Windrush Square, Brixton - news and discussion

[Crispy]

I'd be utterly amazed if fees outweigh the material/construction costs. Staggered, even.

 

[teuchter]

It would have been informative to have known the scope of works and how the costings were apportioned. For example whether the intrinsically linked road works to remove the one way system (you referred to this work previously as "stuff") is included in the £3M figure. In addition I have suggested that professional (internal) fees probably far outweigh the cost of actual work undertaken. It appears you've asked a simplistic question to which youve received a simplistic answer and so noone is any the wiser.

My understanding from the response I got from TfL as quoted here is that the figure of £2.9m represents the work on the square itself, not including the changes to the gyratory system around St Matthews Church.

What point are you trying to make? If that figure did include the work to the gyratory system then the works to the square would be less than £2.9m.

If I recall correctly, this whole discussion started with the Editor claiming that the square cost £10m. Then there was talk about what figure would represent good value for money - you claimed to be au fait with going rates and stated that anything over £1.5 would be a "rip-off".

Comparison with three other similar and recent/ongoing projects seemed to suggest that the cost (based mainly just on area) would be something around £4m.

It turns out that the actual figure is less than that, suggesting that it is a decent price when compared with similar projects, and twice your estimate of what wouldn't be a "rip-off", suggesting that your estimate was either a bit rubbish, or that you consider any project of this nature as a "rip-off".

In addition I have suggested that professional (internal) fees probably far outweigh the cost of actual work undertaken.

I would agree with Crispy that this seems highly unlikely (assuming that by "actual work" you mean material costs and non-professional labour and related overheads). I have never known of a normal construction project where this has been the case. What has led you to think that this might be so in this instance?

It appears you've asked a simplistic question to which youve received a simplistic answer and so noone is any the wiser.

Feel free to make your own FOI requests to uncover the information that would back up your implausible claims.

 

[Gixxer1000]

You seem unable to grasp the fact that the original proposal required the gyratory to be remodeled and that this is intrical to the scheme and the costing of it. The original scheme was more extensive included all associated roadworks in the costing and was estimated as circa £3m. The final watered down version cost (apparently) was the same and the associated roadworks were not included. Go figure

 

[teuchter]

was estimated as circa £3m.

Where / when / by whom?

 

[editor]

If I recall correctly, this whole discussion started with the Editor claiming that the square cost £10m.

You most definitely do not recall correctly - I simply quoted the officially released figures - but seeing as you're a bit obsessed with this, I can't be bothered any more.

For the record: I don't particularly like the revamped square (apart from the grassy bit at the southern end). Given the cost and disruption, I don't think it represents that much of an improvement, the 'puddle fountain' is utterly useless and poorly executed and the name 'Windswept Square' seems to best sum up what we have now. In My Opinion.

You disagree. Well, there you go.

 

[teuchter]

What I recall clearly is:

Spot on.

Seven million quid on the square and still no toilets.

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.

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".

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.

Seeing as teucher is unable to research this properly, I did it for him - and it look looks like we were underestimating the figures by a considerable amount:

The new Brixton Central Square will link three existing spaces that form the heart of Brixton - Tate Gardens, Windrush Square and St Matthew's Peace Garden. The vision is to create a high quality public space of local, national and international importance that expresses the significance of Brixton as part of the multi-cultural fabric of London.

Gross Max Landscape Architects were appointed in 2004 following an international design competition. The scheme will create space in front of the Ritzy Cinema and Raleigh Hall, providing the opportunity for outdoor public events. Materials have been carefully selected to match the character of the surrounding civic buildings, and artworks in the square will reflect Brixton's multicultural status.

Design for London worked with partners to commission the designs, and is currently working with London Borough of Lambeth to develop a wider vision for Brixton town centre.

Work on the square will start in June 2009 and will be completed by June 2010. Associated highway works on Brixton Hill will be completed by December 2010. The total estimated cost of implementing improvement works to Brixton Central Square and the highways is around £9.5 million, funded by Transport for London and the London Development Agency.

http://www.designforlondon.gov.uk/wh...o/all/brixton/

BTW, has anyone noticed how stained the stone has become in some areas already?

That's an estimated figure, estimated in advance.

That's right, but seeing as I haven't heard anything about it going over budget, or heard any trumpeting that it's been delivered under budget, I'd say it's the most accurate estimate so far.

Unless you know differently, of course.

I have not heard anything either, but that doesn't mean the figure isn't wildly inaccurate, of course.

Something to go on though, yes.

It's the figure from the official site, so I think its fair to say that it's unlikely to be "wildly inaccurate" unless there's been a huge overspend.

Doesn't meet my standards for proper research I'm afraid - for reasons detailed on the other thread.

Here's the official press release for the opening with the total cost: £9.7 million

Mayor unveils new bigger, brighter, greener Windrush Square in Brixton
26 FEBRUARY 2010

Following a nine month makeover and a GLA Group investment of £9.7m, a new-look Windrush Square was officially opened by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, in Brixton today (Friday, 26th February). The Mayor was joined by Tessa Jowell, Minister for London, Lambeth Council leader Steve Reed, and Windrush veterans who travelled to the UK on Empire Windrush in 1948.

Work on the square, which is a flagship project of the Mayor of London’s Great Outdoors Programme, has been carried out by Transport for London in partnership with Lambeth Council, Design for London, and the London Development Agency. The area has now been transformed into a community focused space in the heart of Brixton adding a much-needed venue for local events.

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press...square-brixton

I trust this meets teucher's "standards for proper research" (even if he seems unable to do any himself).

I thought "Phase 3" of the Brixton Town Centre improvements, including the creation of the square, was only slated to cost £4.25million. TfL 2009 leaflet (page 18)

There are certainly a lot of different numbers floating around with very little clarity as to what scope of work they relate to.

It was quite busy yesterday. But not £10 million busy

and then from this thread:

Do you think the new Windrush Square represents good value for money?

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

If you're going to start a poll asking if something is good value or not, at least make the effort to research the amount of money that was actually spent otherwise it's a totally pointless effort.

A more recent estimate put the figure at £9.5m.

http://www.designforlondon.gov.uk/what-we-do/all/brixton/

I don't think there's a date for that article unless I'm missing something so we don't know how up to date it is.

It's not entirely clear whether the figure is just for Phase 3, or all phases, and how much is attributable to the square itself.

It seems that the previous figure of £9.5m was inaccurate.

In fact, it cost another £200,000, taking the total to a fairly staggering £9.7m (see other thread for source).

It's not clear from the press release whether that is just for the square or whether it includes the road realignments and all the other stuff. Also the £9.7m figure seems to be the GLA investment - which is not necessarily the total cost.

Why do you use the adjective "staggering"?

Because nearly £10m is a staggeringly high figure to me.

I don't know if it would be a staggeringly anything cost for a public square refurbishment in London because I don't know what the cost generally of a public square refurbishment in London is. It appears that you have some expectation of what a normal price would be, on account of finding the £10M figure so staggering, but you don't seem to want to share it with us for some reason.

This is all aside from the point that we haven't really established that £10M is the actual cost anyway.

If you wish to dispute the officially published figure, then I suggest you get off your lazy arse and finally do some research of your own because I'm fed up doing it for you.

etc etc etc

People were saying that the cost of the new square was bad value for money, and I was asking how they could come to such a conclusion without knowing what the actual cost with. A number of figures were then thrown around which I questioned. A figure of around £10M was mentioned twice by you, the first time with a quote which if you read it carefully suggests that number actually refers to all of the roadworks too, and the second time with a quote that is a bit vague about what it referred to. It was clear from your subsequent posts that you had taken this £10M figure as the relevant figure and it was in relation to this that you remarked upon the cost being "staggeringly" expensive. When I questioned your shoddy research you tried to have a go at me for being "too lazy" to do my own research, well, I did it and now we know the facts.

How good the square is is a matter of opinion; how much it is is not.

My objection is not to your opinion but the throwing around of ill-researched figures to make unjustified accusations.

 

[Gixxer1000]

do my own research, well, I did it and now we know the facts.
.

Err actually no we dont because by your own admission you dont know what is or isnt included! Think your intent is to bore us into submission.

 

[teuchter]

Unless TfL have lied to me, I'm pretty clear:

What is included: the cost of building the new Windrush square
What is not included: anything else

 

[Laughing Toad]

Someone somewhere else mentioned Windrush square, and it reminded me that I'd seen this picture on the Friends of Henry Tate Library page on the Brixton Society site

Henry's looking nonchalant, and the Ritzy isn't built yet.

 

[newbie]

does anyone know what planning (or maybe other) permission the Ritzy needs to take over a such a chunk of public space, and whether they've got it?

 

[teuchter]

They would need a pavement license I would have thought, unless they own part of the pavement outside the building.

 

[editor]

They would need a pavement license I would have thought, unless they own part of the pavement outside the building.

I imagine newbie's referring to the large, Ritzy-branded section of enclosed seating that's now appeared in the centre of the square, some distance from the seats directly outside the cinema.

 

[Crispy]

Jeez, really? Doesn't sound nice. That's a public square

 

[editor]

Jeez, really? Doesn't sound nice. That's a public square

Well, it does solve the problem of people finding somewhere to sit.

 

[colacubes]

Jeez, really? Doesn't sound nice. That's a public square

I'm a bit conflicted about it. It's good that the square is busy and being used. But at the same time, the fact that it's cordoned off makes it a bit them and us iyswim. I wouldn't mind so much if anyone could plonk themselves there, but as someone who was moved on from the tables outside while waiting for some friends at 10.30 in the morning, when it wasn't even open, it doesn't exactly seem welcoming

 

[nagapie]

And the Ritzy doesn't really care who sits in their chairs and you don't have to eat or drink from them as the assumption is you could just be waiting to see a movie.

Oops, just read last post. Maybe they've started caring.

 

[editor]

So it's clear that problem is that they should have installed more public seating in the first place. Doh! Why didn't they think of that?!

 

[Laughing Toad]

They would need a pavement license I would have thought, unless they own part of the pavement outside the building.

Details of tables and chairs fees payable here.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

So it's clear that problem is that they should have installed more public seating in the first place. Doh! Why didn't they think of that?!

We can't have benches around that just anyone can sit on - they might stay there all day or sleep there or something and look untidy.

 

[editor]

I wouldn't be surprised if some cosy deal was done beforehand, because the Ritzy contributes massively to the success of Windrush Square as a public square. If there wasn't a cafe/bar there, the bringing your own cans of Tennents Super would be the only way to go.

 

[editor]

We can't have benches around that just anyone can sit on - they might stay there all day or sleep there or something and look untidy.

Indeed. The oiks will have to make do with the concrete turd, or sit on the grass outside the Ritzy. Oh, hang on, they took that away.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Indeed. The oiks will have to make do with the concrete turd, or sit on the grass outside the Ritzy. Oh, hang on, they took that away.

Bit of a modern design priority for "public" spaces, to make it difficult for members of the public to hang about for too long. They're redeveloping Shepherds Bush Green up here and I confidently expect them to take out the tables and benches where people currently hang around and chat and play dominoes and other such antisocial activities. Buy an overpriced coffee if you want to sit about!

 

[newbie]

Details of tables and chairs fees payable here.

thankyou, I've never heard of that before.

I didn't count the number of chairs, but assuming they're above the maximum 21 and they're not there after 7pm (are they, I dunno) they pay £824 plus an application fee of £103. Less than a grand for a years worth of very prominent public provision costing millions. How on earth can this be?

The implication of the straightforward tariff is that no planning permission is required, simply an application and payment. Is that really the case?

I kind-of accept the editors point about the Ritzy provision adding to the success of the square, though I'm not really in favour of enclosing public space for private profit. Especially a space like the one around the tree. But if it is to be surely we the people ought to be extracting a much, much higher price than that.

 

[newbie]

what stops them taking over an ever larger area of the square?

 

[quimcunx]

Well when I went past on the way home on Friday the bit outside Ritzy was full, the ritzy annexe was full and all the steps around the annexe were full and there were people standing about drinking drinks they'd evidently bought at the Ritzy. So there is evidently at this time of year a demand for space from Ritzy clientele. Mostly I just sit on the grass (which is, annoyingly, very dry and butt-littered this year) with a drink I've purchased elsewhere. I find this very easy and convenient to do.

I have mixed feelings about it. Does it cost more if the chairs are there after 7pm? They are, I'm sure.

 

[newbie]

£15.50 per hour irrespective of the number of chairs and tables.

 

[teuchter]

Well, it could all be a big conspiracy between the council and the Ritzy, to exclude 'oiks' from the square and make the Ritzy lots of cash.

Or, the reason there isn't more built-in seating could be that the square is supposed to be multi-use and if there was fixed seating everywhere it wouldn't be usable for events, and if the seating wasn't fixed down it would get knicked.

If the Ritzy have to pay the council, then it is some revenue for the council and it helps make the square feel well-used, neither of which seem terrible things to me. There's still plenty of square left.

It also shows that the Ritzy's customers don't consider the space a windswept expanse of "concrete". Seems a mark of a sucessful public space to me.

It's something you commonly see in city squares on the continent.

 

[editor]

It's something you commonly see in city squares on the continent.

What, lots of chairs for the public to use? Yes, indeed.

Lots have nice fountains that you can sit around too.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It's classic "architecture of control" (a term which I may well have picked up via Urban) - I'm sure Crispy could say more.

 

[newbie]

It's something you commonly see in city squares on the continent.

yes I accept that, but did you know when umpteen millions of public money was being ploughed into this project that one- and only one- cafe would be able to colonise a great chunk of the square for a few quid a year? I didn't.

I don't know how much foreign municipalities charge their cafes for the public space they occupy, but my general experience is that there's seldom a single monopolistic cafe, usually there's a red one and a blue one and a striped one and a spotted one, cheek by jowl.

Maybe the Ritzy monopoly will end when the BCA opens (ha ha), but right now this looks like a huge gift from the ratepayers of Lambeth to the shareholders of City Screen Limited, a company which already makes a profit of £1m a year on a turnover of £15m. Why are we subsidising them- if they're going to use our space why aren't we charging a full commercial price for it?