Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)

[editor]

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?

So, these "loads" of social housing projects that you claimed Squire were involved with. Got that list for me yet? I've lost count of the amount of times I've asked now.



PS Try reading what I wrote. I said Sadiq NAMECHECKED them, not "blamed" them.

It's almost like you're high on bullshit and fantasy facts today.

 

[SpamMisery]

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.

Good effort but it seems a simple response to say you really have better things to do is acceptable

 

[TruXta]

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,.

Nor are the vast majority of their competitors. This is the point I'm making, they're shit, but there's no reason to believe they're especially shit. The only reason you care is because they have offices in Brixton.

 

[editor]

Nor are the vast majority of their competitors. This is the point I'm making, they're shit, but there's no reason to believe they're especially shit. The only reason you care is because they have offices in Brixton.

They're as shit as the rest of the fuckers who are helping facilitate London's housing crisis while raking fat millions into their already overstuffed bank accounts. They're possibly up there with the shittiest given some of the people they work for and their focus on catering to the whims and fancies of the super rich and the extra-privileged.

Seeing as this is a forum about Brixton and they've rocked into town with their private roof terraces, exclusive restaurant and lavish prestige offices, I see no reason why I shouldn't comment on them.

And yes, seeing this kind of wealth and ostentation being flaunted in Brixton does get a negative reaction from me.

 

[editor]

In a town where office space and workspaces are desperately needed for start ups and small independent businesses, just look how much this lot are keeping empty just for themselves. Just because it looks good.

But then that's what shitloads of money buys you.

 

[editor]

This is how they make their money:

Every Flat in a New South London Development Has Been Sold to Foreign Investors

One The Elephant • Architecture • Squire and Partners

https://www.cityscapedigital.co.uk/project/one-the-elephant-penthouses-skyscrape-collection/

Yuk.

 

[CH1]

editor I'm posting this Art Deco wonder to ease your evident distress. Monetised vandalism of course, but not by Squires.

Ivor House was locally listed in 2010 as an attractive heritage asset in Brixton. Having explored different options for Ivor House, it was determined that residential would be the most appropriate use for this building. Works have started on a sensitive refurbishment of the building with an additional storey taking the building from four to five storeys.

26 high quality, one and two bedroom flats will be provided in the newly refurbished Ivor House with retail or restaurant uses at the ground and basement level.

New contemporary and art deco inspired apartments are now being marketed. Further information can be found at www.brixtoncentric.com.

Soon to be released.......................

 

[editor]

editor I'm posting this Art Deco wonder to ease your evident distress. Monetised vandalism of course, but not by Squires.
View attachment 132124
Ivor House was locally listed in 2010 as an attractive heritage asset in Brixton. Having explored different options for Ivor House, it was determined that residential would be the most appropriate use for this building. Works have started on a sensitive refurbishment of the building with an additional storey taking the building from four to five storeys.

26 high quality, one and two bedroom flats will be provided in the newly refurbished Ivor House with retail or restaurant uses at the ground and basement level.

New contemporary and art deco inspired apartments are now being marketed. Further information can be found at www.brixtoncentric.com.

Soon to be released.......................

That roof looks well weird!

 

[Gramsci]

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'..

Your missing my point. I was trying to get away from arguments about Squires on an individual level.

My question is why as a society have things moved from the government/ councils providing affordable social space. Such as the Brixton Rec. To one where we are dependent on the philanthropy of the well off.

I also said thats not a society I like living in. It's a retrograde step back to pre war society where the wealthy, like the Tate family, provided libraries.

Yes ultimately the government should ensure adequate truly affordable housing and social space. It's all very well for posters here to say this but it would require a massive shift in power and resources. If government/ councils really took action it to do this Im not sure some posters here would like it.

Take Corbyn. What he represents is a politics that might redistribute power and wealth. All he has had is opposition and smears against him from the establishment.

For example. As you say Council/ government should ensure affordable housing and social space. You wouldn't be against Government giving Councils powers to requisition housing and building for the good of the community? Like after WW2 when private business was nationalised? Because that is what it would take in London.

I have nothing against Squires on a personal level. They are social actors in a larger Capitalist process. However if any left wing government actually took on the rich and powerful to redistribute wealth I wonder how happy Squires would be at losing there lucrative commissions? Or the status they are trying to develop in Brixton? If a government really took on the rich to ensure affordable housing then companies like Squires wouldn't be able to finance projects like the Department store. They would be able to earn a modest living designing housing for the people and be housed but would lose a lot of there social capital if the economy, in particular housing, came under popular democratic control.

 

[Gramsci]

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.

I take it in that case you would support the nationalisation of the building industry to ensure this? The land banks that property developers keep to be brought into government ownership?

 

[Mr Retro]

I take it in that case you would support the nationalisation of the building industry to ensure this? The land banks that property developers keep to be brought into government ownership?

Why would you make that assumption?

 

[editor]

Here we go again.

 

[Gramsci]

Why would you make that assumption?

As usual you make a sweeping statement that sounds good.

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

So I ask again would you agree to nationalisation of building industry? Housing like health is something that the private sector has been shown to fail in delivering good social outcomes. This country has had thirty p!us years of neo liberalism. The "free market" has failed. Your the one saying the government should be building houses. So I thought you would not have problem with nationalisation of building industry to ensure supply of affordable housing. Private sector have failed wouldn't you agree? As you imply private developers don't give a shit. So why allow them to exist?

 

[Gramsci]

Getting away from Squires. In Loughborough Junction two developers have built flats. These were finished some time ago. They lay empty. Whilst people in LJ live in overcrowded accommodation. Whilst London has a housing crisis.

If the argument is that Squires aren't the real issue I'm assuming that posters here would support government requisitioning these empty flats?

That appears to me something that posters here could all agree on if one is to say it's the Governments fault that it doesn't take action to solve the housing crisis.

 

[TruXta]

Ideally locally organised community groups would seize and occupy the flats, but in lieu of that....

 

[Mr Retro]

As usual you make a sweeping statement that sounds good.



So I ask again would you agree to nationalisation of building industry? Housing like health is something that the private sector has been shown to fail in delivering good social outcomes. This country has had thirty p!us years of neo liberalism. The "free market" has failed. Your the one saying the government should be building houses. So I thought you would not have problem with nationalisation of building industry to ensure supply of affordable housing. Private sector have failed wouldn't you agree? As you imply private developers don't give a shit. So why allow them to exist?

I think the government should embark on a massive social house building program. I think they should get the very best value for the significant cost of this program. This sure as fuck doesn’t mean nationalisation of the building industry. This article, though about utilities, mainly reflects my views of why nationalisation gives me hives (you don’t need to subscribe, you just need to answer 2 questions):
Subscribe to read

 

[Mr Retro]

Getting away from Squires. In Loughborough Junction two developers have built flats. These were finished some time ago. They lay empty. Whilst people in LJ live in overcrowded accommodation. Whilst London has a housing crisis.

If the argument is that Squires aren't the real issue I'm assuming that posters here would support government requisitioning these empty flats?

That appears to me something that posters here could all agree on if one is to say it's the Governments fault that it doesn't take action to solve the housing crisis.

I would support the government taking control of these flats

 

[tripadvisah]

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.

oh ok. We’ve moved on from being responsible for th crisis, to helping the developers to avoid creating social housing to now just being complicit in it.

Your all over the place mate, and you keep changing your point. which when you look at how you manipulate words to ‘win’arguments on here is pretty funny.

And when you consider the fact that there’s probably a decent point your making somewhere in there, you lose any suport for it because you’re too concerned about shouting the extreme and belittling any possible concession other’s might make.

 

[tripadvisah]

I think the government should embark on a massive social house building program. I think they should get the very best value for the significant cost of this program. This sure as fuck doesn’t mean nationalisation of the building industry. This article, though about utilities, mainly reflects my views of why nationalisation gives me hives (you don’t need to subscribe, you just need to answer 2 questions):
Subscribe to read

SPOT ON. i would endorse that too.

something worth discussing unlike the shouty ‘I hate super rich cunts’.

 

[shakespearegirl]

Getting away from Squires. In Loughborough Junction two developers have built flats. These were finished some time ago. They lay empty. Whilst people in LJ live in overcrowded accommodation. Whilst London has a housing crisis.

If the argument is that Squires aren't the real issue I'm assuming that posters here would support government requisitioning these empty flats?

That appears to me something that posters here could all agree on if one is to say it's the Governments fault that it doesn't take action to solve the housing crisis.

I would support a huge tax on properties that are left empty after a certain amount of time. Not only residential but commercial. And a tax on the massive block of land on the corner of the South Circular that has been empty since (I think) WW2 that is being landbanked due to greedy landowner wanting huge amounts for it (again I think).

Build a massive supply of council houses, absolutely.

Not allow foreign investors to buy property and leave it empty, absolutely.

Make councils fully implement social housing quotas in new developments and apply huge fines/revoke planning if not met, absolutely.

 

[editor]

SPOT ON. i would endorse that too.

something worth discussing unlike the shouty ‘I hate super rich cunts’.

And there you go again with the hysterical hyperbole.

Strange how you ignored my exact same point re: building social housing. Oh well, I guess there's no showboating for you in that.

 

[editor]

oh ok. We’ve moved on from being responsible for th crisis, to helping the developers to avoid creating social housing to now just being complicit in it.

I wish you'd stop making stuff up. My point hasn't changed at all.

At no point have I claimed that architects are solely responsible for the lack of affordable homes, but ones who fil their pockets by working with dodgy offshore developers certainly play a part.

And that's what I've said all along. I could even provide you with quotes if it'll stop your tedious attempts at misrepresentation.

 

[alcopop]

It's just elitist shit. Fuck the Department store and their filthy rich luxury clients.

I bring your attention to exhibit A

 

[editor]

I bring your attention to exhibit A

And what does this prove? Are you a fan of offshore property developers then? You know, the type that try to wriggle out of building affordable homes?

I see nothing wrong with hating developers like this, so what is your point?

 

[CH1]

I think the government should embark on a massive social house building program. I think they should get the very best value for the significant cost of this program. This sure as fuck doesn’t mean nationalisation of the building industry. This article, though about utilities, mainly reflects my views of why nationalisation gives me hives (you don’t need to subscribe, you just need to answer 2 questions):
Subscribe to read

Having read "your" FT article, I have come to the conclusion that you have missed the point (or maybe you are choosing to set up a straw man to demolish).

I don't think anyone suggested nationalising the building industry. Even the Atlee government and the Labour LCC and various Labour (and Conservative) metropolitan councils did not seek to do that. Even if they did set up Direct Works departments to do council repairs for example (not in itself a sin, surely?).

All these big council estates were build by large British construction companies and the structural faults - spalling concrete for example were the result of architectural fads spurred on by govermnent desire to cut costs - rather like the inflammable thermal cladding problem of today.

As regards general privatisation/renationalisation you could argue till the cows come home, but what does command a lot of support is that there is a need to create government financed low cost rented housing.

"We" do not like the idea of wasting government money subsidising private landlords, "we" think social housing should be publicly owned and greatly increased. I think such a proposition would command support from supporters of all parties (except the Mogg/Redwood Nazi tendency)

 

[Mr Retro]

I don't think anyone suggested nationalising the building industry

Gramsci asked me if I supported this and I was answering.

I’m not sure why you are addressing me with the rest of your post

 

[CH1]

Gramsci asked me if I supported this and I was answering.
I’m not sure why you are addressing me with the rest of your post

I hadn't followed the intricacies of the thread, but your posting of Martin Wolf's article led me to suppose you thought his general opposition to nationalisation was something you agree with.

If Gramsci favours or speculates on the desirability of nationalising the building industry that is a new step at least for Western Europe.

The problem with the building industry as I see it is it has become hitched to the marketing of property to both first time buyers and buy to let investors and speculators. And to giving overseas buys first refusal.

It would be good have a Glass-Steagall type law separating out the utility function of building from the marketing function. It seems to me that the marketing function has dominated the industry for at least the last 10 years, leading to total financialisation, whereby people go into debt bondage to buy a concrete box to live in.

Not only that there is the MAPIC property circus in Cannes where the Labour councillors and their officers and paramours go for jollies. There is a strong whiff of corruption in south London.

 

[Reiabuzz]

Is it the developers or the architects who are to blame here for the lack of affordable housing? I assume the architects are given a brief and then design around it.

Not much they can do about that and I assume even the developers would plead the google defence of ‘we only pay as much tax as we have to under the current laws, as set by your government’.

 

[alcopop]

And there you go again with the hysterical hyperbole.

It's just elitist shit. Fuck the Department store and their filthy rich luxury clients.

And what does this prove? Are you a fan of offshore property developers then? You know, the type that try to wriggle out of building affordable homes?

I see nothing wrong with hating developers like this, so what is your point?

my point is your hysterical hyperbole.

& spittle flecked invective.

Which you denied...

 

[Gramsci]

I hadn't followed the intricacies of the thread, but your posting of Martin Wolf's article led me to suppose you thought his general opposition to nationalisation was something you agree with.

If Gramsci favours or speculates on the desirability of nationalising the building industry that is a new step at least for Western Europe.

The problem with the building industry as I see it is it has become hitched to the marketing of property to both first time buyers and buy to let investors and speculators. And to giving overseas buys first refusal.

It would be good have a Glass-Steagall type law separating out the utility function of building from the marketing function. It seems to me that the marketing function has dominated the industry for at least the last 10 years, leading to total financialisation, whereby people go into debt bondage to buy a concrete box to live in.

Not only that there is the MAPIC property circus in Cannes where the Labour councillors and their officers and paramours go for jollies. There is a strong whiff of corruption in south London.

I havent been able to read Martin Wolff article. Stuck behind the FT paywall. Which seems to work sometimes. If Wolf is criticising nationalisation in general I would disagree.

I agree with you. Part of my reason for calling for nationalisation is that the utility function and marketing function is now ingrained into building industry. This has led to perverse social consequences. Lack of affordable housing in London to rent or buy. Doesn't stop profit making. Why I call for government intervention. Which will be resisted. I don't think it's in the interests of Barratts or Wimpey to have a future Labour government doing a mass public housing building programme. See what has happened at Elephant and Castle. Council estates demolished. Years of wrangling and the private sector have won. Area is know socially cleansed.

If as you say a clear wall could be put between the utility and marketing I could live with that. That in practice building companies that build only. The Government/ council could contract them to build social housing for example.

Plus Councils could imo reintroduce direct labour and own architecture sections to build Council housing again. Or contract building companies who build only.( The "right to buy" would need to be removed. )As you point out this was quite normal practice in previous years.

So what I would say, in line I think with Corbyn/ McDonnell , is a mixed economy. The democratically elected representatives of the people , government/ Councils, directing the economy with small scale capitalist business allowed ( building companies). The whip hand being held by the representatives of the people not dictated by property developers as now happens.