Windrush Square, Brixton - news and discussion

[Gixxer1000]

The final cost for just WS is suggested as around £4.5M .

Suggested by whom?

 

[teuchter]

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?

No - would you like to volunteer?

 

[Gixxer1000]

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.





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

LOL hope you subtracted the tree, the toilets etc.

I would suggest that considering EFfra road was closed in the original scheme that the widening of Brixton hill and making it two way was included. Are you saying otherwise? Do you think that the plan was for all Southbound traffic to just stop at a dead end?
The original scheme was priced at 6M

 

[teuchter]

Suggested by whom?

TfL prior to work.

Total cost for all work including high st etc appears to be around 10M - seems plausible to me that the cost of the square itself is around half of that. It might be more - who knows.

Are you still sticking to your earlier assertion that anything >1.5M would be a "rip-off"? I think that's where all this started. I believe it's been shown that a figure more than twice that doesn't seem to be excessive compared to other schemes.

 

[Gixxer1000]

Ive proved by your method that the cost via a TfL delivered scheme should have been 2.5m. That dosent negate my original statement that > 1.5m is a rip off. Have you only ever worked in the public sector?

 

[Gixxer1000]

So you now admit that the original scope had to include extensive reconfiguration of the road network despite what you have been previously stating?

 

[Gixxer1000]

I believe it's been shown that a figure more than twice that doesn't seem to be excessive compared to other schemes.

Are you retarded? Ive proved with quotes from TfL that it should have cost 2.5m (very close to my original quick benchmark)

 

[teuchter]

Ive proved by your method that the cost via a TfL delivered scheme should have been 2.5m. That dosent negate my original statement that > 1.5m is a rip off. Have you only ever worked in the public sector?

Ah, so you are saying it was a rip-off as in, if it was a privately owned square, it could have been delivered for less money?

The problem with this is that it is a publicly owned square.

Would be interesting nonetheless to see some figures for a private project of the same kind of area/spec.

So you now admit that the original scope had to include extensive reconfiguration of the road network despite what you have been previously stating?

Where have I said that the original scope didn't include reconfiguration of the road network?

The only numbers I am aware of are:

£10M final cost for whole of Brixton Centre works

£4.25M projected cost for WS

£6M projected cost for whole of Brixton Centre works (this one is taken on trust from you without backup link)

Are you retarded? Ive proved with quotes from TfL that it should have cost 2.5m (very close to my original quick benchmark)

No - your proof unfortunately contained an error. The area of WS is not 3000m2, but around 4600m2.

 

[Gixxer1000]

£6M projected cost for whole of Brixton Centre works (this one is taken on trust from you without backup link).

post 13, link repeated for you;
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/3500.aspx

No - your proof unfortunately contained an error. The area of WS is not 3000m2, but around 4600m2.

You have no credibility, you have manipulated figures to suit your false premises, I have purely quoted official TfL figures.

 

[Gixxer1000]

Ah, so you are saying it was a rip-off as in, if it was a privately owned square, it could have been delivered for less money?

The problem with this is that it is a publicly owned square.
.

Thats not what I wrote. My point is that TfL and all its wasteful excesses will have increased the cost of this project considerably.

 

[Badgers]

12 seated
2 on the turd

About half a dozen laid out on the grass. Solid showing for about half seven on a cool July evening I thought.

 

[teuchter]

post 13, link repeated for you;
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/3500.aspx

Ok, still not clear to me whether that is supposed to include the high st works as well, but it doesn't look like we're ever going to find out.

You have no credibility, you have manipulated figures to suit your false premises, I have purely quoted official TfL figures.

I haven't manipulated anything.

The TfL figures are wrong - as you'd know if you'd checked them out. Either that or both Google maps and the Ordnance Survey are very wrong. Below you can see a 60m x 50m rectangle marked out. The area of that rectangle is 3000m2. Anyone can see that the area of the new Windrush Square is significantly larger than that.

To be precise, it has an area of 4630m2.

Therefore relative to the Kings Cross scheme on an area basis it would cost around £3.97m. This is before you add on any of the "front-loading" premium for smaller schemes that you were keen to mention earlier in the thread.

 

[teuchter]

Thats not what I wrote. My point is that TfL and all its wasteful excesses will have increased the cost of this project considerably.

Relative to what? How could this have been avoided?

 

[teuchter]

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?

Dunno. Tell me how much bringing the toilets into use would cost, over the lifetime of the stone paving, and then tell me how much the stone paving cost, and then we can subtract one number from the other, and see what kind of a reduction in "fanciness" would be required. That would go against your principles, though, because it would involve looking at it objectively with stuff like real numbers and whatnot.

As for this "Number 1 Fan" stuff - why is it so important to portray me as being so blindly enamored of the new square? I've already said that there is stuff to criticise and stuff that might have been better. My view is simply that given the conditions it had to be created under, I don't think it's a bad job. And reasoned criticism of it is fine - it's the uninformed criticism that irritates me. For example, going off on one about how "staggeringly expensive" it is without even knowing how much it cost.

If it would make you feel better I can give you a run-down of all the things I think aren't great about the design.

 

[editor]

Dunno. Tell me how much bringing the toilets into use would cost, over the lifetime of the stone paving, and then tell me how much the stone paving cost, and then we can subtract one number from the other, and see what kind of a reduction in "fanciness" would be required. That would go against your principles, though, because it would involve looking at it objectively with stuff like real numbers and whatnot.

Unlike you, I've bothered to research and produce budget quotes from official sources which you constantly dismiss while making no effort to research the matter yourself.

As for this "Number 1 Fan" stuff - why is it so important to portray me as being so blindly enamored of the new square? I've already said that there is stuff to criticise and stuff that might have been better. My view is simply that given the conditions it had to be created under, I don't think it's a bad job.

And you certainly come over as its #1 fan, posting more about it than anyone else and rushing to defend every single criticism or trying to rubbish anyone who dares voice a negative opinion.

That ridiculous poll you started was proof enough of how, well, obsessive about this you are.

 

[teuchter]

Dunno. Tell me how much bringing the toilets into use would cost, over the lifetime of the stone paving, and then tell me how much the stone paving cost, and then we can subtract one number from the other, and see what kind of a reduction in "fanciness" would be required.

How about this:

Let's say the existing natural stone paving cost about £65 per m2.
Let's say we replace it with bog standard concrete slabs at a super-cheap price of £15 per m2.
That saves £50 per m2.
Let's say there is 2500m2 of paving.
That is £50 x 3000 which is £150,000.

By my calculations you might manage to employ people on shifts at minimum wage for, say, 20hrs a day for two years for that. And then you'd have to pay for the necessary building/renovation work on top of that.

So my first go at an answer to the question

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

would be:

"you need to think through your question a bit more thoroughly because one of the options doesn't appear to be equivalent in cost to the other, unless I'm missing something."

 

[teuchter]

Another way to look at it would be to say, maybe the paving has a life of 25 years (I imagine it could potentially be more than that). Then a saving of £150,000 represents a saving of £6,000 a year. Good luck running your toilet on that budget!

 

[editor]

How about this:

Let's say the existing natural stone paving cost about £65 per m2.
Let's say we replace it with bog standard concrete slabs at a super-cheap price of £15 per m2.
That saves £50 per m2.
Let's say there is 2500m2 of paving.
That is £50 x 3000 which is £150,000.

By my calculations you might manage to employ people on shifts at minimum wage for, say, 20hrs a day for two years for that. And then you'd have to pay for the necessary building/renovation work on top of that.

So my first go at an answer to the question

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

would be:

"you need to think through your question a bit more thoroughly because one of the options doesn't appear to be equivalent in cost to the other, unless I'm missing something."

Weird how you're quick to try and rubbish people's opinions about the development by throwing around completely unqualified and wild guesses on costings, yet you won't spend any time at all actually researching the real overall cost.

If you're so hung up on costing, why don't you get the actual figures so you've got something to argue against?

 

[Crispy]

They're not wild guesses, they're educated estimates that seem entirely reasonable based on my professional experience.
I would also hesitate to use the word unqualified, given that teuchter has more professional qualifications than i do.

 

[Orang Utan]

it's just a square

 

[editor]

They're not wild guesses, they're educated estimates that seem entirely reasonable based on my professional experience.
I would also hesitate to use the word unqualified, given that teuchter has more professional qualifications than i do.

He's made endless posts mainly rubbishing anyone who doesn't agree with his opinion of the square or how much it may have cost, yet he can't be bothered to to research the actual real costs, and his poll was childishly designed to wind people up and make a ridiculous point.

I can't say I'm impressed with his 'professionalism' in this thread and he's so annoyingly obsessive about being in the right that I've given up on this thread several times.

Which I'm going to do again now.

 

[teuchter]

Weird how you're quick to try and rubbish people's opinions about the development by throwing around completely unqualified and wild guesses on costings, yet you won't spend any time at all actually researching the real overall cost.

If you're so hung up on costing, why don't you get the actual figures so you've got something to argue against?

So, I have to seek out and provide objective refutation of your wild speculation about the overall cost, but you can refute my objective response to your query about comparitive costs by condemning it as wild speculation.

Have I understood the rules properly here?

 

[editor]

So, I have to seek out and provide objective refutation of your wild speculation about the overall cost, but you can refute my objective response to your query about comparitive costs by condemning it as wild speculation.

Have I understood the rules properly here?

My so-called "wild speculation" actually came from official documents showing the costings for the development. Documents which I proved links for.

It seems you know better, so I'll leave you to it.

 

[teuchter]

A press release, giving a single figure as the cost for all the work in Brixton, of which Windrush Square is only part. And along with that no attempt to relate anything to any similar schemes or any kind of going rate.

The reason I've posted so many times on this thread is that I have to keep pointing out the same basic things over and over again.

 

[editor]

A press release, giving a single figure as the cost for all the work in Brixton, of which Windrush Square is only part. And along with that no attempt to relate anything to any similar schemes or any kind of going rate.

The reason I've posted so many times on this thread is that I have to keep pointing out the same basic things over and over again.

Actually, I proved several official links, but instead of just repeating yourself or posting up your wild guesses, why haven't you made any effort to research the costs yourself?

After all, you seem to be positing yourself as the knowledgeable one here, yet you seem to have some bizarre aversion to actually researching anything, despite being asked endless times.

It's a bit weird to be honest and I've grown tired of your condescending attitude, so I'll leave you to it.

Oh, and if you like, you can consider yourself to have "won" whatever point that silly little poll was set up to prove. Well done.

 

[teuchter]

Despite the fact that the burden of proof should be on you, as the one making the unsubstantiated claims in the first place, I have actually spent quite some time trying to find out a proper account of the actual costs. And like everyone else I haven't been able to find one.

 

[Badgers]

Last weekday update for the month of July. Today the infamous and much discussed Windrush Square boasts:

Four seated and an empty turd.

 

[Gixxer1000]

Another way to look at it would be to say, maybe the paving has a life of 25 years (I imagine it could potentially be more than that).

Not in the way they are treating it unfortunately- there was a fucking coach parked on it yesterday

 

[Badgers]

16 seated
1 on turd

 

[Badgers]

13 seated
2 on turd

Around 12:00 today ^