Windrush Square, Brixton - news and discussion

[Minnie_the_Minx]

What's different from the Popes Road toilets or something in the centre of town, say Covent Garden or Soho?

Palming responsibility off onto McDs and a pissoir that only occasionally rises is a terrible solution imo.

Maybe it's a nicer class of drug user/vendor there

More to the point, why do men get facilities and women don't?

 

[teuchter]

Spot on.

Seven million quid on the square and still no toilets.

So, what is it actually worth - the work that has been done for that £7M?

Why won't you give us a number?

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

I'd like to know how much that fountain cost.

Money could have been better spent on loos for ladies

 

[tarannau]

It's alright Minnie. The men's facilities don't work all that often. Both times when I've come up from the tube busting for a mighty urination the pop-up urinal has been distinctly stuck in the floor. I made it into an open PofW once but the other time, short of an amenable policeman with capacious hat, I'm slightly ashamed to say that i needed to join the Brixton Alleyway peeing society.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

It's alright Minnie. The men's facilities don't work all that often. Both times when I've come up from the tube busting for a mighty urination the pop-up urinal has been distinctly stuck in the floor. I made it into an open PofW once but the other time, short of an amenable policeman with capacious hat, I'm slightly ashamed to say that i needed to join the Brixton Alleyway peeing society.

I don't know what it is with men and their bladders

 

[tarannau]

Why do we need to say what's it worth Teuchter? All I know is that I feel that money should have been spent elsewhere - there seem better priorities and projects more likely to produce positive benefits.

It wasn't worth blowing what seems to be most of the regeneration budget, with little sign of bigger things to come, on a multipurpose half hearted square/walkthrough imo. It's just not that exciting or distinctive a scheme, nor does it add much functionality to the area.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Why do we need to say what's it worth Teuchter? All I know is that I fell that money should have been spent elsewhere - there seem better priorities and projects more likely to positive benefits.

It wasn't worth blowing what seems to be most of the regeneration budget, with little sign of bigger things to come, on a multipurpose half hearted square/walkthrough

Not to mention the amount of traffic disruption this all caused. You'd expect something a bit more spectacular for the years of hassle we've put up with

 

[teuchter]

Why do we need to say what's it worth Teuchter?

Because it's completely meaningless to say something is too expensive if you haven't the faintest idea of what the "correct" price is.

Unless you are saying that the scheme is entirely worthless and has not improved anything, in which case £100 would also be too expensive.

If you do think it's entirely worthless, then I'm afraid you are clearly in the minority as most people seem pretty happy with it.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Because it's completely meaningless to say something is too expensive if you haven't the faintest idea of what the "correct" price is.

Unless you are saying that the scheme is entirely worthless and has not improved anything, in which case £100 would also be too expensive.

If you do think it's entirely worthless, then I'm afraid you are clearly in the minority as most people seem pretty happy with it.

I think there was a missing poll option of "better than it was, but still crap". I bet if that option were there, more people would have voted that

However, I am happy with the new traffic layout with the traffic going straight up the Hill rather than round the Church

 

[tarannau]

I'm not sure what you feel it necessary to come across as so patronising tbh. I worked, in a previous life, with plenty of architects and developers and oversight over their spend on various projects. I can't claim utter expertise, but equally it's hardly unreasonable to say that £7m could be spent constructively elsewhere

That, however, is immaterial. There's an opportunity cost to spending so much on one aspect of regeneration and £7m on one square with little purpose seems beyond the pail to me and others it seems. Wouldn't you agree that there seem greater priorities in the area, projects more likely to regenerate or offer more to the wider community?

You seem unable to stop putting words in the mouthes of others either. I have in no way said the development is worthless. And I don't appreciate the vast oversimplification and strawman misuse of the poll if I'm honest.

 

[editor]

I think there was a missing poll option of "better than it was, but still crap". I bet if that option were there, more people would have voted that

That would have got my vote.

 

[Ms T]

Does the 7 million include all the work on the roads/traffic, though, which has much improved traffic flow, and cut down on the number of cars along Effra Road?

 

[kyser_soze]

I was given to understand that there were also substatial waterworks and other such things included in that £7m bill.

Ms T - completely agree with you on the traffic, it's a lot better than it was.

 

[teuchter]

There are lots of things that money could be spent on to benefit the area.

Each has a cost and each has a benefit. If a greater benefit can be derived from a similar cost by using the money elsewhere then it makes sense to do so.

Unfortunately of course, benefits are subjective. I happen to think that the TfL improvements to the centre of Brixton have improved things significantly. More space for pedestrians, no barrier in the middle of the road, a more direct route up the hill and less traffic thundering past Windrush Square, and a better Windrush square that is being used more than it used to be.

Maybe you don't happen to think these things are significant; perhaps I place more value on the quality of public space than you do.

It's fair enough to criticise the design of the scheme itself but once people just start saying something is "too expensive" without any idea of what this kind of work usually costs, or how the cost was distributed across the various elements of the scheme, or how much of it was money that would have had to be spent on road repairs and the like anyway, or how much alternative schemes like refurbing the rec centre would actually cost... it just seems a bit of a meaningless discussion to me. Just a kind of reactionary moaning really.

If someone were to say, well, the road/pavement improvements cost about £1M and the square itself cost £5M and it would cost £3M to refurb the Rec centre or £2M to refurb the indoor market, then don't you agree that that's a very different scenario to, say, one where the road/pavement improvements cost £3M and the square cost £2M and refurbing the rec centre would cost £9M and refurbing the indoor market would cost £6M?

Where has this £7M figure come from, anyway?

The TfL info says that Phase 3 (Windrush Sq and changes to traffic flow around St Matthews etc) was set to cost £4.25M. It's entirely possible there was a cost overrun but it would be good to see where these numbers are coming from.

 

[teuchter]

I was given to understand that there were also substatial waterworks and other such things included in that £7m bill.

.

Who cares! Let's just all throw random numbers around in an ill-informed manner!

 

[editor]

Who cares! Let's just all throw random numbers around in an ill-informed manner!

Seeing as you're so hung up about the numbers, why don't you research the exact final cost?

 

[teuchter]

Seeing as you're so hung up about the numbers, why don't you research the exact final cost?

Because I'm not the one complaining about it being bad value for money. I'm not actually the one who's "hung up about the numbers".

 

[tarannau]

Again, you seem to be arguing from a viewpoint riddled with logical fallacies.

It's not a simple discussion of whether it's bad value for money, or whether people know enough to make educated pricing comparisons, but whether folks could see £7m make a significant and better difference elsewhere in Brixton.

I can't recall anyone uttering the words 'too expensive' other than you Teuchter fwiw.

 

[editor]

Because I'm not the one complaining about it being bad value for money. I'm not actually the one who's "hung up about the numbers".

You're the one disputing the figure that was posted up. So how much did it cost then?

 

[London_Calling]

totally Dwyer.

 

[Crispy]

This and that thread about Brixton pubs are providing excellent entertainment value on the po-faced indignitude scale recently Keep it up!

 

[teuchter]

I can't recall anyone uttering the words 'too expensive' other than you Teuchter fwiw.

There has been repeated allusion to it being too expensive. Just from the past couple of pages:

a space that cost a ton of money
....
expensive stone

I just want something that I think brings benefits to the community commensurate with its cost.
....
Do you think it represents the best value and best use of the space?

I can recall quite hefty figures being bandied about.

Nicer definitely, but not £7m nicer.

Spot on.

I reckon you could have done a bodge job on the older square to provide much the same 'functionality'

Seven million quid on the square and still no toilets.

It wasn't worth blowing what seems to be most of the regeneration budget,

£7m on one square with little purpose seems beyond the pail to me and others it seems.

etc etc etc

 

[teuchter]

You're the one disputing the figure that was posted up.

I'm not disputing, just questioning the source.

So how much did it cost then?

I don't know. Which is one of the reasons I can't offer an opinion on value for money. It's the same reason you can't offer a meaningful opinion on value for money. I'd have thought you would get this point by now. I've only been repeating it for several pages already.

The best figure I have at present is the projected £4.25 including a substantial amount of road realignment. I do not know what proportion of that can be attributed to the square itself.

 

[teuchter]

Saying "OMG outrage this square cost £7m" is pretty much similar to saying "OMG outrage benefit cheats cost the country £3bn".

The numbers are only of any use if put into context and checked for accuracy and what they actually include.

 

[tarannau]

You are comparing apples to oranges Teuchter. People saying that they would prefer the money to be spent elsewhere is not the same as people blankly claiming that it is 'too expensive' with no context whatsoever. This distortion and oversimplification does you no credit whatsoever. Strangely enough people do have a conception of the value of money, particularly if they've been involved in community projects or initiatives - nobody would deny that £7m (or less even) is a soignificant sum

Who has said 'OMG Outrage' then or mentioned anything about benefit cheats then? Don't be a hysterical plum

 

[teuchter]

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the cost of the work is somewhere in the region of £500,000 to £10,000,000.

Do you think the project delivered value for money?

To clarify, when I say value for money, I mean:

Could the same amount of money have been spent on other improvements to the public spaces or buildings in central Brixton and resulted in a greater benefit?

Those who wish to complain about poll options that aren't there, please form an orderly queue. Thank you.

 

[London_Calling]

This and that thread about Brixton pubs are providing excellent entertainment value on the po-faced indignitude scale recently Keep it up!

It's a mass outbreak of Onketitis. . . .

 

[tarannau]

Who has suggested, anecdotally or not, that the work cost in the region of £550k?

I suspect that this might not be the most honest or constructive way to kick off a discussion

 

[London_Calling]

I don't know.

 

[teuchter]

Who has suggested, anecdotally or not, that the work cost in the region of £550k?

I am suggesting, anecdotally, that it seems infeasible that it would have cost less than £500,000.

What do you think the minimum feasible cost would be?