Pubs we've lost 2014-2015: The Grosvenor, Stockwell and the Canterbury Arms, Brixton

[leanderman]

Yes, so you've said already. Can you answer my questions as to why you don't "buy" it, please?

When was the last time you were there? Have you ever spoken to the landlord? Why do you think he's leaving?

At least have the courage to say what you're basing your flippant dismissal of my comments on.

The questions I have about your narrative were clearly expressed by Rushy.

I see no need to repeat them.

 

[editor]

The questions I have about your narrative were clearly expressed by Rushy.

I see no need to repeat them.

He knows just about nothing about the pub.

He doesn't know the landlord either; he's never spoken to him, he's never spoken to anyone else about him and he knows nothing of his situation.

So why exactly are you faithfully parroting his self proclaimed "ill-informed" views?

 

[leanderman]

He knows just about nothing about the pub.

He doesn't know the landlord either; he's never spoken to him, he's never spoken to anyone else about him and he knows nothing of his situation.

So why exactly are you faithfully parroting his self proclaimed "ill-informed" views?

Because I don't believe the noise-gentrification-neighbours explanation.

The landlord might have any number of reasons for wanting to move on.

He might want to cash in his remaining lease

He might want to do something else with his life.

He may have made enough money. He may not be making enough money.

He might be telling you what you want to hear. You might be hearing what you want to hear.

 

[editor]

Because I don't believe the noise-gentrification-neighbours explanation.

The landlord might have any number of reasons for wanting to move on.

He might want to cash in his remaining lease

He might want to do something else with his life.

He may have made enough money. He may not be making enough money.

He might be telling you what you want to hear. You might be hearing what you want to hear.

Ah, so you think he's lying and you're basing that unpleasant accusation on, err, nothing but your own prejudices. That says a lot about you.

 

[leanderman]

Ah, so you think he's lying and you're basing that unpleasant accusation on, err, nothing but your own prejudices. That says a lot about you.

Thanks.

 

[editor]

Thanks.

Look at what you've just posted. You don't even know the landlord, you've never spoken to him, you know next to nothing about the pub, you've hardly ever been there, yet here you are accusing him on a public forum of being a liar. Shameful stuff, IMO.

 

[cuppa tee]

I can't see any application for the upstairs of the pub to be turned into self contained flats. Is it already?

I may be wrong but I think the upstairs of the pub is mostly occupied by people who work there, given the developers previous on this type of situation ( the two-0-eight bar in lewisham ) maybe the landlord doesn't want to risk finding himself and his staff locked out of their own homes without notice, especially as it is the developers proud boast that they will rinse the most value out of properties they manage, I can't see live in staff being as profitable as a den of high rent paying young professionals....as well the flats going up across the road there are also substantial renovations and works on three houses directly next to the pub both on aytoun road and sydney road so a total of 6 houses.....these have been passed as part of the ongoing regeneration of the area. I don't know if the landlord is taking a cash sum for leaving before his lease is up but if the alternative is to see the pub he has built up during his tenure become something else under who knows what constraints by the owners then can we blame him. the general drift of your posts and those of leanderman has been to cast doubt on the idea that this pub will be falling victim to gentrification but that is clearly bollocks because even your theoretical argument of some kind of pay off would be dependent on the owners wanting the landlord out in the first place as you yourself pointed out in two of your previous posts

 

[Rushy]

I may be wrong but I think the upstairs of the pub is occupied by people who work there, given the developers previous on this type of situation ( the two-0-eight bar in lewisham ) maybe the landlord doesn't want to risk finding himself and his staff locked out of their own homes without notice, especially as it is the developers proud boast that they will rinse the most value out of properties they manage, I can't see live in staff being as profitable as a den of high rent paying young professionals....as well the flats going up across the road there are also substantial renovations and works on three house each directly next to the pub both on aytoun road and sydney road these have been passed as part of the ongoing regeneration of the area. I don't know if the landlord is taking a cash sum for leaving before his lease is up but if the alternative is to see the pub he has built up during his tenure become something else under who knows what constraints by the owners then can we blame him. the general drift of your posts and those of leanderman has been to cast doubt on the idea that this pub will be falling victim to gentrification but that is clearly bollocks because even your theoretical argument of some kind of pay off would be dependent on the owners wanting the landlord out as you pointed out in two of your previous posts

I don't think you've really paid much attention to my posts if you think I doubt that regeneration is playing a significant role in the changes at the Grosvenor; or that I don't think that the loss of a late music venue will be a shame. I don't believe leanderman doubts it either. But as Winot said to Ed:

My problem is with the words you use. Whether you mean to or not, you are misrepresenting the position. What's more, it's unnecessary because it is a strong story without the misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation attracts doubt, confusion, loss of credibility and ultimately loss of interest.

No one has a bone to pick with the landlord; nor has anyone accused him of lying. It's the credibility of Ed's report which is in question. As for your question as to who can blame the landlord for doing a deal? I agree with you. Only one person has implied that any voluntary financial arrangement with the freeholder in return for handing the pub back early would point to a lack of integrity on the part of the pub landlord. And that was Ed.

 

[editor]

It's the credibility of Ed's report which is in question.

Seeing as you know next to fuck all about the pub, have barely ever visited, don't attend gigs there and have never spoken to the landlord, it's the credibility of your own admitted "ill informed" opinions that are in question here.

Oh, and don't try and twist my words around. Thanks.

 

[boohoo]

Personally, I'm disappointed the landlord of the Grosvenor is giving up without a fight. I've discussed it with him several times. I told him he'd have lots of local support if he wanted to resist any future complaints etc, but he said to me "don't save the pub!"

I guess it's fair enough if he doesn't want to carry on - it's his decision after all. And he may have other plans.

I might be wrong on this, but I think he's got several years left on the lease, so presumably someone else could keep the pub going. Personally I would give it a real go and fight any potential bullshit from new residents opposite. But perhaps J is taking a sensible decision to not fight a fight which he will almost inevitably lose, probably with lots of legal, financial and emotional stress involved too.

Been to some great gigs there over the years, won and lost many quizzes, played endless games of pool and got legless on endless ciders. Great pub. All there is to do now is enjoy it while it's still there….

I am also surprise he hasn't put up a fight. If neighbours haven't complained before, will that happen now? Do social housing tenants not complain?

I'm sure the pub will remain - I use to go in there back in the early 1990s before they did music nights. Was a local pub back then. Maybe it will turn into a pub like the crown and anchor and the people of urban75 will be happy.

 

[Rushy]

I am also surprise he hasn't put up a fight. If neighbours haven't complained before, will that happen now? Do social housing tenants not complain?

I'm sure the pub will remain - I use to go in there back in the early 1990s before they did music nights. Was a local pub back then. Maybe it will turn into a pub like the crown and anchor and the people of urban75 will be happy.

As far as I recall the social housing flats directly opposite were boarded up for quite a long while before they were knocked down and the site redeveloped. Can't remember how long they were like that but the planning permission was granted in 2006 so potentially around then? That could help explain how the pub managed to be noisier than most in the middle of a residential area without attracting many complaints.

 

[editor]

I am also surprise he hasn't put up a fight. If neighbours haven't complained before, will that happen now? Do social housing tenants not complain?

What kind of fight can he put up? It's a pub that makes the majority of its income from late, lively music nights. There is a large, exclusive development opening opposite and the upstairs of the pub is also being turned into private flats. And then there is another proposed private development next to the music room.

How do you think he might be able to continue putting on the kind of nights that the place is well known for under those circumstances, and where do you think the smokers might go?

Oh, and as regards your point about 'social housing tenants not complaining,' I would suggest that there certainly is a probability that the new tenants enjoying their luxury apartments will be more likely to complain. For supporting evidence of that theory, look no further than what's happening on Coldharbour Lane.

 

[boohoo]

editor I just wondered why he didn't stay around and see what happens. There would be a lot of support from local people like Brixton Hatter mentioned.

When does the upstairs part of the pub get turned into private flats?

 

[editor]

editor I just wondered why he didn't stay around and see what happens.

I can work out why, because I'd do the same thing in those circumstances

In fact, I gave up doing club nights in another venue for almost exactly the same reasons.

 

[cuppa tee]

I don't think you've really paid much attention to my posts if you think I doubt that regeneration is playing a significant role in the changes at the Grosvenor or that I don't think that the loss of a late music venue will be a shame. I don't believe leanderman doubts it either. But as Winot said to Ed:


Misrepresentation attracts doubt, confusion, loss of credibility and ultimately loss of interest.

No one has a bone to pick with the landlord; nor has anyone accused him of lying. It's the credibility of Ed's report which is in question. As for your question as to who can blame the landlord for doing a deal? I agree with you. Only one person has implied that any voluntary financial arrangement with the freeholder in return for handing the pub back early would point to a lack of integrity on the part of the pub landlord. And that was Ed.

Apologies if I misunderstood you but it was probably all those posts insinuating the landlord is selling out on the punk ethos that made me miss the other bits you refer to .
Regarding not being accused of lying this

He might be telling you what you want to hear

comes quite close, as do your comments casting doubt on the developers plans to turn the upstairs of the pub into flats
which given their mission statement and history [ the former Bradys is one example ] is well within the bounds of probability as well as being a situation typical of gentrification.

 

[Rushy]

Apologies if I misread your posts but it was probably all those posts insinuating the landlord is selling out on the punk ethos that made me miss the other bits you refer to .
Regarding not being accused of lying this comes quite close, as do your comments casting doubt on the developers plans to turn the upstairs of the pub into flats
which given their mission statement and history [ the former Bradys is one example ] is well within the bounds of probability as well as being a situation typical of gentrification.

Well - it's not very punk to throw the towel on a popular venue just because you are concerned that you might disturb a rich posh person trying to have a nap at some point in the future. It's fair observation even if not a particularly important or meaningful one, especially given that it is not really a specifically punk venue as you were quick to point out. "Selling out" are your words, not mine. I wouldn't use them because the term implies a lack of integrity - which I have made clear is an accusation I would not support.

I can't see any application for the upstairs of the pub to be turned into self contained flats. Is it already?

is hardly an accusation of lying. I raised the question about reported plans to convert the upstairs of the pub into private luxury flats because there is no planning application - suggesting that there is already residential upstairs, which you have since confirmed.

So my point is, the upstairs is not being converted to residential because it already is residential. The existing flats are going to be refurbished. The question then arises whether the flats were demised with the pub lease or not? If they were not, then the flats are already self contained private flats - so no big change. If they were demised with the lease, then the refurb can only be happening as a consequence of the lease coming to an end, early or otherwise. Neither scenario really equates to being forced out by the conversion of the upper floors into luxury flats.

Again, there is no suggestion that the landlord is lying to anyone. It's all about the presentation of the facts in the report. Misrepresentation attracts doubt and questions. Most of the questions could be answered pretty simply I'd have thought, thus putting the matter to bed. Instead, the questions seem to be getting deflected with playground taunts, aggression and accusations of being against the landlord, the pub and, ultimately, against real Brixton. Which only makes me more convinced that the facts have indeed been misrepresented.

 

[leanderman]

Look at what you've just posted. You don't even know the landlord, you've never spoken to him, you know next to nothing about the pub, you've hardly ever been there, yet here you are accusing him on a public forum of being a liar. Shameful stuff, IMO.

You asked me: 'Why do you think he's leaving? At least have the courage to say what you're basing your flippant dismissal of my comments on.'

So I gave you a few possible explanations as to why.

 

[editor]

You asked me: 'Why do you think he's leaving? At least have the courage to say what you're basing your flippant dismissal of my comments on.'

So I gave you a few possible explanations as to why.

No, you haven't. You just pointed at Rushy's 'ill-informed' wild guesses that seem to be based on nothing more than his own personal attitude to property and profit.

 

[editor]

Again, there is no suggestion that the landlord is lying to anyone. It's all about the presentation of the facts in the report.

What "report"? I've just posted up exactly what he told me and you've thrown around completely groundless accusations in response. Your behaviour in this thread disgusts me, to be honest.

 

[editor]

Well - it's not very punk to throw the towel on a popular venue just because you are concerned that you might disturb a rich posh person trying to have a nap at some point in the future.

Because that's exactly what he's been saying, isn't it?

 

[Rushy]

What "report"? I've just posted up exactly what he told me and you've thrown around completely groundless accusations in response. Your behaviour in this thread disgusts me, to be honest.

Posted. Reported. Ranted. Fantasised. Misinterpreted. Whatever you fancy. He's your bestie, you go to parties there, I'm silly, Leanderman's unpleasant, you once gave up doing a club night because of the hassle of noise complaints so you know just what it's like to walk away from a lease worth six figures. Super arguments which I just can't pick a hole in. You win!

 

[editor]

Posted. Reported. Ranted. Fantasised. Misinterpreted. Whatever you fancy. He's your bestie, you go to parties there, I'm silly, Leanderman's unpleasant, you once gave up doing a club night because of the hassle of noise complaints so you know just what it's like to walk away from a lease worth six figures. Super arguments which I just can't pick a hole in. You win!

Better than an argument from someone who barely knows the venue, doesn't go to club nights there, doesn't know the landlord and has never spoken a word to him - yet still feels at liberty to call him a liar on a public forum.

Like I said, your behaviour disgusts me.

 

[leanderman]

No, you haven't. You just pointed at Rushy's 'ill-informed' wild guesses that seem to be based on nothing more than his own personal attitude to property and profit.

Not true. In post 123 I gave a series of possible reasons why he, or any landlord, might leave.

 

[editor]

Not true. In post 123 I gave a series of possible reasons why he, or any landlord, might leave.

You started with, "Because I don't believe the noise-gentrification-neighbours explanation."

So what were your grounds for suggesting that the landlord had lied to me?

 

[leanderman]

Because that's exactly what he's been saying, isn't it?

What has he exactly been saying?

I can only find this: 'The long-serving landlord realised that there was no way that the Grosvenor could continue as a live music venue, and so handed in his notice.'

Any more detail?

 

[cuppa tee]

"Selling out" are your words, not mine. I wouldn't use them because the term implies a lack of integrity - which I have made clear is an accusation I would not support.

Fair enough, but the following quote from your first post in this part of the discussion reads like exactly that.....

I don't know a huge amount about punk but throwing the towel in at such an early stage, even before the lease expires, is not an action I would have associated with a venue with "punk in it's soul". Is it possible that a financial arrangement has been reached between the pub leaseholder and the freeholder?

 

[editor]

What has he exactly been saying?

I can only find this: 'The long-serving landlord realised that there was no way that the Grosvenor could continue as a live music venue, and so handed in his notice.'

Any more detail?

I've described in detail the reasons why he wanted to move on, but it seems pointless repeating them again because you've already said what you 'believe' to be true, despite having no actual real knowledge of the place or any contact with the landlord.

But there's no need for you to keep on implying that the landlord is lying or that I'm making it up - try reading what han wrote back in December. She plays there regularly and has done so for years.

 

[leanderman]

I've described in detail the reasons why he wanted to move on, but it seems pointless repeating them again because you've already said what you 'believe' to be true, despite having no actual real knowledge of the place or any contact with the landlord.

But there's no need for you to keep on implying that the landlord is lying or that I'm making it up - try reading what han wrote back in December. She plays there regularly and has done so for years.

I think you forgot to insert some personal abuse and emotive language (shameful!, disgust!!) in this last post.

 

[Rushy]

Fair enough, but the following quote from your first post in this part of the discussion reads like exactly that.....

I've made clear in several posts that I don't think a financial arrangement would put his integrity in doubt. I guess you could continue to pretend that I had not clarified that several times Cuppa.

 

[editor]

I think you forgot to insert some personal abuse and emotive language (shameful!, disgust!!) in this last post.

I think you forgot to answer the point.