Windrush Square, Brixton - news and discussion

[tarannau]

None of the above wordy guesswork suggests that you were in any way justified in making such a simplistic and distortionary take on matters. I have no idea why you felt empowered to get back onto your reductive 'value for money' hobbyhorse, but it grates that you resort to such cheap tricks again and again.

It's quite easy to make a case for the toilets tbh - the urinals often don't work and Pope's Road shuts quite early, leaving an obvious gap in toilet provision. It also makes far more sense to have conveniences where people are more likely to use them, rather than tucked away down a lesser road of the market.

 

[teuchter]

The toilets in McDonalds, right opposite the square, are open to the public. As are the ones in Honest Foods/Burning Bread on Coldharbour Lane, and the ones in the Dogstar.

 

[tarannau]

And? How many people would know about these options, or feel that they represented an adequate alternative to dedicated public loos?

None of this comes anywhere close to backing up your assertion of course, nor explains why you feel compelled to frame the issue in such a stupidly reductive way to begin with. It strikes me as fundamentally dishonest way of debating - by all means talk over the facts involved, but making assumptive generalisations like that based on imagined comments and absolutely no evidence suggests a certain degree of arrogance or duplicity.

 

[editor]

The toilets in McDonalds, right opposite the square, are open to the public. As are the ones in Honest Foods/Burning Bread on Coldharbour Lane, and the ones in the Dogstar.

The Dogstar isn't open on Mondays and doesn't open until 4pm most days and you have to pay to get in some nights, Burning Bread enjoys erratic opening hours and most people don't know it's there and up until you mentioned it, I had no idea that McDonalds had thrown its toilets open to the general public.

Properly attended public toilets in the square would be far better. That's why they were built there in the first place and it's ridiculous that none were put back.

 

[London_Calling]

Presumably the museum will have public loos whenever it opens. Ritzy are reasonable about it, I've found.

Never even considered the town hall. McDonalds has been a godsend for decades

/toilet chat

 

[teuchter]

Tis true that I've never had any problem using the Ritzy ones even if I'm not there for a film or drink.

Of course properly attended public toilets would be nice, but it can't be denied that it would come at a significant cost. The "that's why they were built there in the first place" argument doesn't really cut it, because they were built (correct me if I'm wrong) at a time when Brixton was a well-to-do shopping centre and semi-suburban neighbourhood and when you could probably employ a full time attendant for tuppence a week. To state the obvious, times have changed since then.

 

[tarannau]

Christ this is mealy mouthed stuff. I'm not too sure how a 'significant cost' comes anywhere close to equating that folks would be up in arms about a lack of imagination or perceived lack of value for money if public toilets were offered. You seem to be obfuscating with apples and oranges comparisons Teuchter.

Brixton is still a comparatively prosperous part of London, very much an entertainment spot as in the past. I'm not sure what relevance this asinine comparison is meant to add. Things have changed so much that there's already a toilet attendant in the Popes Road toilets, who I assume is not paid in tuppence or groats for the week. If anything, with more late night venues, pubs and eateries around that very area, there's arguably more of a case for public conveniences now

 

[editor]

Of course properly attended public toilets would be nice, but it can't be denied that it would come at a significant cost. The "that's why they were built there in the first place" argument doesn't really cut it, because they were built (correct me if I'm wrong) at a time when Brixton was a well-to-do shopping centre and semi-suburban neighbourhood and when you could probably employ a full time attendant for tuppence a week. To state the obvious, times have changed since then.

The toilets were operating for a long, long time after Brixton had ceased to be a "semi-suburban" neighbourhood, silly.

If anything, with more late night venues, pubs and eateries around that very area, there's arguably more of a case for public conveniences now

Absolutely.

 

[Gixxer1000]

gixxer1000 was moaning .

No I was making an observation, the moaning was confined to the fact that a litter trap was created.
Another thought; given that one of the raison d'etre of the square was/is to hold open air functions couldnt the toilets have been recommissioned to serve on a part time basis?
My main criticism of the square is that as a design it was badly compromised when the "exciting" elements were removed (tropical walkthrough greenhouse) and yet the costs appear to have doubled for a lesser scheme.

 

[Gixxer1000]

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.

You're confusing the political decision not to recommision the toilets with the potential for a use of the space they create.

 

[editor]

... (tropical walkthrough greenhouse) ....

That would have been nice. Educational too.

 

[Gixxer1000]

Yes, plan was that it was closed at night for safety reasons but illuminated so you get freaky silhouette through the glass.

 

[Gixxer1000]

No need really, as the space in front of Kings Cross is actually not that much bigger than Windrush Square.

By my Google estimations, about 1.25 x the size.

£6M / 1.25 = £4.8M scaled-down cost for Windrush Square; presumably more if we are to believe the "front end loading" you talk about is significant.

This is how sad I am. Ive researched this properly to put your bullshit to rest.
Kings X =7000m^2
WS = 3000m^2

WS is 0.43 x Kings x

£6m x 0.43= £2.5m
This is half what you are asserting (your guessed sizing) and actually a quarter of what is suggested was the final cost.

 

[teuchter]

The fact that the Popes Road toilets require an attendant is, I imagine, the reason they close at night. The same would apply to the ones in Windrush Square.

In addition I would imagine that the age of the building and infrastructure (and subsurface location) would mean the Windrush Square ones would be a lot more costly to maintain. And they wouldn't conform to modern accessibility standards.

And I haven't said that people would be "up in arms about a lack of imagination" if public toilets were offered. Some people would ask questions about the cost, though, and whoever made the decision would have to be able to justify it on cost grounds.

 

[teuchter]

Another thought; given that one of the raison d'etre of the square was/is to hold open air functions couldnt the toilets have been recommissioned to serve on a part time basis?

Loony Lambeth Councillors Spend Taxpayers' Millions on Toilets open for 20 Days a Year

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea but I can imagine that as a headline in the SLP, or as part of one of the editor's posts.

My main criticism of the square is that as a design it was badly compromised when the "exciting" elements were removed (tropical walkthrough greenhouse) and yet the costs appear to have doubled for a lesser scheme.

That's a fair criticism (and I would also like to have seen a less compromised scheme) but

1) I don't think it's fair to attack the designers on that basis, unless you can show that they were responsible for mis-pricing something along the way
2) You'd have to know what the actual costs involved were/are and you don't. In fact nobody who has posted on this thread knows.

 

[editor]

The fact that the Popes Road toilets require an attendant is, I imagine, the reason they close at night. The same would apply to the ones in Windrush Square.

In addition I would imagine that the age of the building and infrastructure (and subsurface location) would mean the Windrush Square ones would be a lot more costly to maintain. And they wouldn't conform to modern accessibility standards.

And I haven't said that people would be "up in arms about a lack of imagination" if public toilets were offered. Some people would ask questions about the cost, though, and whoever made the decision would have to be able to justify it on cost grounds.

If people had been asked: "would you like toilets to be provided in the square?", what do you think the answer would be?

 

[teuchter]

If people had been asked: "would you like toilets to be provided in the square?", what do you think the answer would be?

A mixture of "yes", "not really bothered" and "how much would it cost?".

What would they say if they were asked "would you like all films at the Ritzy to be free for Lambeth residents"?

 

[Gixxer1000]

Hectually I think you will find that they are being maintained at the moment- its the same cost to prevent them from flooding, used or not.

 

[editor]

A mixture of "yes", "not really bothered" and "how much would it cost?".

How about: "would you prefer slightly less fancy stone paving and toilets or just the fancy stone?"

I'd say some the provision of decent toilets would have been appreciated more by the majority of residents and visitors. What do you think, Mr Windrush Square #1 fan?

 

[Gixxer1000]

It would be interesting to know if that question was asked at consultation.

 

[tarannau]

And besides, let us remember what Teuchter originally said about these toilets, at least before all the backtracking and obfuscation started:

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.

Clearly this is an artificial and forced statement that generalises wildly. It also doesn't tally with what Teuchter's arguing here - despite all the blather, it's as if he's making up this pish as he goes along, isn't it?

FWIW I wouldn't complain if public toilets were present on the square, even if they weren't that interesting or costly. I wouldn't even request a diamond encrusted bidet or anything

 

[editor]

FWIW I wouldn't complain if public toilets were present on the square, even if they weren't that interesting or costly. I wouldn't even request a diamond encrusted bidet or anything

There's certainly enough nearby residents who are fed up having their walls/gardens used as toilets at night.

 

[Gixxer1000]

1) I don't think it's fair to attack the designers on that basis, unless you can show that they were responsible for mis-pricing something along the way

I am critical who ever redesigned the original scheme and removed all the elements that gave it credibility without it going back to consultation.

2) You'd have to know what the actual costs involved were/are and you don't. In fact nobody knows, not even TfL.

Corrected for you, vast sums appear to have spent internally.

 

[Gixxer1000]

Who would have thought the crap rusty fountain took so much time/money/craftsmanship to be so shit;

http://www.hargreavesfoundry.co.uk/casestudies/casestudyview/23

 

[teuchter]

Where do you get your figure of 3000m2 for Windrush Square from? I make it 4630m2* - I have double checked (measured on an OS map) and I'm fairly sure that is correct.

4630/7000 x £6M = £3.97M

The final cost for just WS is suggested as around £4.5M (the £10M final cost you imply is, as far as I can see, the cost including all the other work in central Brixton).



*And no, that does not include Saltoun Rd or any of Effra Rd that was repaved.

 

[teuchter]

Who would have thought the crap rusty fountain took so much time/money/craftsmanship to be so shit;

http://www.hargreavesfoundry.co.uk/casestudies/casestudyview/23

It doesn't say anything about how much money it cost

 

[kyser_soze]

So between no one knowing how much it cost, what the complete extent of the works were (are we talking only about WS, or the re-alignment of the roads, resurfacing etc all the way down the high street), axes being ground by various types, does anyone seriously think we're going to get an answer to this?

I mean Ed would probably argue til the cows come home that even if it only cost £500K that it's still shite VFM, and others would argue the same point at £10m, if that included all the other works.

Has anyone FOId tfl or Lambeth yet?

 

[Gixxer1000]

TfL ;
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/6597.aspx

"Tate Gardens and Windrush Square will be joined together to create a 3000m2 area which will be used for a mix of cultural activities and events."

I did a sanity check on it and it appears correct.

The original scheme always included the road works (actually more originally)

 

[Gixxer1000]

It doesn't say anything about how much money it cost

Fuck me are we going to play a guessing game with this too? Ill tell you this it cost a fuck of a lot to fabricate this weedy, shit little fountain, probably 100k just for the cast, never mind the installation

 

[teuchter]

TfL ;
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/6597.aspx

"Tate Gardens and Windrush Square will be joined together to create a 3000m2 area which will be used for a mix of cultural activities and events."

I did a sanity check on it and it appears correct.

Well, I'm afraid it ain't. I have measured it directly of a CAD version of the OS map. Even if you look at it on Google satellite you can see that it's more than 3000m2.

Maybe they meant that 3000m2 is the effective open area for events.

The original scheme always included the road works (actually more originally)

What was the original scheme, including the roadworks, priced at?