Windrush Square, Brixton - news and discussion

[netbob]

"tree stains" ?

It is mainly the fruit from the plane tree that has been staining the stone I believe.

 

[tarannau]

Like bollocks it has. What are the suspicious grubby stains positioned just under most of the chairs then?

You know, the chairs that more than occasionally look damp and even, ahem, drippingly brown in the morning.

 

[teuchter]

Man starts a poll asking if something is good value or not.
Man omits to mention how much the aforementioned thing actually costs.
Man is made of tumbling, crumbling fail bricks.

It seems like you haven't really cottoned on to the point I'm making - I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to clarify it any further, though. The absence of actual cost information is what this is all about.



I'd like to apologise to all readers for the full stop I missed out earlier, by the way.

 

[Onket]

It is mainly the fruit from the plane tree that has been staining the stone I believe.

Is this a surprise, then?

 

[Badgers]

To be fair, I did have a shitload of barbecue food to prepare that day too. I was distracted, nay focused, by the challenges ahead.

Clearly you weren't worth a leaflet from the attractive Jamaica Day promotional team.

(((Badgers)))

The cut of my jib I suppose

 

[quimcunx]

thank you.

for the record I thought your poll was very pointy indeed.

(((missed points)))

 

[teuchter]

I'd like to point out some missed capitalisation in the post above.

 

[editor]

It seems like you haven't really cottoned on to the point I'm making - I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to clarify it any further, though. The absence of actual cost information is what this is all about.

So this whole thread is a childish exercise to highlight the fact that you can't be bothered to research how much the square actually cost, yes?

Several people have offered opinions based on the reported cost of the square, yet you still scurry about trying to claim some bizarre high moral ground without actually having a clue about the costs.

Great work. Great poll.

Bored with this now.

 

[Gramsci]

So to say the project was too expensive without making any effort to research the actual cost is fine ... and yet to start a thread asking whether criticism of costs without knowing what they were is valid, is somehow in contrast totally pointless?

Sorry Teuchter but your poll is not about whether criticism of costs without knowing them is valid .

The questions in your poll do not ask anything about validity of ones opinions. They merely ask if one thinks it good value for money under certain critieria.

 

[Onket]

So this whole thread is a childish exercise to highlight the fact that you can't be bothered to research how much the square actually cost, yes?

Several people have offered opinions based on the reported cost of the square, yet you still scurry about trying to claim some bizarre high moral ground without actually having a clue about the costs.

Great work. Great poll.

Bored with this now.

 

[editor]

God, you're boring in this thread.

Nothing to add of any worth, just dull, pointless, point-scoring stirring.

*yawn

 

[Crispy]

God, you're boring in this thread.

Nothing to add of any worth, just dull, pointless, point-scoring stirring.

*yawn

I thought dull pointless point scoring was the whole point of this thread?

 

[Gramsci]

This morning the council were doing an experiment to see if they can clean the tree stains off the stone. 4 people observing and one poor sod left to try and do the actual cleaning with an indoor cleaner thingy:

As I walked past I overheard "I think we're going to have to do the whole square".

So the stone stains then?

Outside the ritzy by the end of the week the stone is sticky from spilt beer.

Next time im going to look at stone.

 

[Onket]

I thought dull pointless point scoring was the whole point of this thread?

Correct.

It's not dull though. Not particularly interesting, granted, but not exactly dull.

 

[Onket]

So the stone stains then?

That's basically I was cack-handedly saying in post #548.

They've selected a stone without thinking of possible staining issues, have they?

 

[Crispy]

The only surface that wouldn't stain is inch-thick stainless steel. It's central Brixton and it will pick up a layer of beer, piss, gum, grease and vomit no matter what. The missing piece of the puzzle is regular and rigorous cleaning, something that Lambeth can't afford (but other boroughs can)

 

[Onket]

I'd imagine theres a scale of 'stain repellence' from inch thick steel that wouldn't stain to something else. Rather than one or the other.

 

[teuchter]

So this whole thread is a childish exercise to highlight the fact that you can't be bothered to research how much the square actually cost, yes?

No - more to highlight the fact that some people are happy to make judgements about whether the cost of the square is excessive, a) without actually knowing what it cost and/or b) lacking the expertise necessary to judge the cost meaningfully.

It's an attitude that curses all sorts of things. Jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts, or their context. Usually it doesn't go down so well on U75.

Whether or not I have done any "research" is entirely irrelevant. As it happens I have, and it turns out I can't easily find the facts anywhere. Nor can anyone else it seems.

Several people have offered opinions based on the reported cost of the square,

No "cost of the square" has been reported on this thread, or anywhere else easily accessible on the internet.

 

[tarannau]

Many do have the expertise, however you wrap it up, to consider how else nigh on £10 million could be spent on Brixton and what positive effects that could lead to. Your attempt to distort the other thread into such a reductive argument is a bit bizarre to say the least.

 

[editor]

No - more to highlight the fact that some people are happy to make judgements about whether the cost of the square is excessive, a) without actually knowing what it cost and/or b) lacking the expertise necessary to judge the cost meaningfully.

If you had any real interest in a grown up discussion, I would have thought you would have been better employed researching the actual figures involved rather than starting a pointless thread with a pointless poll full of pointless options.

What's your expertise to judge costing in this area, btw? And why haven't you bothered to research the costs? And why do you keep missing the point of what people are saying?

 

[teuchter]

The questions in your poll do not ask anything about validity of ones opinions. They merely ask if one thinks it good value for money under certain critieria.

See the last three options in the poll.

Also, the poll allows me to see whose opinion is most likely to be reliable. For example, anyone choosing options 5, 6, 7, or 8 may be worth paying attention to.

Only one person ("bob") has answered that they do know how much it cost but sadly they have made no contribution to the thread to share their knowledge with us. We also have gixxer1000, who claims to have benchmarked the cost against other costs. However, they have also declined to share the actual cost, or any details of other comparable schemes, for reasons which are not very clear.

 

[teuchter]

Many do have the expertise, however you wrap it up, to consider how else nigh on £10 million could be spent on Brixton and what positive effects that could lead to. Your attempt to distort the other thread into such a reductive argument is a bit bizarre to say the least.

Part of the reason for creating this thread was to avoid the other thread getting caught up in an argument over this specific point.

Just to repeat myself once again,

No-one here actually knows or is willing to share what the Windrush Square improvements actually cost.

 

[teuchter]

If you had any real interest in a grown up discussion, I would have thought you would have been better employed researching the actual figures involved rather than starting a pointless thread with a pointless poll full of pointless options.

I think the best we can do here is agree that pointlessness is subjective.

What's your expertise to judge costing in this area, btw?

Limited, as previously and repeatedly stated.

And why haven't you bothered to research the costs?

Please refer to multitudinous previous replies.

And why do you keep missing the point of what people are saying?

Once again, we will just have to agree that the question of who is "missing the point" is a subjective matter.

 

[Badgers]

Counted 19 on chairs, 4 on the turd but could not count everyone lounging on the grass tonight at just before 7pm.

Update tomorrow

 

[lang rabbie]

It is mainly the fruit from the plane tree that has been staining the stone I believe.

I didn't think the "bobbles" on plane trees were moist enough to leave a stain when they drop

 

[Gixxer1000]

A few observations;
Do we need to know to the second decimal point how much this scheme cost to pass judgement?
Apparently so Although I think its damning that this information isnt easily extractable.

Your smoke and mirrors re scope is irrelevant in so far as the main body of the works in time/plant/materials was the square.

Progress was painfully slow, not helped no doubt by the fact that the majority of works were undertaken during the winter months/there appeared to be delays in coordinating service ducts.

This was much commented upon at the time, so purely on this basis its a valid comment that the project wasnt efficient.

Also am I just being cynical in noticing that so many of these pavement works (Brixton Water lane/ Brockwell Park) appeared just before the election

 

[Gixxer1000]

We also have gixxer1000, who claims to have benchmarked the cost against other costs .

Although "2nd gear drive-by" tendering . I can tell you that anything over £1.5m is a fucking rip off.

Can you explain why it isnt?
Maybe explain why in this present climate it costs more to "design" something rather than actually construct it

 

[teuchter]

I don't think it's fair to say that the scope of what was covered by the (?)£10M is "irrelevant". There was quite a lot of stuff done other than the square itself. I can't imagine that rearranging traffic signalling and road alignments and working at night and shifting street furniture around and all the rest of it is exactly cheap, or insignificant in comparison to the cost of the square itself.

 

[teuchter]

Although "2nd gear drive-by" tendering . I can tell you that anything over £1.5m is a fucking rip off.

Can you explain why it isnt?
Maybe explain why in this present climate it costs more to "design" something rather than actually construct it

I can't explain why it isn't a 'rip off' because as I keep saying I am expressing no view as far as the cost is concerned. It might be possible to do so if you were to give us some details of these other projects you are comparing it with.

I'm not sure what you mean about it costing more to design than construct, though. What has brought you to that conclusion?

 

[sir.clip]

I dont Care how much it cost.
I think its ok, but in reality there are alot of other parts of Lambeth that could do with alot more important work rather than a decorative makeover for lambeth HQ..

Value for money is hard to judge if the figure is not clear from the begining.
I doubt Lambeth actually know how much it has really cost. so i think not putting a figure on it is actually a good idea. Its a john lewis approach to polls.