Keeping Brixton Crap: our public realm

[bimble]

Yep, I heard that a couple of times from local people during the road closures, people saying they felt they had no choice but to drive their kids to school to keep them safe. Very sad .

 

[friendofdorothy]

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.

Remember, when we were little most children walked to school - but those schools were nearby and the streets were 'safe' precisely because the streets were full of children and more importantantly there was fewer cars - so streets were safer. Lots of older children rode bikes to school - but roads had less traffic to compete with. obviously I'm talking about a long time ago here, dinosaurs roaming the earth etc)

Lambeth have been selling off schools all over the borough for years. Am I right in thinking that a while ago there were NO secondary schools in Lambeth so most secondary school children attend schools in other boroughs so have to travel, and so a lot of extra car journeys happen. Don't think there is any council/london/national policy to addressing all this extra school traffic is there? other than the obligatory don't park here makings outside all schools, that make them look like odd, dangerous places and seem to be often ignored.

 

[Rushy]

None of the above. I opposed all the shops in the arches being pushed out.

I don’t think anyone who opposed NR picked or choose which business to support or not.

How is that none of the above? If you don't think that anyone would have been pushed out, surely the answer is that it is"bad" that they were pushed out?

But then, they are estate agents who deserve a good kicking. They apparently got one. So why is it bad?

 

[CH1]

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 wonder if once a parent has a car they feel obliged to use it to take the kids to school and go to Tescos, Lidl and other car-park equipped local supermarkets. Reason - they think they are only getting value for money out of their car if they use it.

P.S. Quite a lot of children walk to school going from Loughborough Estate area to the Evelyn Grace Academy in Loughborough Park (going via Barrington Road). The Moorlands Rd/Coldharbour Lane traffic light pedestrians phase gets well utilised around 8.30 am.

 

[CH1]

How is that none of the above? If you don't think that anyone would have been pushed out, surely the answer is that it is"bad" that they were pushed out?

But then, they are estate agents who deserve a good kicking. They apparently got one. So why is it bad?

Surely you can accept that one could be opposed to forced eviction without making a forensic examination of people;s business methods.

Are you in fact moving towards a statement that the end justifies the means?

 

[alex_]

Two articles from the Evening Standard property porn pages. Today two page of why Cycling Quietways are good for property prices.



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.




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".

Estate agent always have a positive spin, they are in marketing - no matter what is happening - talk up the market.

This is why everyone hates them, even people in marketing.

Alex

 

[Gramsci]

How is that none of the above? If you don't think that anyone would have been pushed out, surely the answer is that it is"bad" that they were pushed out?

But then, they are estate agents who deserve a good kicking. They apparently got one. So why is it bad?

As I said I opposed all the shopkeepers in the arches from being evicted by NR. At no time did I post up here that I wanted NR to give the estate agent there "a good kicking".

At no time did I pick and choose between the shopkeepers seeing who is more worthy of support than others.

 

[Baron]

 

[technical]

Coming late to this thread.

Its come to something if people are arguing that they don’t want improvements to buildings and public realm, simply on the basis that this will fuel gentrification. Why shouldn’t all of us who live in or visit Brixton be able to take advantage of an attractive, well-designed town centre – just like others who live in more ‘affluent’ areas are able to? Lack of investment in the town centre over many years is one reason (of many) why perhaps Brixton suffered from misconceptions historically.

All town centres need regular investment – the alternative would be for buildings to fall apart and places to become dysfunctional. And its not physical improvements to places that drive gentrification – these kind of effects are symptoms of much wider economic and demographic forces as landlords and owners seek to take advantage of restricted supply.

While we’ve had demographic change in Brixton for a while, physical change to the built environment hasn’t caught up. Beyond whether or not you think the proposals for Atlantic Rd are a good idea, the town centre is much busier now than it has been for a long time. Another reason to look at how roads, pavements and buildings can be remodelled to make sure they’re safe, easy to use and functional.

Totally appreciate lots of people are uneasy about how property trends are manifesting themselves in Brixton – can’t say I’m overly keen about a lot of it myself – but to prefer the status quo rather than new investment won’t make much of a difference I don’t think.

As for the points about pedestrianisation working against traditional retail – is there any evidence for this? I can think of lots of places across the country where pedestrianised town and city centres work well and contain plenty of conventional retail.

 

[teuchter]

Gentrification is primarily driven by bigger things than improvements to the local public realm. That said, we still have to recognise that those improvements can contribute to the process. But for me the question becomes whether that negative effect (how do we even quantify it?) is significant enough that it outweighs the positive effects of an improved public realm that everyone can enjoy.

I really struggle to accept the notion that anything that "improves" the area should be resisted, on the basis that it might assist in processes of gentrification. Because following that logic, don't we end up saying, for example, that parks shouldn't be maintained, or that we should welcome libraries closing?

Each proposal for "improvement" has to be looked at on its own merits. We have to try and decide whether the benefits it brings are disproportionately apply to one group of people over others. If it is something that improves the environment for people with a lot of money to spend, but not for those without, then there is a reasonable case for resisting it. This is why, earlier in the thread, I was trying to ask for examples of public realm improvements that fall into that category.

Pedestrianisation was given as an example. But as technical asks above - is there actually evidence to support such a broad statement? St Johns Rd, Clapham Junction was given as a specific example. I was there a couple of days ago and thinking of this thread, but looking at the shops on that stretch of road, it's hardly true to say that it's packed with exclusive retail or pretentious cafes. It's a fairly bog standard high street. In actual fact, to find most of the more expensive shops and pavement cafes you have to continue up and onto Northcote Rd which isn't pedestrianised. Why's that? I'm sure the reasons are complex but the cafes and bars are probably something to do with the wider pavements which means that businesses have space to put tables outside.

It's simplistic to say that pedestrianisation in itself facilitates gentrification or mainly benefits only the more affluent. You have to look more specifically at the particular situation. It might well be that a pedestrianisation scheme which makes part of the new space available to outside seating for cafes and restaurants does indeed end up benefitting the more affluent, and pushing out "traditional retail". But a design (yes, also a political) decision could be made when implementing that pedestrianisation that the newly freed-up space is - for example - instead used for planting and public seating that everyone can use, including, say, older people who might like the opportunity to sit down at some point whilst doing their shopping but were previously forced to battle through crowded pavements and try and cross a busy road full of traffic.

So that's why I get frustrated when I see schemes proposing things like pedestrianisation or improved cycle routes jumped upon automatically as sinister gentrification schemes. There might be many cases where there's a good reason to argue against a pedestrianisation scheme but it would make much more sense to argue for the details of the proposal to be changed, than to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is exactly what happened with the LJ road proposals.

 

[Gramsci]

Gentrification is primarily driven by bigger things than improvements to the local public realm. That said, we still have to recognise that those improvements can contribute to the process. But for me the question becomes whether that negative effect (how do we even quantify it?) is significant enough that it outweighs the positive effects of an improved public realm that everyone can enjoy.

I really struggle to accept the notion that anything that "improves" the area should be resisted, on the basis that it might assist in processes of gentrification. Because following that logic, don't we end up saying, for example, that parks shouldn't be maintained, or that we should welcome libraries closing?

Each proposal for "improvement" has to be looked at on its own merits. We have to try and decide whether the benefits it brings are disproportionately apply to one group of people over others. If it is something that improves the environment for people with a lot of money to spend, but not for those without, then there is a reasonable case for resisting it. This is why, earlier in the thread, I was trying to ask for examples of public realm improvements that fall into that category.

Pedestrianisation was given as an example. But as technical asks above - is there actually evidence to support such a broad statement? St Johns Rd, Clapham Junction was given as a specific example. I was there a couple of days ago and thinking of this thread, but looking at the shops on that stretch of road, it's hardly true to say that it's packed with exclusive retail or pretentious cafes. It's a fairly bog standard high street. In actual fact, to find most of the more expensive shops and pavement cafes you have to continue up and onto Northcote Rd which isn't pedestrianised. Why's that? I'm sure the reasons are complex but the cafes and bars are probably something to do with the wider pavements which means that businesses have space to put tables outside.

It's simplistic to say that pedestrianisation in itself facilitates gentrification or mainly benefits only the more affluent. You have to look more specifically at the particular situation. It might well be that a pedestrianisation scheme which makes part of the new space available to outside seating for cafes and restaurants does indeed end up benefitting the more affluent, and pushing out "traditional retail". But a design (yes, also a political) decision could be made when implementing that pedestrianisation that the newly freed-up space is - for example - instead used for planting and public seating that everyone can use, including, say, older people who might like the opportunity to sit down at some point whilst doing their shopping but were previously forced to battle through crowded pavements and try and cross a busy road full of traffic.

So that's why I get frustrated when I see schemes proposing things like pedestrianisation or improved cycle routes jumped upon automatically as sinister gentrification schemes. There might be many cases where there's a good reason to argue against a pedestrianisation scheme but it would make much more sense to argue for the details of the proposal to be changed, than to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is exactly what happened with the LJ road proposals.

In LJ before the road closures experiment there was already a difference of opinion between LJAG and the people on the Estate. LJAG want to make LJ a "destination" the people from the estate said that ( an this was said to me personally) that LJ was "just somewhere you pass through".The idea behind that was making LJ a "destination" would contribute to gentrification.

Remember pre road closures someone in one of the Arches saying the thing about LJAGs plans for LJ was that (unintentionally) they would lead to gentrification of the area.

Looking at the Council final draft of the LJ Masterplan I cannot help but thinking on one level is this not going to make the area nicer for developers and estate agents? Is it really going to benefit the people on the estate? Given whats happened in Brixton I would be wary of planned "improvements" Despite years of consultation on Masterplans in Brixton ( I attended so know about) where we were promised that these plans would protect Brixton at the first serious hurdle ( the arches) they failed. In fact they were used as a justification.

Ive given examples here of how cycling improvements contribute to an area becoming more desirable. Other posters have made similar comments based on there experience (boohoo).

 

[teuchter]

Ive given examples here of how cycling improvements contribute to an area becoming more desirable. Other posters have made similar comments based on there experience (boohoo).

So how do you resolve this in your mind? Do you now think cycling improvements should be resisted, in general?

 

[newbie]

As for the points about pedestrianisation working against traditional retail – is there any evidence for this? I can think of lots of places across the country where pedestrianised town and city centres work well and contain plenty of conventional retail.

can you? Even after dark?

I like visiting towns and cities, I like walking round them and looking at what I can see. My observation is that after the major retailers have shut pedestrianised shopping areas are empty, soulless and and rather unwelcoming, sometimes intimidating. When the majors shut there's no incentive for smaller places to stay open, so the change is quite stark. The roads the planners left with traffic still bustle, partly because people can park to nip into a shop, partly because that's where walkers choose to go, rather than through the empty quarter.

Newer pedestrianised areas do seem to 'work well' for 'conventional retail' in the sense that the majors and multiples snap up the leases, presumably because they're profitable. Older ones are more variable, there are plenty of failures, really horrid places with only charity shops, bookies, voids and not much else where even during the day the footfall is minimal.

How are people to be encouraged back into a pedestrianised area once they've deserted it? Shops on ordinary roads stand some chance of attracting passing trade, a single decent shop can attract enough to make it worth others clustering nearby- how can that work in a pedestrian precinct?

They're the kiss of death for an area, imo. Planners and major retailers obviously don't agree.

Does organising our built environment around the interests of major retailers really count as an improvement?


ps, forgot to mention that St Johns Rd is not pedestrianised, it's been made buses only, which means it's still used in the evening.

 

[teuchter]

can you? Even after dark?

I like visiting towns and cities, I like walking round them and looking at what I can see. My observation is that after the major retailers have shut pedestrianised shopping areas are empty, soulless and and rather unwelcoming, sometimes intimidating. When the majors shut there's no incentive for smaller places to stay open, so the change is quite stark. The roads the planners left with traffic still bustle, partly because people can park to nip into a shop, partly because that's where walkers choose to go, rather than through the empty quarter.

Newer pedestrianised areas do seem to 'work well' for 'conventional retail' in the sense that the majors and multiples snap up the leases, presumably because they're profitable. Older ones are more variable, there are plenty of failures, really horrid places with only charity shops, bookies, voids and not much else where even during the day the footfall is minimal.

How are people to be encouraged back into a pedestrianised area once they've deserted it? Shops on ordinary roads stand some chance of attracting passing trade, a single decent shop can attract enough to make it worth others clustering nearby- how can that work in a pedestrian precinct?

They're the kiss of death for an area, imo. Planners and major retailers obviously don't agree.

Does organising our built environment around the interests of major retailers really count as an improvement?


ps, forgot to mention that St Johns Rd is not pedestrianised, it's been made buses only, which means it's still used in the evening.

You seem to be saying that pedestrianised areas are dead in the evening because the only people who want to use shops in the evening are people who want to drive to the shops. Is that right? Are you talking about London here? Or are you talking about places with limited public transport?

Yes shops benefit from passing trade. If we are arguing that the principle source of passing trade is car drivers, then there's something wrong because we shouldn't be designing cities around the interests of drivers. The deserted pedestrianised centres you talk about are generally in places where planning decisions have allowed retail to move to out-of-town retail parks which are completely designed around the convenience of car drivers. And there is not adequate public transport provided to the "real" centre, particularly in the evenings. The cause of this situation is not the act of pedestrianisation but the failure to do so as part of a wider, thought-through strategy.

Let's not forget that those who have no option but to rely on public transport are the less well-off. If they are lucky there might be an infrequent "shopper" bus service to the local retail park. A trip to the out-of-town supermarket might take hours and unlike the car owners they can't buy in the quantity that fits in a car boot - they are still restricted by what can be carried from the bus stop to their front door. Shops nearer to them are less likely to survive because of competition from the big places out of town. Likewise for shops in the "old" centre - ie the location where it makes sense for public transport to converge, and where the infrastructure for that transport already exists.

In London we are lucky enough that we have a viable public transport system - that runs into the evenings. As you say, St Johns Rd remains busy in the evenings despite being closed to cars, because it is accessible by bus. Similarly I can think of many continental European towns and cities that have widely pedestrianised centres which don't feel deserted at night. Because people can get to, and around, them without driving. There is proper public transport and these cities tend to have a wider strategy that favours pedestrians and cyclists.

In Britain, unfortunately, we have completely messed up many of our towns outside of London by planning strategies that favour car drivers. In some of these places, yes, pedestrianised streets can feel intimidating. Why? Simply because no-one is around. Why is no-one around? Because most people get around in their private cars. What's the solution - to allow the cars back onto those roads, making everything even more convenient for their drivers, or to have a proper planning strategy that invests in public transport and other measures that make streets more attractive to those using that public transport - those people that become pedestrians once they get of the train or bus?

Anyway, I am going off topic. In London we already have decent public transport and the problems with pedestrianisation that might exist elsewhere aren't present.

Are there examples of pedestrianisation in London which have supposedly created dead streets?

 

[newbie]

You seem to be saying that pedestrianised areas are dead in the evening because the only people who want to use shops in the evening are people who want to drive to the shops. Is that right?

of course not. Pedestrianised areas are dead at night because no-one wants to use them. People in cars are just a subset of that. However it's pretty obvious that people using their cars in the evening park briefly in order to pop into shops.

Are there examples of pedestrianisation in London which have supposedly created dead streets?

I'll need to think about that. The post I replied to mentioned 'lots of places across the country'.

 

[Winot]

of course not. Pedestrianised areas are dead at night because no-one wants to use them. People in cars are just a subset of that. However it's pretty obvious that people using their cars in the evening park briefly in order to pop into shops.

Pedestrianised areas are dead at night if they are shopping streets. Because the shops are shut. Shopping streets which are on roads have cars going down those roads, but the concept of passing trade doesn't really apply if the shops are shut.

Streets which have lots of bars/pubs/restaurants are busier at night, no matter whether they are pedestrianised or not.

 

[technical]

As for the points about pedestrianisation working against traditional retail – is there any evidence for this? I can think of lots of places across the country where pedestrianised town and city centres work well and contain plenty of conventional retail.

can you? Even after dark?

I like visiting towns and cities, I like walking round them and looking at what I can see. My observation is that after the major retailers have shut pedestrianised shopping areas are empty, soulless and and rather unwelcoming, sometimes intimidating. When the majors shut there's no incentive for smaller places to stay open, so the change is quite stark. The roads the planners left with traffic still bustle, partly because people can park to nip into a shop, partly because that's where walkers choose to go, rather than through the empty quarter.

Newer pedestrianised areas do seem to 'work well' for 'conventional retail' in the sense that the majors and multiples snap up the leases, presumably because they're profitable. Older ones are more variable, there are plenty of failures, really horrid places with only charity shops, bookies, voids and not much else where even during the day the footfall is minimal.

How are people to be encouraged back into a pedestrianised area once they've deserted it? Shops on ordinary roads stand some chance of attracting passing trade, a single decent shop can attract enough to make it worth others clustering nearby- how can that work in a pedestrian precinct?

They're the kiss of death for an area, imo. Planners and major retailers obviously don't agree.

Does organising our built environment around the interests of major retailers really count as an improvement?


ps, forgot to mention that St Johns Rd is not pedestrianised, it's been made buses only, which means it's still used in the evening.

Your point about after dark is a slightly different issue - what I was trying to say, in response to the point about pedestrianisation working against traditional retail, is that I'm not sure there's any evidence to back that up. I can think of several places I've been in over the last year or so where pedestrianising (or at least restricting vehicle access to) part of the city centre works well IMO - Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow city centres. On a smaller scale Kendal and Weston super Mare also have pedestrianised bits of the town centre that help 'traditional' retail - although in the case of Kendal I appreciate this is probably down to location of the town itself more than anything. Its a while since I've been there but Brighton is another one. Where pedestrianisation is done well I think it helps attracts shoppers/visitors and its not the pedestrianisation per se that leads to cafe culture.

The point about lack of people 'after dark' is more about range of uses and the health of the local economy I think - some of them are dead, no question (Cabot Circus in Bristol springs to mind on the one occasion I've been there). But town centres are struggling in general for lots of reasons.

 

[newbie]

Where pedestrianisation is done well I think it helps attracts shoppers/visitors and its not the pedestrianisation per se that leads to cafe culture.

Maybe not but it helps: Station Rd is mostly traffic free during the day and is full of cafes, Atlantic isn't and isn't.

 

[Winot]

Maybe not but it helps: Station Rd is mostly traffic free during the day and is full of cafes, Atlantic isn't and isn't.

Very good local examples: Station Rd is much more pleasant than Atlantic Rd because it is pedestrianised. And it is not (yet) gentrified - the pedestrianisation happened a long time before the gentrification was a gleam in Jack Hopkins' eye and plenty of good ordinary cafes and shops have benefited from it.

 

[cuppa tee]

the pedestrianisation happened a long time before the gentrification was a gleam in Jack Hopkins' eye and plenty of good ordinary cafes and shops have benefited from it

....and then lo, along came Pop and Network Rail and flashing pound signs lit up the area

 

[Gramsci]

So how do you resolve this in your mind? Do you now think cycling improvements should be resisted, in general?

At this point in time Im not able to resolve it.

Seems to me that its become more of an issue now as gentrification is now eating up areas that had been left alone.

As the case of Brixton Station Road outside the Rec pedestrianised. No one objected to that when it came in.

I can imagine that if the same was suggested now for Atlantic road there will be objections.

 

[Gramsci]

Are there examples of pedestrianisation in London which have supposedly created dead streets?

I go up to see my friend in Walthamstow as unlike Brixton they have a cheap cinema there. The Empire. Basic multiplex but screens are good.

Walthamstow lacked a cinema for some years. It new and built in the the now pedestrianised High Street. Been there a few times. The cinema is ok. But leaving it Saturday evening and the area is a bit dead. Unless you are into drinking- which my friend is not. Not against pedestrianisation but the whole area felt a bit dead in evening. it felt dark and an uninviting unless you were there to spend a lot of money. Even then it looked pretty dead to me. Most coffee bars were closed. Only Pizza Express open. A few late night clubs/ pubs were getting going. Unlike central London like Soho area. Where coffee bars stay open all night in Old Compton street on weekends.

It partly the culture in this country - shopping / drinking/ restaurants . Its heavily consumerist. You need money to do it.

A place where pedestrianisation ( not even cycles allowed) has worked is Lisle street in Chinatown. Partly as the road has been done like on Brixton Station road. Much more pleasant to walk around. This was stuck between Leicester sq and Gerrard street ( pedestrianised some time ago). Lisle street and the bottom of Wardour are now open to traffice ( delivery lorries mainly) until midday when its closed for rest of day. This works well. It is however all restaurants. Nothing else.

Personally I would prefer to see cycle routes / pedestrianisation as part of move away from the dog eat dog capitalism that people have to live in. Utopian as that is. A friend of mine took her relatives to central London to see the sights. As she said a lot of central London is not that nice to be in. Its full of traffic, everyone is under pressure to get to next meeting , deliver something. The traffic is a symptom of how capitalism works - chaotic, damaging the environment and putting people under pressure in a situation they dont control. Whilst giving them the illusion that they have independence. The way that green routes, pedestrianisation etc has been co opted by profit makers ( see my posts about the ES ) is also a symptom of how capitalism co opts ideas to pursue profit.

 

[Gramsci]

This radio programme is relevant. Heard it last week its online

The battle in big cities continues: how do you keep cars out to cut congestion and reduce pollution? Chris Ledgard visits Paris and Barcelona to explore two different approaches. In Paris, the mayor's office wants to ban the most polluting cars, and coloured stickers are being introduced to help the authorities determine which vehicles can enter the city centre. Meanwhile, more and more Paris residents are turning to the electric car-sharing scheme, Autolib. We hear how it works. In Barcelona, urban ecologists are adapting the famous grid system designed by Ildefons Cerda to create 'superblocks' - large traffic-free spaces across the city where the sound of traffic is only distantly heard. Chris talks to the scheme's inventor, Salvador Rueda, and hears about his vision for Spain's second biggest city.

Paris focussed on electric cars for hire. Moving to replace car ownership with using cars when needed. The system in Paris has been set up to be cheap to use for short city journeys and easily available. Deliberately cheap for reasons of social equity. This is not just for the well off. Works like Boris bikes. No need for a membership like some off the schemes here. Like Zip Cars. One of the mistakes in this country is that these improvements are seen to benefit the better off. Or only realistically accessible by the better off. The Paris electric cars are designed to be used by all - not just the well off.If this attitude was used here there would be more support for improvements.

Barcelona - they are doing there own version of the dutch planning ideas ( as used in Walthamstow). Keeping main roads for traffic and closing side roads to create "superblocks".

Both interesting ideas. The one in Barcelona does appear to be top down. The local government has just got on with it. Its new so as yet not much info how how people feel about it and how wellit works.

 

[newbie]

A place where pedestrianisation ( not even cycles allowed) has worked is Lisle street in Chinatown. Partly as the road has been done like on Brixton Station road. Much more pleasant to walk around. This was stuck between Leicester sq and Gerrard street ( pedestrianised some time ago). Lisle street and the bottom of Wardour are now open to traffice ( delivery lorries mainly) until midday when its closed for rest of day. This works well. It is however all restaurants. Nothing else.

Lisle St feels like it's been Disneyfied to me. It used to be a very earthy, working street, now it's for tourists.

It would be an exaggeration to say the same is true of Station Rd, but not by much. It's been moving away from being a working street and towards being a leisure destination at least since they moved the junk stalls from the other end. A remnant of that change, the hardware shop, looks ever more out of place. Whenever that was it predates Hopkins, can't remember if it coincided with the daytime pedestrianisation. While each of the various cafes and Pop appeal to slightly different demographics, overall it's becoming the preserve of those who want to spend their disposable income sitting and chatting or perhaps buying fripperies. Not so different from Northcote Rd in that respect, but with greater tourism potential.

 

[teuchter]

newbie I'm confused about what your point is. Earlier you were blaming the desertion of town centres on pedestrianisation, now it's responsible for a proliferation of people sitting around and spending money. It seems like pedestrianisation is becoming the fall guy for other more significant factors to me. Station Rd doesn't really work as an example of pedestrianisation leading to gentrification because right on the other side of the line is atlantic rd which is where the chain operations and upmarket bars have actually started appearing first - Wahaca, Brindisa, Eckovision, Wine Parlour etc etc. And Northcote Rd isn't pedestrianised.

 

[newbie]

newbie I'm confused about what your point is. Earlier you were blaming the desertion of town centres on pedestrianisation, now it's responsible for a proliferation of people sitting around and spending money.

why do you think I have a single, consistent point? Or that every clause of every post is there to build a case?

my first post on this thread related to "traditional retail .... lots of places across the country", in which I attributed the evening emptiness of pedestrianised shopping streets to pedestrianisation. The latest follows on from the discussion.

I'm aware that Northcote Road is not pedestrianised, thanks. I'm also aware it used to be a thriving street market with accompanying day-to-day household shops; that the remaining stalls are some sort of chocolate box pastiche; that there is very little traffic these days; that (in the stretch I was thinking of) there are plentiful cafes with tables on the pavement where people with disposable income sit and chat; that many of the remaining shops sell stuff best described as fripperies. Maybe you missed those parallels because the road signs aren't exactly the same? There are differences between NR and SR, of course there are. There are also similarities.

 

[teuchter]

Well, broadly, we have been discussing pedestrianisation and to what extent it is really or necessarily a causal factor in gentrification processes. If you are just offering commentary that there are pedestrianised streets and unpedestrianised streets, but making no consistent point about how this might be related to gentrification or other matters, fair enough.

 

[Gramsci]

Lisle St feels like it's been Disneyfied to me. It used to be a very earthy, working street, now it's for tourists.

It would be an exaggeration to say the same is true of Station Rd, but not by much. It's been moving away from being a working street and towards being a leisure destination at least since they moved the junk stalls from the other end. A remnant of that change, the hardware shop, looks ever more out of place. Whenever that was it predates Hopkins, can't remember if it coincided with the daytime pedestrianisation. While each of the various cafes and Pop appeal to slightly different demographics, overall it's becoming the preserve of those who want to spend their disposable income sitting and chatting or perhaps buying fripperies. Not so different from Northcote Rd in that respect, but with greater tourism potential.

Lisle St feels like it's been Disneyfied to me. It used to be a very earthy, working street, now it's for tourists.

It would be an exaggeration to say the same is true of Station Rd, but not by much. It's been moving away from being a working street and towards being a leisure destination at least since they moved the junk stalls from the other end. A remnant of that change, the hardware shop, looks ever more out of place. Whenever that was it predates Hopkins, can't remember if it coincided with the daytime pedestrianisation. While each of the various cafes and Pop appeal to slightly different demographics, overall it's becoming the preserve of those who want to spend their disposable income sitting and chatting or perhaps buying fripperies. Not so different from Northcote Rd in that respect, but with greater tourism potential.

I think the difference in demographics between those who used the cafes in the arches in Britain Station Road and Pop was large. In terms of ethnic composition and income.One of the reasons NR plans were opposed was that was the last bit of affordable Brixton.

It does give example where pedestrianisation does no have to lead to gentrification.

People need good and affordable public spaces. For a few years this worked in Brixton Station Road.

The pedestrianisation of the road worked well with the Rec. Another public space designed when it was thought that people should have good public spaces.

 

[cuppa tee]

It does give example where pedestrianisation does no have to lead to gentrification

except it did in the long run as we are now seeing, would the craft beer co and boom burger have plotted up in a street that wasn't pedestrianised I ask myself.

 

[Gramsci]

except it did in the long run as we are now seeing, would the craft beer co and boom burger have plotted up in a street that wasn't pedestrianised I ask myself.

I know but the interesting case of Brixton Station Road is that no one complained about it in these terms when it was first pedestrianised.

I am seeing this in Soho. Had a most aggravating experience today. One of the new shop units in Broadwick street has just opened. (Broadwick street was redone with nice cobbles recently. )It appears to be a shoe and accessory shop. So trendy that the sign for who its run by is tiny. Obviously one has to be in the know to go there. Like the newish Supreme shop around the corner. I was standing by in my usual spot. Thought I really cant stomach this. The oh so hip music was blaring out. The staff are so trendy they do not look like hipsters. Hearing bits of conversation of people going in and out. Its like a private club for those in the know. Big unit painted white with about 10 pairs of shoes and half a dozen bags placed artistically around the massive unit.

Curiously the homeless who had camped up for some time by where I hang out have been moved on. This coincided with the opening of the new shop. Funny that. Saw they had pitched up there tent outside an empty shop on Soho square by the building site. So not used much at the moment.

Another aggravating experience last week. An old guy who lives in a hostel begs in West end. He is ok , not a drinker , the cops leave him alone. I chat with him and give him a bit of money. Unfortunately the spot he uses is near the entrance to some new Penthouse flats built above the shops. Which I know were going for 5 million. He had to move because one of the rich vermin living in one of the Penthouses complained about having beggar outside.Gave him a load of abuse a few days ago.

As my van driver friend said London is becoming for the rich. Its coming to Brixton now ( on a smaller scale but just as bad). I wouldnt say its down to pedestrianisation. Its down to this shit society we live in.

But you cant say anything. Rich = scum. Estate Agents= deserve a kicking. Say that and ( not saying you) one gets criticised.

Estate Agents. Few weeks ago in my spot in Broadwick street a small group of people stopped near me. It was an Estate Agent showing people around the nearly finished units. Said they were getting "high end" retailers in and an "upmarket" restaurant. Nothing to common then. The long standing chemist on the corner went recently. Could not afford the rent anymore. More room for a "high end" retailer.