Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)

[existentialist]

No, you can't be as stupid as to think it doesn't, can you?

"Affordable" covers shared ownership, affordable rent and social rent. Usually as a rule of thumb these would be somewhere around the 40%:30%:30% ratio across a development. So yes, they will undoubtably be designing social housing. I'd imagine that the examples on the website are a fraction of their jobs, but the others may not be that photogenic.

If you don't belive me then you can get on the planning portal and pull the s106 agreements for some of those schemes - they will stipulate the social provision.

Is there any kind of interest you'd like to declare at this point, to pre-empt the Big Reveal from someone, on about Page 10 of the thread...?

 

[SpamMisery]

Ah, but you might be an incipient customer...

Very clever. I'll concede the point

Although I might call a technicality

 

[existentialist]

Very clever. I'll concede the point

Although I might call a technicality

Nothing wrong with a finely-crafted technicality...

 

[editor]

So has anyone found a single shred of evidence to support the assertion that Squire & Partners have designed any actual social housing projects anywhere?

Because, in the real world, this is what's happening while people like Squire get richer and richer while they're servicing their offshore chums who try and cheat London out of affordable homes : Number of social housing properties in England drops 11% in one year

 

[shakespearegirl]

Several issues here.

Not having a go at you personally but this post demonstrates how Neo Liberalism has entrenched itself as the "common sense" of society. ( As stethoscope has suggested. Also my namesake).

The super rich don't have more ambition than anyone else. A local example is the Brixton Rec. This now has Grade two listed status. One reason is that it's good example of post war socialist architecture. After WW2 there was general feeling that ordinary people should have good architecture and facilities. The Rec is an example of that. Post war the normal career move for architecture student was to work for a local Council.

Thatcher tore up the post war consensus.

Now this society went backward. It's back to depending on philanthropy of the wealthy. Squires are like the Tate family who built the library. All very well but is this really the kind of society people want to live in?

One based around class?

I come from a cross class background. Father working class and mother upper middle class. I remember my grandmother. She could not get over the decline in deference and loss of prestige she felt her class suffered post war.( To add this was real. Ordinary people fought and defeated Hitler. No way we're they going to put up with a society run by my grandmother's lot post war) She had a real resentment. Understandable in a way when one loses all that.

What I've seen in my adult life is gradual change over 30 years to point where individuals like Squires are seen as a good thing. My grandmother would have approved. A change for the better. At last a return to a society based on philanthropy by those who have good taste.

In hard headed reality , whilst as individual social actors, I have nothing against Squires personally the Department building imo isn't socially progressive.

The Department building isn't meant to be socially progressive, I don't think anyone has claimed it is. It is a private building developed by an architect.

Would I love to see them open it up to community/educational groups to use the space, yes! Would I encourage all businesses to work to help improve communities around them, yes!

Has anyone asked them directly about any opportunities for community use of the space? From earlier posts it seems they did open the space in the early days.

Ultimately, the government/council should be ensuring there is adequate housing and social housing rules are implemented and if they aren't refusing planning. And not allowing retrospective reduction of social housing as schemes are 'no longer affordable'..

 

[Twattor]

So has anyone found a single shred of evidence to support the assertion that Squire & Partners have designed any actual social housing projects anywhere?

Because, in the real world, this is what's happening while people like Squire get richer and richer while they're servicing their offshore chums who try and cheat London out of affordable homes : Number of social housing properties in England drops 11% in one year

OK i'll play your game.

UNISON head office, commissioned by UNISON. Comprises head office, 30 units for private sale, 14 for social rent, 3 for shared ownership.

see building here: AJBL - Squire and Partners
case officer's report here: http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/Record/3389957/file/document?inline
section 106 here: http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/Record/3363345/file/document?inline

Now please stop with the pre-conceptions and narrow minded prejudice. They are effing architects - they design loads of stuff.

 

[alcopop]

This thread could get as ridiculous as the pop thread.

Fingers crossed

 

[RoyReed]

Seems daft blaming the architects for not designing social housing when the real problem is that the government/councils should be commissioning them, and they're not.

 

[editor]

Seems daft blaming the architects for not designing social housing when the real problem is that the government/councils should be commissioning them, and they're not.

Seems even dafter to claim that they've been busy designing 'loads' of social housing when they clearly haven't.

Twattor brought up the notion as some sort of strange defence for the company, as if to suggest that they're beyond criticism for working with offshore developers who want to cheat Londoners out of much needed affordable housing because they were involved in non existent large scale social housing projects .

As I said earlier, people like Squires are part of the problem, not the solution, and whether they drop a few 'community' crumbs off their lavishly stocked table or not won't change that.

 

[Mr Retro]

Seems daft blaming the architects for not designing social housing when the real problem is that the government/councils should be commissioning them, and they're not.

Agree. It’s a neat trick the government have pulled. Fooling some people into believing that firms that build houses for people who can afford them are to blame for not building houses for people who can’t. The government should be building these houses.

 

[editor]

Agree. It’s a neat trick the government have pulled. Fooling some people into believing that firms that build houses for people who can afford them are to blame for not building houses for people who can’t. The government should be building these houses.

Who the hell has made that claim here?

But I do get fucked off when some shiny new luxury block looms up in Brixton and the developer triumphantly points out the fact that there is (the bare minimum) of affordable homes on site, safe in the knowledge that 'affordable' means that there's precious little chance any actual poor local people taking up residence.

 

[Reiabuzz]

Seems even dafter to claim that they've been busy designing 'loads' of social housing when they clearly haven't.

Twattor brought up the notion as some sort of strange defence for the company, as if to suggest that they're beyond criticism for working with offshore developers who want to cheat Londoners out of much needed affordable housing because they were involved in non existent large scale social housing projects .

As I said earlier, people like Squires are part of the problem, not the solution, and whether they drop a few 'community' crumbs off their lavishly stocked table or not won't change that.

I applaud your motives. What's the solution then?

 

[tripadvisah]

Twattor brought up the notion as some sort of strange defence for the company, as if to suggest that they're beyond criticism for working with offshore developers who want to cheat Londoners out of much needed affordable housing because they were involved in non existent large scale social housing projects.

wow. Think you’re extrapalating a bit much out of that and exaggerating far beyond what is known. or are you saying there should be no developments in Brixton unless they’re social ones?

 

[editor]

wow. Think you’re extrapalating a bit much out of that and exaggerating far beyond what is known. or are you saying there should be no developments in Brixton unless they’re social ones?

I've never made any such claim, as well you know.
And you're criticising me for "extrapalating a bit much out of that and exaggerating far beyond what is known"? LOL.

What's your opinion on architects who work with greedy offshore developers to minimise their affordable housing commitments? All OK with you?

 

[editor]

I applaud your motives. What's the solution then?

It's quite obvious that I believe that new social housing should be built, greedy parasitic landlords brought into check and controls introduced on offshore developers who are happy to leave properties vacant while they accrue value.

Of course this isn't the the thread for such a discussion, but it should be pointed out that Twattor was the one who brought social housing into the debate, insisting that Squire & Partners had been responsible for designing 'loads' of social housing projects, which they quite clearly haven't. I've no idea why he made that up, or why he thought it was appropriate to bring it up in the discussion. You'll have to ask him.

And I will repeat that I'm not going to cheer on - or feel grateful for - people like Squire who work with offshore developers on luxury residential projects with "appallingly low” levels of affordable homes.

Khan rejects plans for luxury residential scheme over affordable housing quote
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has rejected a planning amendment that would have lowered the proportion of affordable homes as part of the £1bn New Scotland Yard mixed-use scheme in London.

The Squire & Partners-designed development, Ten Broadway, will see six new buildings providing residential, office and retail uses replace the existing 1960s Metropolitan Police HQ. It was granted permission by outgoing mayor Boris Johnson in 2016 despite offering just 10 affordable homes (four per cent of the 268 units in total).

But new proposals recently lodged by developer BL Developments had been rejected by Khan because they sought to increase the total number of homes to 295 without a rise in the affordable housing, meaning the proportion of affordable homes would fall to three per cent.

Khan said:

“The scheme put forward for this site is simply unacceptable: it fails to provide the maximum amount of affordable housing that could be delivered on this landmark site, and follows a previous application in which the affordable housing provision agreed by the previous Mayor was already appallingly low.”

Khan rejects plans for luxury residential scheme over affordable housing quote | netMAGmedia Ltd

 

[Rushy]

OK i'll play your game.

UNISON head office, commissioned by UNISON. Comprises head office, 30 units for private sale, 14 for social rent, 3 for shared ownership.

see building here: AJBL - Squire and Partners
case officer's report here: http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/Record/3389957/file/document?inline
section 106 here: http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/Record/3363345/file/document?inline

Now please stop with the pre-conceptions and narrow minded prejudice. They are effing architects - they design loads of stuff.

Interesting that on the officers report it emerges UNISON did not meet affordable targets on their swish flagship office; and argued that whilst it was physically possible it was not economically viable.

 

[editor]

Oh and first against the wall when I take over: those loathsome scum who have made profitable businesses out of advising developers on ways to squirm out of their affordable housing commitments.

 

[tripadvisah]

I've never made any such claim, as well you know.
And you're criticising me for "extrapalating a bit much out of that and exaggerating far beyond what is known"? LOL.

What's your opinion on architects who work with greedy offshore developers to minimise their affordable housing commitments? All OK with you?

actually I wasn’t suggesting you made that claim, it was a question (it even looks like a question if you reread my post).

What, specifically are the architects doing to minimise the greedy offshore developers housing commitments?

Just tyring to get some nuance out of all this spittle flecked zero sum nonsense that belittles any point that is being made

 

[editor]

Just tyring to get some nuance out of all this spittle flecked zero sum nonsense that belittles any point that is being made

To state the obvious: Architects - especially super rich, super successful ones with palatial London showcase offices aren't compelled to take on every job offered. But if they do take on jobs like this one, then they are complicit in the process that is starving Londoners of affordable homes.

I do hope that's not too 'spittle flecked' for you.

 

[TruXta]

They might not be compelled, but they'd probably find themselves out of business if they didn't.

 

[alcopop]

They might not be compelled, but they'd probably find themselves out of business if they didn't.

This is not the time or the place for making reasonable points.

 

[editor]

They might not be compelled, but they'd probably find themselves out of business if they didn't.

Pretty sure loads of architects manage to get by just fine without having to work and assist offshore clients keen to wriggle out of their affordable housing commitments. Squire do it - presumably - because they want the big fat dosh and prestige contacts and showcase offices that come with it.

And if that's the case, I'm at liberty to judge them accordingly.

 

[TruXta]

This is not the time or the place for making reasonable points.

I'm not in the least interested in defending them, just pointing out that this is how the sector works.

 

[TruXta]

Pretty sure loads of architects manage to get by just fine without having to work with offshore clients keen to wriggle out of their affordable housing commitments. Squire do it - presumably - because they want the big fat dosh and prestige contacts and showcase offices that come with it.

And if that's the case, I'm at liberty to judge them accordingly,

Name a few of these socially responsible firms then.

 

[editor]

Name a few of these socially responsible firms then.

I really have better things to do, thanks.

Can you find many others who have recently been personally namechecked by Sadiq Khan for their "appallingly low" provision of affordable homes?

 

[TruXta]

I really have better things to do, thanks.

Can you find many others who have recently been personally namechecked by Sadiq Khan for their "appallingly low" provision of affordable homes?

Not right now, but it stands to reason that given almost all new builds contain very few affordable units, that most architectural firms that design such buildings are similar. They all compete for the same business after all, and it's the client that specifies the mix in the last instance.

 

[editor]

Not right now, but it stands to reason that given almost all new builds contain very few affordable units, that most architectural firms that design such buildings are similar. They all compete for the same business after all, and it's the client that specifies the mix in the last instance.

Which brings me to Gramsci's excellent post.
Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)

 

[TruXta]

Which brings me to Gramsci's excellent post.
Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)

Which agrees entirely with my point.

 

[editor]

Which agrees entirely with my point.

And mine too in that there is no reason why we should laud Squire and Partners for gracing Brixton with their presence, or feel grateful for them for opening up a swishy and highly exclusive restaurant to promote their own business with, or for hogging so much space for themselves.

They're part of the problem and them throwing a few community baubles our way won't change that. As Gramsci says: they're not socially progressive,.

 

[Twattor]

I really have better things to do, thanks.

Can you find many others who have recently been personally namechecked by Sadiq Khan for their "appallingly low" provision of affordable homes?

Could you please show exactly where Sadiq Khan laid the blame for the low provision at Squire's door. Reading the article it looks like he referred to the developer as being responsible.

Do I need to find dictionary definitions of "developer" and "architect" for you as well?