want. Even when locals from the estate do make suggestions I notice they never really get recorded properly.

Said Cllrs did not think this was great idea.

So I feel it gets to point that sectors of the local community start to oppose things in total. Or are very suspicious.

 

[teuchter]

So was I. Who is involved in the decision making, unless we are in the realms of fiction (which you seem to want to be) it's not going to be the local community is it, it's going to those in power whether an employer, a council, a government.

Who is the 'we' here? FM summed it up on the first page, this is castles in the air.

Sounds like your position is that any "improvements" to the public realm proposed by council/government should be opposed, regardless of what they are, full stop. In which case, end of discussion. I'm not sure why you wanted to post in this thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

Sounds like your position is that any "improvements" to the public realm proposed by council/government should be opposed, regardless of what they are, full stop. In which case, end of discussion. I'm not sure why you wanted to post in this thread.

Because he can

 

[redsquirrel]

I've suggested no such thing

 

[teuchter]

As I get told often. Its not that simple. Its not that the estate wanted to keep things crap.

Its that, as with Atlantic road, there is/ appears more to an improvement than meets the eye.

The measures to reduce road traffic were linked to making LJ a "destination". ( The Atlantic road one is linked to "economic well being"). Instead of suggesting improvements to reduce traffic it was mixed in with other ideas. Which definitely people on the Estate saw as leading to gentrification. I remember people from the estate telling me this.

As redsquirrel points out its who is making the decisions. Council did not listen to concerns about proposals. Never took seriously concerns about LJ becoming a "destination" ( a pet scheme of LJAG). Some people on the estate I talked to did think traffic was an issue. But debate got polarised by the end.

I remember telling one of the Cllrs that the underlying issue of people on the estate was future of the social housing they lived in and concerns that LJ could be gentrified. Also these long time Council tenants felt that no one had listened to them for years. So I suggested the Council do some research/ consultation to find out what peoples fears were for the future and what they thought would be good improvements.

Despite consultation on various issues in LJ no one in power has really asked people on estate what they want. Even when locals from the estate do make suggestions I notice they never really get recorded properly.

Said Cllrs did not think this was great idea.

So I feel it gets to point that sectors of the local community start to oppose things in total. Or are very suspicious.

What improvements to the public realm do you think people *do* want? The ones who feel they aren't being listened to?

 

[Gramsci]

What improvements to the public realm do you think people *do* want? The ones who feel they aren't being listened to?

I do not know.

Looking back on my post. I think asking people on the estate what there fears are for the future of area and there place in it is the first thing. Its not specifics it starting a dialogue. Its a dialogue that’s been missing. Its what Co production is really supposed to be about.

Council tenants were never liked by New Labour. New Labour didn’t like the working class.

I agree with redsquirrel its a generalised feeling that :

Especially council that are known to have a history to destroying social housing, cutting funding to local services and generally attacking the working class.

This not being listened to is what made Cllr Rachel break ranks with the ruling group. Its being going on for years. A Labour run Council is not seen as on "our" side.

This has been simmering away for years. And finally boiled over when Council did the road closure experiment.

 

[CH1]

What improvements to the public realm do you think people *do* want? The ones who feel they aren't being listened to?

Speaking for myself here, not Gramsci, I reckon the people on the two Loughborough Estates are happy with things as they are. I expect the budgets allocated for public realm improvements are filched off TFL and the Mayor - not Lambeth money.

What a pity the Mayor does not take back responsibility for the elephant in the room - social housing. Then we could have some proper strategic planning and concrete results instead of this constant drip drip drip of £10,000 for imporvement here, £50,000 for improvements there - half of which goes on consultants doing consultations and architects drawing plans a council tenant could do on the back of a fag packet.

 

[boohoo]

If I understand your point I think it's very sad people feel they need to keep things "crap" in order to feel they are able to safely stay in their houses or neighbourhood. That they think improvements to their standards of living equals gentrification equals them being forced out.

As a private renter and someone who likes to be involved with local community and proactive in making places better, I am incredibly reluctant to improve my area. This is not about improvement equalling gentrification but improvements being a way of pushing up prices. New leisure centre close by, well that should be an extra £100 a month on your rent, local park got mentioned as a place to move, let's shove the prices up another £200. In my last flat, there was no improvements to the area, my landlady took at least 8 months to repair some damage which meant a part of our flat was not useable - so I am paying rent for something I can't use. But she still wanted to raise our rent - why? because the market says so. The cost of moving apart from the stress of it is a few hundred in admin fees and a couple of hundred on the day of the move. Plus i am now in zone 4 so that's an increase in my fares.

So why would I want my area to improve? That runs the risk of a bigger increase.

 

[teuchter]

This is not about improvement equalling gentrification but improvements being a way of pushing up prices.

What's the difference between those two things?

 

[bimble]

My downstairs neighbour is an active member of LJAG and last Summer she organised a thing where someone from Lambeth council came round with lots of scaffolding boards tools earth & plants. A few (very few) local people joined in making these planters, which were positioned all up and down nearby streets, partly to reduce flytipping.

The council man brought little placards along that were affixed to each saying 'these have been built by local people to help make Loughborough Junction a nicer place to live - please respect them'. The very next morning they had 'Stop Social Cleansing' stickers stuck on them.

It seems crazy on the surface of it to say that even flowers can be seen as a sort of violence but I kind of get it that these planters, with the best of intentions, might be felt by some as an aggressive invasive sort of gentrifying action, and unwelcome. They're mostly all trashed now, almost all the plants removed and empty cans and stuff in their place.

 

[SpamMisery]

I understand the fear that it might cause future rents rises, but the "lets all live in mud huts" mentality has got to be the wrong approach

Unfortunately, I don't know what the right approach is

 

[quimcunx]

Perhaps see it less as an approach as a response to an incorrect approach.

 

[Mr Retro]

My downstairs neighbour is an active member of LJAG and last Summer she organised a thing where someone from Lambeth council came round with lots of scaffolding boards tools earth & plants. A few (very few) local people joined in making these planters, which were positioned all up and down nearby streets, partly to reduce flytipping.

The council man brought little placards along that were affixed to each saying 'these have been built by local people to help make Loughborough Junction a nicer place to live - please respect them'. The very next morning they had 'Stop Social Cleansing' stickers stuck on them.

It seems crazy on the surface of it to say that even flowers can be seen as a sort of violence but I kind of get it that these planters, with the best of intentions, might be felt by some as an aggressive invasive sort of gentrifying action, and unwelcome. They're mostly all trashed now, almost all the plants removed and empty cans and stuff in their place.

That's depressing beyond belief. There is something like this on Gardeners World tonight about some neighbours in Liverpool doing something similar. On BBC2 now!

 

[Gramsci]

It seems crazy on the surface of it to say that even flowers can be seen as a sort of violence but I kind of get it that these planters, with the best of intentions, might be felt by some as an aggressive invasive sort of gentrifying action, and unwelcome. They're mostly all trashed now, almost all the plants removed and empty cans and stuff in their place.

I think ur right on this. Especially if it was seen as LJAG initiated and Council supported.

It is unfortunate. I rather like the planters in LJ. Put some seeds I bought in a couple of them in spring to see what would grow. But I can see why they could signify "prettifying the area" as one person put it to me.

In Brixton its different. Small World Urbanism have put planters in Brixton Station Road and no one sees them as a gentrifying action. In fact the opposite. They are not trashed. Despite gentrification in Brixton being well advanced. (They are having an event this Saturday in Brixton Station road.)

 

[teuchter]

In Brixton its different. Small World Urbanism have put planters in Brixton Station Road and no one sees them as a gentrifying action. In fact the opposite. They are not trashed. Despite gentrification in Brixton being well advanced. (They are having an event this Saturday in Brixton Station road.)

Are you sure it's not that the reason they aren't trashed is *because* gentrification in Brixton is well advanced?

 

[Gramsci]

Are you sure it's not that the reason they aren't trashed is *because* gentrification in Brixton is well advanced?

Yes I am sure. I know Brixton well enough. Its a difference between LJ and Brixton. Both have large number who hate idea of gentrification. But in Brixton green stuff is not seen as part of gentrification as it is in LJ. Nor are the artsy planters that Small World make seen in that light. In different areas the same thing has a different significance.

 

[OvalhouseDB]

We have had a specialist access report done on the plans for our new building, wrt disability. We have planned to make the new theatre as accessible as possible, for visitors, staff and artists, and it has been designed this way from the outset so the plans inside the building have been pretty much green lighted. However there is concern about the street environment: the general inaccessibility of uneven narrow pavements, things like electricity boxes blocking the pavements at narrow points, shops using more of the pavement than they should, poor lighting, a host of things that make life hard for someone with mobility difficulties or using a wheelchair, or visually impaired, problems in the general confusion of signage for people with learning disabilities. It's not hard to see how these things affect older people, or people with buggies etc.
Surely money put into improving the accessibility of the street environment is simply inclusive.
Is this the sort of thing you mean?

 

[CH1]

We have had a specialist access report done on the plans for our new building, wrt disability. We have planned to make the new theatre as accessible as possible, for visitors, staff and artists, and it has been designed this way from the outset so the plans inside the building have been pretty much green lighted. However there is concern about the street environment: the general inaccessibility of uneven narrow pavements, things like electricity boxes blocking the pavements at narrow points, shops using more of the pavement than they should, poor lighting, a host of things that make life hard for someone with mobility difficulties or using a wheelchair, or visually impaired, problems in the general confusion of signage for people with learning disabilities. It's not hard to see how these things affect older people, or people with buggies etc.
Surely money put into improving the accessibility of the street environment is simply inclusive.
Is this the sort of thing you mean?

All this is good news - but Mr? teuchter seems to be implying that people complain about improvements because they are destroying the character of Brixton (as perceived by the hard core remnant who remember what it was like in the 1970s and 1980s).

In your own case you will recall there was a big debate on here about why Lambeth Council was eradicating Housing Co-ops - specifically Carlton Mansions, which was I suppose the last to go, the council having connived in selling off Clifton Mansions and three of the Rushcroft Road mansion blocks to Lexadon, the well-known supplier of luxury accommodation to flat sharers who like to live at the end of the Victoria Line and wine and dine in Brixton's increasingly edgy and vibrant entertainment zone.

Naturally those most closely connected with the Carlton Mansions situation will never accept that it was an improvement to evict the people living in the mansions and convert the flats into an alternative use.

So whilst the New Oval House theatre having fully accessible facilities is highly welcome - that does not cancel out the loss of a form of community social housing which deserved to be supported not destroyed.

The problem in Lambeth (maybe in all public/private developments currently) is that packages are put together that also have a political edge. Right wing political edge I mean.

Can you imagine Ted Knight or Joan Twelves putting up a complex regeneration scheme for Somerleyton Road involving sacking a housing co-op apparently out of spite? I can imaging Stephen Whaley doing it. By the time he was leader of the council the Labour Party had resigned itself to Conservative regeneration tactics. If you look at any documentation to do with Brixton Challenge you will see you this quango set itself up to provide regeneration along centrally planned lines.

As it happens at that time the worst disaster must be the demolition of the Granda Bingo (formerly the Empress Theatre) in Brighton Terrace. That theatre had a lovely golden orb on the top with rays like rays of the sun. You could see it from a distance and it added character to central Brixton. Brixton Challenge cooked up the idea of replacing this historic theatre building with a nondescript block of flats (possibly with Metropolitan - they maybe not as they are not really ugly enough for Metropolitan c. 1994)

I really regret this too - though no doubt the tenants of the flats are happy enough.

Empress Theatre, Brighton Terrace and Bernay's Grove, Carlton Grove, Brixton. Historical Brixton - old and new photos of Brixton, Lambeth, London, SW9 and SW2

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Not "letting", "continuing to allow". This shit - minimal maintenance and really low-quality repairs - has been going on for over a decade now, and "Lambeth Living" just accelerated how quickly this spread throughout the borough's social housing stock.

 

[ViolentPanda]

We have had a specialist access report done on the plans for our new building, wrt disability. We have planned to make the new theatre as accessible as possible, for visitors, staff and artists, and it has been designed this way from the outset so the plans inside the building have been pretty much green lighted. However there is concern about the street environment: the general inaccessibility of uneven narrow pavements, things like electricity boxes blocking the pavements at narrow points, shops using more of the pavement than they should, poor lighting, a host of things that make life hard for someone with mobility difficulties or using a wheelchair, or visually impaired, problems in the general confusion of signage for people with learning disabilities. It's not hard to see how these things affect older people, or people with buggies etc.
Surely money put into improving the accessibility of the street environment is simply inclusive.
Is this the sort of thing you mean?

I agree with what you're highlighting here. However, it needs to be borne in mind too that local people with disabilities, having familiarity with the foibles of their civic environment, will have evolved workarounds, much as we do in our own homes. The disabled people most likely to be affected will be visitors, who will be faced by what feels like an assault course!

 

[ViolentPanda]

There seems to be some confusion here between street improvements, which have traditionally meant re-paving, dropping kerbs, re-siting streetlights and furniture etc, and the re-design of the street environment to make it more amenable to a particular set of users, which appears to be what's proposed for Atlantic Rd.

 

[teuchter]

The call for the Atlantic Rd proposals specifically mentions making it better for pedestrians and cyclists and removing street clutter.

Lambeth are, perhaps, asking for trouble by including mention of "economic wellbeing" because that's open to various interpretations. But what are specific examples of changes to a street environment that make it "more amenable to a particular set of users"?

 

[Pickman's model]

The call for the Atlantic Rd proposals specifically mentions making it better for pedestrians and cyclists and removing street clutter.

Lambeth are, perhaps, asking for trouble by including mention of "economic wellbeing" because that's open to various interpretations. But what are specific examples of changes to a street environment that make it "more amenable to a particular set of users"?

Go on, I know you're dying to tell us

 

[Gramsci]

Surely money put into improving the accessibility of the street environment is simply inclusive.
Is this the sort of thing you mean?

I don't think anyone is opposing improvements to improve accessibility.

But this is no just about that.

The Council are seeking an architect not a traffic engineer.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The call for the Atlantic Rd proposals specifically mentions making it better for pedestrians and cyclists and removing street clutter.

Lambeth are, perhaps, asking for trouble by including mention of "economic wellbeing" because that's open to various interpretations. But what are specific examples of changes to a street environment that make it "more amenable to a particular set of users"?

As a broad example that's occurred throughout London's boroughs, pedestrianisation and quasi-pedestrianisation (for example St John's Rd, SW11). Makes the environment more amenable to "gaze and graze"-type shops and shoppers, over more traditional retail outlets.