Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Keeping Brixton Crap: our public realm

ViolentPanda said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I know exactly what you mean by "more traditional retail outlets" but whatever they are - do you not think that pedestrianisation makes the environment more amenable to their customers?
 
teuchter said:
I am not sure I know exactly what you mean by "more traditional retail outlets" but whatever they are - do you not think that pedestrianisation makes the environment more amenable to their customers?
Click to expand...
Not this olde chestnut again, we've been here before, painfully, for days, with the LJ road closures. Strolling pedestrians are more likely to buy a takeaway flat white and a muffin, less likely to buy a second hand fridge and a carpet offcut, isn't it.
 
Both of the above replies dodge the question, which is not about which shops wealthier/poorer people prefer but whether a pedestrianised environment - the street itself - is somehow more amenable for one or other. Are less wealthy people somehow less negatively affected by crowded pavements, dangerous traffic, pollution and noise?
 
teuchter said:
Both of the above replies dodge the question, which is not about which shops wealthier/poorer people prefer but whether a pedestrianised environment - the street itself - is somehow more amenable for one or other. Are less wealthy people somehow less negatively affected by crowded pavements, dangerous traffic, pollution and noise?
Click to expand...

A pedestrianised environment attracts "cafe culture", cafe culture attracts the sort of "gaze and graze" custom I spoke of, and isn't as amenable to the "more traditional retail outlets" I mentioned.

Do you have some food you want me to pre-digest for you, too?
 
Local shops, serving local needs, on a pedestrianised street vs. the same local shops serving local needs on a street with heavy traffic and cluttered pavements. Which environment is more amenable to the customers of those shops?

I've made it pretty clear throughout the thread that I'm aware of the argument that improving the public realm can attract different people and businesses which have economic consequences for those already living there.

I am attempting to get an answer to the question of whether the improvements themselves - in this case we are discussing pedestrianisation - are disproportionately attractive to one group of people over another. I want to separate out that question, from the one about consequencial effects on the businesses that then develop on such streets, to try and see to what extent we do or don't agree.
 
teuchter said:
Local shops, serving local needs, on a pedestrianised street vs. the same local shops serving local needs on a street with heavy traffic and cluttered pavements. Which environment is more amenable to the customers of those shops?

I've made it pretty clear throughout the thread that I'm aware of the argument that improving the public realm can attract different people and businesses which have economic consequences for those already living there.

I am attempting to get an answer to the question of whether the improvements themselves - in this case we are discussing pedestrianisation - are disproportionately attractive to one group of people over another. I want to separate out that question, from the one about consequencial effects on the businesses that then develop on such streets, to try and see to what extent we do or don't agree.
Click to expand...

Your logic is impeccable.

I would still say that the political and economic situation in which improvements are done is a factor.

The Brixton Rec is an example. This was designed and planned as part of the post war rebuilding of this country. The politics behind it were of the post war left. That the working class should not just have access to swimming pools and a gym but should have a "Peoples Palace". The size of the space and facilities was above and beyond a purely utilitarian approach. The Rec was designed ( the Atrium) as a public space.

The Rec was part of a larger political project to change post war Britain. Those politicians and architects who designed this had direct knowledge of the 30s and WW2. The Rec was part of the post war Welfare State. Mass Council house building was part of this. And the Welfare State was not about , as it now is seen, about shirkers vs strivers. It was a collective project Listening now to a programme on radio that shows that health is a collective issue. Or as its now put "wellbeing". Which is a term that depoliticises what is about reducing inequality in case it scares off middle England.

This now is seen as utopian. But its why when the Council were thinking of getting rid of the Rec there was uproar. The same kind of people ( in my opinion) ,who are sceptical of new planned improvements and opposed NR plans to "regenerate" the arches,turned up to give Cllr Lib Peck a barracking when they felt there Rec was threatened- and what it represented to them. Its what CH1 was suggesting- If I read his post correctly.

So people are not always against improvements. Its the political and economic context they are done in that matters. Now its one where Neo Liberalism is the orthodoxy. The "free market" rules. As posters have said above improvements now mean the property owners can make a bigger profit. Its an orthodoxy our New Labour Council accepts as a given. It being the heirs of Blairism.

But I can agree this can have perverse effects. As up at LJ and the road closure. A poor area with low car ownership opposed plans to stop middle class commuters from the leafy south London from coming through there estate every morning and evening. If the Council had sold this on basis that its stopping the above it might have had a better chance of being supported. But this is New Labour. So they said it would help to make LJ a "destination". :facepalm:

So improvements that could be argued benefit the working class ( who are less likely to own cars and depend on public transport) are now seen as helping to push the working class out.
 
Last edited:
But do or don't we agree there *is* a logic in saying that certain "improvements" are against the interests of poorer residents, because of consequential effects which negate their benefits for those same people?

This is a different issue from that of how proposed changes are perceived according to political context. That's a significant issue but not really what I am mainly trying to look at here.

The council using different language to describe proposals can change perception but it can't address the problem of improved public realm environments contributing to a pricing-out of less wealthy locals (if we think that problem is a real one).
 
Two articles from the Evening Standard property porn pages. Today two page of why Cycling Quietways are good for property prices. :facepalm:

says Rebecca May of Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward. “For example, we expect Earlsfield, part of the Clapham to Wimbledon Quietway, to get a boost.
Click to expand...

A "boost" in slimy estate agent language means increase in property values.

And here is the article about Boris bike docking stations I posted about earlier.


“And landlords are buying more buy-to-let properties close to docking stations because they get good rent and fewer void periods,” says Stephen Ludlow of estate agent Ludlow Thompson.
Click to expand...

Quietways were going to be part of the LJ "improvements" in the long term. Part of making it a "destination". Reading these ES articles can make me understand why the working class on the Loughborough Estate wanted none of this.

And I am saying this as someone who is a cyclist.

Until this is sorted out there is going to be opposition from working class neighbourhoods to these "improvements".
 
Last edited:
teuchter said:
But do or don't we agree there *is* a logic in saying that certain "improvements" are against the interests of poorer residents, because of consequential effects which negate their benefits for those same people?

This is a different issue from that of how proposed changes are perceived according to political context. That's a significant issue but not really what I am mainly trying to look at here.

The council using different language to describe proposals can change perception but it can't address the problem of improved public realm environments contributing to a pricing-out of less wealthy locals (if we think that problem is a real one).
Click to expand...


I'm still not completely sure what you're asking or trying to look at. You can't remove it from context. And perception is important. How we perceive the world matters. Our brains can't process every visual stimulus that comes our way so we construct our visual world, ignoring some things, looking for patterns, filling in gaps. What we perceive is not a faithful representation of the visual world so you get optical illusions. Our understanding of the world we live can't take in every variable, every political motivation, every possible outcome, so our brain constructs a world map, an overview of the context we live in and makes decisions on this this basis.

Are street improvements good? Yes. But without other improvements the results are lopsided and can actually cause unintended consequences (or intended but covert ones)

Is working out at the gym good? Yes. Gym equipment and a personal trainer at your disposal. But if the gym equipment is designed to be 'right handed' so only your right side can be exercised, and there is no pilates classes, no aerobic exercise then what use is your pumped up right side? "Oh, my right side is in the peak of physical health. Feel my bicep. Go on. My heart hasn't benefited at all and actually the lack of balance between my honed and toned right side and my weak and spindly left side has caused me lots of problems with my lower back and hips, not to mention my shoulders.Overall I feel worse than before I started but hey, feel my bicep".
 
Last edited:
teuchter said:
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?
Click to expand...
those pots of money are not related - that is not how local govt funding works.
 
As Gramsci says: it's depressing that it comes to this. That the least advantaged people feel they have to / would rather put up with inaccessible facilities (in the public realm) and a range of other inconveniences and unpleasantnesses because having decent, even legal standards, brings the worse evil: higher prices.

This is exactly contrary to how monies for public, civic amenities should be.

To state the obvious.
 
teuchter said:
Local shops, serving local needs, on a pedestrianised street vs. the same local shops serving local needs on a street with heavy traffic and cluttered pavements. Which environment is more amenable to the customers of those shops?

I've made it pretty clear throughout the thread that I'm aware of the argument that improving the public realm can attract different people and businesses which have economic consequences for those already living there.

I am attempting to get an answer to the question of whether the improvements themselves - in this case we are discussing pedestrianisation - are disproportionately attractive to one group of people over another. I want to separate out that question, from the one about consequencial effects on the businesses that then develop on such streets, to try and see to what extent we do or don't agree.
Click to expand...
I'm still not sure exactly what you are asking. And I'm not sure that Brixton has ever been especially crap - well no more than the average state of London crap anyway. I've always prefered London crap to small town crap anyway. I believe the quality of the built environment and our public spaces affects our health and wellbeing. The removal of the fencing along Brixton high rd and widening of the pavements a few years back seemed to be a good thing for shoppers and pedestrians - but poor air quality due to slow/ standing traffic isn't such a good thing after all. The problem of traffic and pollution is a whole city/national issue, rather than a local one. I think its exacerbated by the raising cost /unreliability of public transport, increased number of personal deliveries and the fact that so few people can afford to live near their workplace.

Although I'm not and never have been a car driver, and I'm not fan of car pollution and noise I've found in general
that pedestrianisation generally takes some sort of life out of the area. There is something about crowds and traffic that can make a lone female pedestrian feel safe. They pedestrianised my home town - and now its a soulless place to shop and a really eerie place to wait for a bus in the evening. I'm not sure what the answer is, but don't think imposing unpopular schemes on local people is a good response.

teuchter said:
But do or don't we agree there *is* a logic in saying that certain "improvements" are against the interests of poorer residents, because of consequential effects which negate their benefits for those same people?
Click to expand...
As I can see 'improvements' to Brixton market/arches are not for the benefit of the existing existing traders nor their customers, and I'm not sure who they do benefit. Lambeth Council are a slimey bunch who a lot of people don't trust through personal experience - so why trust what they say about 'improvements'. The 'regeneration' of council housing estates is a misnomer - and seems to be for the benefit of property developers and people with enough cash to buy their luxury developments, not for the existing tenants or Lambeth tax payer.

The council using different language to describe proposals can change perception but it can't address the problem of improved public realm environments contributing to a pricing-out of less wealthy locals (if we think that problem is a real one)
Click to expand...
Well I do think its a real problem. But it would take far longer than I have now to detail why.

I'm worried that although my home is secure and they can't get rid of me, the area around me is becoming so affluent that it becoming more and more like chelsea or notting hill. I'm already socialising out of the area more and more for economy and to meet people I relate to, I hope I won't have to shop elsewhere too.

Will Brixton be the sort of place where I have the choice of several dozen place to buy a cup of coffee - but nowhere to buy a roll of lino or a light bulb? I think we've gone beyond the tipping point on that one.
 
madolesance said:
The working class could get on their bikes.
After all it worked in the 50's and 60's.

Now it's a become about car owner ship and the right to own the road.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of someone up at LJ- think bimble posted on this- who said they needed a car to get children to school. Gangs and "postcodes" meant it was a safety issue.

I walked to school. As did most of the children in the working class area of Plymouth I grew up in. This was in the pre Thatcherite era. Not to get misty eyed and nostalgic about it but everyone had a job. Housing wasn’t great but affordable. There was a sense of community. People had there shops and the pub was a pub with beers that one could afford.

Recently was reading about housing in Plymouth. Caught my eye as I came from there. Talked of knocking down and "regenerating" a crime ridden estate with a lot of social problems. Was not like that when I was there.

As with the rest of this country Plymouth working class lost out post 80s. Its not that the working class should get on there bikes. What they would like is a return to what they had in the 60s and 70s.Its like that time was on another planet.

Have friend in London from Wales. Whose experience is similar.

And the centre of Plymouth was totally rebuilt after WW2. ( Heavily bombed in the war). This was not seen as "gentrification". The word was not used then. Remember using the affordable cafes and shops there. Another example of how improvements need to be put in the social and political context there are made in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
795
editor
editor
isvicthere?
film about brixton by zazza the italian (scroll through the crap camden bit) with English subtitles.
Replies
1
Views
436
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
504
madolesance
M
Back
Top Bottom