# Brixton's Culture Blanding Out



## hatboy (Mar 21, 2004)

Reposted from another thread.

Sod all these bland new places. I couldn't give a flying fuck about any of them.

And you just watch "The Queens". That pub is being kept ticking over with no identity after the characters and drunks have been "ethnically cleansed" while developers buy up the neglected but central Pullross Rd/Bellefield Rd area, flog it to conservative young professionals who will then see The Queens become a "charming little Gastro pub" - just you wait and see.

I am HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS of Lambeth's property sell-offs. 

The sign outside Red Post Cafe says something about another crack house closure. It wasn't. But the building belongs to Lambeth. Why not kill two birds with one stone and get rid of a noisy Jamaican cafe and free up some property for sale at the same time! 

Something big's going on. We'll see Brixton a pale (in more ways than one) shadow of itself in the future, with anyone and anything remotely challenging to the new gentry silenced or removed. This is the plan for Brixton and London.

It was partly because of the very marginality of Brixton that it's creativity was born.

I don't see how labelling Brixton a "cultural quarter" while at the same time mainstreaming it and disassociating it from unconventional people, the mad and the poor is compatible.

Discuss.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 21, 2004)

As I posted up elsewhere Ive heard rumours that the Council(the present Lib/Dem Tory administration) is working itself up for more sales of "empty" housing to developers.If it can get the Short/Life or long term squatters out.(See St Agnes thread etc).

 As a lot of the people who have helped make Brixton a "cultural quarter" live in such property Hatboys predictions could be sooner rather than later.


----------



## Dubversion (Mar 22, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Discuss.




sad to say, i can't think of much to discuss. i think you've pretty much nailed, it hatboy


----------



## nick1181 (Mar 22, 2004)

It isn't just Brixton, this is happening allover. In some ways it's a good thing. In others it isn't. Brighton ten years ago was all fish and chip restaurants, it's a lot more interesting now... but now it's clangingly middle classed. All these young home-owners sitting on flats worth 200k.


----------



## fanta (Mar 22, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Discuss.



Even if this is true, nothing is permanent. Everything is temporary. It is not the end of the world. There are much more urgent and  important things for the pessimists to be wringing their hands about.


----------



## aurora green (Mar 22, 2004)

Yeah, I'd agree it's the ever widening gap betwen rich and poor that exacerbates things.
The demise of the local pub, I mean how many do you know that have closed and developed into 'luxury' flats? The eviction of nearly all the squatters, no more social centers like 121 or cooltan or Button factory. 
It feels as if the only people being catered for are the cappicino sipping, property owning types, The more disadvantaged or marginalized peoples ability to organise for themselves is deminishing as rents go sky high.
The other day, I was meeting my kids dad in Brixton and we arranged to meet at the Lounge after hearing good stuff about it, but when we got there and looked in the window, everyone in there was white, and we just didn't fancy it. 
I dont know what can be done, but giving local people opportunities  to run shops, stalls, cafes and bars could help things, but doing stuff like privatising the market just going to make things worse.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 22, 2004)

what nick1181 said.
Plus-once you got capitalism, gentrification happens. I can see the place getting staider and more bourgeois, all the vitality "designered" out of it-but, on the bright side, you won't ever completely kill its' individuality, because you can't drive the most long-standing parts of the community out of it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 22, 2004)

got a phone call last night off old landlady from the White Horse who was there for a years (when it was a slightly er... rougher pub).

She was absolutely stunned when I told her what had happened to Brixton and its pubs.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 22, 2004)

Regarding those parts of this problem that have Lambeth  at their root -- and that is most of them in one way or another -- there will be elections next year (that's right, isn't it?) and the Lib Dem/Tory coalition are, IMV, trying to push forward as much of their agenda as they can in the remaining 14 months of their current term of office.  Even if it means telling people  a lot of bare faced lies.  So yes,  I am sure there is shit going down and we have to stand up to it but hopefully the Lib-Tories won't be there come next May. That won't make things perfect but hopefully the frenzy of destruction and deception will stop. Hopefully.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 22, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Even if this is true, nothing is permanent. Everything is temporary. It is not the end of the world. There are much more urgent and  important things for the pessimists to be wringing their hands about.



What on earth are you on about? Genuinely


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 22, 2004)

*Bookflaps*




			
				aurora green said:
			
		

> we arranged to meet at the Lounge after hearing good stuff about it, but when we got there and looked in the window, everyone in there was black, and we just didn't fancy it.
> I dont know what can be done, but giving local people opportunities  to run shops, stalls, cafes and bars could help things,






			
				aurora green said:
			
		

> we arranged to meet at the Lounge after hearing good stuff about it, but when we got there and looked in the window, everyone in there was white, and we just didn't fancy it.
> I dont know what can be done, but giving local people opportunities  to run shops, stalls, cafes and bars could help things,



yessirreeeee


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 22, 2004)

*Racism?*




			
				hatboy said:
			
		

> Something big's going on. We'll see Brixton a pale (in more ways than one) shadow of itself in the future,



Explain please.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 22, 2004)

ignoring ern's trolling...and raising one of hatboys earlier points


> I am HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS of Lambeth's property sell-offs.
> 
> The sign outside Red Post Cafe says something about another crack house closure. It wasn't. But the building belongs to Lambeth


is it my imagination, or are the LibDems running the show now desperate to flog off everything that ain't nailed down?


----------



## aurora green (Mar 22, 2004)

Ernestolynch, I dont think its right that you deliberately misquote me.
I am confused.  The reason I am put off going to an exclusively white place, is 'cos I just dont feel comfotable hanging out in brixton in such a place. I live a huge estate, my kids go to school here, I just prefer a mixed vibe.
I am gutted if I can be misunderstood here as rascist, perhaps I am not understanding your point, and you could explain it to me.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

Ignore ern he's just being a prick again.


----------



## fanta (Mar 23, 2004)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> What on earth are you on about? Genuinely



That I do not share the apocolyptic view of Brixton's fate becuase of change. 

Basically.


----------



## fanta (Mar 23, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> The other day, I was meeting my kids dad in Brixton and we arranged to meet at the Lounge after hearing good stuff about it, but when we got there and looked in the window, everyone in there was white, and we just didn't fancy it.



Terrible! Full of white people! Urrgh, how horrible. Yuck! That is why I stay out of Brick Lane - full of brown people. Disgusting! And Chinatown is full of yellow people. Vomit!

What the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## fanta (Mar 23, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> what nick1181 said.
> Plus-once you got capitalism, gentrification happens. I can see the place getting staider and more bourgeois, all the vitality "designered" out of it-but, on the bright side, you won't ever completely kill its' individuality, because you can't drive the most long-standing parts of the community out of it.



Yes but it is capitalism (not defending it per se) that was so influential in shaping what Brixton became! My partner's mum from Jamaica for example - her reaction to the 'no blacks no Irish & no dogs' capitalism of the 1950's was typical. It said: sod you, we'll buy our own property. And she did, and became an owner occupier.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Ernestolynch, I dont think its right that you deliberately misquote me.
> I am confused.  The reason I am put off going to an exclusively white place, is 'cos I just dont feel comfotable hanging out in brixton in such a place. I live a huge estate, my kids go to school here, I just prefer a mixed vibe.
> I am gutted if I can be misunderstood here as rascist, perhaps I am not understanding your point, and you could explain it to me.



If a Daily Mail reader from Tunbridge Wells posted here, saying that she wouldn't enter a restaurant full of black people, because she'd grown up in an area that was all white, so she didn't feel comfortable going to such a place, what sort of reception would she get, I wonder?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending her position, or even saying that it is exactly analagous to yours, but surely you can see how people raise an eyebrow at your decision not to patronise a restaurant based on the race of it's clientele?  I appreciate that there are some sophisticated arguments surrounding the social context of your actions, but, on the face of it, at least, doesn't it smack of double standards?  (Please don't get all defensive, I'm not calling you a racist, I'm just interested in your take on this.)


----------



## aurora green (Mar 23, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> What the fuck is wrong with you?



I dont know, maybe it was full of people like you.

Actually, I dont like hanging out with the rich wherever they maybe.

   look, I'm sorry everyong if my comments come across wrong, I guess I'm not making myself clear.   I personally just dont like the way Brixton seems to be getting more and more of a white middle class place, and I dont want to be assosiated with that.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> is it my imagination, or are the LibDems running the show now desperate to flog off everything that ain't nailed down?


I already said that. Do pay attention.    I think the closer we get to the next elections, the more desperate they are to push through their agenda. 

Fanta -- it's incredible. I don't know how you manage it. Your attempts at satirising (and misrepresenting) other peoples' viewpoints just get more clumsy and tedious with every passing day.  Not funny, not clever and not in the tiniest bit interesting.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> I dont know, maybe it was full of people like you.
> 
> Actually, I dont like hanging out with the rich wherever they maybe.
> 
> look, I'm sorry everyong if my comments come across wrong, I guess I'm not making myself clear.   I personally just dont like the way Brixton seems to be getting more and more of a white middle class place, and I dont want to be assosiated with that.



But you didn't mention the fact that they were rich, merely that they were white!

Would you mind if Brixton became a white working class place, or a black middle class area?


----------



## fanta (Mar 23, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> I dont know, maybe it was full of people like you.
> 
> Actually, I dont like hanging out with the rich wherever they maybe.
> 
> look, I'm sorry everyong if my comments come across wrong, I guess I'm not making myself clear.   I personally just dont like the way Brixton seems to be getting more and more of a white middle class place, and I dont want to be assosiated with that.



You have never met me and yet you're making insulting judgments about me. 

That is prejudice. But then going by your posts above you're no stranger to that habit.

If you don't like the way you perceive Bixton to be going then you can always leave. 

And good riddance too, I don't want prejudiced people like you cluttering up my streets.

Good bye.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Would you mind if Brixton became a white working class place, or a black middle class area?


 Questions of this sort are completely irrelevant and a red herring. It is pointless to even consider them. The area has a unique mix of races, class and cultures and this sort of gross simplification does no-one any good. 

Oh and well done fanta -- you just lost the argument.


----------



## fanta (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I already said that. Do pay attention.    I think the closer we get to the next elections, the more desperate they are to push through their agenda.
> 
> Fanta -- it's incredible. I don't know how you manage it. Your attempts at satirising (and misrepresenting) other peoples' viewpoints just get more clumsy and tedious with every passing day.  Not funny, not clever and not in the tiniest bit interesting.



I'm not satirising anybody. Read again, slowly, what aurora posted. 

If someone had said they didn't fancy going into the Angel on Coldharbour Lane because  it was full of black people then no one would be chirruping sanctimoniously more loudly than you.

Would they my dear?


----------



## fanta (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Questions of this sort are completely irrelevant and a red herring. It is pointless to even consider them. The area has a unique mix of races, class and cultures and this sort of gross simplification does no-one any good.



Hint to posters: when your smug complacency has been pricked, and you're confounded and stuck for a good enough retort, _always_ endeavour to brush off the question as rubbish.

That'll work.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Questions of this sort are completely irrelevant and a red herring. It is pointless to even consider them. The area has a unique mix of races, class and cultures and this sort of gross simplification does no-one any good.
> 
> Oh and well done fanta -- you just lost the argument.



With respect, I think it is relevant: I was replying to aurora's statement that she objected to Brixton becoming 'a white middle class place.'  She'd already mentioned that she didn't want to go into a restaurant because it was full of white people, then went on to say that she doesn't 'like hanging out with the rich.'  I was wondering who it is she dislikes moving into Brixton: middle-class people, or white people, or both, or neither.


----------



## newbie (Mar 23, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Even if this is true, nothing is permanent. Everything is temporary. It is not the end of the world. There are much more urgent and  important things for the pessimists to be wringing their hands about.



I think that's largely right, but that doesn't mean that watching the changes, and trying to understand them, isn't worthwhile.

seems to me there are three separate but interleaved issues:

* economic  'longest economic boom in 200 years' or whatever it was Brown said; couple that with my regular point about Brixton in particular and London in general being incredibly popular for good reasons, and it's just obvious that every bit of space is being pressed into service to chase money.  There's little room in the current climate for economically unproductive capacity.  The only way that will change is major, longterm (regional/national) economic downturn or reduced local popularity.

* political  tribally the Tories and their close mates the LDs represent financial stakeholders in the borough: homeowners, businesses, landlords, those who have a financial interest in local prosperity.  It's possible (I don't know the demographics) that they also represent the huge number of nearly invisible churchgoers who live around here (and whose views on vibrant street culture and the night economy, including pubs, shouldn't be ignored).  They are quite clearly translating that constituency into a drive towards attracting money and respectability into the area.  That means getting rid of a lot of the marginal stuff that's existed in Brixton far longer than elsewhere, including shortlife and squats; front businesses that exist to serve illegal trading and Lambeth owned squalor. They're riding the crest of the economic boom so money is pouring into the area and trickledown economics is being played out: the proportion of stakeholders is rising, locals are better off now than anytime in the last 30 years.

* cultural  sorry folks, but like it or not you're not going to be able to recreate _your_ heyday in the 90s or whenever.  Cooltan has gone forever, you'll have to get used to nostalgia, it's part of the ageing process.  You could, of course, overcome the obstacles and build a fresh new naughties cultural life you like better than what's currently on offer, but doing it in Brixton in a relatively cashfree way will be much harder than anytime in the past few decades, see above.  But that doesn't mean it can't be done.  Meanwhile it's pretty clear that there is a lot of people who like Brixton cultural life the way it is.



It seems to me that, as fanta says, everything is temporary, and the wheel has turned such that Brixton is becoming somewhere that makes me feel increasingly uncomfortable.  I have no faith that voting out the T/LD privatisers will change anything significantly, nor that the economic or cultural forces at work will leave Brixton as it is, let alone reverse the gentrification trend.


----------



## aurora green (Mar 23, 2004)

Rather than focusing the entire thread on me, its obvious I dont like anyone and its not the first time I've ben invited to leave Brixton on these boards, 
Perhaps it might be more relevant to ask why a new venue such as the Lounge had not one black face in it.  Perhaps it was just a one off, and perhaps as you all say, I am a racist for caring, but it troubles me that somewhere new in Railton Rd ffs, should seem white only.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Rather than focusing the entire thread on me, its obvious I dont like anyone and its not the first time I've ben invited to leave Brixton on these boards,
> Perhaps it might be more relevant to ask why a new venue such as the Lounge had not one black face in it.  Perhaps it was just a one off, and perhaps as you all say, I am a racist for caring, but it troubles me that somewhere new in Railton Rd ffs, should seem white only.



Would you be troubled to find a bar that was black only, in Brixton?


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Hint to posters: when your smug complacency has been pricked, and you're confounded and stuck for a good enough retort, _always_ endeavour to brush off the question as rubbish.
> 
> That'll work.


Or you could just be an obnoxious twonk, I suppose.   

It's invariably people coming from the right who put up this clunky diversionary tactic of asking ''oh, so what would _your _idea of a  Utopian Brixton be? No whites?  No middle class people?" etc etc.  It is invariably a very thinly veiled attack accusing others of idealism, nimbyism (that one always makes me chortle) or swivelly-eyed despotism.  It is utterly pointless to engage with the debate on that debased level. 

_You know perfectly well _that the likes of Aurora (and myself) are not trying to impose some sort of Stalinist social control on Brixton involving throwing all the white yuppies into the Effra. It's an insult to people's intelligence to keep rolling  out these tired, hackneyed tactics.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Perhaps it might be more relevant to ask why a new venue such as the Lounge had not one black face in it. (


You've got that *completely wrong*.

Not only is the Lounge _owned_ by a black guy - it's always enjoyed a mixed clientèle from the day it opened - see for yourself here 

Exactly what are you basing your woefully inaccurate 'no blacks' claim on? One quick look through the window?


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Thousands of the blacks who settled in Brixton and Clapham in the Fifties have sold their houses for a mint to the middle-classes (of all colours and nationalities), and have and are relocating to larger properties - semi-detached 1930s housing - in Thornton Heath, Norbury, South Norwood and Penge. 

Maybe the 'Brixton Traditionalists' would want them not to move out? Perhaps their teenage dreams of living 'on the edge' in Brixton (ooh how that'll shock the ex-schoolmates and family back home in Godalming) are being slowly sapped by the upward mobility of the Windrush generation? Shouldn't the West Indians stay in Brixton to provide a gritty wallpaper and an urban vibe to our trustafarian Guardianistas' adventures in 'Riot-ville'?

Sorry kids - hatguy, aura green, et al - you could always move to Thornton Heath - it's the new Brixton after all.


----------



## newbie (Mar 23, 2004)

you missed by about 20 years Ern, because TH is gentrifying as well and has been for a long time.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

Your argument is totally arse-about-face,  Ernie. Moving from Brixton to Norbury  does not in any way signify upward mobility. The truth is that black people have been pushed out of Brixton by rising rents and property prices.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> It's invariably people coming from the right who put up this clunky diversionary tactic of asking ''oh, so what would _your _idea of a  Utopian Brixton be? No whites?  No middle class people?" etc etc.



I'm anything but right wing, but I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on how they would like Brixton to be; this is a thread about what people don't want it to be (i.e. 'gentrified'), after all.





> It is invariably a very thinly veiled attack accusing others of idealism, nimbyism (that one always makes me chortle) or swivelly-eyed despotism.



I'm not accusing aurora of nimbyism, idealism or despotism, merely suggesting that her initial post on this thread smacked of double standards.





> It is utterly pointless to engage with the debate on that debased level.



Or saying that could be a way to avoid debate.





> _You know perfectly well _that the likes of Aurora (and myself) are not trying to impose some sort of Stalinist social control on Brixton involving throwing all the white yuppies into the Effra. It's an insult to people's intelligence to keep rolling  out these tired, hackneyed tactics.



Nobody's suggesting that you are.  What's your point?


----------



## hendo (Mar 23, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> You've got that *completely wrong*.
> 
> Not only is the Lounge _owned_ by a black guy - it's always enjoyed a mixed clientèle from the day it opened - see for yourself here
> 
> Exactly what are you basing your woefully inaccurate 'no blacks' claim on? One quick look through the window?



Seconded. A real slur on an excellent bloke.


----------



## aurora green (Mar 23, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Exactly what are you basing your woefully inaccurate 'no blacks' claim on? One look through the window?



Look, in my inttial post, I just said thats what happened. I wasn't trying to slander the Lounge, its just what happened to me and what I saw on the day. I've already apologised and tried to explan my posts and why I think and said what I did. 
I do think there's a race isue to do with gentrification, but I feel sure now, I am not able to argue about it. In fact I hate arguments at all, Im crap at it.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I'm anything but right wing


LOL. 

If what you say is true, why are you using the same old pro-gentrification tactics that we've seen countless times before? I think you're being somewhat disingenuous.


----------



## hendo (Mar 23, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> I do think there's a race isue to do with gentrification, but I feel sure now, I am not able to argue about it. In fact I hate arguments at all, Im crap at it.



If there's one thing I've learnt from these boards it is that you have to think long and hard before you wade into the Race in Brixton debate.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Your argument is totally arse-about-face,  Ernie. Moving from Brixton to Norbury  does not in any way signify upward mobility. The truth is that black people have been pushed out of Brixton by rising rents and property prices.



You don't think any black people bought up houses themselves? You don't think that they are cashing in on these houses now and moving out to T/H and Addiscombe etc? I suppose you'll deny the existence of a black landlord class now as well.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> LOL.
> 
> If what you say is true, why are you using the same old pro-gentrification tactics that we've seen countless times before? I think you're being somewhat disingenuous.



I'm not pro-gentrification.  Can you show me where I've said that I am, or even where I've said anything that could be construed as pro-gentrification?

The reason I replied to aurora's post was because I'm uncomfortable with people making value judgements about a place based solely on the colour of it's clientele.

I'm in favour of affordable housing in all areas of London, to allow those with links to an area to remian there, and to allow those who might not otherwise get the chance to live there, to do so (i.e preventing the poor from being 'priced out' of certain areas).  Aurora seems to be in favour of refusing to drink in certain pubs because they're full of whites!


----------



## tarannau (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Thousands of the blacks who settled in Brixton and Clapham in the Fifties have sold their houses for a mint to the middle-classes (of all colours and nationalities), and have and are relocating to larger properties - semi-detached 1930s housing - in Thornton Heath, Norbury, South Norwood and Penge.



And I suspect tens of thousands more didn't make a penny when they moved from Brixton, simply because they never had a chance to own the properties in the first place. 

Of all the Guyanese families who moved over at the time of my mother - and there are a plenty - I can't think of one that benefitted from selling a property 'for a mint'  Whilst they could afford to rent (and could rent) rambling properties in Brixton, Clapham and Streatham, the whole prospect of modernising these crumbling places with central heating, new windows and other basics was financially beyond them. 

You're right - most of my family have ended up in Norbury. Mitcham and Thornton Heath now. Not for financial profit however, more that they moved to the only affordable 'family' areas nearby. 

And it's only now that those suburbs are beginning to reflect the diversity and needs of the local population. Even ten years ago, some spots in Mitcham and Norbury were resolutely white and BNP proud. 

West Indian families cashing in and moving joyfully to the suburbs? The reality was sadly far more disappointing than that...


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> I suppose you'll deny the existence of a black landlord class now as well.


 Oh you do, do you?


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh you do, do you?



Fuck knows what that meant.

You have this little fancy idea that no Caribbean immigrants scrimped and saved and bought property in Brixton/Clapham in the 50s/60s/70s with the earnings from their hard work in the NHS/London Transport/construction jobs? 

A notion that they aren't flogging their houses now while the property market in Brixton is through the roof, and getting larger properties in Zones 4 and 5?

What - do you feel like they've betrayed you or something?


----------



## tarannau (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> You don't think any black people bought up houses themselves? You don't think that they are cashing in on these houses now and moving out to T/H and Addiscombe etc? I suppose you'll deny the existence of a black landlord class now as well.



Not saying that at all. but it's a small proportion. Even in Brixton.

The folks who end up making the most from property development and gentrification are those who start off with money in the first place. Not many from the West Indies had that much to invest when they arrived - certainly most didn't have the resources to effectively become owners or even landlords until the gentrification process was well underway.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Not saying that at all. but it's a small proportion. Even in Brixton.
> 
> The folks who end up making the most from property development and gentrification are those who start off with money in the first place. Not many from the West Indies had that much to invest when they arrived.



Who said they bought houses straight away FFS. Read my above post.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> You have this little fancy idea that no Caribbean immigrants scrimped and saved and bought property in Brixton/Clapham in the 50s/60s/70s with the earnings from their hard work in the NHS/London Transport/construction jobs?


You are 100% wrong. Don't tell me what I think. 

Can't you go and play in the general forum or something?


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Who said they bought houses straight away FFS. Read my above post.


The thing is, tarannau actually knows what he is talking about, which you evidently don't.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You are 100% wrong. Don't tell me what I think.
> 
> Can't you go and play in the general forum or something?



So your earlier claim:



> Your argument is totally arse-about-face, Ernie. Moving from Brixton to Norbury does not in any way signify upward mobility. The truth is that black people have been pushed out of Brixton by rising rents and property prices.



No longer stands?


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> The thing is, tarannau actually knows what he is talking about, which you evidently don't.



The hundreds of black families I work with and speak to regularly are a figment of my imagination then.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> The hundreds of black families I work with and speak to regularly are a figment of my imagination then.



Ern, I think you'll find that those people's experiences should be discounted: they don't fit in with the trustafarians' ideas of what black people - you know, the ones from 'edgy' 'black' areas - should be like!  I bet some of them don't even smoke ganja!


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

They probably stayed in on the night of the riot as well.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> They probably stayed in on the night of the riot as well.



They're not black; they're middle class!


----------



## tarannau (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Who said they bought houses straight away FFS. Read my above post.



I have. You're still an arrogant, deliberately over-argumentative plonker. 

How quickly do you think most of these immigrant families were allowed to jump up the career ladder? How long do you honestly think it took them to scrimp and save - on top of the rent/other mortgage - to invest in other properties in the area? 

And don't you think, just perhaps, that they could have been financially outgunned by existing landlords, property developers and other 'locals' with greater financial security?


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

How dare those West Indians come over here, with their Union Jacks, their WW2 medals and their King George VI coronation teatowels - and get regular jobs - and >cough< mortgages!!

They should all be 'colourful characters' standing outside some Anarchist Utopia Squat or something....


----------



## newbie (Mar 23, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Not saying that at all. but it's a small proportion. Even in Brixton.
> 
> The folks who end up making the most from property development and gentrification are those who start off with money in the first place. Not many from the West Indies had that much to invest when they arrived - certainly most didn't have the resources to effectively become owners or even landlords until the gentrification process was well underway.



well yes and no.  When I moved to this street 20 years ago most houses that were owner occupied were lived in by black families (about half the street was/is HA).  Now those families have almost all moved away and many of the houses have been split into flats, some for rent, some for sale.  The private half of the street has largely white occupants now.


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I already said that. Do pay attention.    I think the closer we get to the next elections, the more desperate they are to push through their agenda.


I thought Labour had already sold most of it off. Or given it away. Or pissed it up against the wall. I've seen nothing to suggest that things are any worse with the Rainbow Alliance (ahem) than with the hapless pseudo-trots.

I'm a firm believer in tipping people out of office after a few years anyway just to give 'em some thinking time.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> well yes and no.  When I moved to this street 20 years ago most houses that were owner occupied were lived in by black families (about half the street was/is HA).  Now those families have almost all moved away and many of the houses have been split into flats, some for rent, some for sale.  The private half of the street has largely white occupants now.



What, black people sold their houses (at enormous profit) and moved out, thereby denying middle class white liberals the chance to take a 'walk on the wild side'.  That's terrible!  They should learn their places; what are they thinking of bettering their lot, and that of their families, when they should be stuck in Brixton adding a splash of colour?


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> How dare those West Indians come over here, with their Union Jacks, their WW2 medals and their King George VI coronation teatowels - and get regular jobs - and >cough< mortgages!!
> 
> They should all be 'colourful characters' standing outside some Anarchist Utopia Squat or something....









I really can't be arsed with this.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> What, black people sold their houses (at enormous profit) and moved out, thereby denying middle class white liberals the chance to take a 'walk on the wild side'.  That's terrible!  They should learn their places; what are they thinking of betting their lot, and that of their families, when they should be stuck in Brixton adding a splash of colour?



LOL! A colleague of mine - Brixton born and bred - did just that - moved out to the Kent coast and sold his family house in SW9 for a mint. Who could fucking blame him - being surrounded by weird middle class white liberals...


----------



## tarannau (Mar 23, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> well yes and no.  When I moved to this street 20 years ago most houses that were owner occupied were lived in by black families (about half the street was/is HA).  Now those families have almost all moved away and many of the houses have been split into flats, some for rent, some for sale.  The private half of the street has largely white occupants now.



The feeling I get from my parents' generation is that they felt financially insecure and risk averse. Those 30s semis in the suburbs with a garden seemed a much safer bet than taking over more challenging modernisation jobs (and potential money pits) in the centre.  My parents apparently didn't want to overstretch themselves by buying a 'risky' house on the edge of Clapham Common rather than a marginally cheaper one in Mitcham many years ago. I suspect they made the wrong financial decision...


I would suspect that long term council tenancies and right-to-buy may have added and levelled the playing field somewhat. But Ern's impression of a burgeoning, successful immigrant landlord class seems somewhat at odds with my experience.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> The feeling I get from my parents' generation is that they felt financially insecure and risk averse. Those 30s semis in the suburbs with a garden seemed a much safer bet than taking over more challenging modernisation jobs (and potential money pits) in the centre.  My parents apparently didn't want to overstretch themselves by buying a 'risky' house on the edge of Clapham Common rather than a marginally cheaper one in Mitcham many years ago. I suspect they made the wrong financial decision...
> 
> 
> I would suspect that long term council tenancies and right-to-buy may have added and levelled the playing field somewhat. But Ern's impression of a burgeoning, successful immigrant landlord class seems somewhat at odds with my experience.


Those 30s semis in the suburbs are worth, what, £200-300,000 now? You seem to be down on your parents for not doing well enough.

Right-to-buy has NOT levelled any playing field - what are you a Thatcherite? RTB is one of the biggest disasters this country has ever seen.

Your impression of a downtrodden, exploited immigrant class belongs in your flowery imagination btw. Look at Spitalfields.


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 23, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> I personally just dont like the way Brixton seems to be getting more and more of a white middle class place, and I dont want to be assosiated with that.


I think this attitude is quite widespread. My girlfriend occassionally gets shouted or hissed at in the streets by people (young women usually) who look poor and black. Especially when she's pushing the baby around.

When I push the baby around I don't get that because it's always cute to see men with babies.  

Anyway, it's not the end of the world, but there's clearly some bad feeling. But we can't help being white and middle class so neither of us are going to apologise. And I'm sure we have an easier time than any working class black people who live in my small home town on the south coast.


----------



## isvicthere? (Mar 23, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Even if this is true, nothing is permanent. Everything is temporary. It is not the end of the world. There are much more urgent and  important things for the pessimists to be wringing their hands about.



Have you any idea how pompous you sound? "The pessimists" indeed! So anyone who does not share your apparent dream of a brave new world of "progress" where "young professionals" can sip cappuccino without being troubled by the irksome presence of dwellers in social housing is some sort of despicable low life, deserving of nothing but contempt? 

I really don't believe I'm alone when I say that this is how you come across.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Right-to-buy has NOT levelled any playing field - what are you a Thatcherite? RTB is one of the biggest disasters this country has ever seen.



RTB is a disaster, but on your terms it has levelled the playing field - it's allowed those West Indian families to sell up and leave the area when perhaps they wouldn't have been able to do so before. 

I'm not down on my parents at all - they made the best decisons they could have at the time. What I am saying is that they - like most other hard working immigrant families - were perhaps not best placed to benefit from the boom in property prices.


----------



## newbie (Mar 23, 2004)

tarannau, no I wouldn't identify a significant landlord class.  

Inevitably some of the Windrush families were more financially successful than others, so some were owners here while others were still in coldwater slums.  But don't forget that the 70s & early 80s were a time of flight away from the inner cities towards suburbs and hinterland newtowns.There were very good reasons for that, with quality of life being at the top, as well as financial insecurity in an era & area of very high unemployment.  Selling a house in Brixton during the late 70s era of corrugated iron voids, sus and squats or post-uprising early 80s was hard because few people with choices wanted to live here.  I've said before I think the great GLC giveaway (86?) kickstarted the repopulation process and contributed hugely to regeneration.  Prior to that happening it wasn't at all obvious that the innercities had much QoL to offer in any forseeable future. 

Their decision may look financially unwise at this distance, but money isn't everything.

edit I've just seen your last, posted while I was writing this; now I understand a bit better what you were meaning.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Ern, I think you'll find that those people's experiences should be discounted: they don't fit in with the trustafarians' ideas of what black people - you know, the ones from 'edgy' 'black' areas - should be like!  I bet some of them don't even smoke ganja!



You and ern really have some bizarre ideas about what people who post here are actually like.  Maybe you should come meet some of us for a drink sometime, I think you'll be surprised.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2004)

Despite all the showboating going on, there's some good points being bandied about here, although I find it strange how people seem keen to lump people into big homogeneous piles.


----------



## fanta (Mar 23, 2004)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> Have you any idea how pompous you sound? "The pessimists" indeed! So anyone who does not share your apparent dream of a brave new world of "progress" where "young professionals" can sip cappuccino without being troubled by the irksome presence of dwellers in social housing is some sort of despicable low life, deserving of nothing but contempt?
> 
> I really don't believe I'm alone when I say that this is how you come across.



What you describe is not my 'dream'. I don't even like cappuccino.

Like most (I think) I want to see much much more affordable social housing, not just locally but across the country generally. Hey, I would _love_ to have a chance of getting one! 

I just don't think that Brixton, and the cultural diversity that makes it such an interesting place to live, is going to suddenly die overnight as others seem to imply.

I don't believe that black people are being disproportionately pushed out of the area to make room for middle class whites either. I do know that plenty of blacks - the siblings of my partner are prime examples - aspire to move out to places like Thornton Heath, Norwood etc by getting professional jobs through tertiary education. 

And good for them too! They have seen the crap their parents went through! My partner's mum became an owner occupier by buying her house off Coldharbour Lane and paid for it by spending 30 odd years cleaning office toilets.

I'd love to see certain posters on here tell her children to their faces that buying your home is wrong.

Pompous? Me? Okay, if you say so! 

But that is not as pompous as the risible lament that gentrification (I fucking LOVE that word!) is ruining the street vibe from the inverted snob (invariably WHITE - oh the irony!) brigade, pal!


----------



## newbie (Mar 23, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Despite all the showboating going on, there's some good points being bandied about here, although I find it strange how people seem keen to lump people into big homogeneous piles.



It's hard to talk about demographic changes without doing that.  It'd help if people worked on the assumption that regular posters here are reasonable people and didn't put the worst possible gloss on slightly loose language.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> What you describe is not my 'dream'. I don't even like cappuccino.
> 
> Like most (I think) I want to see much much more affordable social housing, not just locally but across the country generally. Hey, I would _love_ to have a chance of getting one!
> 
> ...



On the money, that post. Nice one. Say no more.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> On the money, that post. Nice one. Say no more.


Does that mean you're going to fuck off now?


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Does that mean you're going to fuck off now?



If my presence here annoys you then no.

These forums would be bland without a bit of showboating.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

If people could keep their posting styles to actually expressing their genuine feelings rather than stirring then this thread would have flowed much better. It's full of presumption about what people imagine other people mean.

This disruption has mainly been initiated by Ernesto. Honestly Ernesto I won't tolerate your deliberate trolls in here and nasty humour.

To answer your question honestly about this:

I said:

"Brixton will become a pale (in more ways than one) imitatation of itself"

Ask around Ernie. Many, many people, both black, white or whatever have noticed both the blanding out of Brixton's character and sidelining of the needs of many in the local black and poorer general community. This is not my liberal nostagia or something. This is what many people think here. It really is.  

Regarding Aurora - she may have used slightly clumsy words - said something in a hurry like you would in conversation - but her point is perfectly understandable and valid.

And it is simply this: After years of being in very racially-mixed venues/environments in Brixton - which was normal and un-commented on - it now feels wrong and weird to sit in some central Brixton venues and find then full of conservative-looking white people. 

I think it's perfectly OK of Aurora to say she finds that a bit strange and wonders what it means for the area.


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 23, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> big homogeneous piles.


I don't want to derail the thread, but I should point out that there's nothing more uncomfortable than big, homogeneous piles.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

What did you mean - 'paler in more ways than one'?

Did you include yourself in this equation?


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> What did you mean - 'paler in more ways than one'?
> 
> Did you include yourself in this equation?


What he means is
 - less interesting
 - more white people.

Get back to showboating; this is tedious nit-picking.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

This thread reminds me of white 'travellers' moaning about how the beach is full of 'tourists'.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 23, 2004)

*- less interesting* 

Why are white people less interesting than black?


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> What he means is
> - less interesting
> - more white people.
> 
> Get back to showboating; this is tedious nit-picking.



He's whiter than me!  

(and a lot less interesting) (joke)


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> *- less interesting*
> 
> Why are white people less interesting than black?



I think they mean in a secret stache of National Geographic magazines in father's study kind of way.


----------



## Bonfirelight (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> This thread reminds me of white 'travellers' moaning about how the beach is full of 'tourists'.



you just dont get it, its only cool if you're the only white guy on the beach.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Bonfirelight said:
			
		

> you just dont get it, its only cool if you're the only white guy on the beach.



As long as the black 'guys' don't get too pushy with their sales techniques...


----------



## Bonfirelight (Mar 23, 2004)

i bought a wicked watch and a pair of sunglasses in benidorm a few years back.
10euros or something. still works too.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

I also agree with this:

"I do know that plenty of blacks... aspire to move out to places like Thornton Heath, Norwood etc..."

It's a many sided story - that's why I said in the first post at the top of this thread "something big's going on".


----------



## miss minnie (Mar 23, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Rather than focusing the entire thread on me, its obvious I dont like anyone and its not the first time I've ben invited to leave Brixton on these boards,
> Perhaps it might be more relevant to ask why a new venue such as the Lounge had not one black face in it.  Perhaps it was just a one off, and perhaps as you all say, I am a racist for caring, but it troubles me that somewhere new in Railton Rd ffs, should seem white only.


 i've been in the lounge at least once most weeks recently.  the proportion of white to black varies each time.  bit like picking 4 coloured balls out of a bag of 8 - sometimes you will pick all one colour, sometimes all the other, sometimes a mix of the two.

i have never been in the the lounge when the clientele has been either all white or all black.  there's usually a mixture of skin colours in there.  same goes for sw9, the albert, woolworths and sainsburys.  

i've been in the lounge when i was the only female once, but i couldn't then say that their clientele is primarily male.

aurora, i'm not having a deep dig here, 'cos i think you've said many good things in this forum, but perhaps a few more visits to some of these seemingly white establishments would be fair.  i think you just happened to pull all the white balls out of the bag that day.  

perhaps a little urban research is called for?  i'll volunteer to while away a day  sipping coffee, juice (and wine) at the lounge with clipboard in hand measuring the ethnic breakdown of the clientele.  might have to visit more than once on different days at different times in order to get a fair sample.  anyone care to join me?


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> iperhaps a little urban research is called for?  i'll volunteer to while away a day  sipping coffee, juice (and wine) at the lounge with clipboard in hand measuring the ethnic breakdown of the clientele.


Here comes my 19th ethnic breakdown.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

Ernesto - re-read the thread. I've explained honestly what I meant by the "pale imitation" comment.

I would say that Brixton is becoming less interesting and also becoming whiter.

But no one has said except you that this means black people are more interesting than white.

Personally I like characters - both black or white or whatever. But it is both the characters and the character that are leaving or being left out of Brixton. And those characters, of whichever colour are mainly being replaced with conservative young professionals.

Also me and most of my friends are poor. This is happening to poor people. So we notice.

Tis true I'm afraid.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You and ern really have some bizarre ideas about what people who post here are actually like.  Maybe you should come meet some of us for a drink sometime, I think you'll be surprised.



I wasn't necessarily having a go at Urbanites _per se_, more at the white middle class liberals who think that, by moving to Brixton, putting their hair in dreads and smoking weed (or adopting the 'alternative' lifestyle in whatever other way), they're making a big contribution to Brixton, and are part of it, but that anyone alse coming in doesn't belong.  I've met them, and they're knobs.

Equally, I know some decent middle class white people who live in Brixton and do a hell of a lot for the local community.

I agree that every area should have affordable housing, so people aren't priced out of an area, but I don't think people should get so precious about insisting that an area must remain the same, especially when, in doing so, they express what appear to be thinly veiled racist sentiments (such as complaining that an area is becoming too 'pale').


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

Lounge is pretty OK in IMHO. But it's not a cheap caff.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I wasn't necessarily having a go at Urbanites _per se_, more at the white middle class liberals who think that, by moving to Brixton, putting their hair in dreads and smoking weed (or adopting the 'alternative' lifestyle in whatever other way), they're making a big contribution to Brixton, and are part of it, but that anyone alse coming in doesn't belong.  I've met them, and they're knobs.




I've only been in Brixton for just over a year, but I've yet to meet anyone like you describe.  Maybe they exist, maybe not.  But you seem to be unfairly stereotyping a lot of people.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I've only been in Brixton for just over a year, but I've yet to meet anyone like you describe.  Maybe they exist, maybe not.  But you seem to be unfairly stereotyping a lot of people.



I don't get it?  Who have I stereotyped?


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

Someone said:

"But that is not as pompous as the risible lament that gentrification (I fucking LOVE that word!) is ruining the street vibe from the inverted snob (invariably WHITE - oh the irony!) brigade, pal! "

I see your point. That's funny. LOL. But being serious, the opinion that gentrification (benefiting the monied, as opposed to genuine inclusive regeneration for everyone) is damaging Brixton is widespread among black and white. It's just not popular with the wealthy here.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I wasn't necessarily having a go at Urbanites _per se_, more at the white middle class liberals who think that, by moving to Brixton, putting their hair in dreads and smoking weed (or adopting the 'alternative' lifestyle in whatever other way), they're making a big contribution to Brixton, and are part of it, but that anyone alse coming in doesn't belong.


What's white people with dreads got to do with anything?

That observation is about as meaningful as commenting on black people with punk style red hair.

Cultural mix and match? Bring it on as far as I'm concerned, but keep the stereotypes at the door.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I don't get it?  Who have I stereotyped?



No, you don't get it do you.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> What's white people with dreads got to do with anything?
> 
> That observation is about as meaningful as commenting on black people with punk style red hair.
> 
> Cultural mix and match? Bring it on as far as I'm concerned, but keep the stereotypes at the door.



I didn't say that everyone white bloke with dreads has that attitude, but that the ones that do get on my tits.  I dislike those who think that having more people with an 'alternative' look or lifestyle makes Brixton a better place.  That's just inverted snobbery.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> No, you don't get it do you.



Come on, seriously, who've I stereotyped?


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

"Alternative looks" are fine.  Alternative minds are even better.


----------



## Baub (Mar 23, 2004)

This is by far the most interesting thread on the Brixton forum yet (imo).  I don't often post here, mainly because I don't have internet access at home, but often because it _seems_ that I don't share the same views as many of the other regular posters and feel a bit of a gatecrasher.  Neither do I like slanging matches, not clever, not funny, boring.  I've lived in Brixton for over a decade now though and, like anywhere and everywhere else, the area is (must!) undergoing change and some of it is good and some of it bad - both  interchangable depending on your point of view!

As for "gentrification" (I hate that word and on this forum it's become a cliche), if it means more people with some money to spend coming into the area then surely that's good?  On the other side of the coin, "ghetto-isation" (if there is such a word) is not something to aim for.  Therefore, in a *really * culturally and socially diverse area, there is room for a wide range of people, not just one group.

There's too much "middle-class" thumping going on, as if it's always their fault for what happens to poor working-class people who are incapable of having any responsibility for their own lives.  Example: one of the worst things to happen to Brixton (again imo which is not shared by the young, black and white working class residents) is McDonalds - definitely not here by demand of young white professionals.

My "friend", who thinks she is funny, has just read this over my shoulder and is now singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing  in perfect harmony..." 
Alright, she _is_ funny.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Ern, I think you'll find that those people's experiences should be discounted: they don't fit in with the trustafarians' ideas of what black people - you know, the ones from 'edgy' 'black' areas - should be like!  I bet some of them don't even smoke ganja!



You are implying that people on here complaining about gentrification are "trustafarians".


----------



## newbie (Mar 23, 2004)

... a better place...


There's an awful lot of people live round here and for the vast majority the Lounge, dreadlocks and alternative this that or the other have no relevance at all.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 23, 2004)

*A constructive way forward?*

I think it's undeniable that Brixton's culture is "blanding out" - we live in a capitalist world after all and gentrification (unfortunately) is the logical conclusion. All these arguments have been on here before. 

I'm not sure that this is totally about black/white - maybe it's more about rich/poor. I think both Ernie and Tarranau are right - there *are* black families who've left the area & made money on houses, just in the same way that there are many black (and/or poor) people who've been forced out of the area by rising rents. I would *guess* the second group is larger than the first. Perhaps the inevitable conclusion is that the area becomes more middle class (whether white or black). The only people left (who can't afford to own or rent) would be those left in council accomodation.

So if this means the culture is blanding out, the question is, *what are you (we) going to do about it? * Do we care enough to do anything about it? I think so. There's a lot of people on here with very strong opinions which suggests to me that some people WOULD be willing to get off their arses and do something. We'd be stronger organised together, than as a group of people trading arguments across a bulletin board. A "U75/Brixton local cultural action group" to discuss the situation? Whatever. Concrete proposals are needed (such as the suggestion of providing better opportunities for local people to own/run stalls/businesses etc). Maybe we can start generating some ideas here instead of slagging each other off....


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> "Alternative looks" are fine.  Alternative minds are even better.



Now, paleface - have I made your thread more interesting or not?

You probably owe me a drink for this.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> So if this means the culture is blanding out, the question is, *what are you (we) going to do about it? *



Why don't the 'alternatives' go out into the streets this coming April and demand that the black youths riot on their behalf?

That should put off a few yuppies at least....


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 23, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> "Alternative looks" are fine.  Alternative minds are even better.


Amen to that! It's your attitude, beliefs and actions, not your appearance, your class or your colour, that marks your contribution to the local community.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Why don't the 'alternatives' go out into the streets this coming April and demand that the black youths riot on their behalf?
> 
> That should put off a few yuppies at least....


 BH asks a valid question in a well-considered post and you respond with more of this sneering garbage. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously? It's a waste of time.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> "Alternative looks" are fine.  Alternative minds are even better.



Is that what you've got?!


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You are implying that people on here complaining about gentrification are "trustafarians".



I'm not saying that, and if I gave that impression, I'm sorry.  I , too, am against 'gentrification' if, by that term, you mean that people are priced out of an area.  It's just that some posters' smug tones rub me up the wrong way.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> Amen to that! It's your attitude, beliefs and actions, not your appearance, your class or your colour, that marks your contribution to the local community.



Yeah, but that's not how Hatboy thinks.  I remember him slagging off some girls from Clapham because they didn't look alternative enough for him, on another thread.  It is that sort of narrow-minded attitude that pisses me off about the self-righteous and self-appointed 'Defenders of Brixton'.

By 'alternative mind' do you mean shallow and judgemental inverse snob, Hatboy?  Also, remember that he doesn't want to see Brixton become too 'pale.'


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 23, 2004)

Baub said:
			
		

> As for "gentrification" (I hate that word and on this forum it's become a cliche), if it means more people with some money to spend coming into the area then surely that's good?



Hello Baub   No, I don't think it's necessarily good if people with money to spend come into the area. Why? Because it makes property prices rise and  rents rise. Developers make money out of selling new housing to wealthy people. They are not (generally) providing any social housing.

Where do these newly arrived, wealthy people* spend their money? For those wealthy enough to buy new housing, I'd suggest they're shopping in places like Tesco, Sainsbury's, Marks and Spencer, Currys. The Living Bar. Croydon even. I suggest they'd probably avoid the market, Eco, the fish stalls, the Phoenix, the Albert, Michael's Meats, and other local businesses. This situation doesn't help the local area (ok, it provides *some* jobs), it just puts money into the pockets of the already rich, and denies that same wealth to the local community.

 

*Not necessarily referring to ALL wealthy people


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that, and if I gave that impression, I'm sorry.



What else could it have meant?  As I said, I don't know anyone who lives up to your "trustafarian" stereotype.  Maybe you _should_ come and meet some of us for a drink sometime.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> It's just that some posters' smug tones rub me up the wrong way.


Smug? What comments? In what way are they smug?


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What else could it have meant?  As I said, I don't know anyone who lives up to your "trustafarian" stereotype.  Maybe you _should_ come and meet some of us for a drink sometime.




I do know people who live up to that stereotype, to a greater or lesser extent.

I'm sure I'd enjoy a drink with you and some of the other Urbanites.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> ... a better place...
> 
> 
> There's an awful lot of people live round here and for the vast majority the Lounge, dreadlocks and alternative this that or the other have no relevance at all.



This is also something I've tried to get across in this forum.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I do know people who live up to that stereotype, to a greater or lesser extent.



So you do admit that you were stereotyping?  AFAIK, no one who posts here is like that.




			
				Athos said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'd enjoy a drink with you and some of the other Urbanites.



Whats an Urbanite?  I'm just someone who posts on this and other bulletin boards to pass the time.

Keep an eye on here then for drink threads or come along to the next Offline night.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

Well this seems fairly smug to me, for example:




			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> Questions of this sort are completely irrelevant and a red herring. It is pointless to even consider them. The area has a unique mix of races, class and cultures and this sort of gross simplification does no-one any good.
> 
> Oh and well done fanta -- you just lost the argument.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Now, paleface - have I made your thread more interesting or not?
> 
> You probably owe me a drink for this.



I think I probably do you fucking cunt!!    

Seriously tho, challenging opinions are welcome. But deliberate wind-ups tend not to work in this forum. They do just abuse people who are generally trying to be sincere.  Please respect that in future Ernesto.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> Where do these newly arrived, wealthy people* spend their money? For those wealthy enough to buy new housing, I'd suggest they're shopping in places like Tesco, Sainsbury's, Marks and Spencer, Currys. The Living Bar. Croydon even.



How long has the M+S been in Brixton? Its been there a lot longer than the arrivistes of either type (the slummers and the boojies). Its been in Brixton before you were even born in that hospital in Godalming.

Have you been to Croydon shopping centre? I haven't seen many 'wealthy people' there buying their baubles (or whatever it is the rich buy)


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So you do admit that you were stereotyping?  AFAIK, no one who posts here is like that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*I* wasn't stereotyping, but there is a stereotype of a 'trustafarian' and there are people who live up to that stereotype.  I don't know if anyone here lives up to that stereotype entirely.   

I may well come to the next 'Offline' if I'm around.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

Baub said:
			
		

> As for "gentrification" (I hate that word and on this forum it's become a cliche),


 The term itself is not at all a cliche.  What is a cliche is the way that anyone who expresses concern about the detrimental effects of gentrification is misrepresented as a hypocritcal,  'smug', 'nimby', white, dreadlocked trustafarian, whereas in truth, as Blagsta says, no-one is actually anything like that  very Daily-Mailish stereotype. 

It's so easy to fabricate cliched rubbish about 'travellers' complaining about tourists. It has no bearing whatsoever on Brixton or its residents.  No more than the shit the Mail makes up.


----------



## fanta (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Smug? What comments? In what way are they smug?



Nobody could accuse you of being smug IntoStella, and I hereby challenge any rascal that has the impudence to imply such a slur on your excellent reputation to a dual to the death.

I'll horsewhip the cad on the steps of his club!


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> *I* wasn't stereotyping, but there is a stereotype of a 'trustafarian' and there are people who live up to that stereotype.  I don't know if anyone here lives up to that stereotype entirely.



You *were* stereotyping, whether you meant to or not.




			
				Athos said:
			
		

> I may well come to the next 'Offline' if I'm around.



Come and introduce yourself.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that's not how Hatboy thinks.  I remember him slagging off some girls from Clapham because they didn't look alternative enough for him, on another thread.  It is that sort of narrow-minded attitude that pisses me off about the self-righteous and self-appointed 'Defenders of Brixton'.
> 
> By 'alternative mind' do you mean shallow and judgemental inverse snob, Hatboy?  Also, remember that he doesn't want to see Brixton become too 'pale.'



If you re-read the threads and other stuff I say you'll see that I like individuals. If they can manage a silly hat and afew jokes (like I just about do) that's fine. If they can go further and be truly different thinkers that's great too.

I'll admit I don't like people with no humour, or who aspire to be drab. I don't understand them. Sorry.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> It's so easy to fabricate cliched rubbish about 'travellers' complaining about tourists. It has no bearing whatsoever on Brixton or its residents.  No more than the shit the Mail makes up.



What the hell as irony got to do with the Daily Fucking Mail?

The travellers/tourists analogy is perfect for this debate, and you have been found muttering at the back of the queue for the banana pancakes in Koh Samui.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You *were* stereotyping, whether you meant to or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Come and introduce yourself.



I WASN'T.

Will do.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> The travellers/tourists analogy is perfect for this debate, and you have been found muttering at the back of the queue for the banana pancakes in Koh Samui.



How so?  When you don't even have the balls to come and meet any of us.  You just prefer to keep to your lazy stereotypes.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Well this seems fairly smug to me, for example:


 Why? Is it because you have a problem with women expressing a point of view with confidence and conviction?  Want me to get down off my hind legs? I very much doubt I would enjoy a drink with _you_.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> If you re-read the threads and other stuff I say you'll see that I like individuals. If they can manage a silly hat and afew jokes (like I just about do) that's fine. If they can go further and be truly different thinkers that's great too.
> 
> I'll admit I don't like people with no humour, or who aspire to be drab. I don't understand them. Sorry.


how can you tell if somone aspires to be drab?  Do you find that out from talking to them, or decide based on what they look like?


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> How so?  When you don't even have the balls to come and meet any of us.  You just prefer to keep to your lazy stereotypes.



'Us'? Now who's stereotyping all the London posters into some homogenous bubble. I converse on these boards with more London posters than your 'us'.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

You know what I mean.

[edit]
By "us" I mean the people on this thread that you seem to have massively wrong assumptions about.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos - You can't like everyone darling, can you?  I guess you know by trying to get along with them and then getting bored. And then you try again. And then you don't anymore.

I have to go and do some urgent knitting, excuse me.  

Please shift the personal spat off this thread Blagsta, Ernesto etc. Or try and keep the subject of the thread in each post otherwise it's gonna be impenetrable should some interesting new people ever deign to look at this crap!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> How long has the M+S been in Brixton? Its been there a lot longer than the arrivistes of either type (the slummers and the boojies). Its been in Brixton before you were even born in that hospital in Godalming.


Yes I know that. The *point* was that if people shop there, there is less benefit to the local community than if people shopped at locally owned businesses. Not that people shouldn't shop there, though.   And I was born at the Elephant by the way




			
				ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Have you been to Croydon shopping centre? I haven't seen many 'wealthy people' there buying their baubles (or whatever it is the rich buy)


Sorry, I was actually referring to the out of town shopping places around Croydon, IKEA, PC World etc, the *point* again being that wealthy people are spending their money in places owned by other wealthy people.

Ernie, why dont you engage *constructively* in this debate rather than picking at minor points in people's posts? I am sure you are more than capable of constructing a reasoned argument.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Why? Is it because you have a problem with women expressing a point of view with confidence and conviction?  Want me to get down off my hind legs? I very much doubt I would enjoy a drink with _you_.



I don't have a problem with women expressing a point of view: my wife is the most strident woman I know.  I am annoyed by smug and dismissive comments like yours, though.

I was also annoyed when you accused me of being pro-gentrification but ignored my reply in which I asked you to back that up.

It also annoys me when people misrepresent what I say to score cheap points.

Am I supposed to be bothered by the fact that you wouldn't enjoy drinking with me?  Pathetic.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with women expressing a point of view: my wife is the most strident woman I know.  I am annoyed by smug and dismissive comments like yours, though.


Before you rolled up we had already had this discussion in this forum about 342 times, on various threads,  and I can safely say that it is not only pointless trying to pin down a Utopian Brixton that will never exist but that it always  ends up EXACTLY where we are now. So why bother taking the utterly pointless detour? 





> It also annoys me when people misrepresent what I say to score cheap points.


Then _don't do it to other people_, as you have been all along.     I am up to here with your Daily Mail stereotypes of people _who you know* absolutely nothing * about. _


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Athos - You can't like everyone darling, can you?  I guess you know by trying to get along with them and then getting bored. And then you try again. And then you don't anymore.



Oh, so you'd tried to get on with the girls in that picture, and realised you didn't like them?  Or do you mean that you've tried to get on with 'their kind' and didn't like them, so you wouldn't bother getting to know them as individuals?  Face it, you're judgemental: you assess (and dismiss) people based on their looks (in particular whether they look sufficiently 'alternative').  Perhaps that is what you resent about these 'yuppie' types invading Brixton?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Please shift the personal spat off this thread Blagsta, Ernesto etc. Or try and keep the subject of the thread in each post otherwise it's gonna be impenetrable should some interesting new people ever deign to look at this crap!



Sorry.  But it is kind of relevant - as I said, ern loves to make sweeping generalisations about people without knowing anything about them.  Maybe if he met some of the people involved in this debate, he'd be less antagonistic.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> you're judgemental:


_That's_  rich.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

Someone said:

"Ernie, why dont you engage constructively in this debate rather than picking at minor points in people's posts? I am sure you are more than capable of constructing a reasoned argument."

Yeah, you MUST try and do this Ernie, and everyone, and me - OK. 

Seriously, deliberate, persistent wind-ups do not work in this forum. It abuses people's sincerlty.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> _That's_  rich.



Show me *precisely* who I have judged purely on the basis of their looks (as Hatboy has done), and where.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Before you rolled up we had already had this discussion in this forum about 342 times, on various threads,  and I can safely say that it is not only pointless trying to pin down a Utopian Brixton that will never exist but that it always  ends up EXACTLY where we are now. So why bother taking the utterly pointless detour? Then _don't do it to other people_, as you have been all along.     I am up to here with your Daily Mail stereotypes of people _who you know* absolutely nothing * about. _



You didn't say that the issue has already been debated, though, you just dismissed it, out of hand.

*Precisely* who have I misrepresented, and where?

I'm not as familiar with the Daily Mail; stereotypes as you, as I never read it.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> _That's_  rich.


And you still haven't backed up your description of me as 'pro-gentrification'.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Oh, so you'd tried to get on with the girls in that picture, and realised you didn't like them?  Or do you mean that you've tried to get on with 'their kind' and didn't like them, so you wouldn't bother getting to know them as individuals?  Face it, you're judgemental: you assess (and dismiss) people based on their looks (in particular whether they look sufficiently 'alternative').  Perhaps that is what you resent about these 'yuppie' types invading Brixton?



I've explained that I like visual things and people.  I also have friends who just look completely ordinary but say funny or clever or insightful things.  I like people who have a minority perspective - gay, beggar, painter, rapper, whatever. People who can teach me stuff. I prefer them all to conservative young professionals.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> What the hell as irony got to do with the Daily Fucking Mail?
> 
> The travellers/tourists analogy is perfect for this debate, and you have been found muttering at the back of the queue for the banana pancakes in Koh Samui.


crap! WHAT - precisely - are you saying ern? That ALL who've not lived in the area for 80 years are middle class tourists (ie like you)? If you knew IS, you'd know she's lived a long time, and is as genuine a part of the community as anyone I know? 
Or are you really basing tourists on skin colour? class? Well, what then? You've hardly backed up your point here, have you.


----------



## chegrimandi (Mar 23, 2004)

'I prefer them all to conservative young professionals.'

I know 2 people who recently have purchased houses in 'central' Brixton who would fit into the category above of conservative young professionals....I would tend to agree with most of the general comments about Brixton getting gentrified/yuppied but isn't this the case for pretty much the whole of London......?

*just seen my post count.....the devils number! lol*


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> The travellers/tourists analogy is perfect for this debate, and you have been found muttering at the back of the queue for the banana pancakes in Koh Samui.


I missed that one before. Thanks for pointing it out, Jezza. Ernie, you have clearly gone absolutely  out of your mind.  What the bleeding buggering fuck are you talking about?     



			
				Red Jezza said:
			
		

> If you knew IS, you'd know she's lived a long time,


Alas, too long, perhaps.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Of course Brixton was all fields not so long ago.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Of course Brixton was all fields not so long ago.



Nah, it was a white middle class suburb


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Nah, it was a white middle class suburb



Indeed home to a well-established Marks and Spencers and a family of circus-artistes who set up a garden-gnome business....


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> And you still haven't backed up your description of me as 'pro-gentrification'.


You systematically dismiss and misrepresent people who are concerned about gentrificaton as smug, white, dreadlocked trustafarians.  So you are clearly part of the problem, not part of the solution.  And you haven't backed up your claims to be anti-gentrification or non-right wing.  All the other posts of yours I've seen have struck  me as being pretty conservative.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Who wants to conserve what?


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Indeed home to a well-established Marks and Spencers and a family of circus-artistes who set up a garden-gnome business....


now that WAS funny!
oh come on, you all got that one, no?


----------



## fanta (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Who wants to conserve what?








_We want to conserve what is best about Brixton_


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You systematically dismiss and misrepresent people who are concerned about gentrificaton as smug, white, dreadlocked trustafarians.  So you are clearly part of the problem, not part of the solution.  And you haven't backed up your claims to be anti-gentrification or non-right wing.  All the other posts of yours I've seen have struck  me as being pretty conservative.



You've ignored my last three posts.  Where *precisely* have I done this?

I don't agree with you, so you've decided I'm part of the problem, have you?!   

I don't need to back up my 'claims' to be anti-gentrification or non-right wing, you need to back up your claims to the contrary!

I'm far from conservative, and I'm surprised that you've found most of my posts to be so.  (So surprised, in fact, that I think you've invented that to direct attention away from the questions I put to you.)


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Elderly maids on unicycles....


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

On U75 there should be a new Godwin's Law subsection about the Daily Mail.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

Resist Turning This Into One Big Personal Bitch please people.

Keep To The Subject. 

Grrr.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Resist Turning This Into One Big Personal Bitch please people.
> 
> Keep To The Subject.
> 
> Grrr.


Oh too late. I've got to go and get some money out of my huge trust fund to go and get my dreadlocks redone.     

Ernie and Athos have done nothing but troll this thread all along. There isn't a  debate. It's a pathetic state of affairs where we can no longer possibly discuss  these issues  constructively.  If you allow that to continue then don't blame other posters if you don't have any discussions here worth looking at.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> and you have been found muttering at the back of the queue for the banana pancakes in Koh Samui.


Answer the question. What the fuck was this about??


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You systematically dismiss and misrepresent people who are concerned about gentrificaton as smug, white, dreadlocked trustafarians.


Well, I've got the dreadlocks, so all I need now is a few trust funds. 

Anyone care to help out? Being a trustafarian sounds like fun!


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

Add a subsection to the U75 Godwin's Law for the word 'Troll' as well.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 23, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Anyone care to help out? Being a trustafarian sounds like fun!


You could be a serverfundafarian, maybe.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Well, I've got the dreadlocks, so all I need now is a few trust funds.
> 
> Anyone care to help out? Being a trustafarian sounds like fun!



But I didn't say that every white man with dreads is a trustafarian, did I?  That's why I keep asking IntoStella to back up her comments.  She won't though, yet demands Ernesto to answer her questions!


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> But I didn't say that every white man with dreads is a trustafarian, did I?  That's why I keep asking IntoStella to back up her comments.  She won't though, yet demands Ernesto to answer her questions!



You implied that everyone on here against gentrification is a "trustafarian".  And however much you deny it, you are stereotyping.  And most of your posts *do* come across as fairly conservative, no matter what you think you come across like.


----------



## Athos (Mar 23, 2004)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You implied that everyone on here against gentrification is a "trustafarian".  And however much you deny it, you are stereotyping.  And most of your posts *do* come across as fairly conservative, no matter what you think you come across like.



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 23, 2004)

*So....*

*...does anyone have any ideas on how to combat the blandification of Brixton culture?*

Here's a few (apologies if they're a bit obvious, but maybe you've got some better ideas!):

- Avoid drinking in blandified places like the Living Room (or Atlantic 66   )
- Drink in and support proper pubs like the Effra, the Trinity, the Albert etc
- Avoid the big supermarkets as far as possible; support the market and locally-owned businesses instead
- Hassle your local ward councillor about social housing and council property sell offs
- Have your input into things like the Brixton forum
- When your mates come to visit, take them somewhere locally that's interesting/different/unusual, surprise them & change their attitude to Brixton
- Visit and use local attractions like the Black Cultural Archives, the tate library, the 198 gallery etc
- Turn up to planning meetings, licensing committees etc and put your points across (whatever they may be)
- Be creative in your thinking... and when you have good idea, write to your ward councillor about it and hassle them to get it done. If they're not sympathetic, vote 'em out next year and get someone who is.
- Make an effort to talk to your neighbours, share info/gossip, talk about the local area
- Tell your friends about local issues, get them interested and get them involved
- Come up with constructive ideas and post them on this thread
- Blah blah blah and so on.......

Honestly, if some of you lot put the effort into your local community that you put into slagging each other off on these boards, I'm sure we *would * be living in a Brixton Utopia    

Love up


----------



## Domski (Mar 23, 2004)

This thread is funny as fuck. LOL!

Hatboy, GUTTED that he hadn't got enough attention when he originally posted up his 'Sod all these bland new places. I couldn't give a flying fuck about any of them' comment has now at least got the attention he so craves.

I'm afraid, as much as Mr Lynch is an antagonistic cunt, his point about 'old Brixton' taking advantage and selling up is pure gold. Put it this way, most people would take the opportunity if they had the forethought to save their money as and when they could, got mortgages, watched their assets appreciate and flog them for a big profit regardless of their background I'm afraid. It's a natural instinct that supercedes any of this 'love of the community' speak IMHO. Honestly Hatboy, if you'd had a council house for years, had scrimped and saved, were given the right to buy it, bought it, and then watch it shoot up in value you're telling me you wouldn't be tempted?

Fuck, the policy may be wrong but the temptation would be too much for even the most community minded person if they found themselves in that situation...

I'm afraid 'gentrification' isn't exclusive to Brixton, and is a product of the capitalist system - the only way you're going to stop it happening in Brixton is via two routes:

1. National revolution and an overthrow of our current way of life (more likely)
2. Local revolution, 'Les Miserables' style - errect barricades on all key roads into town, buy several fuck off big red flags, and start rounding up the Borgeouis (Sorry, conservative young professionals) for the guillotining they so thoroughly deserve for robbing Brixton of it's character.  Maybe that's the answer, another round of rioting to scare them off so that property prices will crumble - FUCK, what a great solution that is 

My sentiments on the subject echo Fanta's earlier post (#70), just because Brixton is modernising itself (in line with how most of the country is modernising itself) doesn't mean that it hasn't got shitloads of character, and won't continue to have for as long as it exists.

I'd say that the attitude of people like Hatboy (and Aurora Green) is worse (in many ways) for Brixton than those of the dreaded 'young professionals'  . It's self righteousness and inverse snobbery combined with the some of the shit prejudices of the 'moneyed' classes that prevent the integration of the rich and the poor. i.e. It's not JUST the fault of 'conservative young professionals' who you blame for everything and who's opinions are seemingly invalid just because they've got money... Have a fucking word with yourself. 

Athos has come up with some very good comments on this thread but because he's not part of the 'conventional way of thinking' (i.e. the back-patting brigade who are essentially a tiny minority of Brixton), he's got pretty short shrift... for example: 

Intostella - the old queen of the clique and 'oneup(wo)manship'  dives in to attack, but is roundly beaten and frankly ridiculed, is left with her usual 4 step defence

1. This has been all done before on the boards and I can't be arsed to go over the point again
2. I've lived round here for longer than you so your opinion is invalid
3. Can't you handle the fact that a WOMAN has an opinion, you must be a sexist
4. I'll ignore you now as you're obviously below me OR merely trolling


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> I'd say that the attitude of people like Hatboy (and Aurora Green) is worse (in many ways) for Brixton than those of the dreaded 'young professionals'  . It's self righteousness and inverse snobbery combined with the some of the shit prejudices of the 'moneyed' classes that prevent the integration of the rich and the poor. i.e. It's not JUST the fault of 'conservative young professionals' who you blame for everything and who's opinions are seemingly invalid just because they've got money... Have a fucking word with yourself.


Hold it, I've stayed out of this thread, but that I can't let pass. I do feel you're misrepresenting both persons here. As (long standing) residents all they are saying is that they hope that the 'community' and local interests (especially those who *haven't * been able to acquire, sell up and thus benefit-and that IMO is a large majority) aren't sacrificed on the altar of commercial interests. That, IMo, is what hatboy was getting at, as Brixton's 'way of life' is part & parcel of that.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 23, 2004)

What are the '100s of different reasons' then? Just name 20 if you want, loike.


----------



## Domski (Mar 23, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> Hold it, I've stayed out of this thread, but that I can't let pass. I do feel you're misrepresenting both persons here. As (long standing) residents all they are saying is that they hope that the 'community' and local interests (especially those who *haven't * been able to acquire, sell up and thus benefit-and that IMO is a large majority) aren't sacrificed on the altar of commercial interests. That, IMo, is what hatboy was getting at, as Brixton's 'way of life' is part & parcel of that.



I don't want Brixton sacrificed on the 'altar of commercial interests' either mate - but prices in Brixton have gone up as part of a wider problem with the 'free' market in London IMO, and not because of some conspiracy theory about flogging off Brixton to commercial interests.

Sometimes I reckon this 'lets save our community' discussion is merely a dressed up argument for 'haves vs have nots' or worse, a piece of utterly hypocrytical reverse racism.

Lets turn this round - imagine a village in the countryside, been a community there for years, and the government comes along and says they want to build a council estate on their doorstep - I'm pretty sure the current residents would be against it, but people like Hatboy etc (Sorry to single you out) would hate them for it as they'd be attempting to deprive people of council houses. So what this boils down to is a simple 'rich v poor' argument and nothing else, rather than this trumped up community spirit bollocks.

If people genuinely want to stop the erosion of the community stop going on about your dislike of 'pale, bland young professionals' because it makes you sound like seriously bitter human beings and has nothing constructive to add.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> *...does anyone have any ideas on how to combat the blandification of Brixton culture?*
> 
> Here's a few (apologies if they're a bit obvious, but maybe you've got some better ideas!):
> 
> ...



Thanks for that very helpful post BH.   I thought I didn't do much, but I do all of those things and more so that's not too bad. Not just moaning on here eh!

You are obviously against whatever you imagine me to be Domski. I don't know you atall. Some stuff you and my other critics say on me I'll see your point on. I can see how I appear to some on here. But my opinions are based on listening to and talking to all sorts round here - from council officers to homeless or whoever.

But what everyone reading this has to understand is that there is widespread opinion in Brixton that many improvements are excluding, are superficial, are just for the monied, are not fair, are NOT honest.....

Some changes have been positive for all I hope and "change" in itself is inevitable and cannot be stopped. All I want is real, inclusive change.

And many people, many very credible people, many people who don't bother with this forum are voicing concerns about change in Brixton that are similar to those I've expressed.

If you can't see it or don't hear it it isn't because I'm mad and you are sane. It's because you need to open your eyes and ears.


----------



## Domski (Mar 23, 2004)

I'm for inclusive change as well Hatboy

Can we agree on one thing though, having a continual go at the blandness and paleness  of people who've recently moved here achieves the square root of fuck all - I'm sure if you went into a council meeting and accused them of 'ethnic cleansing' you'd be ordered to get out.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2004)

The problem with these internet discussions is that there's not much "tone". Only words. It's very difficult to get a rounded picture of people and their opinions and easy to get wound up.  Look for the deeper meaning and not just the politeness or lack of it or the absolutely literal meaning. 

And seriously, I don't know who everyone else talks too, but the worries I have, if poorly expressed, are by no means mine alone.  

People I talk to in the street seem to know what I'm on about. How come so much resistance here?

Maybe I should just leave u75. Many mates say "why do you bother".  I keep hoping Brixton Forum will get more representative/in touch with Brixton.  Maybe I should promote it more to people, but I still often want to say it isn't anything to do with me.


 and


----------



## hendo (Mar 24, 2004)

I reckon there are some pretty good arguments on here. Not to have the occasional barney, now that would be bland.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 24, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> I don't want Brixton sacrificed on the 'altar of commercial interests' either mate - but prices in Brixton have gone up as part of a wider problem with the 'free' market in London IMO, and not because of some conspiracy theory about flogging off Brixton to commercial interests.
> 
> Sometimes I reckon this 'lets save our community' discussion is merely a dressed up argument for 'haves vs have nots' or worse, a piece of utterly hypocrytical reverse racism.
> 
> ...


you've totally misread this thread. This is NOT about nimbyism. ALL here on this forum (that I've met) have accepted that people moving about is one of the great inevitables of life. the influx of those 'professionals' (and I am one myself) is accepted as an inevitable-the question is the terms on which it happens, and the struggle is to ensure this is not to the locals' disadvantage, and that the process is managed to ensure the best of both worlds-an evolving, regenerating community with local citizens' rights preserved. 
And where the fuck did I posit a 'conspiracy'? Do go by what's been said, not by what you (mis)read into it.


----------



## Ms T (Mar 24, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> *...does anyone have any ideas on how to combat the blandification of Brixton culture?*
> 
> Here's a few (apologies if they're a bit obvious, but maybe you've got some better ideas!):
> 
> ...



Great post, BH.  I do most of these things already, and I am one of those dreaded beings.  A MIDDLE-CLASS PROFESSIONAL.  We're not all heartless individuals who don't give a shit about anything apart from money and house prices, you know.  Just as not all poor people are paragons of virtue.  I don't meant to sound smug or complacent here, I know I could probably do more.  

It's convenient and easy to stereotype people, especially when engaged in this kind of debate, but unfortunately people have a habit of not fitting into boxes.  I know quite a few "yuppies" (for want of a better word) who live round here and without exception they've done a lot to contribute to the community.  One is a volunteer at the Brixton Law Centre, another has been a school governor, even though she has no children of her own.  

I think Domski makes some valid points in his posts, as does Athos.  But I also understand Hatboy's point of view as well.  As Domski says, there's absolutely no point in trying to stir up class division when there are so many people -- rich and poor -- with so much to offer. 

As you were.....


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

Ms T said:
			
		

> Great post, BH.  I do most of these things already, and I am one of those dreaded beings.  A MIDDLE-CLASS PROFESSIONAL.  We're not all heartless individuals who don't give a shit about anything apart from money and house prices, you know.  Just as not all poor people are paragons of virtue.  I don't meant to sound smug or complacent here, I know I could probably do more.
> 
> It's convenient and easy to stereotype people, especially when engaged in this kind of debate, but unfortunately people have a habit of not fitting into boxes.  I know quite a few "yuppies" (for want of a better word) who live round here and without exception they've done a lot to contribute to the community.  One is a volunteer at the Brixton Law Centre, another has been a school governor, even though she has no children of her own.
> 
> ...



Yeah, yeah, they may actually do something for the community, but they shouldn't be there if they look 'drab.'


----------



## aurora green (Mar 24, 2004)

Please dont even think of leaving Hatboy. U75 would be a duller place without you. 
It all comes down to your own personal perspective whether you think whats happening in Brixtons for the good or not.
Living on the Loughborough estate, with kids in the local schools, I guess I fear that the people round here will become more and more excluded from central Brixtons life, whether financially or culturally, and the place will become more of a ghetto, with very rich people living one side of town, enjoying a swishy 'Brixton' lifestyle, not unlike an Islington lifestyle only a bit cheaper, and the people here ever more marginalized. That's why in my first controversial post in this thread, I mentioned the privatisation of the market, and opportunities for local people to self organise.
Its not about hating yuppies, more that I care passionately about the young people around here, that they have chances in life, and do not grow up feeling excluded from society.


----------



## Baub (Mar 24, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> Hello Baub   No, I don't think it's necessarily good if people with money to spend come into the area. Why? Because it makes property prices rise and  rents rise. Developers make money out of selling new housing to wealthy people. They are not (generally) providing any social housing.
> 
> Where do these newly arrived, wealthy people* spend their money? For those wealthy enough to buy new housing, I'd suggest they're shopping in places like Tesco, Sainsbury's, Marks and Spencer, Currys. The Living Bar. Croydon even. I suggest they'd probably avoid the market, Eco, the fish stalls, the Phoenix, the Albert, Michael's Meats, and other local businesses. This situation doesn't help the local area (ok, it provides *some* jobs), it just puts money into the pockets of the already rich, and denies that same wealth to the local community.
> 
> ...



Hi BH   
Sorry I couldn't get back to this last night, the boards were so busy my PC kept "timing out".
Looking back at my thread I can see why, but I didn't mean "wealthy" people - I liteally meant people with a decent enough job to have a fair amount of spending money - like me - but not "rich" people.  Brixton has never been a purely working-class area; artistic and generally interesting, non-conformist people from all classes have lived here since it housed "theatrical types" back in the 1800s.  
I also know a fair amount of people who bought houses here in the 80s AND the 90s as they love the area and have taken on large mortgages to buy rather than continue to give the money to a landlord.  
I also think that Brixtons working class (and middle-class) spend more at Tescos and places like Currys (and IKEA and in town) than the market (in my experience, people by certain things at the market, mainly fresh produce) and the "pound shops".
There's still room for more than one culture or class is all I'm saying really.  Real diversity and inclusion.  Or is that perversity and illusion?!


----------



## fanta (Mar 24, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> *...does anyone have any ideas on how to combat the blandification of Brixton culture?*
> 
> Here's a few (apologies if they're a bit obvious, but maybe you've got some better ideas!):
> 
> - Avoid the big supermarkets as far as possible; support the market and locally-owned businesses instead



Actually, this is quite important I think. It is better to shop locally, especially when we have such a magnificent market, but I'm as guilty as the next person going to the supermarket because it is sometimes more 'convenient'.

And if we're so concerned with Brixton becoming bland then isn't shoping at your local Tesco or Sainsbury adding to the problem?

Why is it acceptable to sometimes shop at Tesco or Sainbury but it is not acceptable to shop at Starbucks?

What _is_ the difference?


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 24, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> you've totally misread this thread. This is NOT about nimbyism.


He hasn't misread the thread. Like Ernie, fanta and Athos, he has deliberately chosen to misinterpret the arguments being put across and thrown in some personal unpleasantness for good measure because he hasn't actually got an argument, only an anti-argument. 

You're completely right, domski. I  really can't be bothered to discuss what is happening in my home with odious little twats like you.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> He hasn't misread the thread. Like Ernie, fanta and Athos, he has deliberately chosen to misinterpret the arguments being put across and thrown in some personal unpleasantness for good measure because he hasn't actually got an argument, only an anti-argument.
> 
> You're completely right, domski. I  really can't be bothered to discuss what is happening in my home with odious little twats like you.



What's 'anti-argument'?  Oh, and by the way, what did I say that made you label me (wrongly) as pro-gentrification?  (I have asked a few times, now, you know.)


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 24, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> What's 'anti-argument'?  Oh, and by the way, what did I say that made you label me (wrongly) as pro-gentrification?  (I have asked a few times, now, you know.)


Read the fucking thread properly Athos.


----------



## fanta (Mar 24, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> He hasn't misread the thread. Like Ernie, fanta and Athos, he has deliberately chosen to misinterpret the arguments being put across and thrown in some personal unpleasantness for good measure because he hasn't actually got an argument, only an anti-argument.
> 
> You're completely right, domski. I  really can't be bothered to discuss what is happening in my home with odious little twats like you.



Please try to remember that Editor has asked us not to bait. This thread is good. There is room for a bit of humour, in fact it helps! But if you're just too angry to contribute anything useful perhaps you should say nothing - or do some work instead? 

Thanks.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Read the fucking thread properly Athos.


Which posts (by number), in particular?


----------



## fanta (Mar 24, 2004)

Athos - ignore it.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Athos - ignore it.


You're right: I'm putting it on ignore, now.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 24, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Please try to remember that Editor has asked us not to bait. This thread is good. There is room for a bit of humour, in fact it helps! But if you're just too angry to contribute anything useful perhaps you should say nothing - or do some work instead?
> 
> Thanks.


 Who made you a moderator? If you want a prime example of smugness, Athos, look no further.

The good parts of this thread have been things like Brixton Hatter's constructive posts, not the ludicrous claims that anyone with concerns about gentrification is a naive trustafarian with racist ideas. That is baiting. And it's not worth engaging with.  It's an insult to everyone's  intelligence.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 24, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> You're right: I'm putting it on ignore, now.


 Oh you sexist prick.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 24, 2004)

Surely an anti-argument is just a nod and a slap on the back.


----------



## editor (Mar 24, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> ...and the place will become more of a ghetto, with very rich people living one side of town, enjoying a swishy 'Brixton' lifestyle, not unlike an Islington lifestyle only a bit cheaper, and the people here ever more marginalized.


I don't get this. 

Exactly which parts of Brixton's 'swishy' lifestyle do you want to be part of but feel excluded from?

I'm not a high earner, but I can't think of a single place in Brixton that I feel excluded from (that I want to actually go to).

Could someone name these places, because I'm failing to see the argument here.

There's now a wider choice of cheap and cheerful cafés than there's ever been and some excellent, slightly-more-expensive new alternatives (Lounge, Ritzy).

Many of the new bars, galleries, cafes etc are on Atlantic Road  and that was a run-down, near no-go zone just a few years ago. I think I'd prefer to have a street full of restaurants that I never visit than a row of derelict  property in a dangerous street.

I miss Cooltan and I miss the old Railway Hotel too, but they haven't been replaced by swish designer bars: they're just rotting away (to be honest, I think I'd prefer a swish bar rather than having to live opposite the rat infested site of Cooltan). So no gentrification there.

The Queen has gone (seeing as that was openly flouting the law for years, can hardly blame yuppification for that), as has the Coach and Horses (let's be honest: who went there? That pub's glory days were long over by the early 1990s. It was empty most nights in the early 90s, the beer was spectacularly dreadful and Brixtonites rightly voted with their feet. I can't say I like the Living Bar, but seeing as there's a fabulous, old school community pub opposite, I'm not bothered)

And I simply can't get all nostalgic and misty eyed about the Atlantic. There's no denying that it played an important part in black Brixton culture in the 60s/70s it was a deeply unpleasant drug-dealing den by the end of the 80s and still holds the record for the most unwelcoming pub I've ever set foot in! 

Brixton has both lost and gained over the years - that's the nature of economic and social change. Look around and you'll see the same changes happening in some working class areas all over the UK (Cardiff is a moot example - one of it's roughest chip shop streets - Caroline Street - has transformed into a bistro-laden cultural quarter!)

People's tastes change and neighbourhoods are reflecting that: many old-school, male-dominated, smoke-infested dowdy bars are being replaced by brighter, more women friendly 'lifestyle' pubs.

I can't say that they particularly rock my boat, but so long as there's enough down to earth alternatives, I'm not that othered....


----------



## tarannau (Mar 24, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Actually, this is quite important I think. It is better to shop locally, especially when we have such a magnificent market, but I'm as guilty as the next person going to the supermarket because it is sometimes more 'convenient'.
> 
> And if we're so concerned with Brixton becoming bland then isn't shoping at your local Tesco or Sainsbury adding to the problem?
> 
> ...




Absolutely right - one of the things I value most about Brixton is the market and sheer variety of food available. You'd have to be mad, or just simply lazy, to prefer wheeling a trolley around a homogenised supermarket aisle.

And nope - shopping at Tescos is no better than eating at McDonalds imo. Both are hard to justify in moral terms - but avoiding shopping in the 'big four' is far more inconvenient in practice.  In fact I'd probably argue that the 'home-grown' supermarkets are far more immediately damaging to the UK's environment and marketplace than the usual multinational suspects. But that's for another thread...




Brixton's market is one of its greatest assets and buffers against gentrification. It's one of the reasons why all those folks pushed out to the suburbs - far from cashing in and joyously leaving Brixton forever - frequently returned at weekends and every other opportunity. The suburbs weren't exactly crying out with shops and services serving a multicultural community back then.

Things have improved hugely since then admittedly - it's rarer to find a corner shop in the area that doesn't sell a plantain these days. And that's a good thing if you ask me. But there's little prospect of any of the suburbs offering something on the scale of Brixton market - once a real community hub and meeting point for folks for miles around. 

I don't expect Brixton not to change, but I would like to preserve some of that unique spirit and appeal.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh you sexist prick.



I couldn't resist taking you off 'ignore' to read your response.

It's unbelievable.  I didn't put you on ingnore because you're a woman; I did it because you're an idiot.


----------



## newbie (Mar 24, 2004)

Tescos is at the heart of the community, and has been ever since it was in Popes Road.  Iceland is similar but less so, whereas Sainsburys is a soulless supermarket.  Lidl is just downright strange.

The difference between Tesco & Starbuck is that T has positioned itself to be relatively classless, and has been in Brixton longer than pretty much all of the other food retailers. While Starbucks aims at a particular, global, cultural niche, and in that it would be in direct competition with all the other coffee shops in Brixton, each of which has their own niche, and would threaten their existence, and that, IMO would be a very bad thing.


----------



## editor (Mar 24, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Brixton's market is one of its greatest assets and buffers against gentrification. It's one of the reasons why all those folks pushed out to the suburbs - far from cashing in and joyously leaving Brixton forever - frequently returned at weekends and every other opportunity. The suburbs weren't exactly crying out with shops and services serving a multicultural community back then.


Absolutely: it also plays a central part in creating and maintaining Brixton's unique community, with stall holders of all nationalities underlining the local diversity.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 24, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Surely an anti-argument is just a nod and a slap on the back.


well fuck me gently! an entirely useless ernie comment!
there's a novelty...


----------



## editor (Mar 24, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> Tescos is at the heart of the community, and has been ever since it was in Popes Road.


Eh? Tesco is just a big, bland corporate supermarket stuck up the hill out of central Brixton.

If Tesco disappeared tomorrow, Brixton would hardly be changed. 

If the market disappeared, Brixton would lose a vital part of its unique character.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> well fuck me gently! an entirely useless ernie comment!
> there's a novelty...


Whereas this ^^^ is particularly incisive?


----------



## tarannau (Mar 24, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> The difference between Tesco & Starbuck is that T has positioned itself to be relatively classless, and has been in Brixton longer than pretty much all of the other food retailers. While Starbucks aims at a particular, global, cultural niche, and in that it would be in direct competition with all the other coffee shops in Brixton, each of which has their own niche, and would threaten their existence, and that, IMO would be a very bad thing.



True, but the classless perception of Tesco is more based in marketing than reality. Proceeds from your weekly shop to Dame Shirley Porter anyone...


Isn't M&S the longest established supermarket in Brixton, with over 100 years history on that site?


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

Oi, we've done the piss taking and personal stuff yesterday Athos, etc.  Take it to PM's if you must continue now and keep to the subject on here.

I've said this afew times. Continued ignoring of it will result in a temp ban.

Thanks


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Oi, we've done the piss taking and personal stuff yesterday Athos, etc.  Take it to PM's if you must continue now and keep to the subject on here.
> 
> I've said this afew times. Continued ignoring of it will result in a temp ban.
> 
> Thanks



You are a fucking joke, mate.  You have a pop at me for calling her an idiot, but say nothing about her calling me a 'sexist prick.'  That's got to be the least impartial bit of 'moderating' I've ever heard of.  You gonna ban me cos I'm not part of your clique are you?


----------



## editor (Mar 24, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> You are a fucking joke, mate.  You have a pop at me for calling her an idiot, but say nothing about her calling me a 'sexist prick.'  That's got to be the least impartial bit of 'moderating' I've ever heard of.  You gonna ban me cos I'm not part of your clique are you?


I will not have this interesting thread degenerating into a mindless bun fight. Stop it *now.* The same applies to anyone else posting up the same kind of tedious, off topic shite.

If anyone's got a problem with this style of moderating, take it up with me.


----------



## newbie (Mar 24, 2004)

ed you're contrasting Tescos and the market, I was responding to a question about Tesco and Starbucks.  I'm not doubting that the market is centrally important to Brixton, but then again I have no doubt at all that the market hasn't been as thriving or as important since Tesco moved to Acre Lane.

I don't know how long T or M&S has been in Brixton.  Since before me is all I can say.  But M&S is a niche food retailer, and Tesco isn't.  As for Shirley Porter, yea an important issue for politicos, but now go and look at Tesco and see who meets their mates there, who rubs shoulders with whom, how many of the longterm staff say hello to the customers...  The place is not a bland airport waiting lounge like Sainsbury at Nine Elms.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 24, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> I will not have this interesting thread degenerating into a mindless bun fight. Stop it *now.* The same applies to anyone else posting up the same kind of tedious, off topic shite.
> 
> If anyone's got a problem with this style of moderating, take it up with me.



Fairplay though Ed, Athos is only giving as good as he's getting.


----------



## fanta (Mar 24, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Absolutely right - one of the things I value most about Brixton is the market and sheer variety of food available. You'd have to be mad, or just simply lazy, to prefer wheeling a trolley around a homogenised supermarket aisle.
> 
> And nope - shopping at Tescos is no better than eating at McDonalds imo. Both are hard to justify in moral terms - but avoiding shopping in the 'big four' is far more inconvenient in practice.  In fact I'd probably argue that the 'home-grown' supermarkets are far more immediately damaging to the UK's environment and marketplace than the usual multinational suspects. But that's for another thread...
> 
> ...



I like the market so much I think I'm a little obssessed with it. I'm at my happiest wandering round with the little one thinking about what I'm going to buy and cook later. 

Brixton _is_ the market.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

I said "Athos, etc" meaning you and others but you seem to be the main antagonist today.

I've let you and Ernie put your points across. Including lots of opinions against me. Now this has just turned into a personality clash.   For the record I don't always see eye to eye with IntoStella and we've fallen out quite badly recently so no "clique" there.

And she is derailing the argument less than you. That last insulting post just goes to show.

I'm not so closed you know. I can see sense in some of your arguments and laugh at myself. And question myself and say "sorry" (unlike Ernie). 

I can't keep saying "possible temp ban" and do nothing.

So no clique or favouritism - but you will get a day's ban to calm down if you can't start being more respectful.


----------



## fanta (Mar 24, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> Tescos is at the heart of the community, and has been ever since it was in Popes Road.  Iceland is similar but less so, whereas Sainsburys is a soulless supermarket.  Lidl is just downright strange.
> 
> The difference between Tesco & Starbuck is that T has positioned itself to be relatively classless, and has been in Brixton longer than pretty much all of the other food retailers. While Starbucks aims at a particular, global, cultural niche, and in that it would be in direct competition with all the other coffee shops in Brixton, each of which has their own niche, and would threaten their existence, and that, IMO would be a very bad thing.



This is unconvincing. Both Tesco and Starbuck and Iceland for that matter have more in common that in difference imo...


----------



## Belushi (Mar 24, 2004)

*So no clique or favouritism - but you will get a day's ban to calm down if you can't start being more respectful.* 

Because he dares not to agree with you?  FFS get over yourself


----------



## editor (Mar 24, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Fairplay though Ed, Athos is only giving as good as he's getting.


Indeed. And that's why hatboy didn't single him out: "*we've * done the piss taking and personal stuff yesterday Athos"

Note to all: please keep all further contributins to this thread on topic.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

FFS - No, not because we disagree, because as explained. (sighs).  

Read the post Belushi, despite being told I'm "a joke" I'm the one then saying I can see some of Athos's arguments.

Doesn't that seem reasonable. 

NO MORE WARNINGS.


----------



## isvicthere? (Mar 24, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I couldn't resist taking you off 'ignore' to read your response.
> 
> It's unbelievable.  I didn't put you on ingnore because you're a woman; I did it because you're an idiot.



You may not mind being called "it". Some women - and quite rightly IMO - object to it.

For someone lacking in a basic knowledge of pronouns you are awfully smug.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> I said "Athos, etc" meaning you and others but you seem to be the main antagonist today.



Why single me out, then?






> I've let you and Ernie put your points across.



Oh thank you most powerful one.  Get over yourself, mate!






> ... so no "clique" there.



Do you really believe that?






> And she is derailing the argument less than you. That last insulting post just goes to show.



Really, so far today, she accused me of deliberate misrepresentation (at post 184), smugness (at post 191) and called me 'a sexist prick' (at post 192).  *In response*, I called her an idiot (at post 196).  You must be reading a different thread!






> I can't keep saying "possible temp ban" and do nothing.



Don't keep saying it then.







> ... start being more respectful.



If you proved yourself worthy of the small amount of responsibility with which you've been entrusted, I might be able to respect you.

By the way, I'm just replying to your post, so I think it'd be a bit rich to ban me for it!


----------



## newbie (Mar 24, 2004)

not in terms of customers and atmos they don't. I'm talking about the individual places in Brixton, not making any points about their role nationally.  Sainsburys is about youngish people talking into their mobiles while distractedly buying ready meals; Tescos is where the people you know from the school playground introduce you to their grandparents.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

"If you proved yourself worthy of the small amount of responsibility with which you've been entrusted, I might be able to respect you".



What a fucking dickhead. Do I need this?


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> You may not mind being called "it". Some women - and quite rightly IMO - object to it.
> 
> For someone lacking in a basic knowledge of pronouns you are awfully smug.



Calling anyone 'it' may be offensive, but it isn't sexist.  Anyway, what I meant was that I was setting the computer to ignore (not calling her 'it').


----------



## isvicthere? (Mar 24, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> You are a fucking joke, mate.  You have a pop at me for calling her an idiot, but say nothing about her calling me a 'sexist prick.'  That's got to be the least impartial bit of 'moderating' I've ever heard of.  You gonna ban me cos I'm not part of your clique are you?



Athos, you are REALLY clutching at straws now. 

Intostella's indignation is clearly justified: anger at being referred to as an inanimate object.

Yours is not: getting out of your pram for being pulled up for smug insults.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> What a fucking dickhead.



Oi, we've done the piss taking and personal stuff yesterday Hatboy, etc. Take it to PM's if you must continue now and keep to the subject on here.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> Athos, you are REALLY clutching at straws now.
> 
> Intostella's indignation is clearly justified: anger at being referred to as an inanimate object.
> 
> Yours is not: getting out of your pram for being pulled up for smug insults.



Fair enough, mate.  If you don't accept my explanation of what I meant, but, even on the other interpretation, it's not sexist.


----------



## miss minnie (Mar 24, 2004)

*r.i.p.*

a memorial service for this thread will be held in community later today...


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 24, 2004)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> You may not mind being called "it". Some women - and quite rightly IMO - object to it.
> 
> For someone lacking in a basic knowledge of pronouns you are awfully smug.


I don't think you read his post right. He doesn't call IS "it". He uses "it" in an adverbial sense, like "it's raining". There is no previous nounal phrase to which "it" refers unless you consider "it" to refer to "the situation". I believe the grammatical point can be debated either way.

Also, please don't close down Tesco's. It's my corner shop. The market's great, but the quality is middling at best apart from the Portuguese deli, Boca and L.S.Mash. In particular there's  no butcher to compare with Moen's or Hester's for quality.


----------



## isvicthere? (Mar 24, 2004)

*trying to get back on topic........*

This is an interesting thread. It's a shame that, at the beginning, there were more than a few efforts to derail it with smugness masquerading as wit.

My kneejerk reaction is to tend towards agreeing with Hatboy's analysis. Many things have gone in recent years - Cool Tan, Jan Rebane, Queen, 121 - which clearly make Brixton a less interesting place. One of the arguments put up (I think by Fanta) is: that's just change. Of course, but that is not to say that all change is perforce for the good. Would a 1933 German equivalent of Fanta say, "It's dreadful what those brownshirted, goosestepping fellows are doing, but - hey! - that's change"? (An obviously extreme analogy, but IMO still relevant).

On the other hand, I have to say I have been quite swayed by Mike's recent post. Not all the change has been "blandifying". I know someone who's lived here all her life (amazing but true) and she told me in the late 90s that at least there are a few decent restaurants now.

So, I come to the cautious conclusion that HB definitely has a point, and simply hope that the reputation for danger/crime wich Brixton still enjoys/endures is enough to prevent it becoming a real blando rats' nest for the rich like Notting Hill.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 24, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Calling anyone 'it' may be offensive, but it isn't sexist.  Anyway, what I meant was that I was setting the computer to ignore (not calling her 'it').



It is generally thought my most people to be sexist actually.

"Phwor look at that"
"I'd shag it"
"I'm putting it on ignore"
see?

Dehumanising women.  Nice.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 24, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Fair enough, mate.  If you don't accept my explanation of what I meant, but, even on the other interpretation, it's not sexist.



Maybe you should start to question why you're consistently taken in a way that you say you don't mean?  Maybe you should think more about the language you use?


----------



## editor (Mar 24, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> By the way, I'm just replying to your post, so I think it'd be a bit rich to ban me for it!


Which bit of my previous post are you having trouble understanding, Athos?



> Note to all: please keep all further contributions to this thread on topic.



Now shut the fuck up with your whining, and take your tedious arguments to PMs or you will be banned.

And it's not personal: the same applies to *anyone else * who continues arguing the toss with irrelevant, off topic posts.

In fact, fuck it. I've had a skinful of hassle from running these boards over the past two days and I'm not in the mood for any more.

If anyone posts up a personal attack or another pointless off topic dig *after* this post then they'll be enjoying a day off the boards.

This thread has an interesting topic. Talk about it.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

See my post at the top of page 8.


----------



## newbie (Mar 24, 2004)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> Many things have gone in recent years - Cool Tan, Jan Rebane, Queen, 121 - which clearly make Brixton a less interesting place.



sorry vic, but that's less interesting _to you_.  None of them had much relevance in my life.  For a lot of people those places going and Ruarch Ministries coming would be an improvement. It's necessary to separate out what is culturally appropriate to you and your mates and what is good or bad for Brixton as a whole.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2004)

One last thing, then I won't take it 'off piste' any more, I promise.  Looking back, I've realised that my posts were more aggresive than they should have been, and that I was being childish.  (Although I honestly didn't mean some of the things in the way they've been interpreted).  I'm sorry to anyone who has been disappointed at my derailing, and anyone I've upset personally, particularly Hatboy, IntoStella and aurora green.

Cheers,

Athos


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

In the middle of this this morning I've now just had a huge row on the phone with someone I love dearly and fucked it all up because I was in a stressed mood over this argument.

See you lot around or whatever.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 24, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> In the middle of this this morning I've now just had a huge row on the phone with someone I love dearly and fucked it all up because I was in a stressed mood over this argument.
> 
> See you lot around or whatever.


_Come back! _


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 24, 2004)

I think one problem, buzz, is that a lot of people feel they are constantly on the defensive, having to resist the erosion of social housing, schooling and other public services, just for starters.  Rather than formulating a positive vision and implementing it, they are having to firefight just to keep these basic necessities and keep them in the public domain.  Their time is taken up with protesting. It is no surprise that people become browbeaten and cynical.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 24, 2004)

It is also the case that Brixton's upward mobility tends to attract every bleedin' brand in town. One of the few good things that came out of Brixton being stigmatised for decades was that the usual high street names didn't wanna know, leaving the field clear for more interesting, edgy places.


----------



## newbie (Mar 24, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> It is also the case that Brixton's upward mobility tends to attract every bleedin' brand in town. One of the few good things that came out of Brixton being stigmatised for decades was that the usual high street names didn't wanna know, leaving the field clear for more interesting, edgy places.



all true, but it'd be hard to deny that Argos, in particular, has found a warm welcome.


----------



## fanta (Mar 24, 2004)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> Also, please don't close down Tesco's. It's my corner shop. The market's great, but the quality is middling at best apart from the Portuguese deli, Boca and L.S.Mash. In particular there's  no butcher to compare with Moen's or Hester's for quality.



I don't know about that, I've bought the odd piece from one or two the hallal butchers that is always crowded with punters - they can't all be wrong.

I reckon I'll still be going to the supermarket in spite of it though.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 24, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> This thread is funny as fuck. LOL!


Yeah! Gentrification is hilarious!   



			
				Buzz sw9 said:
			
		

> Can I ask if you stay somewhere for a long time and become established can you them claim to be part of the establishment


Not sure if this was directed at me, but for what it's worth, I'd say that you become a part of the local community (the "establishment" as you call it) the second you live somewhere. The question is not "how long have you lived there?", but "what do you contribute?"



			
				Domski said:
			
		

> I don't want Brixton sacrificed on the 'altar of commercial interests' either mate - but prices in Brixton have gone up as part of a wider problem with the 'free' market in London IMO, and not because of some conspiracy theory about flogging off Brixton to commercial interests


The first bit of that's true - but Lambeth Council selling off property/land to commercial interests simply accelerates the process. Some people might think that a council like Lambeth, representing as it does (or is supposed to) a large number of working class people, might take steps to _slow down_ the process.



			
				Ms T said:
			
		

> Great post, BH.  I do most of these things already, and I am one of those dreaded beings.  A MIDDLE-CLASS PROFESSIONAL.  We're not all heartless individuals who don't give a shit about anything apart from money and house prices, you know.  Just as not all poor people are paragons of virtue


   



			
				Baub said:
			
		

> I also think that Brixtons working class (and middle-class) spend more at Tescos and places like Currys (and IKEA and in town) than the market


True - it's happening all over Britain. Town centres gutted, corner shops/grocers/fruit&veg shops closed. Everything goes "out of town". Now we've got a move back the other way back into town centres, except this time your local corner shop is a Tesco "Express" or a Sainsbury's "Local". Again, wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the few. The big supermarkets have a lot to answer for.



			
				fanta said:
			
		

> Why is it acceptable to sometimes shop at Tesco or Sainbury but it is not acceptable to shop at Starbucks?
> 
> What _is_ the difference?


That's actually a really interesting point. I do find myself in Tesco sometimes. I would never go to Starbucks, partly because of the way they treat their employees and conduct their business, but mainly because they're American (I am trying to boycott all American goods at the moment!) I liked Newbie's reply to that one.



			
				editor said:
			
		

> ....Brixton has both lost and gained over the years - that's the nature of economic and social change...


That was a quality post by the ed. I agree with this - that Brixton has both lost and gained. We should concentrate on what's been gained and try to preserve what's left.



			
				Buzz sw9 said:
			
		

> Maybe this thread would now be better to try and concentrate on what YOU can do to try and conserve what you all like and how to push for what you want, there are many very intelligent and articulate people on this board and in this thread and if you have a history of working for change with local Authorities you’ll know that it is often those who shout loudest that get what they want, I’m not sure what can be done to get rents or house prices down, but there is lots that can be done to stop more of the same coming to Brixton if that’s what you want?


Amen   

Apologies for the length of this - there's so much stuff to reply to and this thread grows so quickly!


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

Buzz said:

"Hatboy and others think it is for the worst and Editor has pointed out why he feels some of the changes are for the good."

No I feel that SOME of the changes are not good, because they do not benefit the poorer parts of this whole community.

The people I know aren't worried about whether they can buy a flat. They are worried that they can't get a housing association or council flat. Or that their present homes will be sold and they will be asked to move.

For your information:

*Displacement of Poorer Communities*

Poorer indigenous inhabitants being forced out of an area by rich incomers.

This is a fairly familiar description of events. But does that really happen? If so, how?

In no particular order:

1) The private rented sector becomes beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest (government backing this up soon by refusing to pay full housing benefit to tenants in private sector who could move to cheaper area).

2) Councils look to 'realise full value of assets' by evicting tenants and selling-off short-term/rundown housing on open market along with schools, swimming pools, old peoples homes and other public buildings to be turned into luxury flats.

3) Because of area deemed 'up-and-coming' even prices of former council homes sold under right-to-buy become beyond the reach of average punter (saw 2 bed ex-council flat in Old St area, London, recently being offered at £280,000!)

4) Councils will claim that they do not have the money to regenerate rundown estates, so will insist that number of affordable homes be reduced to accommodate luxury flats that they say will 'pay for work on council homes' and 'increase social mix' supposedly vital to ensure successful regeneration.

5) Local families might have used a pub for generations, but it will still be sold regardless of what they think and turned into luxury flats and /or cafe-bar with prices raised to a level designed to deliberately deter less well-off custom.

All of the above, combined with the fact that there is very little chance of local people being housed on council lists, undoubtedly leads to people feeling that they are being pushed-out of an area.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

*And from Epona (urban75 contributor):*

I may not live in Brixton, but I do have quite a bee in my bonnet about gentrification. I come from rural Surrey (a very wealthy area, with a few council estates dotted around the countryside for local factory workers). Not somewhere that has been gentrified, rather a place where the real gentry live!

I moved to Hoxton when I came to London. At that time it was one of the most deprived and poverty stricken areas in the country. Unemployment was around 40%, those that worked were on poverty wages, and most people lived in grotty crumbling tower blocks. Some that were slightly better off had bought their council flats under the right to buy scheme, and there was some private accommodation in old terraces, but this was only a small part of the accommodation in the area. There was a lot wrong with the area that could have been fixed by decent council funding. Then a couple of trendy nightclubs opened up in the area. People started flooding in late on Friday and Saturday nights, but it wasn't local people going to the clubs. If there were any jobs available for locals it was low paid bar work or security. 

The area started to get write-ups in Time Out that were touting Hoxton as the hottest up and coming area in London, citing the clubs and the artists who lived in the area because of access to cheap warehouse studios, and the Lux (which I personally welcomed, being a fan of independent cinemas, alas it didn't last). The influx started - young trendy city types who wouldn't have gone near the place with a ten-foot bargepole if it hadn't been for the media attention. Those who had bought their council houses started to sell up, realising they could make a packet by selling to city types. Most of them ended up being sold as 'investment opportunities' to dodgy private companies, who would rip out the internal walls to make them into trendy 'open-plan living spaces' and rent them to the yuppies for huge sums of money. Trendy bars and restaurants (including the most expensive Greek restaurant in London) opened in the area around Hoxton Square. The few jobs that arose were low paid bar and waiter jobs. The area was further popularised by The Verve's video for Bitter Sweet Symphony, and the news that Jarvis Cocker had bought a place in Hoxton. At that point the process was irreversible. The old Gainsborough Studio was turned into luxury flats, as were other local landmarks such as the art deco building, which had been a stained glass workshop (the building was listed, but was illegally ripped down by the developers).

From that point on, there were two communities in Hoxton. The original poor people, for whom nothing improved - in fact the opposite - the council was more concerned with encouraging property investment in the area than it was with providing facilities for the locals. And the yuppies who were buying up luxury apartments at a rate of knots, drinking in the posh bars that locals couldn't afford, and looking down their noses at everyone else.

But then those of you in Brixton know all this, you've seen it happening to your own area, although maybe at a slower rate.

But what strikes me about it that not all of you will have experienced, is how much more difficult it is to be poor in a wealthy area. It's no barrel of laughs anywhere, but looking back at my life in a council house in one of the wealthiest areas of the country puts it into focus. The lack of NHS doctors and dentists because most people go private, the places that you can't go because you can't afford them, the places you can't walk because people will phone the police if they see you trespassing, the superior and arrogant attitudes you come up against, the community from which you are excluded, the complaints if you park a scruffy car outside your house, truly being a second class citizen and being made painfully aware of that each and every day of your life. That is the logical conclusion of gentrification.

End quote.


----------



## Domski (Mar 24, 2004)

[Relatively on topic]

This thread _was_ funny as fuck

Gentrification is _not_

I think there's a fairly big difference 

Hatboy - do please quit the melodrama - you started this thread with some fairly LARGE statements containing phrases like 'deeply suspicious', 'ethic cleansing' and 'We'll see Brixton a pale (in more ways than one) shadow of itself in the future' which needed answering - so to 'cry off' and then wield your moderator powers as a last resort is pretty out of order.

OK, I did play both man and ball, but it was nothing worse than can be expected on these boards I also was dead chuffed to be called a twat by Intostella. LOL! Damn, does that there truth hurt 

Anyway - some good points have now been made - as well as some fucking shite ones, but it stills boils down to this - STOP FLOGGING OFF SOCIAL HOUSING LAMBETH YOU CUNTS - if you want the 'original community' to retain its foothold. I've never disagreed with anyone's point on this (and that looks to be the crux of what you're talking about in post #239 Hatboy)...

The only reason I ever started posting on this thread was to have a big fat go at you for the utter TRIPE you spouted in your first post. It simply wasn't acceptable.

As for BH's post on 'what to do', that all makes perfect sense to me and is perhaps the best thing to come out of this slanging match.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

Well there plenty of people who get the gist of my first post round here and agree.  

I don't care if certain words or phrases upset people or were misunderstood. Yes, some would say the post was provocative.  But so what.  Others would say it hits the nail on the head.  I feel confident that many people, especially poorer people, who've been here a fair few years know exactly what I'm getting at.

Once again - I'm not against change. I'm against divisive change. I'm suspicious of the business motivations behind changes in Brixton.  I'm suspicious of the police, I'm suspicious of those higher in the council.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## davey (Mar 24, 2004)

*I tried to read all of this thread*

...but it got petty and personal with people spending far too much effort in point-scoring than coming up with interesting contributions (with some obvious exceptions).

my 2p worth.

The concerns about gentrification are valid and the process is obvious to anyone who spends a significant time around here. Brixton is getting "better" facilities but only for a limited number of residents - the Ferndale Rd sports facilities sound great, but they are at a cost while the Pulross Road playground is under constant threat of closure. 

I do get worried about trying to preserve Brixton in aspic, I also get concerned about rich/poor being almost automatically translated into white/black.

Unfortunatley, because of racism the black population do find it harder in the fields of education and employment and often are poorer than white as a result. From what I've read, Brixton developed a large black population because many of the Windrush generation were initially housed in the underground at Clapham upon arrival and found lots of boarding houses and rooms to rent in Brixton as a legacy from actors staying here at the beginning of the century (anyone got any more info on this?) - so Brixton became a "black area" because it was cheap. And Brixton has been a poor area of London for decades.

Things are changing - thank fuck, because I don't want Brixton to be a poor ghetto or a black ghetto. I also don't want people to be priced out of the area - I am well paid and pay a shocking amount for a one bedroom flat, I don't know how some other people survive in privately rented accomodation here! Surely the answer is more social housing, I really can't see how the private housing sector can be managed (other than through planning permission). Brixton is a lovely place to live, because of the market, because of the shops, because it's easy to get to central London by bus, train, tube or foot, because of the people, because of the *wide variety* of places to drink. So of course property prices are going to go up. 

The only way to stop people being forced out of Brixton must be affordable housing be it council or HA and stop the construction of gated communities which are an insult to Brixton. Re middle class professionals (like me) contributing more to the community? anyone think the idea of a local income tax might help?


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

"The only reason I ever started posting on this thread was to have a big fat go at you for the utter TRIPE you spouted in your first post. It simply wasn't acceptable."

Maybe not to you, but other people have said "spot on" - just not many on urban75.


----------



## Anna Key (Mar 24, 2004)

Interesting thread.

I think the problem's simple. The gentrification of Brixton can be stopped if locals and friends of Brixton organise themselves well.

Two examples of this were discussed on these boards during the last 12 months:

- the Merrettisation of the former Brixton Cycles building on Coldharbour Lane - stymied;

- the construction of a gated security estate for the wealthy at 14-20 Tulse Hill - stymied.

The threads are still there. The Lambeth planning meeting which bombed Merrett is reported here.

In both instances protestors were well organised and they won. It's that simple. No shooting the property developers, no burning down of buildings, no Trotskyist ranting. Just good local organisation.

If people had been badly organised - or hadn't bothered - they'd have lost and these two instances of gentrification would have occured. We'd now be facing _Living Bar X 3_ opposite the Prince Albert.

I'm suspicious of the rich-poor distinction. I've not got a pot to piss in but know numerous wealthy people who love Brixton and are strongly anti-gentrification.

They hate Merrettisation, hate the property developers circling like vultures, hate the social housing sell-offs and _loathe_ the disgusting Lambeth politicians brokering the Great Brixton Carve-Up.

So it's simple. You either organise well, fight the gentrifiers and win. Or fail to organise, or do so badly, and permit the buggers to wreck the neighbourhood.


----------



## sun man (Mar 24, 2004)

It's not just Lambeth council that sell off public housing stock. Wandsworth, Hyde Southbank and the London Quandrant group are followling the same route.

It's not a malicious idea to gentrify an area. The council isn't accountable for it's vacant / squatted housing stock so they would rather leave them to collect dust in the filing cabinet than take on the hassle of repairing / vacating them.

Neighbours close by to an untidy squat or derelict building are usually disgruntled by it's presence, mostly because their own building is de-valued. Subsequently they're constantly on the phone complaining to the appropriate department.  An officer is sent around who either freaks out at the pigeons and rats living inside or finds the building "unlawfully occupied". 

The disposals officer will then make a few calls and get the building on the "for sale by auction" list, a bit like washing your hands of the problem. It's an easy way out which will only have serious knock on effects later.

The property will usually be bought by a developer or someone who will extend and refurbish it. Often it will be sold on as a whole or flats for an overall profit. Basically this means the original seller has done it's self out of money. The Housing authority could have refurbished the building and re-used it.  Instead they are now one more unit down and to replace it will only cost more than if the original property had been repaired.

Maybe the revenue raised from the auction isn't even used to purchase new stock. Is there any way of finding out where all that money has gone?

I'm not against developers as I'd effectively be at war with myself. But this is a very  poor property development process which only increases the pressure on the existing shortage of socail / affordable housing.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> I've explained that I like visual things and people.  I also have friends who just look completely ordinary but say funny or clever or insightful things.  I like people who have a minority perspective - gay, beggar, painter, rapper, whatever. People who can teach me stuff. I prefer them all to conservative young professionals.



I want to say more on this.  I feel this thread makes it very apparent that some people on here are unaware of their position of comfort in the white heterosexual majority in this country.  

I am white, I speak well, I have some of those advantages. I also have some idea, being gay and other stuff too, of what it is like to be different from the majority. I am not a visible minority, I realise that homophobia is vastly different to racism, but I do know what it's like to feel most influences around you are not about affirming and lifting-up your identity, they are for somebody else. 

White people who, for instance,  think a bar that is black and unwelcoming to whites is the same as a bar that is white and unwelcoming to black people in this country need to think harder.

Prejudice in any direction is wrong, the above should work the same either way, but it doesn't in the UK. Think about power relationships, history, and simply numbers too. This is not an equal society.

I say black/white to keep it simple. Obviously I know that not everyone is either black or white. And of course class and wealth come into to this, but being in a minority adds extra pressures.

All this doesn't come up with friends that much unless friends want to talk about it. But sadly it seems necessary to point it out on u75. 

And lastly my opinions involving race on here are not about PC, nor are they about saying hello to one black bloke called Winston on the corner and thinking I know stuff. They are about giving a shit about fairness generally, caring about my mates and seeing with my own eyes.



So put that in your crack pipes and shove them up your fucking arses Ernesto, Athos, Domski and any rude bastards who come in here thinking they know me. Fuck you.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 24, 2004)

top post from the cat in the hat there, methinks. 
just to add, on a different note....'bland' happens when an area gets corporate uniformity, and that happens when the corporates and those like them (eg atlantic, Living etc) identify an area as ripe for profitable squeezing. 
why do corporates do 'bland'; simple-cos it involves minimum effort and it _plays safe_. It's the same process as music, in that all the interesting, individualistic stuff happens or originates from two-blokes-and-a-dog-records, whilst the big guys assume _just enough _ people will tolerate phil Collins _enough_, according to their spreadsheets, to make just enough dough.  
Ditto brixton. it's not that people want with all their hearts 17 identikit stylebars; They'll put up with it. All the same to the business crew, end financial result is the same. So their demographics now say "brixton=viable", and...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 24, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> This thread _was_ funny as fuck
> 
> Gentrification is _not_
> 
> I think there's a fairly big difference


Fair enough - thanks for spelling it out Domski!   

AK and HB - top posts


----------



## newbie (Mar 24, 2004)

sun man said:
			
		

> It's not just Lambeth council that sell off public housing stock. Wandsworth, Hyde Southbank and the London Quandrant group are followling the same route.



You sure about L&Q?

The councils are following explicit goverment policy AIUI.  {Apparently a circular went round the NHS a few weeks ago demanding a list of all underutilised land/buildings etc with a view to flogging off the stuff accountants couldn't call profitable.  I think the MOD's had similar instructions.}  Campaigning against the sell-offs means understanding and explaining what that means in terms of Lambeths ability to deliver services and to bring under-utilised buildings into use. Will voters endorse the council hanging onto these buildings if they don't have the capital to perform the renovations? They voted in the Tories last time, with a pretty clear sell-off agenda.  Voids and squats aren't popular. There is a sense of frustration about places that remain empty for ages (think of the thread about the whichever pub it is at LJ).  

In any case, political opposition is only part of the story, as I said right back early in this thread.  Some expression of gentrification might be stymied by fighting Merrit or the detail of a development at the planning cttee (and good victories too) but the economic forces which give rise to the changing demographics aren't amenable to pressure group politics.  Nor are the cultural issues behind a lot of the argument in this thread.  Just look at the A66 thread for economic and cultural battles that had nothing at all to do with planning or the council.  Yet whenever the G subject is raised there is a mishmash of political, economic and cultural factors thrown around, which inevitably generates more heat than light.

Organising against expansion of the night/leisure/youth economy is a political act.  Arguing about people with different cultural values moving into the area isn't.  It's hardly going to be possible to make much of a go of the former unless people accept that.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 25, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> The councils are following explicit goverment policy AIUI.  {Apparently a circular went round the NHS a few weeks ago demanding a list of all underutilised land/buildings etc with a view to flogging off the stuff accountants couldn't call profitable.  I think the MOD's had similar instructions.}


I'd be interested if anyone knows any more about this. 

Why should we flog off PUBLIC assets in order to help councils balance their books and (supposedly) keep council tax low? Why?

What good has come of the sell offs in Brixton? Think about the sites of Dick Shepherd school and the school that was on Athlone Road - where is the money now? Lost in the mists of time. What good came out of those sales? Fuck all as far as I know. (The developers of the Dick Shepherd site were obliged to put up a new gate on the Tulse Hill entrance to the park. Members of the local community now rejoice at this wise utilisation of resources every time they enter Brockwell Park   ) Now they can't find a site for a school. Doh!   

Where does the sell off stop? So far it's the NHS, prisons, schools, nursery schools, local auth buildings, social housing, MOD land. Where next? Public parks? Network Rail? (British Rail is/was one of the biggest landowners in the country, esp in London). There should be a fucking law against it, not a Govt edict telling people to sell off the country's (ie *our*) assets to private developers


----------



## Ms T (Mar 25, 2004)

sun man said:
			
		

> Maybe the revenue raised from the auction isn't even used to purchase new stock. Is there any way of finding out where all that money has gone?




Money from the sale of housing is ring-fenced -- ie it has to be spent on housing.  That doesn't necessarily mean it will be spent on purchasing new stock though.  It's more likely it will be used for repairs on existing stock, or to bring it up to the standard required by government.


----------



## Anna Key (Mar 25, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> the economic forces which give rise to the changing demographics aren't amenable to pressure group politics.


Why not? Politics is alway prior to economics. Always has been always will be.

The same argument applies equally to Left and Right. Thatcher spent vast sums defeating the miners. It was a political fight dressed in economic clothes.

Blair did something similar with the fuel protestors. He backed off and put politics before economics.

The political Right love people to believe that economics is an objective science-governed discipline run from university departments. 

"You can't buck the market!" 

"There's no such thing as a free lunch!" 

Rubbish. Politicans always hand out free lunches - to their friends and to those they fear.

Applied to Brixton it works like this. It's currently convenient for certain members of the Lambeth political classes to sell the borough's public assets to property developers. 

Why? Because they've done a straightforward cost-benefit analysis. The political benefits of climbing into bed with the property developers outweighs the political costs.

What anti-gentrification campaigners need to do is change the balance of power. The political costs of gentrification must be made to outweigh the political benefits.

On a small scale this is exactly what occurred during the Bike Shop campaign. Too many people, from a broad range of political backgrounds, were telling the politicians how much they hated the Merrettisation of Brixton. Merrett became a political symbol. In advertising terms: _the campaign acquired legs._

And, low and behold, suddenly it suited the politicans to join with objectors. The politicans had found a bandwaggon to climb onto.

This process had nothing to do with economics. It had _everything_ to do with politics.

So..... all Brixton people concerned about gentrification have to do is organise themsleves effectively in political terms. They must build bandwaggons for the politicians to occupy. If they do so they'll win. If they fail to do so they'll lose.


----------



## newbie (Mar 25, 2004)

No disagreement from me, BH.  But it's (AIUI) gov't policy... at the local level, for those in a block on a crumbling estate where the council says they've no money for renovations until they've sold off some voids or evicted St Agnes where does the sympathy lie?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 25, 2004)

...not with Lambeth Council and that's for sure.......


----------



## newbie (Mar 25, 2004)

AK I think you misunderstood my point.  Anything that the council has a degree of control over is amenable to pressure group politics.  Same is true at national level but the pressure needs to be greater.  But what degree of control can be applied to tailor the effects of an economic boom so that house prices do not climb?  How can the prosperity of the people of Brixton improve, ie people have more disposable income,  without businesses arising seeking to cash in on that prosperity?  Because although the council selling off assets is sympomatic of gentrification, it's neither the root cause nor the main driver.

One of the main drivers is popularity, a key to which is proximity to the engines of economic growth (City & West End) coupled with the prevailing view of Brixton as vibrant and edgy but without the squalor or danger of the past.  While Brixton increases in popularity with people who have choices (the better off) the pressures of gentrification will continue (almost irrespective of council policy over sell-offs or planning).  

How much support would you get for a demand for reduced prosperity? 

What political pressure can you bring to bear on popularity?


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 25, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> AK I think you misunderstood my point.


Chortle! You funny man. What AK says is absolutely spot-on. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't mean he has misunderstood you.


----------



## Ms T (Mar 25, 2004)

Anna Key should change his/her name to Real Politik!


----------



## pooka (Mar 25, 2004)

Ah, another thread about gentrification to add to the list – The Selling of Central Brixton, The Saga of Living, the New Happening Restaurant in Atlantic Road………..

Hard to find anything new to say or to read. What is most depressing about these threads is how scant the evidence of anyone shifting their position one iota from the weight of argument and (a close corollary) the vituperation which characterises the threads. Why should that be?

Seems to me the answer is in last paragraph of newbie’s post 251; There are two aspects to the regeneration/gentrification debate as played out on U75. 

The first is around a social, economic and demographic process of change, familiar in many urban areas, with important implications in terms of winners and losers, for the infrastructure and indeed for the “feel” of the place. As such, it is not value free: as Anna has pointed out, economics is not a politics free zone. But there is plenty of room for some cogent analysis before the sloganising and personal attacks. 

The second is more tribal and is generally promoted by people who feel that Brixton has, in the past, been their kind of place, with their kind of vibe, it’s now being taken over by a new succession of incomers. We’ve been round this one before; 70’s/80’s arrivites claiming the custodianship of the heart of Brixton, “the Brixton lifestyle”. Basically, its one group of people saying “we like ‘us’, we don’t like them” – but invoking some greater purpose (saving Brixton) to do so. It’s this second argument, around identity and ownership that generates most invective.

At worst, it leads to disgraceful suggestions that it would be a good thing if crime stayed high, or we had the occasional riot to “keep the yuppies out”. Lets be clear, the greatest losers from criminality are the poorest, the weakest, the elderly, the kids drawn into crime. Not the overwhelmingly 30-something, fit and healthy, plenty to spend in the boozer, white middle-classes who post on here. And the people who lose out from Brixton’s reputation are the young people, especially the young black people, looking to make their way in life elsewhere in London, as documented in the Caroline Howarth paper linked by hatboy some time ago.

For myself, I think the first argument is an extremely important one; the second is pretty unedifying  and detracts from the first. I am bothered about the impact of escalating house prices across the south east on the cohesion of inner city neighbourhoods, about the abysmal provision for young people, particularly in secondary education, in Lambeth and in Brixton, about the hopeless management of the market and retail centre, about the public pissing, about the street and estate trade in drugs. I can barely give a toss about the style, number, disposition or clientel of watering holes around the place, or whether or not people wear funny hats or whether they’re called Tarquin or Jocasta.  Some of the most committed and competent community activists I’ve known over the years have been “bland, conservative types” and some of the most self serving “edgy” and “cool”.


----------



## pooka (Mar 25, 2004)

Brixton Hatter: The pressure for selling of assets is a direct consequence of a widespread resistance to putting up taxes. With average council tax now at about £25 a week, a significant sum in anyone’s terms, it’s not that surprising.

Anna: The objections to the Bicycle Shop proposal were primarily about the noise intrusion in a residential neighbourhood, were they not? My own objection was that too many nightclubs in one street encouraged disorder and drug dealing. Are you now saying that you dissembled to the Planning Committee and were really running an anti-gentrification campaign? As I recall, your account of the committee meeting had Merritt characterising the campaign against him as “political”, something that invited much sneering on here – which is it? Moreover, you generally denounce Living as being full of people from Clapham, not Brixton based gentrifiers.


There appears to be an underlying presumption that gentrification is being encouraged by the Council through asset sales. In terms of housing, how extensive has this been?

Here are figures for Lambeth from the 1991 and 2001 Censuses.


Tenure	             2001	1991
Owner Occupation	37%	36%
Rent - Council	28%	36%
Rent - HA	13%	10%
Rent – Private 	21%	17%
(including free tenure)
(Source)
I’ve not seen figures for Brixton, but for Ferndale ward which is pretty average Brixton – not as deprived as Coldharbour, not as well heeled as Brixton Hill or Herne Hill. The picture’s the same. Minimal change in home ownership, net 5% point move in private rental. The latter represents about 1,000 households in Brixton, or an average of 100 per year over the 10 year period.

Hard to argue that the Council is driving gentrification, especially when the mix of tenures remains so heavily skewed to social ownership, even by London terms let alone national ones.


----------



## Domski (Mar 25, 2004)

Quality posts there


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 25, 2004)

Excellent points pooka but I don't trust census figure very much, the census was not filled in by a huge amount of people in Lambeth, or, as in my case, filled in but not used in the figures because the census bod was unable to collect it owing to the fact that my block of flats had new state of the art entry systems that designed out crime (and the postman, and visitors etc) although crackheads did not seem to be deterred....heigh ho


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 26, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Some of the most committed and competent community activists I’ve known over the years have been “bland, conservative types” and some of the most self serving “edgy” and “cool”.



I'll second that !!!


----------



## hatboy (Mar 26, 2004)

I don't like blandness nor pretentious "edgy and cool". Just so you know, I never said "edgy and cool", I said:

I've explained that I like visual things and people. I also have friends who just look completely ordinary but say funny or clever or insightful things. I like people who have a minority perspective - gay, beggar, painter, rapper, whatever. People who can teach me stuff. I prefer them all to conservative young professionals. 

Then I said this:

I want to say more on this. I feel this thread makes it very apparent that some people on here are unaware of their position of comfort in the white heterosexual majority in this country. 

I am white, I speak well, I have some of those advantages. I also have some idea, being gay and other stuff too, of what it is like to be different from the majority. I am not a visible minority, I realise that homophobia is vastly different to racism, but I do know what it's like to feel most influences around you are not about affirming and lifting-up your identity, they are for somebody else. 

White people who, for instance, think a bar that is black and unwelcoming to whites is the same as a bar that is white and unwelcoming to black people in this country need to think harder.

Prejudice in any direction is wrong, the above should work the same either way, but it doesn't in the UK. Think about power relationships, history, and simply numbers too. This is not an equal society.

I say black/white to keep it simple. Obviously I know that not everyone is either black or white. And of course class and wealth come into to this, but being in a minority adds extra pressures.

All this doesn't come up with friends that much unless friends want to talk about it. But sadly it seems necessary to point it out on u75. 

And lastly my opinions involving race on here are not about PC, nor are they about saying hello to one black bloke called Winston on the corner and thinking I know stuff. They are about giving a shit about fairness generally, caring about my mates and seeing with my own eyes.

Then I edited this in:

So put that in your crack pipes and shove them up your fucking arses Ernesto, Athos, Domski and any rude bastards who come in here thinking they know me. Fuck you.
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Couldn't resist that last bit. Many interesting and sensible posts on this thread. But I was fucking annoyed with the deliberate and personal antagonism. And quite irritated with the lack of a real variety of voices here.


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 26, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> At worst, it leads to disgraceful suggestions that it would be a good thing if crime stayed high, or we had the occasional riot to “keep the yuppies out”.


Show me where anybody has seriously advocated anything of the sort. As usual you have produced epic screeds of reasonable-sounding commentary with lots of statistics to make it look  credible, which few will make the effort to read closely, but with a dollop of_ great fat porkies _smuggled in.  

You are extremely good at disguising your own point of view as some sort of shining empirical truth -- I'm amazed you're not in the Lib Dems -- but you can't fool all the people all the time.  Lay off the holier-than-thou act, pooka. You're every bit as partisan and as given to kicking your opponents in the nuts as anyone else.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 26, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> The first is around a social, economic and demographic process of change, familiar in many urban areas, with important implications in terms of winners and losers, for the infrastructure and indeed for the “feel” of the place. As such, it is not value free: as Anna has pointed out, economics is not a politics free zone. But there is plenty of room for some cogent analysis before the sloganising and personal attacks.
> 
> The second is more tribal and is generally promoted by people who feel that Brixton has, in the past, been their kind of place, with their kind of vibe, it’s now being taken over by a new succession of incomers. We’ve been round this one before; 70’s/80’s arrivites claiming the custodianship of the heart of Brixton, “the Brixton lifestyle”. Basically, its one group of people saying “we like ‘us’, we don’t like them” – but invoking some greater purpose (saving Brixton) to do so. It’s this second argument, around identity and ownership that generates most invective.


err, when has mine - or anyone's - argument ever been a 'tribal' one? mine is about a) class and b) putting the rights of the community above exploitative commercial interests, in fact putting the community first, full stop.. And that also means-as Brixton has sizeable deprivation issues - putting the poorest and most deprived parts of this community first!
Also-I make it that the council have sold off just under a quarter of public housing stock. that, surely, is assisting the gentrification process, or have I missed something?   
good stats in your second post btw. v useful. any idea where we can get ward-by-ward breakdown


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 26, 2004)

*"Edgy" Brixton*

Hatboy

I don't think you ever have mentioned "edgy" in this way, but on various threads other posters have over time mentioned it as in someway being a positive quality of Brixton and certain Brixtonians.   

It's a much abused word... and I have to admit I'm not sure just what most readers infer when it is applied to individuals - membership of the counter-culture or prolonged experience of the "wrong side of the law"  

Digressing slightly - when it is applied to the area.   Why should anyone - resident or visitor - be expected to be "jittery, jumpy, nervy, overstrung, restive, tense, or uptight" ?

There are still too many white people for whom innate racism makes them nervous when the proportion of black people in a crowd becomes substantial.   

I don't think that this should be confused with the fear of violence associated with so much (largely drug-fuelled) street robbery in Lambeth that made local pensioners, of varied ethnic backgrounds, afraid to go out in broad daylight.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 26, 2004)

Some old, frail people look so vulnerable in the city. It's sad. But I'm sure there are alot more people who would try and help if they were in trouble than not. I saw this tiny lady tottering past my flat yesterday. She didn't need any help or anything, I didn't speak to her, but she looked so fragile. I hope she's got a grandson built like a brick shithouse who'd murder anyone who touched her!


----------



## Domski (Mar 26, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> So put that in your crack pipes and shove them up your fucking arses Ernesto, Athos, Domski and any rude bastards who come in here thinking they know me. Fuck you.



Hatboy - it's comments like this that prove it's a complete waste of time to listen to anything you say 

You spend half of your time saying 'oh no, don't let this thread degenerate into personal attacks' and chastise those who have a go at you (read - don't agree with you ) and then you go and ruin it all with shite like this.

You don't know me either, but YOU HAVE labelled me a 'white, conservative young professional' and then inferred that I'm bland and soulless and don't give a fuck about the area in which I live. You don't know me either do you.

You can't have it both ways you utter fucking hypocrite.


----------



## hendo (Mar 26, 2004)

I'm not sure which side I'm on in this argument; although I'm really interested in what everyone has had to say.

But hatboy, your response to Domski and the others is surely out of order. 

Maybe there's a case for taking a deep breath, reading back what you've written and thinking about it in the light of your role as moderator in this area.


----------



## Domski (Mar 26, 2004)

hendo said:
			
		

> I'm not sure which side I'm on in this argument; although I'm really interested in what everyone has had to say.
> 
> But hatboy, your response to Domski and the others is surely out of order.
> 
> Maybe there's a case for taking a deep breath, reading back what you've written and thinking about it in the light of your role as moderator in this area.



I guess what I'm trying to say without coming across as too personal, is that the Brixton Forum is NOT Hatboy's own personal fiefdom where he can make the rules as and how he pleases.

If on the other hand it is - then I've utterly misunderstood U75.


----------



## miss minnie (Mar 26, 2004)

please, hatboy, that abuse was uncalled for.  please don't take stuff too personally, chill before you respond.  you're intelligent and can be very witty and eloquent, please don't stoop to cheap shots.


----------



## Anna Key (Mar 26, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna: The objections to the Bicycle Shop proposal were primarily about the noise intrusion in a residential neighbourhood, were they not?


No. Here's a link to the objectors' speech. 



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> My own objection was that too many nightclubs in one street encouraged disorder and drug dealing.


An excellent reason.   



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> Are you now saying that you dissembled to the Planning Committee and were really running an anti-gentrification campaign?


No. Feel free to read the objectors' speech.



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> As I recall, your account of the committee meeting had Merritt characterising the campaign against him as “political”, something that invited much sneering on here – which is it?


Neither. Your recollection - usually so sharp - is at fault. 

It was at a previous planning meeting - there've been so many of the things - that Merrett exclaimed (words to the effect of): 

"You all hate my music for political reasons!" 

To which the Chair of planning committee replied, looking puzzled (words to the effect of): 

"As far as I'm aware no political party represented on planning committee _has_ a formal music policy." Which induced a certain amount of sniggering from the politicians and the audience.



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> Moreover, you generally denounce Living as being full of people from Clapham, not Brixton based gentrifiers.


How terrible of me! Poor Talulah! Poor "Silly Cow!"

The hot air generated on this thread about trustafarianism and skin colour and wealth and dreadlocks and tribalism and "them and us" is (IMV) a total bore. What do these personal things matter?

There are simply good arguments and bad arguments. Whether the person putting the argument has a particular hair arrangement or has occupied a chunk of geographical space for 20 years or 10 minutes is a total irrelevance.

If it's not a total irrelevance then something nasty is being suggested: _that a person should be listened to and taken seriously conditional on whether they have certain personal characteristics._

According to this argument it's OK not to listen to blacks or women or gays or Jews or the old or the disabled (or pooka).

I think old pooka deserves to be listened to.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 26, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> Hatboy - it's comments like this that prove it's a complete waste of time to listen to anything you say
> 
> You spend half of your time saying 'oh no, don't let this thread degenerate into personal attacks' and chastise those who have a go at you (read - don't agree with you ) and then you go and ruin it all with shite like this.
> 
> ...



Thanks.   

My "shove it" comment made me feel much better since you've been having a go very personally since the Green Man thread. Without being too petty, I'm usually respectful to people who are respectful to me. You waded into to the LJ thing on the attack without knowing the facts. I appreciate your concern about the delays there, but you assumed that's down to me and others (it wasn't) who cared to point out the a community use for the lower floor would be good. That pissed me off. 

Quote me where I call you a "conservative young professional".  I think you'll find you've just called yourself that!  LOL.


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 26, 2004)

Buzz SW9

I'm not sure that your questions can get all the answers, as - for as long as the economy remains fairly buoyant - some private landlords have replaced the old "no dogs, no blacks, no irish" signs with "no HB claimants" policies.

Partly this is down to the sluggishness of LB Lambeth in processing benefits, but also because under current rules what the Rent Service will come up with as the assessment for a new HB claim may be substantially below what a Landlord reckons the "going rate" to be. 

I defy anyone to make sense of this from the Rent Service website



> *Local reference rent*
> The rent officer will also decide how much is generally paid for property with the right number of rooms in the same ‘locality’. This is called the local reference rent and will apply if it is lower than the claim-related rent.
> 
> The local reference rent is the midpoint of the range of rents for all types of property with the right number of rooms in the same ‘locality’ as your home. The locality’ is a broad area with a number of neighbourhoods. Within this broad area there will be a mix of property types and alternative places to live within a reasonable travelling distance of similar public amenities. The range of rents used will not include any rent that is unusually high or low.



Lambeth's promotion of Lettings First as an intermediary has apparently been a great success in getting landlords back into providing flats for HB claimants.   

However, I'd be interested to know whether they have many properties in central Brixton/Kennington/Clapham in locations "convenient for the tube", on which private landlords can usually get a stupid premium.


----------



## Bob (Mar 26, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> I'd be interested if anyone knows any more about this.
> 
> Why should we flog off PUBLIC assets in order to help councils balance their books and (supposedly) keep council tax low? Why?
> 
> What good has come of the sell offs in Brixton? country's (ie *our*) assets to private developers



Well one good example is round the corner from me in Vauxhall. A couple of years ago some developers bought a semi derelict warehouse (used for parking only), an old office block (so nobody around at night) and a small park (from the council) to build some housing. Incidentally this park was sold by the council when under Labour control but opposed by the Lib Dems. Personally I think the park was a waste of time because it was right on the main road so nobody ever used it (apart from me walking across it to work in the mornings for about five seconds). These plots of land have now been turned into posh housing. That ultimately has achieved quite a few big things:
1. More supply of housing in London - so slightly lower house prices overall.
2. Some cash for the council
3. Some social housing in it.
4. Some people living in an area where there previously were none - so more people around at night so the streets round there are slightly less threatening.

Some people might see this as 'gentrification' or selling of council assets. Personally I can't see anything bad this has caused at all.


----------



## Bob (Mar 26, 2004)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Excellent points pooka but I don't trust census figure very much, the census was not filled in by a huge amount of people in Lambeth, or, as in my case, filled in but not used in the figures because the census bod was unable to collect it owing to the fact that my block of flats had new state of the art entry systems that designed out crime (and the postman, and visitors etc) although crackheads did not seem to be deterred....heigh ho


Fair point Mrs M but a) they weight for that, b) in any case if entryphone council blocks were undercounted then it would mean the actual proportion of council tenants in the total would be higher than the census figures.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna: The objections to the Bicycle Shop proposal were primarily about the noise intrusion in a residential neighbourhood, were they not? My own objection was that too many nightclubs in one street encouraged disorder and drug dealing. Are you now saying that you dissembled to the Planning Committee and were really running an anti-gentrification campaign?



  I so far have not posted up on this thread-ive read most of it-but could not let this pass.I was one of those heavily involved in the Bike shop campaign.As far as Im concerned it was connected to the  "gentrification" issue.To insinuate that I was "dissembling" I find insulting.

  People like me have been accused ad nauseum on this thread of being anti change/nostalgic for old Brixton but when when one tries to carry out politics within the Council arena you still get slagged off.It would of been stupid of the likes of me to get up their at a planning meeting waving the red flag.

  You know as well as I do that the only way to oppose a planning application is to study the plans and planning regulations.This is what those opposing the application did.The bike shop may have been a small victory but thats how a lot of politics work.I didnt invent the Capitalist market economy we live in nor do I support it.I will however use the system to stop things I dont approve of.


  Ill also work with people whose politics I dont agree with on common issues.For reasons slightly different than my own the Councillors on the committee took IMO a political decision to oppose the application for the bike shop.I agree with Annas post on the bike shop campaign.

  As for being "dissembling" my local (Labour) Councillor knows Im not a New Labour supporter because I told the Councillor.Im more upfront about my attitudes on the boards as u can here-its one of the good things about them.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2004)

"Alternative lifestyle/Identity politics/Marxism

    (Trying not to get to personal here).But in reading this thread Ive noticed that their is an implication that if you talk "rationally" about an issue thats OK.If you get emotional then you arent worth listening too.ie if you talk about the "boom economy", rising house prices or "demographic change" you are being serious.In fact to me when the discussion starts going like this it can end up as a middle of the road political consensus.I can do this kind of discussion when I feel like it but I do find myself trapped by it.When it comes down to it Im increasingly moving left- we are born into a society not of our own making and its difficult to argue outside the box and get taken seriously. 

  I do however quite often now in these Gentrification discussions feel their something missing.Why is it that what Hatboy says feels more in tune with what i feel-even though I dont know him that well-and dont always agree with him on the boards?Is it because I lived in Brixton to long and my time has past?It might be as I could be losing my home soon.

  It doesnt look like Capitalism looks like its going to be overturned soon  but I think their should be spaces for people who dont want to sign up to being good "citizens".Its these spaces that are going.Its not just economics-its cultural.The 60s were an era where being progressive and enlightened was the norm.It looks like we are now entering an era of a rollback of progressive ideas with a new Cold War (the "fight against terrorism"). Along with a society under New Labour thats increasingly puritanical whilst being liberal in some respects-ie race.

  It could be that my time has come to be replaced due to the "turning of the wheel of history"(an old conservative view of history).I think however that people with "alternative views" will come along again.The term "Bohomenian"(or Bohos as its used on the boards)is not to me a term of abuse.As the philosopher Alain de Botton says(in his new book about Status anxiety) Bohos emerged at the same time as the developmment of the modern Capitalist society in the 19th c.In reaction to it-they didnt want to conform(or couldnt) to the new "Gradgrind" mentality.

  I dont see what is wrong with a have/have nots argument.Marxism/Socialism has always been disparaged as the "politics of envy".We live in an unequal society-it might be true thats its difficult to change as the forces against one are to strong and you have to get by yourself.Thats not going to stop me complaining about it as I personally dislike it intensely

  If this post seems at a tangent to this thread IMO its not.Its in reaction to what Hatboys first post started.Anyway Ill reread it tomorrow.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 26, 2004)

I think that's a great post Gramsci. Someone earlier was angry about this being about "haves and have-nots". I can't see what's wrong with sticking up for/with the have-nots.

And yes, many on here want a nice polite exchange of views. I feel the intent and morals behind the words are more important. And some passion is fine too.

Thankyou for recognising that "something is missing" too.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 26, 2004)

Bob said:
			
		

> Fair point Mrs M but a) they weight for that, b) in any case if entryphone council blocks were undercounted then it would mean the actual proportion of council tenants in the total would be higher than the census figures.


Perhaps that's true. I do not know. The point is that the census in Lambeth is not very accurate, whatever way the figures go. No particular point other than Lambeth census figures should be taken with a pinch of salt...........


----------



## hatboy (Mar 27, 2004)

gramsci said:
			
		

> I do however quite often now in these Gentrification discussions feel their something missing. Why is it that what Hatboy says feels more in tune with what I feel - even though I dont know him that well - and dont always agree with him on the boards? Is it because I lived in Brixton to long and my time has past? It might be as I could be losing my home soon.



So you might be losing your home. Sorry to hear that.  




			
				hatboy said:
			
		

> People I know aren't worried about whether they can buy property. They are worried whether they or their kids can get a council or housing association place, or whether they'll get to keep the one they've got!


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2004)

I'm sorry to hear about your home too gramsci.





			
				hatboy said:
			
		

> Someone earlier was angry about this being about "haves and have-nots". I can't see what's wrong with sticking up for/with the have-nots.



There's nothing wrong with speaking for other people.  Passionate, emotional advocacy is part of all political discussion.  

There's also nothing wrong with taking a sceptical approach on reading such posts.  Using the presumed interests of some group, particularly the have-nots or the disposessed, to promote a particular agenda makes for easy, if lazy, discussion.

Anyone can say 'I represent the interests of the working class' and many do.  But seldom actually ask the working class, nor often take any notice of expressions of opinion that disagree with their own.

With the exception of those few posters who are part of, and effectively represent the views of, specific political parties or groups, each of us here represents only ourselves. And we don't represent our demographic either.  Hatboy doesn't speak for all chaps who wears hats, I don't speak for those who don't and neither of us speak for women.  How can we? 

These arguments are interesting and challenging, but those who claim to occupy the moral high ground sometimes look foolishly dogmatic.


----------



## Anna Key (Mar 27, 2004)

I went to a Brixton "Creative & Cultural Industries" shindig in the new City Hall this week - Ken Livingstone's Onion.

All the suits were there, some even occupied by black people. Talking about how "edgy" and "vibrant" Brixton is. How Brixton's "Creative & Cultural Sector" is worth £17m a year. Or was it £170m or £7 billion? I forget. Too much cheap plonk on the rates.

I went for a cigarette on the balcony - _fantastic_ view of central London - and my friend announced:

"Once the suits get involved in art it's finished. We're witnessing the death of Brixton art and the Brixton artist. We're at a funeral wake. Drink up!"

A black man with a cigar next to us on the balcony overheard. He laughed, introduced himself and loudly agreed. He turned out to be ********* a well known, much respected local artist and businessman.

I reject the cynicism and fear and feelings of powerlessness exhibited on this thread. Literally hundreds - thousands? - of strong, clever, thinking people reject the Talulah-isation of Brixton, the disgusting sell-offs of public assets, the tormenting of shortlife tenants, the treatment of squatters as if they're vermin to be exterminated.

These people simply have to get together and fight collectively. Increasingly they're doing precisely that.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 27, 2004)

Newbie - you've misunderstood. I'm NOT speaking for anyone. I'm giving my own sincere opinions. But I know many people who agree. That's why I put "with/for" not just "for".   I was amazed that someone thought it odd to talk about haves and have-nots when the issue of great difference in levels of wealth is a big part of all this. 

Anna Key quoted:

"Once the suits get involved in art it's finished. We're witnessing the death of Brixton art and the Brixton artist. We're at a funeral wake. Drink up!"

I think that was what I said in the first post.  

PS That Bettie Morton Gallery has been giving lots of local artists exposure. It's not all bad. I'd rather the council promoted Brixton as a "cultural quarter" than a "premier shopping destination" but, yeah, once the suits get involved... etc.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2004)

Thanks for the compliment on my earlier post Hatboy  .Ive reread it and the last 2 pages of this thread and think its OK.

  I think its this division between real "politics" and arguing about "different cultural values"(Newbie) that Newbie and Pooka both make that gets me.Its an artificial distinction.

  The GLA supported initiative on the C&C industries plays on the fact that Brixton has developed a unique cultural identity-this is building (in theory)an economic regeneration on the "cultural social capital"(to use the jargon) built up in Brixton by both Black and White people. over the last few decades.

 If the GLA can put politics and culture together so can I.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2004)

For those interested in the history of "lifestyle" or cultural politics here are two links to Alain de Bottons philosophical/historical work on "Bohos"

     short article;

http://argument.independent.co.uk/podium/story.jsp?story=498985

     Tate film of lecture "The lessons of Bohemia" (which I have not watched):

http://www.tate.org.uk/onlineevents/archive/alain_debotton/


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2004)

I can see relationships between art and politics as well. Or the corporatisation of big C Culture.  That's not what I was getting at, but I accept another word would have been better, I just don't know what word to use.

A page or so back Vic said



> Many things have gone in recent years - Cool Tan, Jan Rebane, Queen, 121 - which clearly make Brixton a less interesting place.



This was in my mind when I mentioned 'cultural values': these icons may have had real meaning to particular groups (subcultures) but were, frankly, irrelevent to the vast majority.  By contrast, the values of Jocasta and Tarquin have been demonised to represent all that is wrong with the new Brixton; again their icons (eg A66) only have meaning to relatively few locals.  

Getting hung up on (subcultural) icons- which is what so much of these threads come down to- alienates a lot of latent support from the very real political issues underlying gentrification.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 28, 2004)

"Tate film of lecture "The lessons of Bohemia" (which I have not watched):"

LOL - It's two hours long! I'm not spending all day downloading two hours of Alan Bottom or whoever it is!


----------



## hatboy (Mar 28, 2004)

Newbie said:
			
		

> This was in my mind when I mentioned 'cultural values': these icons may have had real meaning to particular groups (subcultures) but were, frankly, irrelevent to the vast majority. By contrast, the values of Jocasta and Tarquin have been demonised to represent all that is wrong with the new Brixton; again their icons (eg A66) only have meaning to relatively few locals.
> 
> Getting hung up on (subcultural) icons- which is what so much of these threads come down to- alienates a lot of latent support from the very real political issues underlying gentrification.



You've told me yourself Newbie that you don't really get worked up about anything these days. Other people still have passions. I see your point, but most people are not gonna talk about political theories. They are gonna talk about what they see as they look out the window or go down the street - whether it's Cooltan, A66, Living, luxury flats, tagging, gated communities, decaying council estates or whatever.

Your arguments are dry.




			
				Newbie said:
			
		

> By contrast, the values of Jocasta and Tarquin have been demonised to represent all that is wrong with the new Brixton.



I haven't used those names. However the upper middle class professionals that those names represent hardly need the support and solidarity of other locals do they? They've already got the silver spoons in their mouths.


----------



## Anna Key (Mar 28, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> Getting hung up on (subcultural) icons- which is what so much of these threads come down to- alienates a lot of latent support from the very real political issues underlying gentrification.


Who precisely is "hung up" on "subcultural icons?" Fanta? Pooka? Intostella? MrsM? And how is this "hung up-ness" alienating latent support? Who's support is being alienated? I've never met a single person who says: 

"Oh I'd love to support a Brixton anti-gentrification battle but you're so hung up on "subcultural icons" I just feel so alienated so can't support you."

I thought Brixton Hatter made some of the best posts, without a subcultural icon in sight:


> Maybe we can start generating some ideas here instead of slagging each other off....





> It's your attitude, beliefs and actions, not your appearance, your class or your colour, that marks your contribution to the local community.





> ...does anyone have any ideas on how to combat the blandification of Brixton culture?
> 
> Here's a few...
> 
> ...


Which all looks suspiciously like a local political election manifesto...


----------



## pk (Mar 29, 2004)

> Honestly, if some of you lot put the effort into your local community that you put into slagging each other off on these boards, I'm sure we would be living in a Brixton Utopia



Now this I do agree with.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> However the upper middle class professionals that those names represent hardly need the support and solidarity of other locals do they?


To play devil's advocate: why does a _14-house owning _ millionaire need the solidarity and support of locals?


----------



## hatboy (Mar 29, 2004)

Because he is being imprisoned for something that should not be a crime - selling cannabis. And he was not/is not a destructive influence on this community.

His wealth and/or tax evasion is a separate issue. Clear.


----------



## Anna Key (Mar 29, 2004)

Is there proof positive that he (a) owned 14 houses and (b) paid for them from the proceeds of cannabis dealing?

Or is it just a bit of lazy jounalistic sensationalising - complete with racist undertones - from that Great Liberal Organ the SLP?


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Because he is being imprisoned for something that should not be a crime - selling cannabis. And he was not/is not a destructive influence on this community.


I wouldn't be quite so sure that the process of acquiring, controlling and shifting millions of pounds of illegal drugs has no destructive influences on the community.

The big-money drug trade tends to attract all kinds of unsavoury types, with violence, intimidation and organised crime the accepted currency: why do you think that this operation would have been run any differently?


----------



## miss minnie (Mar 29, 2004)

his finances have come out as evidence in court.  as i understand it most of the charges are for money-laundering.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 29, 2004)

Editor - regarding violence, etc. If you reread the threads I've already acknowleged that is a possibility. But nothing so far points to that. I won't assume. 

And I can say (AGAIN ffs) that on MANY personal visits there, no hint of any of that ever made itself apparent.

How many times!!!!


----------



## hatboy (Mar 29, 2004)

Please can this be continued on the right thread otherwise they'll all end up about the same thing.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 31, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> This was in my mind when I mentioned 'cultural values': these icons may have had real meaning to particular groups (subcultures) but were, frankly, irrelevent to the vast majority.  By contrast, the values of Jocasta and Tarquin have been demonised to represent all that is wrong with the new Brixton; again their icons (eg A66) only have meaning to relatively few locals.
> 
> Getting hung up on (subcultural) icons- which is what so much of these threads come down to- alienates a lot of latent support from the very real political issues underlying gentrification.




   Being a member of a "subculture" does not mean one has no connection with the "vast majority".You cannot divide society between "the vast majority" and "subcultures" in such a simplistic fashion.Many people play more than one role in their life and move in and out of various groups(subcultures) throughout the day.For example being a parent at one point,in the workplace or the pub with the mates mean one behaves in different ways depending on the norms of the particular "subculture" one is in.

  see: http://www.sociology.org.uk/p2s4.htm

  Also subcultures can interact with the larger Culture one lives in.One can belong to a larger Culture (ie Im English) whilst also belonging to a "subculture".Therefore one can (as I think has been demonstrated by some of the posts here) think Brixton is culturally impoverished by the loss of say Cooltan whilst also being concerned that sales of Council Housing are wrong. as well(something whichs concerns the "vast majority").

  Even the idea of a "vast majority" is contestable.Look at the arguments over the war in Iraq.The tension between being out for oneself Thatcherism vs Social Solidarity( ie support for NHS) in the "vast majority" demonstrate its not that simple.

  What I would argue is that a society wthout lively "subcultures" is culturally impoverished and undynamic.For a progressive society IMO "subcultures" should be encouraged.


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> And I can say (AGAIN ffs) that on MANY personal visits there, no hint of any of that ever made itself apparent.
> 
> How many times!!!!


Err, I've never made _any_ claims that there was any violence related to the Greenleaf at all. As far as I know, it was entirely trouble-free.

I've just commented that it's naive to assume that the supply chain was all peace and love and had no ill effects on the community - after all, the drug trade has long been associated with intimidation, organised crime and violence, so why would the drugs sold at the Greenleaf be any different?


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 31, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> I'm not spending all day downloading two hours of Alan Bottom or whoever it is!


 Hey! Hands off the lovely  Bottom.


----------



## newbie (Mar 31, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> Being a member of a "subculture" does not mean one has no connection with the "vast majority".



No, but what I was saying was the other way round: that the majority has little or no connection with all the various subcultures we've been discussing.  

Obviously different subcultures have different characteristics in that regard.  But the subcultures described within these threads, with icons such as Albert, Living, A66, Lounge, Dogstar, Cooltan, Mass are irrelevant to the vast majority of the rest of us.  We wouldn't know or care if those places closed or existed at all, except occasionally something happens which draws them, and their patrons, to our attention.  Same as the various churches really, I'm personally outside their reach, I know they're there, I know they have an important subcultural position locally, but to me they're pretty much irrelevant.


_You_ are welcome to think Brixton has been impoverished by the closure of Cooltan.  I'm not going to disagree with you because you're right, _your_ appreciation of the place has been.  Mine hasn't, nor (I'm willing to bet) has my neighbours, many of whom are over 70.

But they (we) are invisible, because we're not part of the subcultures on your radar.  

Please recognise that I have no problem at all with you or anyone fighting the corner for your particular little subculture. I also think a range of dynamic subcultures is a good thing, as you said, and I think it's important that you fight for what you value.  But please stop pretending that the rest of us automatically have to care.  

So much of these threads is about the the changing nature of the reacreational use of disposable income by youngish people.  Let's not pretend that is on anything like the same scale of importance as the truly political issues like the sale of council housing or the closure of schools, which affect all of us.


----------



## Bob (Mar 31, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> So much of these threads is about the the changing nature of the reacreational use of disposable income by youngish people.  Let's not pretend that is on anything like the same scale of importance as the truly political issues like the sale of council housing or the closure of schools, which affect all of us.



Good point- it's just a lot easier to focus on silly restaurants and their clientele than the bigger political issues...


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 31, 2004)

Bob said:
			
		

> Good point- it's just a lot easier to focus on silly restaurants and their clientele than the bigger political issues...


This is really dishonest, bob. There were one or two threads about a certain restaurant.   There have been absolutely loads about housing, schools, drugs, crime and so on. Don't trivialise that.


----------



## Bob (Mar 31, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> This is really dishonest, bob. There were one or two threads about a certain restaurant.   There have been absolutely loads about housing, schools, drugs, crime and so on. Don't trivialise that.


 Yes miss, won't do it again


----------



## IntoStella (Mar 31, 2004)

Bob said:
			
		

> Yes miss, won't do it again


 See me after class.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 25, 2004)

What an interesting thread. Worth reviving.

Here's a few of things that I said. Reposted to annoy those people who should be regularly annoyed:    

  

"I've explained that I like visual things and people. I also have friends who just look completely ordinary but say funny or clever or insightful things. I like people who have a minority perspective - gay, beggar, painter, rapper, whatever. People who can teach me stuff. I prefer them all to conservative young professionals". 


"White people who, for instance, think a bar that is black and unwelcoming to whites is the same as a bar that is white and unwelcoming to black people in this country need to think harder".


"So put that in your crack pipes and shove them up your fucking arses Ernesto, Athos, Domski and any rude bastards who come in here thinking they know me. Fuck you".


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> "So put that in your crack pipes and shove them up your fucking arses Ernesto, Athos, Domski and any rude bastards who come in here thinking they know me. Fuck you".


I rather hoped that this revived thread would stay on topic and not be used to stir up pointless personal stuff all over again


----------



## hatboy (Apr 26, 2004)

It's a reposted insult....  but still pleasureable.

I'm not going to kick off again, but if I want to rub it in a bit I will.  Besides - it's my favourite bit!


----------



## Athos (Apr 26, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> "So put that in your crack pipes and shove them up your fucking arses Ernesto, Athos, Domski and any rude bastards who come in here thinking they know me. Fuck you".



Oooooh, get you!


----------

