Pop Brixton (formerly Grow Brixton) Pope's Road development

[Gramsci]

How anyone can defend Pop Brixton after the deeply disturbing revelations in this excellent article sure beats me. The whole thing is a fucking farce.



Lambeth Council props up loss making Pop Brixton with two year lease extension to pay off private debts

Ive been continuing to read the consultants report on Pop.

It's clear that Pop would have been financially unviable if it hadn't got the lease extension. Makeshift would survive due the to backing of hip property developers The Collective as they have Peckham levels now.

Yet the Council report keeps repeating that Pop has a "commercially sustainable model". I just don't see it. And that's not because I dislike Pop. It's just the facts as Jason writes in the article shows its yet to prove itself as a sustainable model.

Reading the consultants report it shows how the local authority has had to step in to keep Pop afloat.

Early on in report it says there have been two steering groups to run Pop. The first a " Council focused steering group". Grow/ Pop almost ran aground at the start. The report implies that it was Council who really got Pop on a more stable basis. Then "entrepreneurism" came into play. ( See page 13 point 18 of report).

 

[editor]

And it's the same story of huge losses and council delusion at Croydon's Boxpark...

Boxpark Croydon made a loss of nearly £500,000 last year, according to accounts filed to Companies House.

The operation, renting space to independent outlets selling street food and staging music and other events in a collection of disused shipping containers next to East Croydon Station, opened in October 2016 thanks to a chunky loan from Croydon Council of £3million, plus another £180,000 grant of public cash towards its launch party.

Last week, Tony Newman, the leader of Croydon Council, during a council cabinet meeting presentation, referred to Boxpark as a “successful investment” by the council.

‘Successful investment’ Boxpark reports a £500,000 loss

 

[teuchter]

The community made a bid for the space with genuine grassroot led plans for shared spaces. Lambeth gave it to dodgy entrepreneurs behind the current incarnation, with 'community' just a buzzword in their proposal. They kicked out the guy who created the 'community' aspect anyway. And now it turns out the the local people are paying for it all. Do you want to pay for private business who are given public land at huge discount and then not see any return from their profit? Shiny slick looking space doesn't mean it's well run or providing any actual service of value. If I find the link about their background, I'll post it.

The above is a post on facebook from someone who's obviously been reading the Buzz articles.

They seem to be under the impression that public money is paying for "it all".

 

[Gramsci]

The above is a post on facebook from someone who's obviously been reading the Buzz articles.

They seem to be under the impression that public money is paying for "it all".

In which case that person on Facebook has not been reading Brixton Buzz properly.

“The loan has been repaid in full by Pop Brixton.”

From:


Lambeth Council props up loss making Pop Brixton with two year lease extension to pay off private debts

 

[Gramsci]

From what I remember of this thread the argument was that posters like me didn't understand business.

Even if Edible Bus Stop had stayed involved inevitably it would have had to be more commercial than some of us ( who don't understand business) imagined.

That the profit share would come online quickly to prove posters like me wrong.

Well it's not happened.

Nor is it commercial success.

 

[teuchter]

What you have quoted, Gramsci, is the buzz article quoting a Lambeth FOI response. The article's overarching message/narrative/emphasis is by no means "pop has paid back everything it owes to the public purse". It is a bit better than the previous one but still presents information in a confusing way. I'm not surprised people read it and come away with the impression the facebook poster has.

 

[Gramsci]

What you have quoted, Gramsci, is the buzz article quoting a Lambeth FOI response. The article's overarching message/narrative/emphasis is by no means "pop has paid back everything it owes to the public purse". It is a bit better than the previous one but still presents information in a confusing way. I'm not surprised people read it and come away with the impression the facebook poster has.

It's perfectly clear to me and I'm just an average Joe.

 

[Gramsci]

What you have quoted, Gramsci, is the buzz article quoting a Lambeth FOI response. The article's overarching message/narrative/emphasis is by no means "pop has paid back everything it owes to the public purse". It is a bit better than the previous one but still presents information in a confusing way. I'm not surprised people read it and come away with the impression the facebook poster has.

Also the Council has its own communications section. Who are paid to put out news of what the Council is doing. Ie Love Lambeth. The internet section of the Council news.


Love Lambeth

Up against the paid Council officers who put out news of what the Council are doing are the unpaid writers of Brixton Buzz. The Ed snd Tricky Skills.

If the Council can't get it's message across with its paid staff then it needs to look at how it's communicating to local people.

Something incidentally the consultants of the Pop report bring up. Better communication would have improved the perception of Pop.

So I would not blame Brixton Buzz for this.

 

[teuchter]

It's perfectly clear to me and I'm just an average Joe.

You're hardly an average Joe! And I mean that as a compliment.

This is the opening paragraph of the buzz article:

Lambeth Council has confirmed that the two year lease extension for the loss making Pop Brixton has been granted to help the company pay back loans to private investors – and not Lambeth Council.

The last bit in italics - what do you take the intended meaning to be?
(a) The lease has been granted to allow Pop to pay back money owed to private sources, whilst not requiring it to also pay back money owed to Lambeth Council
(b) The lease has been granted to allow Pop to pay back money owed to private sources, even though the lease extension is not necessary to help it pay back money to Lambeth Council

To me it's ambiguous, and I wouldn't be surprised by anyone going with (a).

You or I might then carefully read and re-read the following text, including the various links to FOI responses and so on, and come to the conclusion that Pop probably does not in fact owe any money to Lambeth Council. Most people wouldn't. Later in the article it's simply stated that

Lambeth Council loaned Pop Brixton £92,000 in 2015. This was to cover an increase in construction costs to build the Impact Hub work space.

But then it's not stated that this loan has been paid back. You have to click on the FOI link earlier in the article to find that out, where it's referred to as two separate amounts of 40 and 52k.

All this is interspersed with a scattergun collection of figures relating to the losses of a company that is not, as far as I can see, involved in running pop Brixton, and details of selected portions of the amounts it owes private entities. Then we are given a figure of last year's loss, and its net liability. No attempt to explain what the latter means.

I'd not be surprised if most readers of this article give up on trying to understand what all the numbers actually mean, and which ones are relevant.

 

[teuchter]

From what I remember of this thread the argument was that posters like me didn't understand business.

Even if Edible Bus Stop had stayed involved inevitably it would have had to be more commercial than some of us ( who don't understand business) imagined.

That the profit share would come online quickly to prove posters like me wrong.

Well it's not happened.

Nor is it commercial success.

I'm not sure anyone predicted that the profit share was going to quickly come online. I think there's been some scepticism from all sides from the beginning about how much it would end up being.

Do you reckon, with EBS still involved, it would now have generated the profit share the original proposal promised?

 

[Gramsci]

You're hardly an average Joe! And I mean that as a compliment.

This is the opening paragraph of the buzz article:


The last bit in italics - what do you take the intended meaning to be?
(a) The lease has been granted to allow Pop to pay back money owed to private sources, whilst not requiring it to also pay back money owed to Lambeth Council
(b) The lease has been granted to allow Pop to pay back money owed to private sources, even though the lease extension is not necessary to help it pay back money to Lambeth Council

To me it's ambiguous, and I wouldn't be surprised by anyone going with (a).

You or I might then carefully read and re-read the following text, including the various links to FOI responses and so on, and come to the conclusion that Pop probably does not in fact owe any money to Lambeth Council. Most people wouldn't. Later in the article it's simply stated that



But then it's not stated that this loan has been paid back. You have to click on the FOI link earlier in the article to find that out, where it's referred to as two separate amounts of 40 and 52k.

All this is interspersed with a scattergun collection of figures relating to the losses of a company that is not, as far as I can see, involved in running pop Brixton, and details of selected portions of the amounts it owes private entities. Then we are given a figure of last year's loss, and its net liability. No attempt to explain what the latter means.

I'd not be surprised if most readers of this article give up on trying to understand what all the numbers actually mean, and which ones are relevant.

I've had another read and it looks clear to me.

If the company your refering to is Makeshift then from there website they have three projects. One of which is Pop.

Our Projects

Another thing is that Pop isn't liked in some quarters. Which isn't all down to Buzz.

 

[Gramsci]

I'm not sure anyone predicted that the profit share was going to quickly come online. I think there's been some scepticism from all sides from the beginning about how much it would end up being.

Do you reckon, with EBS still involved, it would now have generated the profit share the original proposal promised?

I haven't trawled all through the old posts but definitely my impression was that profit share was predicted to come online in first years or so.

My verdict of Pop. I've said this before. And now I'm more sure. If Pop was inevitably to become more commercial then the Council should have just leased the land to a commercial operator at market rent. Then used the income in the area.

Pop experiment of mixing commercialism with social good hasnt worked.

It's also caused resentment. Which the Council haven't been able to deal with. It's an experimental project that's divided the local community. In that sense it's failed.

 

[teuchter]

You've answered neither of my questions, but fair enough.

 

[editor]

I haven't trawled all through the old posts but definitely my impression was that profit share was predicted to come online in first years or so.

My verdict of Pop. I've said this before. And now I'm more sure. If Pop was inevitably to become more commercial then the Council should have just leased the land to a commercial operator at market rent. Then used the income in the area.

Pop experiment of mixing commercialism with social good hasnt worked.

It's also caused resentment. Which the Council haven't been able to deal with. It's an experimental project that's divided the local community. In that sense it's failed.

Here's the crock of shit from their website. Where they promise a 50/50 share of the totally non existent profits.

Lambeth Council kick-started the project, running a competition to submit ideas on what to do with a plot of disused land that now forms the site of Pop Brixton.

Lambeth Council has also provided the land for the project, until at least October 2017, free of charge. This is subject to the project delivering local benefits to the community.

Lambeth Council chairs the steering group that oversees the project.

Lambeth Council bore the cost of the various planning application fees, around £5k, plus initial marketing costs, such as the launch event back in the summer of 2014, again around £5k.

As noted, the Council will share 50/50 in any profit with Pop Brixton and the project’s finances are checked by a council accountant

FAQs | Pop Brixton

The line about the land being free only if the project delivers "local benefits to the community" is so gloriously vague as to be utterly meaningless. If they'd just rented the land to displaced arch traders it would have paid more money back (well anything is better than a big fat fuck all) and provided a tangible benefit to the existing community rather than gifting a load of NZ wine shifters, hipster food and drink outlets and property guardians a cheap base.

 

[editor]

Quite phenomenal fluff piece from the Independent here. It's like an advertorial, completely skipping over issues like the half million debt.

The South London shipping containers showing councils a different way to do business

 

[Gramsci]

Quite phenomenal fluff piece from the Independent here. It's like an advertorial, completely skipping over issues like the half million debt.

The South London shipping containers showing councils a different way to do business

Yes it reads like Lambeth wrote the piece for the Independent.

Pop didn't get lease extended because it's "so successful". It's not making money. No mention of the profit share.

It is interesting that the reporters first perception of going to Pop is that it is a "makeshift food court". Not an urban oasis.

The reason the Council aren't selling the land yet is that they are still working up plans for the area. There never was any intention of a quick sale.

 

[Gramsci]

Quite phenomenal fluff piece from the Independent here. It's like an advertorial, completely skipping over issues like the half million debt.

The South London shipping containers showing councils a different way to do business

The article makes a lot of the community investment scheme. Using it in the headline for the article. I'm sure the consultants report has reservations about how well this has worked.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

it's failed.

Thread ends.

 

[editor]

Thread ends.

But, sadly, Pop Brixton lives on.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

But, sadly, Pop Brixton lives on.

For now

 

[Gramsci]

Quite phenomenal fluff piece from the Independent here. It's like an advertorial, completely skipping over issues like the half million debt.

The South London shipping containers showing councils a different way to do business

I had a look at the journalist , Hazel Sheffield, who wrote this. I think she might be local.

She's experienced journalist. Quite a big hitter from looking at her CV. Makes it all the more difficult to understand why she put her name to this propaganda piece for Lambeth Labour. Which is what it is. It's not so much about Pop as about how forward thinking the New Labour Council is.

I thought she might be in Labour party but can't find anything.

She has got funding to look at local economy initiatives.

Some of which look interesting. Link to that on her personal website.

Hazel Sheffield

What's particularly annoying about New Labour/ Third Way is the way they will present themselves as anti bureaucracy bottom up Community led politics. See the same with now departed ex leader of Council Steve Reed on cooperatives

It all sounds good until one sees the practice. Its right wing. I've heard Nu Labour Cllrs exhorting residents to pull their socks up and run services. Raise funds and run services. Like it's a morally good thing. As Steve Reed said way back the Council becoming an "enabler" rather than a " provider" ( of handouts presumably).

 

[teuchter]

People keep voting them back in though. I wonder what will happen come May.

 

[editor]

I had a look at the journalist , Hazel Sheffield, who wrote this. I think she might be local.

She's experienced journalist. Quite a big hitter from looking at her CV. Makes it all the more difficult to understand why she put her name to this propaganda piece for Lambeth Labour. Which is what it is. It's not so much about Pop as about how forward thinking the New Labour Council is.

I politely tweeted her and asked if she'd seen the Buzz/Peoples' Audit pieces.

It all sounds good until one sees the practice. Its right wing. I've heard Nu Labour Cllrs exhorting residents to pull their socks up and run services. Raise funds and run services. Like it's a morally good thing. As Steve Reed said way back the Council becoming an "enabler" rather than a " provider" ( of handouts presumably).

That's the same kind of thinking behind the nu-Labour love of entrepreneurs. If you're struggling then it's your fault because you're not entrepreneurial enough, etc etc.

 

[Gramsci]

I politely tweeted her and asked if she'd seen the Buzz/Peoples' Audit pieces.

That's the same kind of thinking behind the nu-Labour love of entrepreneurs. If you're struggling then it's your fault because you're not entrepreneurial enough, etc etc.

Did you get any reply from her? Looking at her CV she is experienced enough journalist to look at other media sites like Brixton Buzz. The whole way the Independent article is written is like a rebuttal of the reading of the consultants report / lease extension posted here and in Brixton Buzz.

The Nu Labour philosophy was love of entrepreneurs and the City. According to Tony the society was based around an "aspirational" middle with a small minority above and below. A super rich and what he called "hard to reach" section of society. That is the working class was dying out.

This was all previous the economic crash. Though Tony Blair holds to it.

Leading lights from the Nu Labour days are now distancing themselves from the now toxic brand of the "Third Way". Heard Blunkett on radio last week denying he was ever Nu Labour.

The working class vote and the sections of the middle class ( those liberal minded types derided by people like Blunkett) never went away. They left the party but in Lambeth still vote Labour. Not Nu Labour but for the Labour party.

The independent piece is example of how post Nu Labour is trying to position itself as a progressive alternative. It looks good in national press. It's only if one has to live in Lambeth that one see its not.

 

[editor]

Did you get any reply from her? Looking at her CV she is experienced enough journalist to look at other media sites like Brixton Buzz. The whole way the Independent article is written is like a rebuttal of the reading of the consultants report / lease extension posted here and in Brixton Buzz.

No, not a peep. Or, indeed a tweet.

 

[Gramsci]

Ploughing through the "independent" consultants report I'm yet again wondering how independent it ever was.

Take this from pages 64 and 65

5.28 Despite these overall positive findings from those interviewed during the research, it should be noted
that satisfaction with Pop is not universal:
• Outside of this piece of research, a number of businesses are known to have raised issues
about the adverse impact of Pop on the town centre, and particularly at night linked to litter
and anti-social behaviour.

• Despite the positive views of visitors, it should be noted that these interviews were
conducted with those visiting Pop and were not intended as a representative sample of those
using the town centre as a whole. It is possible that a more divergent set of views would be
recorded if a wider sample were taken.

As the consultants were aware of different views on Pop they should have gone out and researched them. It's pretty poor a wider sample wasn't used.

On page 50 "local media platforms" critical of Pop are mentioned. Brixton Blog and Time Out are mentioned as examples of positive coverage. Urban75 and Brixton Buzz aren't mentioned.

 

[Gramsci]

The information used by the consultants depends a lot on Pops own moniteering of its activities. So can hardly be seen to be independent or without bias.

5.3 The assessment of impact has been informed by a mix of information sources, including:
• Review of Pop Brixton monitoring information which provides detailed information on
the characteristics of tenants and the community investment scheme.

I notice a lot of the charts used and info is credited to Pop.

 

[editor]

On page 50 "local media platforms" critical of Pop are mentioned. Brixton Blog and Time Out are mentioned as examples of positive coverage. Urban75 and Brixton Buzz aren't mentioned.

Of course not. We're only the most popular Brixton news outlet and the most popular Brixton forum.

 

[Gramsci]

Of course not. We're only the most popular Brixton news outlet and the most popular Brixton forum.

Reading the consultants report I got the feeling that the consultants wanted to do wider consultation. That they had looked at Urban/ Brixton Buzz etc.

They however had officers looking over there shoulder telling them that look Pop management have all this " moniteering" records. Why don't you cut and paste this in your report etc.

Given that this report had Council officers you going over it with a fine tooth comb it still comes out as critical. Btw the reason the report wasn't published immediately after it was written was that as a senior officer said at the Brixton Neighborhood Forum that officers were going over the report themselves before it went out to public domain. Mmm.

 

[CH1]

There seemed to be a bit of a flood earlier (4.30pm). Burst pipe presumably. Water cascading out from the Popes Road side and running down the gutter outside. Lambeth don't have much luck with their waterworks, what with Carlton Mansions and all.
Wonder who'll pay to sort the Pop Brixton burst out? Is it down to the landlord, therefore more on the rates I wonder?