Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)

[editor]

my point is your hysterical hyperbole.

& spittle flecked invective.

Which you denied...

It's not "spittle flecked invective" - grow up, for fuck's sake - but I make no apology at being angry with greedy developers and their partners who are raking in fat profits while destroying communities and creating a housing crisis in London.

It's notable that you haven't a harsh word to say about them is this thread, but plenty of time for childish personal attacks on me. And that would appear to sum up your attitude, like the topic isn't important and it's all a bit of a laugh.

 

[Gramsci]

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’.

This is my problem with posts here.

Told not to criticize Squires as they are just hired hands. The system isn't there fault. And they are doing charitable works.

Then the discussion possibly slips into can't blame property developers either.

I have real problem with this line of argument.

 

[editor]

This is my problem with posts here.

Told not to criticize Squires as they are just hired hands. The system isn't there fault. And they are doing charitable works.

Then the discussion possibly slips into can't blame property developers either.

I have real problem with this line of argument.

The same handful of people seem to think having a pop at me is the main priority here, rather than criticising the profiteering firms who are causing real misery to poorer communities and depriving Londoners of affordable homes.

I fancy that rather speaks volumes about the kind of people they are.

 

[Gramsci]

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’.

Looks like some posters here agree that property developers who leave property empty , as at LJ, should have it confiscated by the government.

If you are saying that it's not property developers fault, but they work within limits set by government, would you support this measure?

Myself I can't see any property developers support this if a government brought it in as a law. They are likely to heavily lobby government to stop this being brought in.

 

[CH1]

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.

Martin Wolf does not believe in nationalisation.
He believe it leads to inefficiency and poor service.
I don't necessarily agree - French Railways SNCF always seemed pretty good to me - and cheaper than here lately.

The nationalisation issue and the public housing issue seems to be similar to me. Under post-Thatcher economics (including Blair/Brown) it is taken as an article of faith that public sector debt has to be reduced - and private sector debt is irrelevant.

Funnily enough I am old enough to remember that the LCC and Liverpool Council both had large bonds on the stock market originally issued in the 1920s to finance the building of municipal housing. Why can't we do this now?

 

[tripadvisah]

The same handful of people seem to think having a pop at me is the main priority here, rather than criticising the profiteering firms who are causing real misery to poorer communities and depriving Londoners of affordable homes.

I fancy that rather speaks volumes about the kind of people they are.

no. thats not the issue. You’re telling me what my priorities should be? And then saying that this says a lot about the kind of people we are?


What people are having a pop at is all the overblown (and misdirected) dialog that these people are to blame for depriving lower income families out their homes in london.


You are very selective in what you read and replay from peoples posts. And then follow up with veiled and sometimes not so veiled insults about ‘the people’ rather than the arguments.


If we are to have a discusion, then my view as stated above and also what may or may not be the view of some others is that it is the government’s role to provide social housing for the people who need them. Because labour AND conservative governments have failed to do so they put in place vague policies around developers having to provide a proportion of affordable housing. Which clearly doesn’t work. And that is not the fault of squire etc, they are running their business, doing some of that and also taking on contracts that they need to do to survive. I very much doubt there are meetings in boardrooms where they are saying ‘who gives a fuck about poor Londoners’. It is not their role to ensure this stuff happens. If the current system is attempting to put some of the onus on developers then I think we all agree it isn’t working. and that has fuck all to do with a restaurant. the patrons of whom are very unlikely to be ‘super rich’ (another misdirection, suspect most just have ‘some disposable income’)

I cannot easily influence current policy, but I would pay an extra penny a pound in income tax if the government ACTUALLY ringfenced it for social provision and made a real difference. but I don’t trust the fuckers. And I wouldn’t trust labour eiher.

And saying, as was said above, if they’re not part of the solution theyre part of the problem does not hold that well. Just because a phrase is catchy doesn’t mean it is true. I believe it was a phrase coined to get people thinking about sustainability in the 90s. If you don’t work in or donate to a food bank, are you an intrinsic part of the problem that means people can’t afford to eat? No. not imo anyway, you may disagree. That’s ok.

Saying ‘these people consort with greedy offshore developers who are only interested in lining their pockets are you ok with that?’ is not an argument it’s a linguistic fallacy, it’s utterly deceptive and it shuts down sensible and reasoned debate. It’s also inflammatory.

here is an exceptionally good way of having reasoned debate which we might all learn something from.

 

[alcopop]

It's not "spittle flecked invective" - grow up, for fuck's sake - but I make no apology at being angry with greedy developers and their partners who are raking in fat profits while destroying communities and creating a housing crisis in London.

It's notable that you haven't a harsh word to say about them is this thread, but plenty of time for childish personal attacks on me. And that would appear to sum up your attitude, like the topic isn't important and it's all a bit of a laugh.

I don’t have a problem with Squires at all.
Why would I?

 

[Gramsci]

If we are to have a discusion, then my view as stated above and also what may or may not be the view of some others is that it is the government’s role to provide social housing for the people who need them. Because labour AND conservative governments have failed to do so they put in place vague policies around developers having to provide a proportion of affordable housing. Which clearly doesn’t work. And that is not the fault of squire etc, they are running their business, doing some of that and also taking on contracts that they need to do to survive. I very much doubt there are meetings in boardrooms where they are saying ‘who gives a fuck about poor Londoners’. It is not their role to ensure this stuff happens. If the current system is attempting to put some of the onus on developers then I think we all agree it isn’t working. and that has fuck all to do with a restaurant. the patrons of whom are very unlikely to be ‘super rich’ (another misdirection, suspect most just have ‘some disposable income’)

I cannot easily influence current policy, but I would pay an extra penny a pound in income tax if the government ACTUALLY ringfenced it for social provision and made a real difference. but I don’t trust the fuckers. And I wouldn’t trust labour eiher.

]

In boardrooms these things are said. Not in public. It slips out occasionally.

Architect blasts 'free-riding' central London council tenants saying they should be moved

I don't think extra money is needed. Millions were spent on the banks to prop them up with quantitative easing. John McDonnell has previously called for a People's Quantitative easing instead. Which can be used to build housing.

I think I have made my position clear previously. To reiterate. I don't like living in a society that has turned the clock back to the days of when the Tate family were building libraries. Back to the days philanthropy.

I also think that just blaming government for not building affordable housing isn't enough. Developers and big architectural firms have done quite nicely with how the housing and regeneration sector works. I really don't think they would be happy at the thought of a government interfering in the housing market. Like I said this wouldn't put architects like Squires out if business. It may mean they might have to live more modestly.

Take affordable housing on large developments. These policies are in place. Developers argue tooth and nail against them. The Mayor Khan has only got 35% affordable in practice. That is if his new system works.

What is needed is more economic interference in the "free market". It's imo naive to think that government could just build mass social housing without this really annoying the private sector. It's direct competition. It's also breaking the neo liberal consensus. It's why Thatcher was right , in terms of her own class, to start to get rid of social housing. This has led to the situation today where property developers call the shots. It would not have turned out like this if social housing hadn't been attacked and marginalised over the years. In late 70s 40% of population lived in social housing. What I'm saying is that in housing one cannot draw strict distinction between private and public housing.

 

[ringo]

I never went. Just got this email. I'm sure it's well worth £240 just walk in the door

UPSTAIRS MEMBERSHIP FEE

Thank you for supporting Upstairs during our first year,
we hope you have enjoyed your time on the roof thus far!

As founder members you are important to us, and we want to ensure we always provide you with the best service possible. Due to increased demand on the space and the subsequent expansion to service and amenities, we will be introducing a yearly membership fee.

The membership fee is £240 a year and must be paid by Direct Debit before 1st November 2018. We also have a monthly installment option of £23 available if you wish.

Our current free Guest Cards will be expiring 1st November 2018, after which you will not be able to gain access unless you decide to obtain a membership card.

For this fee you will see an increase in our events programme and membership offerings, a continuation of our sophisticated service and an assurance that we are always able to provide the relaxed and uncrowded atmosphere you are accustomed to Upstairs.

As our founding members you are first to have this opportunity and are guaranteed a card providing your payment is received prior to 1st November. Obtaining a membership card is simple, just choose one of the following options below.

 

[editor]

I never went. Just got this email. I'm sure it's well worth £240 just walk in the door

UPSTAIRS MEMBERSHIP FEE

Thank you for supporting Upstairs during our first year,
we hope you have enjoyed your time on the roof thus far!

As founder members you are important to us, and we want to ensure we always provide you with the best service possible. Due to increased demand on the space and the subsequent expansion to service and amenities, we will be introducing a yearly membership fee.

The membership fee is £240 a year and must be paid by Direct Debit before 1st November 2018. We also have a monthly installment option of £23 available if you wish.

Our current free Guest Cards will be expiring 1st November 2018, after which you will not be able to gain access unless you decide to obtain a membership card.

For this fee you will see an increase in our events programme and membership offerings, a continuation of our sophisticated service and an assurance that we are always able to provide the relaxed and uncrowded atmosphere you are accustomed to Upstairs.

As our founding members you are first to have this opportunity and are guaranteed a card providing your payment is received prior to 1st November. Obtaining a membership card is simple, just choose one of the following options below.

£240 a year just to enter the fucking place? At least we can see their true, elitist, gentrifying colours here as they ensure their private members club keeps poor people away.

 

[whatwilldid]

FUCK THE RICH. I LOVE THE POOR. BALCONIES ARE FASCIST.

I've been to Upstairs a fair few times. It's fine. It's a really nice space, drinks are priced sensibly considering what you tend to spend for somewhere with design aesthetic at its heart, the staff are incredibly sweet and kind, and the food is totally delicious and varied, and today include a good few vegan choices. It is a members space for an architecural firm that decided to move to Brixton instead of King's Cross, and boy, are we fuming about that on here! I got membership this past year by virtue of knowing someone that works there, but it's never seemed to me to be difficult in this period to gain membership. In terms of the future (read "£240 a year just to enter the fucking place") I earn under £30,000 per year so a private members bar isn't really my thing no matter what, but £23 per month for access to a really nice space that serves great cocktails and food doesn't seem absurd - it's going to be a matter of personal preference. If you go twice a week, that's £2.88 per visit for access to an open space, staffed by good people, with activities and entertainment laid on. By way of reference, my drinking preferences in Brixton are the Marquis of Lorne and the Effra Tavern - both places where a pint costs as much as it does Upstairs.

I think it's bizarre the extent to which there is SUCH a degree of anger and resentment directed towards The Department Store. There is so much to be said for the manner in which big capital can subvert communities, but I feel like most of the vitriol against Squires and the Department Store is just that, vitriol. Where's the nuance and the reasoned discussion? Have the people who have serious concerns about "true, elitist, gentrifying colours" of the Department Store ever actually been? Would they like an invitation? I'd be only too happy to oblige.

 

[klang]

no, I haven't been in and wouldn't enter even if I could afford the mere 2.88 twice a week. hth

 

[whatwilldid]

That's fine, you don't have to. Thanks for the help.

 

[editor]

FUCK THE RICH. I LOVE THE POOR. BALCONIES ARE FASCIST.

I've been to Upstairs a fair few times. It's fine. It's a really nice space, drinks are priced sensibly considering what you tend to spend for somewhere with design aesthetic at its heart, the staff are incredibly sweet and kind, and the food is totally delicious and varied, and today include a good few vegan choices. It is a members space for an architecural firm that decided to move to Brixton instead of King's Cross, and boy, are we fuming about that on here! I got membership this past year by virtue of knowing someone that works there, but it's never seemed to me to be difficult in this period to gain membership. In terms of the future (read "£240 a year just to enter the fucking place") I earn under £30,000 per year so a private members bar isn't really my thing no matter what, but £23 per month for access to a really nice space that serves great cocktails and food doesn't seem absurd - it's going to be a matter of personal preference. If you go twice a week, that's £2.88 per visit for access to an open space, staffed by good people, with activities and entertainment laid on. By way of reference, my drinking preferences in Brixton are the Marquis of Lorne and the Effra Tavern - both places where a pint costs as much as it does Upstairs.

I think it's bizarre the extent to which there is SUCH a degree of anger and resentment directed towards The Department Store. There is so much to be said for the manner in which big capital can subvert communities, but I feel like most of the vitriol against Squires and the Department Store is just that, vitriol. Where's the nuance and the reasoned discussion? Have the people who have serious concerns about "true, elitist, gentrifying colours" of the Department Store ever actually been? Would they like an invitation? I'd be only too happy to oblige.

What activities and entertainment are laid on and why is it any better than the free entertainment found all over Brixton?
Do you think demanding £240 just to enter the bar will exclude people or not?
Do you think an expensive private members bar opening in a predominately poor area is a good thing or a bad thing for community cohesion?
You say its 'staffed by good people' as if that's some kind of unexpected bonus. So what bars in Brixton are staffed by bad people?

And yes, this bar is all about exclusively, division and the exclusion of poor people. Feel free to defend that.

 

[klang]

Feel free to defend that

I'd rather they wouldn't tbh.

 

[whatwilldid]

What activities and entertainment are laid on and why is it any better than the free entertainment found all over Brixton?
Do you think demanding £240 just to enter the bar will exclude people or not?
Do you think an expensive private members bar opening in a predominately poor area is a good thing or a bad thing for community cohesion?
You say its 'staffed by good people' as if that's some kind of unexpected bonus. So what bars in Brixton are staffed by bad people?

And yes, this bar is all about exclusively, division and the exclusion of poor people. Feel free to defend that.

1) They have table football, table tennis, live music and quite a few events in the space downstairs (although membership Upstairs isn't required for access to the events downstairs - that depends on the event organisers). Pool in the Marquis of Lorne is a £1 a go. Music in the Effra Tavern is free (and outstanding). I never said it was better than any free entertainment found all over Brixton. I said it was a matter of personal preference.
2) I think asking for £240 for membership will exlude people who don't want to or can't spend £240 - myself included. But that's their perogative, what with them managing a private members restaurant, and all. Most members bars charge significantly more than £240, so to some, depending on their frame of reference, it's actually fairly inclusive as far as a PRIVATE MEMBERS space is concerned. I said it was a matter of personal preference.
3) I think it depends on what the private members bar does in the predominantly poor area to try to improve community cohesion. If Squires and Upstairs do nothing (bear in mind they haven't charged a penny for membership yet), then I will feel very comfortable criticising them for that. Will you feel comfortable praising their actions if they do some good in the local area, I wonder? Or will it just be crumbs off the table, again?
4) You've inferred that me saying it was staffed by good people meant something other than precisely what I said. Why are you trying to coax me into telling you what bars I think are staffed by bad people in Brixton? What the actual fuck is that?

Finally, yeah, it kind of is about exclusivity. It's a PRIVATE MEMBERS restaurant/bar, which is available to the public at a fee. The public can determine in their own good ways, whether or not they think it represents value for money, or whether they want to be a part of it. I wish that the space had been turned into affordable housing and community projects for the people that need it the most in Brixton. But it wasn't. And it was lying empty for a very long time. There are now, as a result of Squires, a few more hundred people working in Brixton, spending their money. I don't believe in trickle down economics, and so I accept that the poor won't directly benefit from that, but I am 100% sure that a space occupied by a profitable business that attracts money is a better thing for a community than having a massive building with nothing in it but potential.

 

[editor]

1) They have table football, table tennis, live music and quite a few events in the space downstairs (although membership Upstairs isn't required for access to the events downstairs - that depends on the event organisers). Pool in the Marquis of Lorne is a £1 a go. Music in the Effra Tavern is free (and outstanding). I never said it was better than any free entertainment found all over Brixton. I said it was a matter of personal preference.
2) I think asking for £240 for membership will exlude people who don't want to or can't spend £240 - myself included. But that's their perogative, what with them managing a private members restaurant, and all. Most members bars charge significantly more than £240, so to some, depending on their frame of reference, it's actually fairly inclusive as far as a PRIVATE MEMBERS space is concerned. I said it was a matter of personal preference.
3) I think it depends on what the private members bar does in the predominantly poor area to try to improve community cohesion. If Squires and Upstairs do nothing (bear in mind they haven't charged a penny for membership yet), then I will feel very comfortable criticising them for that. Will you feel comfortable praising their actions if they do some good in the local area, I wonder? Or will it just be crumbs off the table, again?
4) You've inferred that me saying it was staffed by good people meant something other than precisely what I said. Why are you trying to coax me into telling you what bars I think are staffed by bad people in Brixton? What the actual fuck is that?

Finally, yeah, it kind of is about exclusivity. It's a PRIVATE MEMBERS restaurant/bar, which is available to the public at a fee. The public can determine in their own good ways, whether or not they think it represents value for money, or whether they want to be a part of it. I wish that the space had been turned into affordable housing and community projects for the people that need it the most in Brixton. But it wasn't. And it was lying empty for a very long time. There are now, as a result of Squires, a few more hundred people working in Brixton, spending their money. I don't believe in trickle down economics, and so I accept that the poor won't directly benefit from that, but I am 100% sure that a space occupied by a profitable business that attracts money is a better thing for a community than having a massive building with nothing in it but potential.

1. So the private club offers nothing that isn't available for free elsewhere apart from exclusivity, luxury surroundings and a removal of the riff raff. You specifically mentioned the entertainment in the members-only private bar as some sort of justification for the hefty joining fee, so I'll ask again: what entertainment?
2. if you knew anything about the demographics of the area, you'd know that a £240 entrance free will directly exclude the majority of existing residents. Don't they matter to you?
3. Tell me how an exclusive and elitist private club does anything for the vast majority of locals who are automatically excluded from entering?
4. You brought up the 'good people' line like it was especially noteworthy. It's not. There's plenty of good people working all around Brixton.

 

[whatwilldid]

1. So the private club offers nothing that isn't available for free elsewhere apart from exclusivity, luxury surroundings and a removal of the riff raff. You specifically mentioned the entertainment in the members-only private bar as some sort of justification for the hefty joining fee, so I'll ask again: what entertainment?
2. if you knew anything about the demographics of the area, you'd know that a £240 entrance free will directly exclude the majority of existing residents. Don't they matter to you?
3. Tell me how an exclusive and elitist private club does anything for the vast majority of locals who are automatically excluded from entering?
4. You brought up the 'good people' line like it was especially noteworthy. It's not. There's plenty of good people working all around Brixton.

All I've said, and said multiple times and I think quite clearly is that it's up to individuals to determine whether or not they want to take part in a private members club. My belief is that in the context of a private members club, a £240 members fee isn't that much - I accept that it is TOO MUCH for many residents, but then as far as I'm aware, this is the only private members bar/restaurant available in Brixton for all of its roughly 78,000 inhabitants. Assuming £23 is too much money for 99.5% of the population (which is a massive assumption), do we begrudge 400 people for spending their money on a swanky venue if they want to? I have also said that I wished the space had been used for more community focussed activities, but it hasn't, and I've also expressed the point that if Squires and Upstairs never do anything for the betterment of their locality, then I will carry criticism against them.

I appreciate that I'm repeating myself, but it seems that I need to.

You ask me to tell you "how an exclusive and elitist private club does anything for the vast majority of locals who are automatically excluded from entering" - why do I need to tell you that? What part of my original post suggested that I would have any interest in telling you that? My point was, and again, I'm aware that I'm repeating myself, that a private members club on top of Squire and Cos building has every legal right to exist and the moral or ethical arguments against it from existing that have been elicited in this thread are paper-thin at best. We live in a world of inequality which favours the wealthy over the poor, and that is painful. No doubt. But why the fresh fuck your ire is so vehemently expressed against an establishment like this, at such an early stage of its lifecycle, rather than, oh, I don't know, the betting shops and fast food chains that deliberately target the vulnerable to keep them poor and unhealthy is beyond me. It's wasted breath.

But given that your account (and I accept there may be multiple people using your account) is responsible for 190,000 posts since the year 2000, which, assuming you spend around a minute per post means you've been fighting the good fight from behind your keyboard for a solid 1340 days, or THREE AND A HALF YEARS, I accept that I have insufficient capital with you to have a reasoned debate. I get the impression that you're very used to changing the goal-posts during a discussion, and fair play - get your kicks where you can.

My offer still stands to go for a drink at Upstairs to check it out for yourself, to meet me and have what I hope would be a really good discussion about what we might practically be able to do to help people that need help in Brixton. I'd also be really interested to learn from you about your sources regarding the demographics of the area - you're right, I don't know much about the demography of Brixton, and I'd like to learn. Maybe we could move this away from the keyboard and do something worthwhile? Or that might not be your bag.

 

[Mr Bim of Bar]

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.......................

I went for a nose at these apartments on 17th sept They are high end Art Deco apartments absolutely beautiful, and a two bed is £720,000 and service is £3600

 

[CH1]

I went for a nose at these apartments on 17th sept They are high end Art Deco apartments absolutely beautiful, and a two bed is £720,000 and service is £3600

Service charge is a bit steep. Do they starch your sheets for that?

 

[Gramsci]

FUCK THE RICH. I LOVE THE POOR. BALCONIES ARE FASCIST.

I've been to Upstairs a fair few times. It's fine. It's a really nice space, drinks are priced sensibly considering what you tend to spend for somewhere with design aesthetic at its heart, the staff are incredibly sweet and kind, and the food is totally delicious and varied, and today include a good few vegan choices. It is a members space for an architecural firm that decided to move to Brixton instead of King's Cross, and boy, are we fuming about that on here! I got membership this past year by virtue of knowing someone that works there, but it's never seemed to me to be difficult in this period to gain membership. In terms of the future (read "£240 a year just to enter the fucking place") I earn under £30,000 per year so a private members bar isn't really my thing no matter what, but £23 per month for access to a really nice space that serves great cocktails and food doesn't seem absurd - it's going to be a matter of personal preference. If you go twice a week, that's £2.88 per visit for access to an open space, staffed by good people, with activities and entertainment laid on. By way of reference, my drinking preferences in Brixton are the Marquis of Lorne and the Effra Tavern - both places where a pint costs as much as it does Upstairs.

I think it's bizarre the extent to which there is SUCH a degree of anger and resentment directed towards The Department Store. There is so much to be said for the manner in which big capital can subvert communities, but I feel like most of the vitriol against Squires and the Department Store is just that, vitriol. Where's the nuance and the reasoned discussion? Have the people who have serious concerns about "true, elitist, gentrifying colours" of the Department Store ever actually been? Would they like an invitation? I'd be only too happy to oblige.

As someone who earns much less than thirty grand I do think £240 pound a year just to go on the roof is elitist.

Squires are a business that moved to Brixton. Fair enough. They didn't do it quietly. They made big thing about it.

I did hear guest memberships for roof terrace were given out to some local people. Not sure if this is correct.

Seems to me Squires did a good PR campaign when they came to Brixton. They aren't stupid. They know from long involvement with high end projects in London that gentrification is an issue. So when they came to Brixton they have been quite clever.

I was at Department store when it opened as it had Brixton Neighborhood forum meeting there.

At that Squires junior gave talk of how community minded Squires are.

As you say guest memberships were at start fairly easy to come by. This was imo no accident. Squires did this at beginning to get good community PR.

I ve heard using the basement space is now pricey for community groups. Vida Walsh is cheaper. So that's gone.

Imo what Squires have done is clever. Making all right noises and then gradually bringing in extra costs. Which will make the space exclusive.

Squires are private business so its up to them what they do with the property they own. That is how Capitalism works.

They aren't doing local community a favour by coming here. It was them bigging up arrival to Brixton.

 

[Mr Bim of Bar]

Service charge is a bit steep. Do they starch your sheets for that?

Lol the building and interior is stunning and only four apartments available now

 

[editor]

But given that your account (and I accept there may be multiple people using your account) is responsible for 190,000 posts since the year 2000, which, assuming you spend around a minute per post means you've been fighting the good fight from behind your keyboard for a solid 1340 days, or THREE AND A HALF YEARS, I accept that I have insufficient capital with you to have a reasoned debate. I get the impression that you're very used to changing the goal-posts during a discussion, and fair play - get your kicks where you can.

And this is what's known as an ad hominem. How many posts I've made here - or when I started posting - is utterly irrelevant to the point under discussion.

Assuming £23 is too much money for 99.5% of the population (which is a massive assumption)

It's also a ludicrous assumption. To enjoy the facilities of the new elitist bar, people have to find at least £240 a year just to get through the door. You do understand that large parts of Brixton are some of the most deprived in London? £240 is a fortune to those people.

do we begrudge 400 people for spending their money on a swanky venue if they want to?

I don't begrudge people spending money on whatever they like, but to pretend that opening a swishy, exclusive private members bar for the elite isn't going to have the slightest impact on gentrifying the area would be very naive indeed. Here, have a read: Gentrification isn't a benign process: it forces people from their homes

I don't view gentrification as a good thing. Nor do I applaud businesses that accelerate that process. Do you?

Maybe we could move this away from the keyboard and do something worthwhile? Or that might not be your bag.

And another ad hominem. Actually I do shitloads for Brixton. Businesses, bars, restaurants and individuals have all expressed their gratitude, as do the local charities and campaigns I've raised thousands of pounds for. How about you?

Oh and you never explained what this entertainment is that's supposedly on offer in the bar...

 

[Gramsci]

Deleted as difficult to use quotes didn't work.

 

[editor]

As someone who earns much less than thirty grand I do think £240 pound a year just to go on the roof is elitist.

Squires are a business that moved to Brixton. Fair enough. They didn't do it quietly. They made big thing about it.

I did hear guest memberships for roof terrace were given out to some local people. Not sure if this is correct.

Seems to me Squires did a good PR campaign when they came to Brixton. They aren't stupid. They know from long involvement with high end projects in London that they have been involved with that gentrification is an issue. So when they came to Brixton they have been quite clever.

I was at Department store when it opened as it had Brixton Neighborhood forum meeting there.

At that Squires junior gave talk of how community minded Squires are.

As you say guest memberships were at start fairly easy to come by. This was imo no accident. Squires did this at beginning to get good community PR.

I ve heard using the basement space is now pricey for community groups. Vida Walsh is cheaper. So that's gone.

Imo what Squires have done is clever. Making all right noises and then gradually bringing in extra costs. Which will make the space exclusive.

Squires are private business so its up to turn what they do with the property they own. That is how Capitalism works.

They aren't doing local community a favour by coming here. It was them bigging up arrival to Brixton.

Their PR campaign was perfectly planned and executed, just as you might expect from a modern, social media savvy multi-million company. Essentially bribing the reggae store into their building was fantastic PR.

 

[Gramsci]

1)

Finally, yeah, it kind of is about exclusivity. It's a PRIVATE MEMBERS restaurant/bar, which is available to the public at a fee. The public can determine in their own good ways, whether or not they think it represents value for money, or whether they want to be a part of it. I wish that the space had been turned into affordable housing and community projects for the people that need it the most in Brixton. But it wasn't. And it was lying empty for a very long time. There are now, as a result of Squires, a few more hundred people working in Brixton, spending their money. I don't believe in trickle down economics, and so I accept that the poor won't directly benefit from that, but I am 100% sure that a space occupied by a profitable business that attracts money is a better thing for a community than having a massive building with nothing in it but potential.

You have made comments about big capital.


If a left wing government came to power and decided to expropriate Squires family of the department store, to turn it into community space for people that need it, you would not have a problem with Squires family losing it?

 

[Gramsci]

Their PR campaign was perfectly planned and executed, just as you might expect from a modern, social media savvy multi-million company. Essentially bribing the reggae store into their building was fantastic PR.

Ive seen Squires in action. Very suave and clever.

 

[3Zeros]

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend that something like the opening of a private members club might attract opposition not only because it's a prime example of gentrification, but also because it's happening in the context of a wider gentrification process. And that the wider gentrification process is happening in the wider context of austerity.

Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?

 

[editor]

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend that something like the opening of a private members club might attract opposition not only because it's a prime example of gentrification, but also because it's happening in the context of a wider gentrification process. And that the wider gentrification process is happening in the wider context of austerity.

Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?

You've absolutely nailed it there.

 

[alcopop]

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend that something like the opening of a private members club might attract opposition not only because it's a prime example of gentrification, but also because it's happening in the context of a wider gentrification process. And that the wider gentrification process is happening in the wider context of austerity.

Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?

It attracts minimal opposition tbh.