Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

I'll ask my mate next time I see him (he moved to Edinburgh!)- I remember him being really angry at some of the conversations about what the residents of the Tulse Hill Estate might 'do'

Those sorts of conversations were going on before the estate had been finished, AFAICR, pooh-poohed by the developers, of course, but didn't stop the early arrivals from fretting that the council estate scum next door and over the road might be scoping their places out. :facepalm:
 
And some. But I think I can offer a summary: some people (both on and off these boards) are of the opinion that BS is indeed a gated community, while others think it is not.

Is that about right?
That's not really the issue. It doesn't fit the definition of what I consider a "gated community". For some, a gated community means anything with a gate on it. Whatever. We can disagree on the definition.

The point is, that the term "gated community" just by itself is being used as a criticism, and it's a loaded term. Defining it as a "gated community" because it's got a gate and condemming it on the basis of having that description, instead of actually criticising it on its own terms, and actually explaining the specifics of what they feel is wrong with this particular development.

Declaring it as a gated community, and then posting links to newspaper articles etc which contain critiques of gated communities which are not similar. Cuppa Tea's links above for example. Nearly all the examples given in the telegraph article are large compounds with private parking, and some with restaurants, gyms, etc. The one mentioned in the Guardian article, on the Holloway Rd is more similar to Brixton Square, but is larger and also has its own parking and it's own childrens' playground. The fact it has private parking is a significant difference in my opinion as I mentioned previously. On the other hand, its residents are likely to use local shops and so on, so it's not in the same league as the type of thing mentioned in the Telegraph article. The article also points out that it's not so disimilar to many council estates. Many council estates are gated. Is it to keep out the plebs and isolate their residents, or is it for other reasons and are those the same reasons that it's beeen decided to gate off the BS courtyard? Etc etc.

What's irritating is this blanket application of the term "gated community" and stupid arguments based seemingly on no more than whether or not a gate exists, instead of a proper discussion about the particular nature of the BS development, in its specific context.
 
Winot said:
As someone once said, the world is divided into people who divide everything into two groups, and those who don't.

I wish there was a 'love' button.


Ooh, that sounds faintly rude!
 
Say what you like about murderous Nazi shitcunts, they had low wit down to a fine art. :(

Simple statement of fact: you people work and set us Germans free to invade some more countries.

The problem of course is that slave labour is inherently inefficient.

In one of the few truthful statements in his memoir, Speer said forced workers were about a seventh as productive as those who are free.
 
Say what you like about murderous Nazi shitcunts, they had low wit down to a fine art. :(
I just got diverted by the slogan. I feel sorry for those in BS who "just managed to get on the property ladder" and will be spending most of their life paying back their huge mortgages presumably. And for those paying ludicrous rents to buy-to-let landlords in there.
In a way the residents of BS are as trapped as everyone else - they have now got an investment in wage slavery.
Arbeit Macht Frei indeed!
 
I just got diverted by the slogan. I feel sorry for those in BS who "just managed to get on the property ladder" and will be spending most of their life paying back their huge mortgages presumably. And for those paying ludicrous rents to buy-to-let landlords in there.
In a way the residents of BS are as trapped as everyone else - they have now got an investment in wage slavery.
Arbeit Macht Frei indeed!


Yes. This is it. In some ways, younger people are unlucky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CH1
FT picked up on this on Tuesday with a story about recent, even well- paid graduates 'hutching up' in cramped housing because of bonkers costs.
 
FT picked up on this on Tuesday with a story about recent, even well- paid graduates 'hutching up' in cramped housing because of bonkers costs.
Yup, I mean I'm thirty and my boyfriend and I always joke that if only we were born 10 years earlier we would have a 3 bedroom period flat in islington - but the generation after us, goodness it doesn't even bear thinking about what it will be like for them if things keep going this way.
 
Yes, that's only what's currently on offer. Many more may have already been rented out or may go on the market shortly. Even 20 out of 150 seems a pretty high ratio.
That's true actually, there were more with the earlier phase, but even if it were say 40-50 total out of 155, that's still not the majority. I reckon it's about 25%
 
It seems one must not sit down on the wall of the new planted areas outside these flats... A security person informed me earlier as i briefly sat on the wall just rolling up a smoke.... Only i was in a hurry i would have made more of an issue of 'public space' and that their workers like to sit across the road on a similar wall on their breaks....
 
What is forgotten on this thread is that most of the land that Barratts built on was originally publicly owned land.

Well I suppose if you go back far enough, all land was once publically owned (or at least not privately owned). When was this land 'privatised'?

I am not just being facetious - I am dead against the appropriation of public land into private hands, but I am not sure to what extent present private owners of land can be attacked for the fact the land is in their hands if in fact they bought it in good faith from another private owner.

The same question occurs to me with the Southbank Centre and the issue of the skaters' undercroft. I have also got annoyed about private security guards moving on beggars on SBC land. Initially I thought I could complain that the land is public, but apparently it is not.
 
Well I suppose if you go back far enough, all land was once publically owned (or at least not privately owned). When was this land 'privatised'?

I am not just being facetious - I am dead against the appropriation of public land into private hands, but I am not sure to what extent present private owners of land can be attacked for the fact the land is in their hands if in fact they bought it in good faith from another private owner.

Was I attacking Barratts for owning the land? No.

The demise of building social housing and the increasing use of the "free market" to supply housing has failed. There will not be a chance of good quality affordable housing if its left to developers and buy to let merchants. Its not in there interest.

This hasn’t stopped this government giving them a helping hand with its new "Build To Rent" scheme. See here.

I don’t know when it was sold off.

On the Somerleyton road site the Council has taken the decision to retain ownership of the freehold. Belatedly (some) politicians have realized that selling off land is not a good idea.

Forms of land ownership change over time. Technically land in this country is held by the Crown. Homeowners are "Freeholders" not absolute owners.
 
It seems one must not sit down on the wall of the new planted areas outside these flats... A security person informed me earlier as i briefly sat on the wall just rolling up a smoke.... Only i was in a hurry i would have made more of an issue of 'public space' and that their workers like to sit across the road on a similar wall on their breaks....

Knowing what private building firms are like the workers are probably banned from sitting on the walls they built to take a break.
 
The same question occurs to me with the Southbank Centre and the issue of the skaters' undercroft. I have also got annoyed about private security guards moving on beggars on SBC land. Initially I thought I could complain that the land is public, but apparently it is not.

Its a grey area what powers private security guards have in law.

I was taking some photos of a building in the City a while back from the public street and had a security guard try and stop me. According to him I could not just go around photographing buildings in the City without permission. I told him where to go. They try it on sometimes.
 
I just got diverted by the slogan. I feel sorry for those in BS who "just managed to get on the property ladder" and will be spending most of their life paying back their huge mortgages presumably. And for those paying ludicrous rents to buy-to-let landlords in there.
In a way the residents of BS are as trapped as everyone else - they have now got an investment in wage slavery.
Arbeit Macht Frei indeed!

I have started to look at David Harvey work to get out of the impasse here about gated communities.

Its not easy but he does say debt bondage is no accident. He says in traditional marxism the "rentier" class has been overlooked. It has become more important now. I think it has something to do with the declining rate of profit. In Capitalism this is inherent. So ever new ways are found to make a profit. Capitalism is unstable and goes through periodic crises. You do not have to be a marxist to see that Capitalism is unstable system. Keynes tried to regulate it. So does the present Chinese government. Harvey comes from a background in urban geography. He also does work on the idea of "The Right to the City" and what he calls in general terms the "commons" rather than ever increasing private ownership. Started reading this article about his work.

As Harvey noted long ago in The Limits to Capital (1982), class power is increasingly articulated through rental payments, and his work here helps us understand the material basis of the ‘rentier economy’. Economic rent, as Michael Hudson emphasises, can take the form of licensing fees, interest on savings, dividends from stock, or capital gain from selling a property or land, but is primarily drawn from housing and property. This is the profit one earns simply by owning something; an ‘unearned increment’, which to the financier or capitalist is, ‘earned in their sleep’.21 As Hudson argues, rental incomes are an unproductive ‘free lunch’ stolen from the economy at large, forcing an ever-higher proportion of income to be spent on rent and basic social subsistence. Writing presciently of the US in 2006, Hudson saw a ‘new road to serfdom’ in an empire of debt: ‘In the odd logic of the real estate bubble, debt has come to equal wealth’.22 Just as the rich, he says, require an abundant supply of the poor, so does the rentier class require an abundant supply of debtors. But this dynamic is fictitious, and inherently unstable, in the sense that the parasitic financial system destroys the host’s ability to pay the debt.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom