Windrush Square, Brixton - news and discussion

[editor]

Why should skateboarders get to use the new square when they have a perfectly good skate park about 5 minutes away on Stockwell Road?

Why would someone try a new restaurant when there's a perfectly good one 5 minutes away?

 

[teuchter]

U say in later post that S by D was relevant to circulation routes in postwar housing estates. This is a square not a housing estate.

Problems on estates come from more than one source. This thread is about a square. One of my problems with S by D is that something that was supposed to be used for large estates gets used on other projects like this.

I think I made it clear that I was mentioning postwar housing estates as background to the thinking that currently is embodied in "Secure by Design" guidelines.

Yes problems on housing estates come from lots of sources. One of those is spaces which are not overlooked or cared for. Because there are also problems that do not spring directly from this, doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

You say that your problem with S by D is that it is "something that was supposed to be used for large estates gets used on other projects like this". Firstly - I amn't aware of any mention anywhere, except from you that "Secured by Design" principals have been applied to the square. In any case, even if someone says they have - so what? It is just a name for a set of policies. Who cares what you call it.

The question is, what, specifically, has been applied to the square, that you think is a result of "S by D" type thinking, that has been detrimental?

You haven't answered the question about whether you disagree that making people feel safe to use the space is a sound principle.

What do you want? Do you want more stuff on the square for people to hide behind, out of the view of passers by? Do you think that would make it a better space? If people want to do stuff covertly, then is a public space the right place to provide facility to do so? Isn't the clue in the term "public space"?

The objection to S and D is that imo Police views trump local opinion. There was a lot of public consultation on the square. If S by D was to be used then why bother with making local people appear they have a big say in it when they dont.

What evidence do you have that "Police views" trump local opinion?

It seems that one of the missed opportunities for the space - the closure of the section of Effra Road - was missed because of objections from local people (according to posts on this thread at least). It seems that the local authorities (and presumably the police) would have been OK with this closure, but it was the public consultation that resulted in it not happening, because of concerns about safety and the fact that apparently these people would feel safer walking across the square if there was traffic on that bit of road.

We will have to see how it goes but on first seeing the finished square I was surprised how obviously it was designed for easy (cheap) maintenance

Shocking - designing stuff for easy maintenance - imagine that! We all know how people like to see lots of public money being spent on the maintenance of public space and buildings (cf grumblings about City Hall window cleaning). And they love to see stuff falling apart because the local authority can't afford to, or won't, spend enough money on their upkeep (cf most housing estates)

and Policing. Saves the Police a lot of manpower if they have good sightlines across the square. Last Friday I saw one copper standing outside Kentucky looking across the square. I thought that now it just needs one copper to police the whole space. Brilliant design.

Again, shocking

Is this going to be a convivial space where people can interact in a spontaneous way? Or are we all getting to used to being under under "benevolent" surveillance?

Does the fact that people can see people doing stuff prevent them from acting in a convivial and spontaneous way? What kind of convivial spontaneity, specifically, do believe it going to be prevented by the fact that someone can see most of the square from the KFC corner?

Have u read Ground Control?


http://www.annaminton.com/Ground_Control.htm

No, but I'm familiar with most of the issues discussed there.

I totally agree that the development of privately controlled "public space" is not a positive thing. Gargantuan hopping malls, gated estates, privately run streets, that kind of thing.

But you are confusing two different things: on one hand, privately owned spaces where the owners of those spaces can enforce whatever rules they want (whether this is dress codes or photography bans or whatever), and on the other hand, true public spaces and questions about the way they are surveilled/policed.

As I think I already said on this thread, I am not happy with the idea, for example, that street drinkers be moved on from Windrush square. But that is a political/policing policy. You can have a square which is easily policed in the sense that most activity on it is visible from the perimeter, where street drinkers are tolerated. Or you can have a square where much activity is not visible from its perimeter, and yet have a policy where street drinkers are moved on.

In other words, if you are unhappy about the way the square is policed, then your argument should be with the politicians who decide that, not with the design of the square. Unless there is something about the design of the square that makes the enforcement of those political decisions easier to the detriment of the quality of the space. And I don't see that that is the case, and you haven't explained why you think it is the case.

 

[Jonti]

The fetish with "easy-to-police" spaces is more than faintly paranoid and ridiculous.

In Brixton, "easy-to-police" means one cannot even have a bus shelter outside KFC. It's a small but vital sacrifice citizens are expected to pay, to make the area "easy-to-police". It's essentially a rubbish and paranoid mantra.

FFS, a shopping mall, arcade or market is not "easy-to-police", but that's not necessarily a problem, is it?

 

[Rushy]

The fetish with "easy-to-police" spaces is more than faintly paranoid and ridiculous.

In Brixton, "easy-to-police" means one cannot even have a bus shelter outside KFC. It's a small but vital sacrifice citizens are expected to pay, to make the area "easy-to-police". It's essentially a rubbish and paranoid mantra.

There is a bus shelter more or less outside KFC. Last night, about 6.15pm, it was full of blokes with a stereo having a 'party'.

 

[teuchter]

What's all this stuff about bus shelters Jonti?

 

[el-ahrairah]

Have we? I seem to have missed quite a lot.

It's all in the interpretation, LC!

 

[tarannau]

They removed the bus shelter on KFC corner to deter ne'er do wells. Now they either stand where the shelter used to be, or move down the road slightly to the other stop.

Bonkers.

 

[Jonti]

That's right.

The case of the missing bus-shelter outside KFC formed an amusing subtext to the doomed Bazaar project. As tarannau says, there used to be a bus shelter there, but it was removed. I understand this was at the request of the Police, as it has been identified as a small but significant part of the infrastructure of organised crime and depravity that grips the nation. Allegedly.

Now, folks waiting for the 250 to Croydon stand in the rain. One hopes they are at least warmed by the thought that their cold and discomfort is bringing the local weed retailers to their knees.

Folks who'd spotted this particular insanity didn't rate the chances of the Brixton Bazaar surviving on that corner for long. Heck, if a bus-shelter for the 250 bus poses an intolerable threat to policing in Brixton, then who knows what effect half-a-dozen market stalls on that corner would have!

It hardly bears thinking about!

 

[teuchter]

The question remains - what specifically has been missed out from the new square, as a result of "policing concerns", that would have made it a better space?

 

[Gramsci]

You say that your problem with S by D is that it is "something that was supposed to be used for large estates gets used on other projects like this". Firstly - I amn't aware of any mention anywhere, except from you that "Secured by Design" principals have been applied to the square. In any case, even if someone says they have - so what? It is just a name for a set of policies. Who cares what you call it.

The question is, what, specifically, has been applied to the square, that you think is a result of "S by D" type thinking, that has been detrimental?

You haven't answered the question about whether you disagree that making people feel safe to use the space is a sound principle.

Use S by D is clear from Council literature that I quoted in an earlier post. Its also here,

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/exeres/177E365C-4B68-4E19-A56E-085BDD6EB47B.htm

And before u say anything the webpage learly says that this is to be applied to large regeneration projects.

Making something safe can be done by for example having a full time gardener onsite. If you are asking how i think a public space can be made safe theres one example. Dont come back saying that would cost to much as thats not the question u asked.

It is-- and here i need to back to Ground Control-- leading to public space becoming placed of surveillance and regulation from above. Rather than spaces where people can interact in a spontaneous way. The Eds name of Windswept square is apt.

The thing is if the Council/Tfl had just decided to move the traffic and pave the area without making such a song and dance of it i wouldnt commented.

Its the Council /GLC thats been going on about this being some great public space .

 

[Gramsci]

I agree. The reason its like this is because it incorporates the principles of "Secured by Design".

"Public consultation was carried out in 2005 and showed that the
community was keen to see the area developed into a safer and
more secure place to be at all times of the day. The local police
and Lambeth Council were active in the design development of
the square to ensure that these concerns were addressed.
The open design of the square will mean that anyone walking
through it can see who is in the area and what they are doing.
Combined with carefully placed CCTV cameras and improved
lighting, this will enhance the feeling of security".

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Transforming-Brixton-Town-Centre-Phase-Three.pdf

For the benefit of Teuchter previous post.I think its clear who had big say in layout of square.

I was at some of the early "consultation" on this so i know what happened to it.

 

[London_Calling]

Gramsci - I know you've only been a member here for eight years but could you have a word about the quoting thing. Cheers.

 

[Crispy]

i've had a bash at fixing the quotes

 

[Choc]

that place is far out man......

when you know the "old" brixton it seems unreal.

i went over it last midnight and literally couldn't believe my eyes. (and i already was surprised to sit in a new victoria line tain beforehand -i think gentrification is finally taking place [whilst i lived there of course it was only talked about but not around but now its happening :0)

strangely scattered chairs around too!

 

[teuchter]

Use S by D is clear from Council literature that I quoted in an earlier post. Its also here,

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/exeres/177E365C-4B68-4E19-A56E-085BDD6EB47B.htm

And before u say anything the webpage learly says that this is to be applied to large regeneration projects.

Making something safe can be done by for example having a full time gardener onsite. If you are asking how i think a public space can be made safe theres one example. Dont come back saying that would cost to much as thats not the question u asked.

It is-- and here i need to back to Ground Control-- leading to public space becoming placed of surveillance and regulation from above. Rather than spaces where people can interact in a spontaneous way. The Eds name of Windswept square is apt.

The thing is if the Council/Tfl had just decided to move the traffic and pave the area without making such a song and dance of it i wouldnt commented.

Its the Council /GLC thats been going on about this being some great public space .

I'm not arguing about the fact that the police and others had an input into the design of the space.

You still haven't said specifically what it is you don't like about the design. You say you would be happy with there being a gardener. For some reason you are happy to be surveilled by a gardener but not anyone else. And I take it this would be a 24hr gardener.

What benefit would introducing the gardener provide? Would it allow you to build some walls and stuff for people to sit behind, that the gardener could then monitor? Would it then be a better public space?

 

[Gramsci]

i've had a bash at fixing the quotes

Thanks Crispy

8 years and my computer skills are still C-

 

[Jonti]

I don't know why you're being so defensive about Windswept Square, teuchter. The nomenclatura got what they paid £4m for, so they're happy.

I'm certainly prepared to believe it would have been better to have ended up with something more like Golden Square in Soho, but hey! I guess Soho doesn't have the problems that Brixton has.

 

[krtek a houby]

I'm certainly prepared to believe it would have been better to have ended up with something more like Golden Square in Soho, but hey! I guess Soho doesn't have the problems that Brixton has.

One imagines Soho has it's own particular problems, surely?

 

[Gramsci]

Well here goes. Looked up my copy of Anna Mintons book Ground Control pages 70-74 summarise S by D. Here is my summary of it.

S by D based on design principle of Defensible Space coined by Oscar Newman in 1973 book Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City.

Researching 3 deprived neighbourhoods he found that if residents could mark boundaries they could feel ownership of space.

For politicians and it holds the promise that crime can be designed out. It also fits in with Broken Window theory of policing. Rather than deal with the political and economic causes of deprivations S by D and Broken Windows policing provides seemingly easy solution to social problems.

Came to UK in early 1970s. It has been used in all sorts of developments not just deprived estates.

Opposing view to Newman was that of Jane Jacobs in her book The Death and Life of the Great American Cities. Her argument was for traditional street patterns where "eyes on the street" were a natural surveillance. That strangers were not seen as a fear as in Newmans work.

Those who oppose S by D argue it causes people to be more fearful of interacting with strangers. That it does not decrease crime.

Secured by Design was spearheaded by ACPO in 1998. Influenced by US Crime Prevention through Environmental Design CPTED.

This has lead to Police rather than Architects responsible for the way places look.

Anna Minton book contains the example of residents in Fazakerley who worked with a firm of Dutch Architects to set out a scheme only to find it ditched as it didnt fit in with S by D.

 

[Gramsci]

One imagines Soho has it's own particular problems, surely?

I use Golden sq and Soho sq. Soho sq is prettier.

Interesting examples in the light of me using A Mintons work. Both squares have gardeners who daily maintain the squares. They dont intrude on people but there presence does make the squares feel safe. There are gardeners huts in each square. It not that Gardeners pry into what people do its more that they are "eyes on the square" if anything does happen.

Both squares are surrounded by buildings which are used all day as offices. The ground floors are offices, coffee shop and bars. So there is natural surveillance.

They are closed at night.

The mixture of people in Soho means that its a tolerant area.

Interestingly many of these squares were private years ago.

They do have bye laws on behaviour which are posted up at entrance to squares.

The hard drug dealing takes place in other parts of the West End.

 

[Jonti]

Her argument was for traditional street patterns where "eyes on the street" were a natural surveillance. That strangers were not seen as a fear as in Newmans work.

Those who oppose S by D argue it causes people to be more fearful of interacting with strangers. That it does not decrease crime.

This is coming to the nub of the matter, I think.

As architecture, Windswept Square speaks volumes about the distrust of the nomenclatura for the rest of us.

 

[Gramsci]

I'm not arguing about the fact that the police and others had an input into the design of the space.

You still haven't said specifically what it is you don't like about the design. You say you would be happy with there being a gardener. For some reason you are happy to be surveilled by a gardener but not anyone else. And I take it this would be a 24hr gardener.

What benefit would introducing the gardener provide? Would it allow you to build some walls and stuff for people to sit behind, that the gardener could then monitor? Would it then be a better public space?

See above post. I was chatting to someone to day about the Sq. Seems S by D did play an important part in sq.

However the issue at this point is how the square will be policed and how the Council will allow its use.

I was told that the police moved the Skaterboarders on the same day i took photos. I hope this isnt the way the square is going to be policed.

 

[pboi]

its clearly not for Skateboarders, so dont be surprised if they are moved on

 

[teuchter]

See above post. I was chatting to someone to day about the Sq. Seems S by D did play an important part in sq.

However the issue at this point is how the square will be policed and how the Council will allow its use.

I was told that the police moved the Skaterboarders on the same day i took photos. I hope this isnt the way the square is going to be policed.

So the issue isn't with the design of it after all, but the manner in which it is policed?

 

[teuchter]

This is coming to the nub of the matter, I think.

As architecture, Windswept Square speaks volumes about the distrust of the nomenclatura for the rest of us.

Still waiting for a specific example of what kind of thing you think would make it a better space.

 

[MAD-T-REX]

The question remains - what specifically has been missed out from the new square, as a result of "policing concerns", that would have made it a better space?

The entire square should be surrounded by 10 foot high dominoes.

Opposing view to Newman was that of Jane Jacobs in her book The Death and Life of the Great American Cities. Her argument was for traditional street patterns where "eyes on the street" were a natural surveillance. That strangers were not seen as a fear as in Newmans work.

I doubt Jacobs would have any problems with the square's design. It is open, easy to cross and lends itself to a wide variety of uses at different times of the day, ensuring that there are always people around to see what is happening there. Disconnecting a public space in an urban area from the world around it makes it inherently unsafe (e.g. every park dumped in a residential area in an attempt to relieve urban blight)

 

[Gramsci]

So the issue isn't with the design of it after all, but the manner in which it is policed?

Its both.

As its done now the contstructive way forward is to see how its policed fron now on.

There was a thread a while back about the Greens who were giving away free veggie food in the Tate gardens on sundays who the police arrested.

Some of us complained to Cllrs about this.

Id be curious to see what happens if something like this happens again.

 

[Gramsci]

its clearly not for Skateboarders, so dont be surprised if they are moved on

Who says?

Clearly some posters like me thought it was ok.

 

[Gramsci]

The entire square should be surrounded by 10 foot high dominoes.


I doubt Jacobs would have any problems with the square's design. It is open, easy to cross and lends itself to a wide variety of uses at different times of the day, ensuring that there are always people around to see what is happening there. Disconnecting a public space in an urban area from the world around it makes it inherently unsafe (e.g. every park dumped in a residential area in an attempt to relieve urban blight)

Fair point. Its how the future use is controlled thats now the question.

Interesting critique of Jane Jacobs here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/12/jane-jacobs-new-york-history

 

[lang rabbie]

I suspect Jane Jacobs would have sided with those who want to see a cafe to bring extra life to the square all year round, rather than those who seem to have designed out the cafe on some purist principle that any above ground structure would be an encroachment of common land and contravene the Rush Common Act 1806.

I reckon that a temporary cafe [to last until a long term solution for the loos was sorted out] could have been built for not much more than the cost of that absurd granite turd.