Should Windrush Square be renamed Ritzy Square?

[Gramsci]

You seem to be missing the point... I was replying to a thread, where Editor was saying the old fashion type want to sit in that area with chairs and tables.

As you point out, with out the ritzy there would be not chairs and tables

So Ritzy = good for respectable brixtonians (i.e. non tramps)

No im not missing the point.

The chairs and tables are for Ritzy customers only.

The Ed was pointing out that there is not much public seating.

The Ritzy seating is not for public use.

 

[Gramsci]

When did you say you sent that email.....?

Not yet. Ive only posted up what ive drafted for peoples general interest. Also i may be incorrect with some of it. I need to check it over later.

I was going to take some photos as well to attach to it today. But the seating was not there today.

So looks like next week ill send it.

 

[Gramsci]

So Ritzy = good for respectable brixtonians (i.e. non tramps)

Tramps can be Brixtonians as well. As long as they dont bother people then they have there place here ( and in London as well).

 

[Rushy]

This looks to be a very big 'quarter' to my eyes:

It is. But still only about one third of the size of the even bigger three quarters not covered by the Ritzy enclosure.

Given that the enclosure is a square shape and has one corner roughly in the centre of the tree by its trunk (as your photo shows) it simply cannot be taking up much more than about 25% (unless the tree has a particularly funny canopy shape - which it doesn't).

 

[quimcunx]

Thing is the square was built using whatever money (tfl?). The council aren't going to put up public seating. There isn't going to be any budget for that, certainly not now. There probably isn't a decent council budget to maintain it. The square is what it is. As it stands people are not using that patch to sit on. They sit on the steps but not on the paving under the tree. There are no seats there. Putting aside the Rush Common useage issues and levels of charges made it's hard to see a better use of that space than the use the Ritzy has put it to. It's not going to be council provided seating, it's going to be bare paving that no one sits on, seats provided by Ritzy renting the space or seats provided by some other commercial venture renting the space. The only other option is seating paid for by a commercial venture with the proviso by the council that non-customers can also make use of them. If that is a feasible option then I'd be quite happy with that. The only inconvenience of there being a cordoned seating area to me, you and any other general public, that I can see is that people wishing to cross that segment of the square will have to walk round instead of through.

 

[quimcunx]

Tramps can be Brixtonians as well. As long as they dont bother people then they have there place here ( and in London as well).

Yep. When I've used the square, and I have a lot, they have still been around much of the time. Mostly without any bother. Occasionally with a little.

 

[Gramsci]

Thing is the square was built using whatever money (tfl?). The council aren't going to put up public seating. There isn't going to be any budget for that, certainly not now. There probably isn't a decent council budget to maintain it. The square is what it is. As it stands people are not using that patch to sit on. They sit on the steps but not on the paving under the tree. There are no seats there. Putting aside the Rush Common useage issues and levels of charges made it's hard to see a better use of that space than the use the Ritzy has put it to. It's not going to be council provided seating, it's going to be bare paving that no one sits on, seats provided by Ritzy renting the space or seats provided by some other commercial venture renting the space. The only other option is seating paid for by a commercial venture with the proviso by the council that non-customers can also make use of them. If that is a feasible option then I'd be quite happy with that. The only inconvenience of there being a cordoned seating area to me, you and any other general public, that I can see is that people wishing to cross that segment of the square will have to walk round instead of through.

Ive said it before and I will say it again the lack of public seating in the square was not due to lack of money. It was designed to have limited seating to make sure people didnt hang around there.

If its ended up as "windswept square" that due to how its been designed.

If the Council wanted to have a commercial enterprise having a section of the square then I dont remember being consulted about it when the squares plans first came out.

 

[quimcunx]

It hasn't ended up windswept though. It's brought in the grassy bit which was previously sectioned off by road and railings and rarely used and is, overall far more used than previously from what I can see.

 

[Rushy]

Ive said it before and I will say it again the lack of public seating in the square was not due to lack of money. It was designed to have limited seating to make sure people didnt hang around there.

If its ended up as "windswept square" that due to how its been designed.

If the Council wanted to have a commercial enterprise having a section of the square then I dont remember being consulted about it when the squares plans first came out.

But the enclosure isn't preventing people from making use of the square. In fact, it is allowing a lot of people to use it in the way they would like. If someone has really been inconvenienced by it then by all means let's hear about it. But by challenging them just on principle the best you are gong to achieve here is stopping a large number from enjoying the square the way they want to and without inconveniencing anyone.

 

[quimcunx]

But the enclosure isn't preventing people from making use of the square. In fact, it is allowing a lot of people to use it in the way they would like. If someone has really been inconvenienced by it then by all means let's hear about it. But by challenging them just on principle the best you are gong to achieve here is stopping a large number from enjoying the square the way they want to and without inconveniencing anyone.

Good point. Without the enclosure there are x number of people using the square. When the enclosure is there there are x number of people using the square, plus y number of people using the square as ritzy patrons. Not x people plus y people minus z number of people for whom the square experience has been ruined by the enclosure and have gone off in the huff.

 

[Rushy]

Good point. Without the enclosure there are x number of people using the square. When the enclosure is there there are x number of people using the square, plus y number of people using the square as ritzy patrons. Not x people plus y people minus z number of people for whom the square experience has been ruined by the enclosure and have gone off in the huff.

A fine algorithm indeed, if ever I saw one.

 

[spanglechick]

Speaking only for myself, I am quite happy to sit on paved floors, bt not at the foot of trees because that's where people wee at night. I could see myself happily sitting on the ground elsewhere in the square, but under the tree, i'd want a chair.

 

[spanglechick]

on the broader issue, the ritzy seating and hoardings look exactly like the usage of public spaces in paris, barcelona, rome, florence, venice and just about every other european city i've been to. I've always thought cafe culture was a good thing.

there is still tonnes of space left - under the tree, and also on the grass - which is the area people mostly seem to want to hang out.

 

[quimcunx]

Speaking only for myself, I am quite happy to sit on paved floors, bt not at the foot of trees because that's where people wee at night. I could see myself happily sitting on the ground elsewhere in the square, but under the tree, i'd want a chair.

I don't find it as comfortable as a step.

for certain values of comfortable.

 

[Gramsci]

But the enclosure isn't preventing people from making use of the square. In fact, it is allowing a lot of people to use it in the way they would like. If someone has really been inconvenienced by it then by all means let's hear about it. But by challenging them just on principle the best you are gong to achieve here is stopping a large number from enjoying the square the way they want to and without inconveniencing anyone.

Thats your opinion and ur entitled to it. Its not mine.

Nor has anyone as far as I can see been given the chance to have a say on it except on these boards. If the Council want to change the use of the square they could consult people first.

It would be simple to allow both patrons of Ritzy and those who wish to use the square to enjoy it. Put in some chairs in the square for people to sit on. Its not rocket science.

The principle is that Common Land is now being used for commercial purposes indefinitely as far as I can see.

 

[Rushy]

Thats your opinion and ur entitled to it. Its not mine.

Which bit of my opinion do you not agree with?

• That the enclosure is not preventing people from making use of the square?
• That it is allowing a lot of people to use part of it in a way that they would like?
• That no one has really been inconvenienced?
• That by challenging the use on principle will be hollow because the most your challenge will achieve is stopping a large number of people using the square in a way that they want and in a way that does not preclude others using the square?

Nor has anyone as far as I can see been given the chance to have a say on it except on these boards. If the Council want to change the use of the square they could consult people first.

Have you actually looked into this in any detail?

The published consultation results conclude that:

Consultees have suggested a number of possible uses for Brixton Central
Square. In particular, it is recognised that the Square should work to attract
visitors day and night, with, for example, coffee shops and restaurants acting
as a draw.​

This conclusion is based on surveys in which people were asked for unprompted suggestions of what they wanted to see on the square. The #1 most popular response was "Cafe/open air cafe/eating place" (23%). This suggestion was way ahead of anything else.

"Market stalls" ranked 4th with 14%, just behind "more seating" in third on 15%.

The principle is that Common Land is now being used for commercial purposes indefinitely as far as I can see.

I think that the title Rush Common is confusing you. Common Land which you refer to is something very specific. Rush Common ceased to be Common Land after the enclosures Acts in 1806 (and 1821) which bear its name. Plot 1641 for instance was given to the Archbishop of Canterbury on which he built St Matthews Church (Lambeth has since leased back the gardens). The plot on which the Ritzy plane tree stands was transferred under award number 1461. It passed through several hands and ended up back in the ownership of the council.

This land is just council owned land. They are entitled to make commercial arrangements on it. Particularly since they have consulted and people have said that is what they want. I doubt the arrangements are indefinite but regularly renewable.

It would be simple to allow both patrons of Ritzy and those who wish to use the square to enjoy it. Put in some chairs in the square for people to sit on. Its not rocket science.

Challenging the Ritzy's enclosure isn't going to provide more seating.
But go for it. Maybe you can make them get rid of the Ritzy chairs on a technicality.

 

[Gramsci]

Its not a technicality. If its correct and Rush Common Consent is required part of the procedure to get Rush Common consent is consultation.

I would be quite happy to see that. Everyone can have there say in that case. Hopefully.

Its not just Council owned land. If u look at link I put up from Lambeth website special provisions apply as it part of Rush Common.

As for detail I was involved in some of the early consultation of the plans for a square. The consultation was labyrinthine. In the end it was Council project that was officer led with some consultation of local community.

imo the Council decided to go for low maintenance "secured by design" square. Possibly with kiosk/ coffee bar. Seating was kept down to stop people hanging about.

As ive said before my preferred option is to increase public seating in the square. Not to cordon off one area for use of patrons of Ritzy only. Seems reasonable option to me.

 

[Rushy]

Its not a technicality. If its correct and Rush Common Consent is required part of the procedure to get Rush Common consent is consultation. I would be quite happy to see that. Everyone can have there say in that case. Hopefully.

Rush Common Consent does not require public consultation. Just like listed building consent does not. As for planning permission - use of the square has been consulted on, people have had their say and what is there is in line with public demand (even if it needs planning permission). You just don't like what people said they want.

Its not just Council owned land. If u look at link I put up from Lambeth website special provisions apply as it part of Rush Common.

I am familiar with the link. It is just council owned land - not Common Land. Rush Common restrictions are like a conservation area which covers all land in a certain area. The exact same Rush Common Act restrictions also apply to the privately owned front gardens on Josephine Avenue. The Rush Common restrictions do not protect access - just open nature/character. The enclosures used by the Ritzy would seem to fall within the published guidelines as well as with historical precedent.

As for detail I was involved in some of the early consultation of the plans for a square. The consultation was labyrinthine. In the end it was Council project that was officer led with some consultation of local community.

So you should be familiar with the consultation results I linked to. The ones in which people say that, above all else, they want a cafe/open air cafe/eating place" on the square.

imo the Council decided to go for low maintenance "secured by design" square. Possibly with kiosk/ coffee bar. Seating was kept down to stop people hanging about.

I think they would agree with you. The demand for safety from local residents had enormous influence on the plans, even leading to Effra Road not being closed as originally intended because people felt safer with a main road running through the square. That was the demand of the Effra Road Resident's group (a huge shame IMO).

As ive said before my preferred option is to increase public seating in the square. Not to cordon off one area for use of patrons of Ritzy only. Seems reasonable option to me.

That's great - ask for more seating. But it is a shame you feel the need to stir things up when what is there fits in with what was the main requirement of those who expressed a view during the consultation. Most people seem to be enjoying it.

 

[Crispy]

Not quite sure what harm the ritzy seating is doing tbf

 

[Gramsci]

I think they would agree with you. The demand for safety from local residents had enormous influence on the plans, even leading to Effra Road not being closed as originally intended because people felt safer with a main road running through the square. That was the demand of the Effra Road Resident's group (a huge shame IMO).

That's great - ask for more seating. But it is a shame you feel the need to stir things up when what is there fits in with what was the main requirement of those who expressed a view during the consultation. Most people seem to be enjoying it.

I never said I agreed with the Council.

Im not opposing the Ritzy seating directly outside cinema.

I also said there was proposal to build some kind of kiosk. Dont have problem with that.

The consultation was to say the least tortuous. Many people got consultation "fatigue".

"Stir things up"? All I have done is look at the planning issues and raise them. If the Council planners think Ive got it wrong that's up to them.

 

[gabi]

Not quite sure what harm the ritzy seating is doing tbf

it used to be a public area, used by people chilling out, skateboarders, performers etc. now its effectively been privatised. u have to buy a drink to sit there. which is a bit shit.

 

[editor]

Not quite sure what harm the ritzy seating is doing tbf

How do you feel about large amounts of branded advertising and private areas in the middle of a public square?

 

[Crispy]

How do you feel about large amounts of branded advertising and private areas in the middle of a public square?

Ask a less loaded question please

 

[editor]

Ask a less loaded question please

It's not loaded. It's what the entire thread has been about since the start.

 

[Crispy]

My opinion of the current situation in the square is that no public seating is being taken away by the ritzy's area. The ritzy's area takes up about 1/4 of the space under the tree, leaving plenty of room for the rest of the square. Public use of the square is not impeded in any significant way, in my opinion. If their area went right up to the pavement on all sides of the tree, that would be too much. I couldn't really care less about the branding, seeing as it's the ritzy, a local name, and the graphics are tasteful.

 

[London_Calling]

But is it legit; what are they paying - contributing to the community - for the land grab, or is it opportunism? What about competition and prices in what should be a community attraction? What are Lambeth BCs rules/guidelines on advertising there?

How do wheelchairs, mobility whatsits and buggies get along CHL safely with the Ritzy spilling down the side?

 

[Crispy]

But is it legit; what are they paying - contributing to the community - for the land grab, or is it opportunism, what about competition and prices?

What competition? No other business fronts onto the square. I would be interested to know what compensation the council is getting, but I don't think the area should be removed. It's nice, it creates a use in the square and is exactly how cities on the continent use their public space.

 

[London_Calling]

What competition?

Exactly.

I would be interested to know what compensation the council is getting, but I don't think the area should be removed. It's nice, it creates a use in the square and is exactly how cities on the continent use their public space.

I'd agree it's a start. An attraction. Surely though it needs to be done right, just accepting something - this - because it's an improvement on nothing is quite possibly Lambeth's answer, but it's under-selling, under utilising the potential.

 

[Crispy]

When BCA opens, things will be different again - although their cafe/bar is very small.

 

[saltounpepper]

I am forced to stroll through the two seating areas every day on my way home from the tube. I feel like I'm being watched on a catwalk or something.

For the record I'm pretty short and fat, so I would have no idea what this feels like.

Personally though I don't mind the branding. I wonder what the residents made of the Bovril ad when that was first painted on...