Say hello to Barratt Homes' 'Brixton Square' on Coldharbour Lane (old Cooltan site)

[MillwallShoes]

gates communities are inevitable if crime happens in the area. get rid of crime and people would be less inclined to put up gates. take down gates, and i don't think people will be less inclined to commit crime. "hey keith, they've taken down all the gates, lets not go out on the rob today...", not going to happen is it. i think rushy's example is why an argument for a gates can exist. and if he took down the gate, there's a good chance them same issues would come back straight away...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Most apartment buildings are "gated" - ie. you must pass an outer door/gate that only gets you as far as the shared hallways/stairs/courtyard. From there you can knock on peoples doors.
I take "gated community" to mean a series of separate residential and amenity buildings, with a gate across the only access road.

Brockwell Gate, as it was intended, before the LFB enforced through-access to the park.

 

[ViolentPanda]

just a point on the "soaring house prices mean soaring social housing rent increases" - now this is a genuine question, and i am not stirring up anything, but if that was the case, how about all the estates in chelsea, W1, westminster, etc - are they also on prices that are high due to their proximity to very value property? genuine question! i thought the price of paying rent for a council place is pretty stable, no? could be wrong.

"Social housing" isn't just council housing, it's Housing Association too, and HAs have an obligation (apparently) to charge a market rent (or sometimes a "market" minus X% rent) for their properties, so high prices for private housing definitely cause an upward trend on Housing Association rental prices.

 

[Rushy]

i think rushy's example is why an argument for a gates can exist. and if he took down the gate, there's a good chance them same issues would come back straight away...

The example of the chap dry humping the floor happened recentlyish when one of us left the gate open overnight, so yes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I want to take my car up there. Why can't I? I feel excluded.

Aren't they the barriers that just stop a one-way rd being used as a two-way road?

 

[MillwallShoes]

The example of the chap dry humping the floor happened recentlyish when one of us left the gate open overnight, so yes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you think the fact that there will be controlled access to the Brixton Square courtyard is an issue that's relevant to the discussion about the changes we are all seeing in Brixton at the moment?

It's an issue among others.How couldn't it be if it excludes the public from formerly-public (or publicly-accessible) space?

This is where I think your comparison of a "gated community" and a council block with controlled entry to the block itself falls down. The "gated community" is developed in order to exclude the public not only from access to the housing, but to exclude them from the environs of the enclave too. That's not the case with any council block I'm aware of. Controlled entry to housing is rational. Controlled entry to an entire area of space isn't as easily-justified except through reference to the desires of the developers and possible residents.

Or is griping about it being a "gated community" a lazy way of trying to portray that particular development as something it isn't, to make its future residents an easier target to caricature and hate upon, in place of talking about stuff that's actually much more important like whether or not the developers succeed in reducing the affordable housing provision?

"Gated community" is a fair label to apply, given the mooted access/lack of public access. That "gated communities" are often subject to caricature is partly because they fit some of the stereotypes of "gated communities" that have crossed the Atlantic in many ways (although here they're nowhere ar as racially-exclusive).
As for the possible reduction of affordable housing provision, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the reduction will be tied to the "quality" of the "future residents" the developer wishes to attract.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i'd shit on a bus for a house in anerley.

anerley, penge, catford, etc are still very much in the heart of the things - mere bus journey's away from good things. it's when you get out to places like orpington, sutton, etc when suicidal thoughts might slowly creep in.

A mate moved to Meopham because it was "affordable".

He moved back to South London because his expenditure on booze and drugs to make the place bearable went from about £30 a week to £100.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you think the Barrier Block should not shut out the wider community from its south-facing communal walkway terraces? If not, what's the significant difference?

By the way, Brockwell Gate isn't shut off is it? - maybe to cars, but you can walk through.

Until the park closes, at which time the through-gates are shut to public access.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Let's not forget... A substantial amount of affordable housing will be included behind this infamous gate!

Please quantify both "affordable" and "substantial".

Thank you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The amount of affordable housing is a matter of public record - you can look at the Lambeth Council's planning website.

Haven't a clue about how much it will cost people who rent / buy it... But I guess the fact is was acceptable for Lambeth Council provides some comfort that the needs of the wider community have been appropriately considered...

So basically you've farted out a few "formula" words while having little idea what you're actually saying?

 

[Rushy]

Aren't they the barriers that just stop a one-way rd being used as a two-way road?

No, I don't think so - pretty sure that's 2 way. There is another one blocking the only entry and exit (ie 2 way) to the service layby immediately to the right out of the photo. And the 10mph limit sign is on the opposite side to that which the traffic would be coming from if it were a 1-way control. But I wasn't making a particularly serious point about Southwyck Heights - my point was about the way in which we can twist normal factual descriptions to characterise people/places to suit our agendas. We've all moved on now.

 

[MillwallShoes]

No, I don't think so - pretty sure that's 2 way. There is another one blocking the only entry and exit (ie 2 way) to the service layby immediately to the right out of the photo. And the 10mph limit sign is on the opposite side to that which the traffic would be coming from if it were a 1-way control. But I wasn't making a particularly serious point about Southwyck Heights - my point was about the way in which we can twist normal factual descriptions to characterise people/places to suit our agendas. We've all moved on now.

any luck in getting a key fob to open them?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course - they are in it to make a profit... It is the council's job to consider the wider needs of the community.

They're in it to maximise their profit, not merely to "make a profit".
It's also difficult for the officers of the council to "consider wider needs" within the business-pleasing constraints imposed on them by central government, and in operation against the well-paid negotiators of the developers.

But hey, fuck that asymmetry of power shit, eh?

 

[MillwallShoes]

A mate moved to Meopham because it was "affordable".

He moved back to South London because his expenditure on booze and drugs to make the place bearable went from about £30 a week to £100.

my parents done almost exactly the same. they retired back to london, sick of the country.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, I don't think so - pretty sure that's 2 way. There is another one blocking the only entry and exit (ie 2 way) to the service layby immediately to the right out of the photo. And the 10mph limit sign is on the opposite side to that which the traffic would be coming from if it were a 1-way control. But I wasn't making a particularly serious point about Southwyck Heights - my point was about the way in which we can twist normal factual descriptions to characterise people/places to suit our agendas. We've all moved on now.

That's because you're all hippies.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ahahahahahahahaha! HAHAHA! HA!

No, the needs of the community have not been considered at all. The need for LC to line their pockets and schmooze with property developers has.

Hence the ongoing studies into potential "re-purposing" of green spaces on Lambeth's council estates, to follow up on the Myatts Fields clusterfuckery.
All legitimated by "localism" and "local government best practice", of course!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I agree with you when it comes to buy-to-let. BTL sucks supply out of the market as it only makes use of existing housing stock which forces up rents and house prices.

The key issue is that not enough housing is being built in London. This is forcing up prices as the population continues to grow. Prices in Brixton will rise regardless of whether this block is built.

Prices in the majority of the UK will continue to rise because high property prices are currently assisting the stabilisation of the economy. Build enough to ease demand, and the Treasury will start worrying in very short order how to explain a decline in the economy that'll make the current stall look like peanuts.

 

[ViolentPanda]

gates communities are inevitable if crime happens in the area. get rid of crime and people would be less inclined to put up gates. take down gates, and i don't think people will be less inclined to commit crime. "hey keith, they've taken down all the gates, lets not go out on the rob today...", not going to happen is it. i think rushy's example is why an argument for a gates can exist. and if he took down the gate, there's a good chance them same issues would come back straight away...

Actually, they're inevitable whether crime rises or falls in the area, purely because people buy into the idea of gated communities based on their perceptions, not because they've rationally researched local crime statistics and made a judgement based on that.
Sell someone who's worried about crime (generally because the media tell them the world is going down the crapper) the idea that living in such a community makes them "safer", and they'll generally stump up the asking price happily. Even BTLers like 'em because of the perception that their investment is "safer".

 

[Winot]

my parents done almost exactly the same. they retired back to london, sick of the country.

Were they spending too much money on drugs too?

 

[MillwallShoes]

Were they spending too much money on drugs too?

naaahhh

 

[TonyH82]

it is all in here:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf

40% of the scheme is "affordable housing"

if you read this document you will see that the council has assessed the cost of this "affordable housing" and determined that it would be "affordable" to people claiming housing benefit...

It sounds like the council has done a very good job in taking into account the needs of the vulnerable.

 

[teuchter]

It's an issue among others.How couldn't it be if it excludes the public from formerly-public (or publicly-accessible) space?

Does the objection to the private courtyard hinge on whether or not we consider the lans "publicly accessible" in the past, then?

Of course if it were previously genuine public land then it would be different. However, as I understand, it was previously only accessible due to dereliction, and for the past few years has not been accessible at all.

You say that controlled access to the barrier block terraces is "rational" - what are the reasons and why shouldn't they also apply to the BS courtyard?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Does the objection to the private courtyard hinge on whether or not we consider the lans "publicly accessible" in the past, then?

It doesn't "hinge" on it (if only things were so clear cut!), but it's certainly a factor.

Of course if it were previously genuine public land then it would be different. However, as I understand, it was previously only accessible due to dereliction, and for the past few years has not been accessible at all.

Depends what you want "genuine" to mean, doesn't it? If you want it to mean "legally defined as", then a lot of land that is public from custom and usage suddenly becomes "not public". If you want "genuine" to mean "treated as such" (for whatever reason) or "reclaimed for public use" then it's germane.

You say that controlled access to the barrier block terraces is "rational" - what are the reasons and why shouldn't they also apply to the BS courtyard?

No, I said that controlled access to the housing (i.e. control of the commons that give access to the individual units) is rational (whether in a gated community or on a council estate), and it is, from the point of view of both the local authority (reduction of crime and the possibility of crime, in line with their obligations w/r/t the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and other "community safety" legislation), and the tenants (less easy access to individual housing units by persons who don't live either in that individual housing unit and/or on that development) in the case of council housing whose design warrants such, and in the case of gated communities, for the purpose of maximising security as necessary and minimising insurance premiums.

What I disagree with is the "enclosure" of open space inherent to gated communities, something that barely manifests in social housing.

 

[editor]

What I disagree with is the "enclosure" of open space inherent to gated communities, something that barely manifests in social housing.

Indeed, and a valid comparison is the green space outside the Barrier Block (no fences, no gates, open to all) and the green space inside Brixton Square (gated, inaccessible to the public, strictly private use only).

 

[quimcunx]

Like my 60s block then. I call it 'our garden' and 'our carpark'* rather than 'the green space'. And like Sandhurst court on Acre lane (1920s at a guess) which has an enclosed garden. And plenty more I'm sure. The fence and gate are a boundary to our (communal) private property.

*communal to all residents of our flats, but not communal to all residents of brixton.

 

[teuchter]

It doesn't "hinge" on it (if only things were so clear cut!), but it's certainly a factor.



Depends what you want "genuine" to mean, doesn't it? If you want it to mean "legally defined as", then a lot of land that is public from custom and usage suddenly becomes "not public". If you want "genuine" to mean "treated as such" (for whatever reason) or "reclaimed for public use" then it's germane.

Do you feel it's fair to describe the site of the BS development as "public from custom and usage" though? In the 12 years I've lived in Brixton I've never been in there or felt that access was reasonably possible. I don't think there is any custom of it being used as general public space. I know there were various quasi-public uses of the building previously (for how many years I don't know) but I don't see that these are uses that it's reasonable to expect to continue in an enclosed residential courtyard.

No, I said that controlled access to the housing (i.e. control of the commons that give access to the individual units) is rational (whether in a gated community or on a council estate), and it is, from the point of view of both the local authority (reduction of crime and the possibility of crime, in line with their obligations w/r/t the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and other "community safety" legislation), and the tenants (less easy access to individual housing units by persons who don't live either in that individual housing unit and/or on that development) in the case of council housing whose design warrants such, and in the case of gated communities, for the purpose of maximising security as necessary and minimising insurance premiums.

What I disagree with is the "enclosure" of open space inherent to gated communities, something that barely manifests in social housing.

Open space is one thing, an urban internal courtyard is another. As I said in a previous post it's in no way unprecedented to have controlled access to a residential internal courtyard. It's a completely un-abnormal situation. People are using the term "gated community" to make it sound like it's a network of streets and the like with a security guard sitting at the gate. It's not. It's a bog-standard high density courtyard housing block development.

 

[teuchter]

Indeed, and a valid comparison is the green space outside the Barrier Block (no fences, no gates, open to all) and the green space inside Brixton Square (gated, inaccessible to the public, strictly private use only).

That green space is
a) genuinely green space
b) open to and visible from the street
c) has been such for quite some time
d) of a significant area

BS courtyard is:
a) not green space but a courtyard with a few planters
b) not visible from the street (like the barrier block walkways), with associated security implications
c) no tradition of a public space
d) basically, in the scheme of things, TINY!

perspective anyone??

 

[Gramsci]

it is all in here:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf

40% of the scheme is "affordable housing"

if you read this document you will see that the council has assessed the cost of this "affordable housing" and determined that it would be "affordable" to people claiming housing benefit...

It sounds like the council has done a very good job in taking into account the needs of the vulnerable.

Have not had time to read all this yet.

But it still does not explain why a previously agreed Section 106 which Barratts did not question when they started building the flats needed , in Barratts view, to be changed.

The application was by Barratts not the Council. They could have left the Section 106 alone and not sought to alter it. So why did they?

 

[Gramsci]

It is all down to supply and demand... Successive governments have not done enough to encourage house building in the capital and therefore, as the population of the city has increased, house prices have continued to rise in spite of the recession.

Ultimately, unless more blocks like this are built the supply imbalance will just get worse and more people will be “priced-out” of areas in which they have lived for many years.

Really?

Or it could be that developers sit on land banks and are part of the problem themselves. Not government. It is not in the interests of developers to start a mass building programme. And then see prices of properties diminish.

Building more houses will not solve the problem of affordability in London. There is a serious issue of unequal incomes in London. What is needed is rent controls for a start. Also secure long tenancies for private renters without the landlord being able to up the rent dramatically.