Windrush Square, Brixton - news and discussion

[teuchter]

End of what?

 

[Crispy]

I wouldn't be surprised if a motorist accidentally drove over that part, to be honest.

About as likely as driving on any other pavement, surely? They'd have to mount the kerb and there's a change in materials

 

[editor]

About as likely as driving on any other pavement, surely? They'd have to mount the kerb and there's a change in materials

The kerb is much lower than the surrounding streets, no?

 

[teuchter]

The kerb is much lower than the surrounding streets, no?

It's level at the pedestrian crossing but I think it's a normal kerb elsewhere.

 

[Crispy]

The kerb is 100mm from street level, if the planning drawings are correct, but I will check and assess for myself next time I'm down there.

 

[teuchter]

 

[Onket]

It's level at the pedestrian crossing but I think it's a normal kerb elsewhere.

It's possible then, that the zebra crossing might be mistaken for a crossroads.

 

[editor]

Whatever the kerbage, I still don't like the way that part of the square is designed.

 

[Onket]

I wouldn't be surprised if a motorist accidentally drove over that part, to be honest.

 

[Gramsci]

During the long are changing "consultation" on the square that part of Effra Road was to be closed off permanently. The Square was to be bigger and connect up Tate Gdns , St Matthews Peace Garden and the Windrush garden. Due to protests by Effra Road Group this didnt happen.

However the Officers involved were still pushing for the closing of Effra road to be agreed later at some future "consultation". The other idea from Officers was to close it off for big events. This means that in officers eyes this present design of Effra road was a compromise unwillingly forced on them by joe public.

Might explain why it looks poor in design terms.

 

[Badgers]

13, perhaps 14 seated tonight.

Apologies for lack of data, the bus was going fast. More to follow.

 

[Gramsci]

Jesus Christ!!!

Six pages and numerous post on semantics ! !

In order to know if a project represents value for money, we don't only need to know how much it has costed, but also what were the aims of the project and if those aims have been achieved. It is too soon to evaluate the success of Windrush Square, so all you are saying, guys, doesn't have any sense until some more time passes and then you can do a proper evaluation.

I doubt, nevertheless, that TFL and the council have embarqued on such a a project without making the appropiate studies/research and proving "a priori" that will represent value for money. After all, everything that attracts funding nowadays must be effective, efficient and economic (represent value 4 money).



The project aimed to create a safe, high-quality public space. The rationale behind was to avoid those "collectives perceived as threatening" to gather in groups. Thats why there are no benches and chairs are grouped in a maximum of three. I think its called "designing out crime". Another aim was to give the square an identity, to promote sociability (everytime I pass by there is quite a lot of people on the grass enjoying the sun), and to ease people's movement.

Section 106 why this user name? Do you work in planning? SEction 106 is a technical term for a planning agreemt between a developer and Council.

Surpised Teuchter hasnt pulled you up about designing out crime in your post. (By the way i agree with you the square was designed in this way.

When you say "collectives percieved as threatening" does this include the green anarchists the police arrested ages ago before the present sq for giving out free Vegan food and leaflets?

Being involved to some extent in the "consultation" process for the design of the square i dont have much faith in LBL or TFLs research into the long term benefits of a new sq.

 

[Badgers]

2 on the seats
2 on the turd

That was just past 11pm last night though.

 

[tarannau]

They were having The Great Sprayclean Pt4 this morning, 6 portly men in hi-vis tops attacking the area under the tree with halfheated lack of gusto. To be fair, this is the first time I've seen them past the Ritzy, so it's progress of a sort. Will check out just how much cleaner it looks later on

 

[teuchter]

About 11 seated this morning around 9.30.

 

[Onket]

Halfheated, eh. Interesting.

 

[Gixxer1000]

Incredible that no one has been able to come up with a solution for the underground toilets. The overpriced rubbish architectual "solution" we currently have was to paint them and put some mesh across (effectively created a litter trap).
Personally Id have put a lighting/projection system in them given how central they are.

 

[Crispy]

There was a report done by urban splash I think, I've linked to it somewhere on this thread. Loads of great ideas for using the underground space. No money for it.

 

[Orang Utan]

put a club down there - like ginglik/public life

 

[Crispy]

Is that the one in shoreditch?
The brixton ones are quite a bit smaller, unfortunately

 

[Orang Utan]

public life is in whitechapel, next to spitalfields church and ginglik is on shepherd's bush green.

 

[Orang Utan]

or they could always be actually used as toilets

 

[teuchter]

Either you do something interesting with them, and people complain about wasting money, or do something cheap with them, and people complain about it not being interesting.

 

[Badgers]

Only 1 seat in use this morning

 

[Gixxer1000]

Either you do something interesting with them, and people complain about wasting money, or do something cheap with them, and people complain about it not being interesting.

What a tortured life it is being an architectural genius, the philistines dont bow down before you. Seek solice in knowing that one day in the future your work on sightlines/reflected ceiling plans/colour swatches will be recognised.

 

[teuchter]

What a tortured life it is being an architectural genius, the philistines dont bow down before you. Seek solice in knowing that one day in the future your work on sightlines/reflected ceiling plans/colour swatches will be recognised.

Is there a traumatic event in your past that occurred at the hands of an architect/designer/landscape architect? What happened?

I doubt the designers had much say in the decision about what to do with the toilets btw. As Crispy alluded to earlier, it was mainly a financial/political decision.

 

[tarannau]

Teuchter is chatting misrepresentative rubbish once again though - I can't find or remember any mention of anybody suggesting that investing in public toilets would be a waste of money. Nor can I find any record of folks whining on about 'uninteresting' public toilet provision, bemoaning the cost. I suspect he's created this artificial position solely for effect

 

[teuchter]

gixxer1000 was moaning about the fact that the toilets have just been painted instead of his suggestion of a "light projection" and half of this thread is people moaning about the cost of various aspects of the scheme.

 

[tarannau]

Yes, but it's an obvious and somewhat mischievous fallacy to try and conflating the two into something representing the bulk of public opinion. It's entirely dishonest to leave the impression that anyone here has suggested that installing toilets would meet with criticism over costs or not being interesting enough. I don't know why you have to attempt tricks like this - it's more than a little snide and unnecessary

 

[teuchter]

I didn't say anything about the "bulk of public opinion". I said that people will complain either way. People love to complain about stuff and furthermore many happily complain without even knowing the relevant facts (as demonstrated very clearly with regard to the issue of the overall costs of the square). It's just an observation.

Had the toilets been brought back into use, there may not have been many direct complaints, but there would have been a significant cost to it, and the money would have had to come from somewhere, and people love to complain about council tax being too high.

As for the question of whether there is a case for reopening them as toilets - I can see that there is a case to say that the cost would be unjustified, seeing as there are already public toilets in Pope's road, there is already the urinal on Electric Avenue, and there is the scheme where various bars etc in Brixton centre have agreed to make their facilities available for non-customers. So it does seem that it would be a duplication of existing provision at considerable cost. I am willing to hear any arguments to the contrary, though.