# Windrush Square, Brixton - news and discussion



## teuchter (Feb 18, 2010)

> Windrush Square opens on Saturday 27 and Sunday 28 February 2010.
> 
> Come along to see live music and performances and a lantern-lit procession by local children. This is the first of many community events to take place in this new space at the heart of Brixton.
> 
> ...



http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/...FutureLambeth/BrixtonCentralSquareProject.htm

I actually think it looks quite good, at the moment through the barricades, and an improvement on what was there before. It will be interesting to see how well it works in practice, and how it ends up getting used.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 18, 2010)

BoJo the Clown is coming to Brixton to open the new square!


----------



## story (Feb 18, 2010)

So have we settled on Windrush Square as the name, then?


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 18, 2010)

Does anyone have a timing for when the kids' lantern procession arrives?


----------



## ajdown (Feb 19, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> Does anyone have a timing for when the kids' lantern procession arrives?



Presumably when it gets at least half dark so you're looking at past 5pm I reckon.

Otherwise it's all a little pointless really isn't it?


----------



## Badgers (Feb 19, 2010)

teuchter said:
			
		

> I actually think it looks quite good, at the moment through the barricades, and an improvement on what was there before. It will be interesting to see how well it works in practice, and how it ends up getting used.



Me too, looks really good and will be really nice to see the back of the construction and barriers in the centre. How it works in practice will be interesting, but timing is good with spring around the corner. Will there be an ice cream van?


----------



## editor (Feb 19, 2010)

I still prefer how it looked a hundred years ago, with grass instead of concrete, but I guess the changes were inevitable.

I think the Ritzy's cafe is going to prosper.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 19, 2010)

editor said:


> I still prefer how it looked a hundred years ago, with grass instead of concrete, but I guess the changes were inevitable.
> 
> I think the Ritzy's cafe is going to prosper.



I don't think it's concrete actually; the paving looks like some kind of sandstone to me.


I am wondering how long it will be before someone tries to climb one of the giant "windrush" things......


----------



## teuchter (Feb 19, 2010)

story said:


> So have we settled on Windrush Square as the name, then?



I think that was decided quite some time ago.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Feb 19, 2010)

In the middle of the square there appears to be a giant granite turd.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Feb 19, 2010)

> Designing the square
> The new square in the heart of Brixton will provide a focal point for the town centre and a much-needed venue for community events, with potentially a new cafe and public toilets.
> 
> The redevelopment, which follows several years of consultation, has been designed with safety in mind and includes improved lighting, better sightlines and CCTV coverage.



eh?  Can anyone tell me what it's really for and the idea behind.  It could have been many things surely.  The solution seems to have been create a very flat space.  Can't work it out from Lambeth's site.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 19, 2010)

I was wondering when I went past this morning if those toilets were going to be opened up. 

So far I'm having a bit of trouble imagining how/when I would use the space but who knows. 

I'm going to miss the Grand Opening too.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 19, 2010)

Laughing Toad said:


> turd.



I have been waiting to see how long it would be before it would be described as such.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 19, 2010)

Looks pretty, but I reckon that it'll be costly to maintain:

1. Those young trees being regularly ripped up

2. The provision of riot armament in the zig-zag paving around the edges - all those easy to pull up bricks...


----------



## teuchter (Feb 19, 2010)

DJWrongspeed said:


> eh?  Can anyone tell me what it's really for and the idea behind.  It could have been many things surely.  The solution seems to have been create a very flat space.  Can't work it out from Lambeth's site.



The previous layout was incoherent with lots of bits that didn't really relate to each other. Also there was not really one big space that would lend itself to events. 

There was the "square" with paths crisscrossing a grassed area at the southern end, and this was fenced off and also cut off from the bit in front of the library by Rushcroft Road. That area was seldom used by anyone.

The bit in front of the Ritzy and the Library was a bit of a jumble of different bits and pieces, and there was that kind of banked up grassy bit on the corner that cut it off from the high street/coldharbour lane. There was that paved area kind of under the tree that was effectively closed off from the surrounding streets, and because the street drinkers tended to congregate there, a lot of people felt uncomfortable walking across that bit or using it so it wasn't really functioning as a "public space" (NB I don't have anything against the street drinkers using the space, and I won't mind if they return to use the new space, but hopefully the new more arrangement will mean that it won't feel dominated by them and people will be happy to use it for other purposes too).

Now, we have a fairly large open paved area which will be good for holding events on, and it's open to the roads on either side so it becomes a part of the town centre as a whole (the road realignments help with this too - hopefully the reduction in amount of traffic going up the first bit of Effra Road will mean the square doesn't feel so much like it's surrounded by main roads. The gentle steps facing towards the KFC corner I think are a good way of accommodating the level difference there, as opposed to the embankment/wall that was there before. I think the big tree sits well in the space, and the way the lighting is arranged makes it seem like an attractive gathering point.

I was a bit unsure, when proposed, whether the "windrushes" would be a bit gimmicky and pointless but I think they have been done well, a good balance between being too literal but also recognisable and something that people can identify with and which marks the space out as distinctive and "Brixton" rather than any old public square anywhere.

I know some folk are grumbling about the amount of grassed areas - but I think they've got it about right - if there was more it would just get churned up whenever events were held and anyway, if you want to lounge about on the grass I don't think central Brixton's really the place to do it - Brockwell park is just up the road after all.

Having said all that, the proof of the pudding is in the eating so we won't really know how successful it is until people start using it (or not). It's not unknown for these kinds of spaces to seem good on paper, but then for some reason they just don't work (someone was telling me about a study they'd done on Gillett Square in Dalston which had a similar makeover, but for one reason or the other just doesn't seem to be working - people don't use it).


----------



## Ms T (Feb 19, 2010)

The obvious thing would be to put the farmer's market and the old Brixon Bazaar stalls on there at the weekends to give it some focus.  My main concern is that it will become a drug dealing space.  Before the redevelopment, there were always drug dealers patrolling both corners between Rushcroft Road and Saltoun Road after dark.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 19, 2010)

DJWrongspeed said:


> eh?  Can anyone tell me what it's really for and the idea behind.  It could have been many things surely.  The solution seems to have been create a very flat space.  Can't work it out from Lambeth's site.



Seems to me that the design changed as it went on. From what is being built there it now appears to be a flat open space. Not a space designed for people to congregate on. 

So what is a "Public Square" for . This one has all the hallmarks of what architects call "Defensible Space" . It is easy to police and maintain.

The whole point of a square is imo is that it provides a space for people to freely come and go and mingle. I may be wrong but I cant se that happening with this space. It will be heavily regulated public space.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 19, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Seems to me that the design changed as it went on. From what is being built there it now appears to be a flat open space. Not a space designed for people to congregate on.
> 
> So what is a "Public Square" for . This one has all the hallmarks of what architects call "Defensible Space" . It is easy to police and maintain.
> 
> The whole point of a square is imo is that it provides a space for people to freely come and go and mingle. I may be wrong but I cant se that happening with this space. It will be heavily regulated public space.



So, what would you have done differently?

What constitutes a space designed for people to congregate on?

And in what way does the new design hinder people from freely coming and going and mingling?


----------



## tarannau (Feb 19, 2010)

I'd have probably put more chairs and seating points together for a start.

Little isolated outcrops of chairs don't really encourage people to come together, especially if some 'clumps' of chair consist of 2 wooden seats faced in different directions from one another,


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 19, 2010)

That's what the two big grey kidneys are for. 

Not too sure how it's 'easily defensible' space tho.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 19, 2010)

I ain't sitting on no giant kidney bean.

Christ, what's wrong with these architects. It should at least be a giant gungo or pigeon pea. How frightfully common and unsuitable


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 19, 2010)

Maybe they went for a pigeon pea but were told it wasn't culturally inclusive enough. I mean _everyone_ likes a kidney bean.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 19, 2010)

tarannau said:


> I'd have probably put more chairs and seating points together for a start.
> 
> Little isolated outcrops of chairs don't really encourage people to come together, especially if some 'clumps' of chair consist of 2 wooden seats faced in different directions from one another,



They aren't much different from 2 or 3 person benches really. If you imagine each cluster being a standard bench, I think that would be a fairly normal provision of seating for this kind of space. I agree there could possibly be a few more though. But you can only put them around the edges if you want to retain the possibility of the space being used for events/large gatherings.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 19, 2010)

Maybe the giant kidney beans are the 'defensible' thing. Which would really work since there's two of them in a corner, leaving 3 sides completely open (those saplings wouldn't survive a concerted charge)


----------



## teuchter (Feb 19, 2010)

The "defensible space" concept usually applies to stuff like the areas in front of people's houses; it's about making people feel responsible for the care of an area, and discouraging the existence of empty spaces where ownership or responsibility for their care is ambiguous, because it is those kinds of spaces that fall into disrepair.

It's a perfectly sound principle if you ask me, and I don't see that it's been applied to this new square in any negative way.

The whole idea of following those principles is that you reduce the need for stuff like CCTV surveillance and policing.


----------



## Ol Nick (Feb 19, 2010)

Maybe it will turn bright green like Trinity Gardens has 2 years after being reconstructed! That's pretty cool, and good for the planet too!


----------



## pboi (Feb 19, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Presumably when it gets at least *half dark* so you're looking at past 5pm I reckon.
> 
> ?



Racism


----------



## Jonti (Feb 20, 2010)

Drunkard! 

Why don't you pop down to the new square with a can of white lightening and join your mates? Oh, wait ~ is it true you got expelled from the Brixton Street Drinkers Massive?

It was the first drumming out from that august group for over thirty years, I was told


----------



## Hoss (Feb 20, 2010)

A Petanque terrain would have been a great addition to the space.


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 20, 2010)

I also fall into the 'too much flat open space' school of thought - which I assume they did to make it easier to police but it doesn't exactly make for a sociable space. I guess time will tell how it gets used, and those people who were right can have a round of 'told you so' in six months time


----------



## gaijingirl (Feb 20, 2010)

I'd really like to go to this event - especially the lantern lit procession - but it doesn't say what time that bit is - *does anyone know*?  With a new baby we can't really just hang out there all day - it's all a bit "military precision timing" at the moment...


----------



## pboi (Feb 20, 2010)

thought you were going to Canada!


----------



## gaijingirl (Feb 20, 2010)

pboi said:


> thought you were going to Canada!



who me?    Have you got me confused with Missez or something?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 20, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> who me?    Have you got me confused with Missez or something?



He has...

...and she went.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 22, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> I also fall into the 'too much flat open space' school of thought - which I assume they did to make it easier to police but it doesn't exactly make for a sociable space. I guess time will tell how it gets used, and those people who were right can have a round of 'told you so' in six months time


I'm afraid it's already being called "Windswept Square"


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 24, 2010)

The news story on the Lambeth website has been slightly tweaked



> "From 1pm onwards on Saturday 27 February activities will include live music performances, dance demonstrations and family art workshops. There will also be stalls by Spacemakers, Brixton Village and the Brixton Pound. The event will conclude with a lantern-lit procession led by local school children and a magnificent Phoenix.
> 
> From 1pm - 4pm on Sunday 28 February family activities and art workshops will take place throughout the afternoon."



As far as I can ascertain, the lantern workshop and more spectacular stuff will all be happening on Saturday between 4pm and 5pm.


----------



## linerider (Feb 24, 2010)

Ms T said:


> The obvious thing would be to put the farmer's market and the old Brixon Bazaar stalls on there at the weekends to give it some focus.  My main concern is that it will become a drug dealing space.  Before the redevelopment, there were always drug dealers patrolling both corners between Rushcroft Road and Saltoun Road after dark.


the market has gone out to tender with a group including stuart the watchman as one of the bidders.it will be friday,saturday and sunday,sounds bazaar to me.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 25, 2010)

And, unless Stuart opens up a second stall, it's exactly as predicted. Windrush Square competing with and cannibalising the existing longstanding market.


----------



## miss minnie (Feb 25, 2010)

I wonder if market-hosting logistics were taken into account in the design of the square.  Will the stall holders be allowed to drive their vehicles in to load/unload, where would they park etc. 

What happens when an event is schedule for the square?  I couldn't see myself doing any food shopping at the farmer's market if it meant having to deal with crowds of people watching music etc.  

A market that features crafts, street food etc. might fare better in the new square.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2010)

linerider said:


> the market has gone out to tender with a group including stuart the watchman as one of the bidders.it will be friday,saturday and sunday,sounds bazaar to me.


I'm not aware that the tender has gone out, but yes, the market traders have formed a community interest company so they can bid for the tender if/when that happens, and stuart has been voted in as ceo.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2010)

tarannau said:


> And, unless Stuart opens up a second stall, it's exactly as predicted. Windrush Square competing with and cannibalising the existing longstanding market.


It's true that, if the new community interest company gets the tender then Stuart would need to work full time as ceo, and someone else would need to run the watchman stall, if it is to be kept going.

But in my view, the best guarantee that new market venues will not simply cannibalise existing trade, it to have market traders themselves run the market.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 25, 2010)

I'd imagine that a weekend market on the square, if it's a farmers market type thing, would be going after a different bunch of customers from the regular market anyway, wouldn't it?


----------



## tarannau (Feb 25, 2010)

Not really. It's food at the end of the day and folks can only eat and shop so much. In effect you may be creaming off some of the conventional market's more affluent customers and diverting their spend by offering something perhaps more targeted to that group.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 25, 2010)

Thanks for the info though Jonti. That at least sounds vaguely postive, although plenty of issues remain.


----------



## miss minnie (Feb 25, 2010)

Some of the market's more affluent customers probably already divert their spend to M&S or outside of Brixton entirely.

I never bought meat from the regular market, used to buy it from M&S but now I buy it at the farmer's market.  Loss for M&S, not the regular market.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 25, 2010)

It goes beyond just meat though. Pretty much all conventional veg competes, as does snack food, sausages, fruit etc. 

I use the farmers market a lot too. And, as balanced as I try and keep things, I'm more than aware that it's cutting into my spend in the normal market. Frustratingly they're not even open at the same times - so it's not as though you can easily plan and shop around either. I even find myself not buying things on Saturday because I think they'll be in the farmer's market the next day


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2010)

I can't say for sure, but my impression is that the farmers' market probably competes more with M&S, than it does with the established markets.

I find it hard to believe that the wet fish trade, for example, has been in the slightest bit impacted by the "rod caught fish" on offer.  And I read things like this on the farmers' market thread here


> I buy things from Brixton Farmer's Market, but also have been using Brixton market for 30 years. I buy things from the Farmer's Market that Brixton market doesn't do. The only people losing my custom as a result are Tescos and M&S. The Farmer's Market stuff is far far better though. The pieman is brilliant....hope he's there tomorrow.....


It's only open on a sunday when the other markets are shut and from what I've seen it's not in direct competition with the street markets or the arcades anyway, but offers something new and distinct.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 25, 2010)

Ach, it definitely competes on basic veg for me - carrots, sacks of onions spring onions and brassicas generally come from the Farmers Market now. Not potatoes though, surprisingly. Wet fish and meat I agree are slightly different.

Guttingly some of the choice from the Farmers Market has been a little ropey of late and I probably would have been better with a greater choice from the Saturday market. I'm currently working my way through the second sack of ropeyish onions from the FM for example


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2010)

That's my impression too.  Properly managed, I reckon the street market can pretty much take on all comers for your standard fruit and veg.  

I don't see the "direct to the consumer" shtick of the farmers' market brand making much impact it in your standard fruit'n'veg sector.  Something more is needed. "Farmers' Market" fish is rod caught; the meat free range.  An organic fruit and veg farmer may find the farmers' market works for them, but then that wouldn't be in direct competition with the established street market.

Yes, there are lots of issues.  If Brixton Market is to expand without its trader base, it needs to be managed by people with experience of market trading, and close local ties.


----------



## linerider (Feb 25, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I'm not aware that the tender has gone out, but yes, the market traders have formed a community interest company so they can bid for the tender if/when that happens, and stuart has been voted in as ceo.



Their flyer gives the impression that it's gone out to tender,and say that it will open around easter which is only 6 weeks away.which doesn't leave much time if it hasn't gone to tender yet.


----------



## pboi (Feb 25, 2010)

so do we have timescales yet?  I want to go down but not hang aboot


----------



## miss minnie (Feb 25, 2010)

tarannau said:


> It goes beyond just meat though. Pretty much all conventional veg competes, as does snack food, sausages, fruit etc.


Sausages are meat btw, at least the ones from the Giggly Pig certainly are. 



The rules of the London Farmer's Market mean that the regular market will always trump on non-English food, so spend on imported staples of the Brixton  market will never be diverted.

The regulars will still corner the market on anything imported, exotic or out of season, such as mangos, pineapples, bananas, lemons, grapes, yam, breadfruit etc... and in winter: tomatoes, courgettes, salad leaves, beans, broccoli, oranges, peas etc..

Which pretty much leaves potatoes, onions, cabbage, sprouts, cauliflower, carrots, apples, leeks and pears which are in competition all year round.  Ok there is one farmer's stall atm that has small bags of salad leaves (no lettuce) and may or may not have broccoli or spinach (none last week).

I was asking the chutney lady if she made pineapple jam and she reminded me of the rules. 



> Everything on sale has been grown, raised, baked, caught, shot or made by hand by the people selling it. We have strict rules guaranteeing that everything is sold by the farmer who grew it. No one is allowed to sell another farmer's produce. All of our markets are certified by the National Association of farmers' markets.
> 
> All the farms are within 100 miles of London. We even visit the farms to make sure farmers are growing what they're selling. We have strict rules that determine who can sell at our markets. Please look in our policy section to find more details


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2010)

linerider said:


> Their flyer gives the impression that it's gone out to tender,and say that it will open around easter which is only 6 weeks away.which doesn't leave much time if it hasn't gone to tender yet.


No it doesn't.  

And the less time is given to respond to the tender, the greater will be the disadvantage faced by the traders' new brixton market management community interest company, compared to firms already up and running markets 

I'll find out if the invitations to tender have gone out, and let you know, one way or the other.


----------



## linerider (Feb 25, 2010)

Jonti said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> And the less time is given to respond to the tender, the greater will be the disadvantage faced by the traders' new brixton market management community interest company, compared to firms already up and running markets
> 
> I'll find out if the invitations to tender have gone out, and let you know, one way or the other.



cool.
I've heard that the firm who run North Cross Rd market in East Dulwich are bidding as well,but that might just be a rumour


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Feb 25, 2010)

teuchter said:


> The previous layout was incoherent with lots of bits that didn't really relate to each other.



 As is the new, random chairs (how long will they last?), redundant public loos get a lick of paint to the railings but thats it, "Windrushes" are French Banlieu specials. Piss poor water feature that isnt a focal point. Shame realy, personnally I would have liked to have seen small open air amphitheatre excavated in the centre, but there was never a chance of that after all this "public" space is destined to be a bus station in a couple of years


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2010)

The local nomenclatura secretly opened their new square this morning. 

The public were not invited for fear of a mass outbreak of facepalming.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 26, 2010)

Really? I walked across the square proper for the first time this morning, part of their cunning plan to vary my commute every day with an exciting new series of roadworks, barriers and obstructions. It was alright really, like walking across a bigger square. Slick

Some posters may be glad to know that there's not just one outcast drongo chair, but room for several social inadequates. I particularly like the one towards Saltoun Road, positioned with its back towards a joyful grouping of 5 assembled chairs. You could get quite a wonderful 'in-crowd/outcase nerd' shot with little effort.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2010)

It's all a little embarrassing really 

Aaaanyways, I'm looking forward to the Black Cultural Archives relocating back to Brixton, it'll make a big difference to the square when they finally move into Raleigh Hall.

Also, the old toilets are still there, but sealed, and there's no plans to reopen them.  All the essential services are still in place, so there's a possibility of maybe replacing the structures with a small cafe building.


----------



## ajdown (Feb 26, 2010)

Jonti said:


> The local nomenclatura secretly opened their new square this morning.
> 
> The public were not invited for fear of a mass outbreak of facepalming.



Our bus nearly ran the Mayor (or at least someone official looking with lots of bling round his nec) over as we were heading down the hill earlier.

There seemed to be an awful lot of plod there on the new square.  Is that normal when the mayor is about?


----------



## netbob (Feb 26, 2010)

I just went for a wander round and it's looking pretty good. A few people were sitting out eating their sarnies, a bunch of kids were being shown round by (I assume) the Brixton Society. It feels a bit exposed to the road, but I guess that will change as things grow. 


aj, the police were for Tessa Jowel I think


----------



## teuchter (Feb 26, 2010)

memespring said:


> I just went for a wander round and it's looking pretty good. A few people were sitting out eating their sarnies, a bunch of kids were being shown round by (I assume) the Brixton Society. It feels a bit exposed to the road, but I guess that will change as things grow.


Nice to see someone who isn't determined to be negative about anything vaguely newfangled. It's starting to feel like the Poundbury residents forum round here.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 26, 2010)

Actually, I see a pattern here. The whingey moaners haven't actually set foot on the square yet, whereas the two posters who have, seem to reckon it's OK.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 26, 2010)

Who's the whingey moaners then? It's alright, just underwhelmingly meh really. It's a slight improvement on what was there before, but I'm far from sure it was a wise use of resources or bold leap forward. It's a bigger square with a kidney bean and some funny seating <shrugs>

And the whole issue with the market could well seriously affect the long term future of many of the independent traders in the centre. It's slightly worrying to hear about what seems to  be a rushed through tender process. It seems a pleasant enough square in need of a real purpose.


----------



## malice (Feb 26, 2010)

Police must have been for Boris Johnson, who appears to have opened it:

http://twitpic.com/15ev06

http://twitpic.com/15ex6b


----------



## netbob (Feb 26, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Nice to see someone who isn't determined to be negative about anything vaguely newfangled. It's starting to feel like the Poundbury residents forum round here.



I wandered over with that assumption, but was pleasantly surprised. I can see people actually using it, the worry all along has been that the council would try and sterilise it but that seems to have been avoided (depends on how it is policed though I guess).


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2010)

Ms T said:


> The obvious thing would be to put the farmer's market and the old Brixon Bazaar stalls on there at the weekends to give it some focus...


And that's the Town Hall's general idea as well, to have events and stalls and stuff in the square regularly.  So there'll be a tendering process for companies that want to organise and run that.

But first, the Town Hall has to decide which of its arms is going to be in charge.  The tussle's between street care, as parts of the area might still be public road;  parks, because most of it actually is a park; and events, on account of the intent regularly to put on events there.

The invitations to tender have not yet gone out, and cannot go out until the turf war is sorted.


----------



## ajdown (Feb 26, 2010)

malice said:


> Police must have been for Boris Johnson



What mess has he gotten himself into now?


----------



## Ms T (Feb 26, 2010)

Jonti said:


> And that's the Town Hall's general idea as well, to have events and stalls and stuff in the square regularly.  So there'll be a tendering process for companies that want to organise and run that.
> 
> But first, the Town Hall has to decide which of its arms is going to be in charge.  The tussle's between street care, as parts of the area might still be public road;  parks, because most of it actually is a park; and events, on account of the intent regularly to put on events there.
> 
> The invitations to tender have not yet gone out, and cannot go out until the turf war is sorted.



  Only in Lambeth....


----------



## ajdown (Feb 26, 2010)

Are we talking turf war internally at the council, or which local gang is going to claim it as 'their' territory and we'll be seeing running gun battles and suchlike as part of the regular weekend entertainment?


----------



## innit (Feb 26, 2010)

the chairs look preposterous.

gonna wander down for a closer look now the barricades are gone...


----------



## gaijingirl (Feb 26, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> As far as I can ascertain, the lantern workshop and more spectacular stuff will all be happening on Saturday between 4pm and 5pm.



Thanks for this - we'll probably take the little'un down for a look.


----------



## innit (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't think I like it.  The old toilets look really random.  It basically looks like the same two spaces (paved space outside the Ritzy and grassy space outside Raleigh Hall) except that instead of being separated by a road they are now separated by a stretch of brick paving.

I hope to be surprised by a vibrant market and fabulous events.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 26, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Are we talking turf war internally at the council, or which local gang is going to claim it as 'their' territory and we'll be seeing running gun battles and suchlike as part of the regular weekend entertainment?





kyser_soze said:


> Looks pretty, but I reckon that it'll be costly to maintain:
> 
> 1. Those young trees being regularly ripped up
> 
> 2. *The provision of riot armament in the zig-zag paving around the edges - all those easy to pull up bricks*...


----------



## clandestino (Feb 27, 2010)

Yes, Boris was there. I didn't take much notice of the chairs, but the water feature/fountain thing is ridiculous. Basically it throws up a cloud of water mist which this morning made a big chunk of the square unusable, unless you were happy getting soaked. Sure it'll be fantastic in the summer, but less so on a dull February morning. There was a great comedy moment when Boris was walking across the square, with guys filming his Mayoral entrance (as it were, ooh missus, etc), when they had to stop in their tracks as it became apparent that they were going to have to walk through the billowing mist from the fountain.


----------



## ajdown (Feb 27, 2010)

That fountain sounds like it's going to be really useful when temperatures are around or below zero, as well.  I saw that and, from a distance, thought it might have been some dust blowing round or something - hadn't realised it was water.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Are we talking turf war internally at the council, or which local gang is going to claim it as 'their' territory and we'll be seeing running gun battles and suchlike as part of the regular weekend entertainment?


Trying to run with this idea, I've suggested each of the contesting council departments should field a small team of champions,  to duke it out in the new square as the first event.  

A three cornered tag fight was my suggestion. Sadly, it has not been well received.  Events said thanks, but they'd prefer to organise the sound system.  Street Care said it would be needed to clean up afterwards, so it was a lousy idea.  And Parks said they'd rather feed the ducks, not the trolls 

What can it all mean?


----------



## ajdown (Feb 27, 2010)

So who else is going down there today?

Any idea what the live music is? It's not ASWAD again is it?


----------



## boohoo (Feb 27, 2010)

The fountain is a little useless - however, I think the rest is rather nice.


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2010)

I went down today. It's awful. There's no lawn, no gardens, no flowers - just a vast, bleak expanse of stone and concrete. It looks like a landscaped supermarket car park.


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2010)

Compare and contrast with:







Feature: http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/windrush-square-brixton-opens.html


----------



## ajdown (Feb 27, 2010)

To be fair, the grass area was barriered off, presumably to do with the thing that looked like a big catherine wheel, which was probably part of the kid's procession today.  It'll be interesting to see what state it's in after a week though.

My concern is simply the same one I've had all along - the seats are pleasant enough, we spent some time sitting in them watching the world go by this afternoon - but once the career alcoholics move back in and take over, and the drug dealers have settled their patches, it'll end up going back to a "no go" area for the average Brixton resident.


----------



## greenhouse (Feb 27, 2010)

Looks good for skateboarding, The giant granite shape is cool, it looks like a good space for freestyle dancing/acrobatics, the crazy people that sit on the benches will probably still prefer the Masschurch benches. I wonder how it will work ? I like it so far, the rushes look good, do they move in the wind ? One thing I wonder is ( because I deal in salvage,) where those expensive railings and faced stones from the previously very unimaginous incarnation of the park. They would be worth money on the market, I wonder if they were all sold properly and the money went back to Lambeth, or what ? I bet it went shady, how can one find out that kind of thing ? ?


----------



## greenhouse (Feb 27, 2010)

[
My concern is simply the same one I've had all along - the seats are pleasant enough, we spent some time sitting in them watching the world go by this afternoon - but once the career alcoholics move back in and take over, and the drug dealers have settled their patches, it'll end up going back to a "no go" area for the average Brixton resident.[/QUOTE]

C'm on , cup half full man, if you want pleasant, move to the country, have some faith, random acts of positivity, don't be a moaning minnie love.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 27, 2010)

I've already got pleasant, living in Brixton...when I lived in the country it was full of backbiting, chainsaws and farmer's dogs that attacked you if you walked down the road.


----------



## Lovely (Feb 27, 2010)

Did anyone actually see any events going on today? I wasn't able to visit the opening today.


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 27, 2010)

I'm going to wait until the trees are back in leaf and the planting at the southern end has had a chance to establish itself before I write the whole thing off as a failure.   The green area has the potential to be better than the faux heritage area created with Brixton challenge funding a decade ago. [though Greenhouse raises a good question about what happened to all those LBL monogrammed railings, which could surely have been reused elsewhere in the borough to reinstate Victorian railings never replaced after the war.]

There are some real disappointments about the detailed execution of the scheme, which will make running events much more difficult.

Why on earth was the Sharpeville memorial left in such a stupid location, in the middle of what could be an events space?

And I could not believe that the "pop-up" power supply for events has been installed slap bang next to the new granite seat/sculpture thing rather than where it might be useful.  Or did the designers slap down the sculpure forgetting that was where they had already specified the power supply was going


----------



## ajdown (Feb 27, 2010)

Lovely said:


> Did anyone actually see any events going on today? I wasn't able to visit the opening today.



There was what looked like a school band on at one point, and then there was a belly-dancer on the stage.

Brixton Pound and Brixton Market had stalls there, and there was a big tent that appeared to have some sort of "things for the kids" drawing thing in it.  

All in all, we both thought it was a bit of an under-event really.  There was a lot of space that could have been filled with things but wasn't.


----------



## Lovely (Feb 27, 2010)

ajdown said:


> There was what looked like a school band on at one point, and then there was a belly-dancer on the stage.
> 
> Brixton Pound and Brixton Market had stalls there, and there was a big tent that appeared to have some sort of "things for the kids" drawing thing in it.
> 
> All in all, we both thought it was a bit of an under-event really.  There was a lot of space that could have been filled with things but wasn't.



Sound like a bit of a disappointment


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2010)

tbf, it's must be hard to pull of a public opening party if your real plan was secretively to open the thing with a canape and cronies bash the day before


----------



## ajdown (Feb 27, 2010)

Currently uploading my video to Youtube.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 27, 2010)

I like your train ones best.


----------



## thriller (Feb 27, 2010)

I forgot about this. Would love to take a look at the youtube video.


----------



## miss minnie (Feb 27, 2010)

Well what a mess.  Cover it up with a couple of tents and a tiny stage... its hard to tell what all the fuss is about.

So this is the *big development* that we've waited for.  A bit of new paving and a few bolted-down seats. Whoopdedoo.  I seriously expected something with a bit more substance.


----------



## ajdown (Feb 27, 2010)

Video still processing, I'm off to bed.  Give the video 10 minutes or so.  It's only 2 minutes long.  Enjoy.  We stayed for about 45 minutes total and tried not to end up with too much 'samey' stuff but when there's not much going on you don't have a lot of choice.



Anyone recognise themselves?


----------



## miss minnie (Feb 28, 2010)

Ah, so thats what it was... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ... I hadn't actually noticed it there today (as you would expect to notice monumental sculpture) but spotted some tall things from the bus on the way home from Khans later.

So the green part of the new square is not going to be always fenced off I hope?  Why was it fenced off today I wonder?


----------



## ajdown (Feb 28, 2010)

There was some sort of contraption rigged up in the grassy bit - it looked like some sort of catherine wheel/fireworks thingy, which was probably part of the childrens procession later in the day.  I recall something about a 'spectacular Phoenix' being part of it and I can't think what else it might have been for.  There were about 8 security guys - and one fire extinguisher - loitering around that particular area as well as lots of plod.


----------



## miss minnie (Feb 28, 2010)

Ah, I see.  Did anyone see the display then?


----------



## innit (Feb 28, 2010)

ajdown said:


> To be fair, the grass area was barriered off, presumably to do with the thing that looked like a big catherine wheel, which was probably part of the kid's procession today.  It'll be interesting to see what state it's in after a week though.
> 
> My concern is simply the same one I've had all along - the seats are pleasant enough, we spent some time sitting in them watching the world go by this afternoon - but once the career alcoholics move back in and take over, and the drug dealers have settled their patches, it'll end up going back to a "no go" area for the average Brixton resident.



It was never a no go area!

I wouldn't criticize anyone who was afraid to walk through the square before - cos they might have their own good reasons to be afraid - but I certainly don't think the average Brixton resident would have thought twice about walking through!

"Career alcoholics" is a pretty nasty turn of phrase too.


----------



## pboi (Feb 28, 2010)

drunken layabouts?


where have they been while this has been getting done?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 28, 2010)

It's just a shame about the damn noise and air pollution from the road. 

Jesus did this society ever get it wrong allowing the motor industry and drivers to take control.


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 28, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> Ah, I see.  Did anyone see the display then?



What, you aren't subscribing to my exciting new social media coverage:




			
				 me twittering yesterday said:
			
		

> Back from second launch of Windrush Square (Boris + VIPs got sneak preview yesterday). Emergency Exit Arts phoenix was fab...
> 
> ... but the human Catherine Wheel was a bit of a damp squib. Lots of Brixton kids in procession from lantern making workshops.
> 
> Having to put marquee and stalls across main desire lines suggests GrossMax new "magazine architecture" layout of WIndrush square not ideal?


----------



## miss minnie (Feb 28, 2010)

Ah, twitter, I see. 

"Having to put marquee and stalls across main desire lines suggests GrossMax new "magazine architecture" layout of WIndrush square not ideal?"

Yes, that's what I thought... the big launch was a good opportunity to show just how stunningly well the design accommodates events... or not as the case may be. 

Closing half the square off all day for a firework seemed a bit counter productive.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 28, 2010)

I've posted up some photos and a few thoughts from Saturday over here.

In short:

Politicians only event on Friday was poor. Public event on Saturday was great. Not so sure about the geography of the square itself. Time will tell as to how the public use it, if at all.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 28, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Video still processing, I'm off to bed.  Give the video 10 minutes or so.  It's only 2 minutes long.  Enjoy.  We stayed for about 45 minutes total and tried not to end up with too much 'samey' stuff but when there's not much going on you don't have a lot of choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone recognise themselves?




nice one AJdown. also saw the Battle for Brixton is on youtube now as well


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 28, 2010)

editor said:


> I went down today. It's awful. There's no lawn, no gardens, no flowers - just a vast, bleak expanse of stone and concrete. It looks like a landscaped supermarket car park.



I agree. The reason its like this is because it incorporates the principles of "Secured by Design". 

"Public consultation was carried out in 2005 and showed that the
community was keen to see the area developed into a safer and
more secure place to be at all times of the day. The local police
and Lambeth Council were active in the design development of
the square to ensure that these concerns were addressed.
The open design of the square will mean that anyone walking
through it can see who is in the area and what they are doing.
Combined with carefully placed CCTV cameras and improved
lighting, this will enhance the feeling of security".

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Transforming-Brixton-Town-Centre-Phase-Three.pdf

Secured by Design http://www.securedbydesign.com/  means that Police now have a large say in how public projects like this end up. Thats why the square has ended up looking like a car park.


----------



## Lovely (Feb 28, 2010)

Jonti said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> And the less time is given to respond to the tender, the greater will be the disadvantage faced by the traders' new brixton market management community interest company, compared to firms already up and running markets
> 
> I'll find out if the invitations to tender have gone out, and let you know, one way or the other.



Am i right in saying that they have decided that there will be a market in the square but it's not decided which market it will be/who will be running it?


----------



## gaijingirl (Feb 28, 2010)

We actually ended up taking part in the lantern procession.  At 5 weeks gaijinbaby was certainly the youngest participant - her lantern is now hanging up at home.  We very much enjoyed it.  (Tricky we must have somehow missed you.... )  We also saw some good Portuguese folk dancing.  I thought the phoenix was pretty damn good!!  Also the lovely mayor gave a good attempt at a rousing speech - but I have a soft spot for him anyway.....


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 28, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> At 5 weeks gaijinbaby was certainly the youngest participant - her lantern is now hanging up at home.


<<<Pushy parents - getting worse than Clapham it is!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2010)

Lovely said:


> Am i right in saying that they have decided that there will be a market in the square but it's not decided which market it will be/who will be running it?


Yes


----------



## Lovely (Feb 28, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Yes



Thanks Jonti.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 28, 2010)

miss minnie said:


>


 Those are rushes...do they wave in the wind? Did the sculptor realise what the significance of  the name 'Windrush'?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 28, 2010)

IIRC, the design calls those things windrushes, explicitly after the plant of the same name, which of course doesn't exist


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 28, 2010)

I have to say that I thought it was a complete joke when I passed it on the bus earlier today. It just looked like a paved area with different colours on the floor, like a play mat.

Perhaps it's more exciting when the weather's nicer or something.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 1, 2010)

Have you moved to brixton then, fridgey?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 1, 2010)

Is it me or are they taking their time at the park as well?


----------



## billythefish (Mar 1, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I have to say that I thought it was a complete joke when I passed it on the bus earlier today. It just looked like a paved area with different colours on the floor, like a play mat.
> 
> Perhaps it's more exciting when the weather's nicer or something.



It looked a lot better on Saturday night when it was all lit up. They have lights recessed into the paving as well.


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2010)

I too some photos yesterday which I'll post up later. It looked even bleaker the day after opening.


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2010)

Here you go - Windswept Square:

























http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/windrush-square-brixton-2010.html


----------



## tarannau (Mar 1, 2010)

It's really failing to grow on me. It looks particularly boring and desolate at night.

The thing doesn't seem to hang together as a whole. Everything seems a bit broken up and spaced, things scattered around the edges with little coherence. It lacks something to bring it together - it feels like a largely featureless stride across several varieties of floor covering and little more atm

It doesn't seem a well laid out space for events or a market either really. Needless to say the last minute bodges and obvious lack of planning regarding the the tender for more traders really grates as well.


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2010)

The part furthest from the library works best - it's actually got grass and trees! - but for the greater part, people are just treating the square and its vast open space as a shortcut.

I would have preferred it if they'd spent a little less on all that posh flooring and metal mobile masts windrush sculpture and spent the money on gardens and plants and employed a warden to look after the place.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It just looked like a paved area with different colours on the floor, like a play mat.
> 
> .



 Nicely put Fridge.


----------



## innit (Mar 1, 2010)

editor said:


> Here you go - Windswept Square:



This just looks like a trip hazard.

I don't mind the fountain though - it looks a bit random from a distance, but it was nice to see a rainbow hanging in the water droplets as the sun shone through it this afternoon.


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2010)

innit said:


> This just looks like a trip hazard.


The only reason we've got the space in the first place is because Sir Henry Tate's widow bought and donated the land to the public, but that contribution that seems to have been written out of the brief. 

Similarly, that chunk of knackered stone dumped on the steps is just about the only reminder of Brixton's once-famous Theatre, with ne'er a hint of the area's once-proud theatrical tradition.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 1, 2010)

Bit bleak with yer  arboreal deciduous....ness.


----------



## nagapie (Mar 1, 2010)

So did no one catch sight of Boris and get to heckle him?


----------



## miss minnie (Mar 1, 2010)

nagapie said:


> So did no one catch sight of Boris and get to heckle him?


Is it worth heckling Boris?  He's a bit good at parry and riposte what with all that practice on telly.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 1, 2010)

nagapie said:


> So did no one catch sight of Boris and get to heckle him?



We weren't allowed anywhere near. The politicians has their invite only VIP opening event on Friday. Steve Reed and his chums mingled with Boris and did the civic thing. The people were not allowed in until Saturday.

It rained on Friday.

Saturday saw sunshine.


----------



## story (Mar 1, 2010)

I went through the square this morning in brilliant sunshine. It was rather nice, I thought. And it was being used. Every chair was occupied, even the loner ones, and the big concrete turd (surely there must be a better way to refer to the serpentine bench?) was covered with people of all ages, one of whom was playing a geetar.

I hope it's not just the novelty and that the square will indeed be used by veh citzenry.


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2010)

story said:


> I went through the square this morning in brilliant sunshine. It was rather nice, I thought. And it was being used. Every chair was occupied, even the loner ones, and the big concrete turd (surely there must be a better way to refer to the serpentine bench?) was covered with people of all ages, one of whom was playing a geetar.


Thing is, you could have just shoved some cheap benches into what was there previously and there'd be just as many people there.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 1, 2010)

It looked nice but very empty tonight going past. Suppose it is a Monday though and will reserve judgement. On a hot day Brockwell Park seems much more attractive to me but I am still in favour of this I think.


----------



## Planty (Mar 1, 2010)

I thought the fountain looked quite beautiful tonight.  Fine misty spray and gentle coloured lighting.


----------



## Mairead (Mar 1, 2010)

story said:


> I went through the square this morning in brilliant sunshine. It was rather nice, I thought. And it was being used. Every chair was occupied, even the loner ones, and the big concrete turd (surely there must be a better way to refer to the serpentine bench?) was covered with people of all ages, one of whom was playing a geetar.
> 
> I hope it's not just the novelty and that the square will indeed be used by veh citzenry.



I've got to say that I operate from a default position of cynicism and suspicion whenever the council are involved with anything but I was there about 3.30 today and it was the same, I really liked it and hope people will continue to use it once the novelty(?) has worn off.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Mar 2, 2010)

It looks quite cool at night with the snazzy lights, it's even got a kind of fountain. I do wonder what it will look like in 10yrs time though.  Is it the result of some grand democratic consultation and maybe that's why it's ended up being a bit pointless !  It's trying so hard to create a sculpted blank surface which doesn't serve much purpose.

It would have been more interesting to have some buildings roadside and then an inward looking square perhaps away from the traffic. The area just feels too exposed.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 2, 2010)

In the original plan, Effra road would have been closed, so joining up the square with St Matthew's churchyard. I agree it needs more enclosure, but enclosure is exactly what 'secure by design' doesn't want - it allows groups of people to 'own' and control space.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

I have added a poll for people to say what they think of it.

I'd suggest you only vote once you've actually walked across it yourself and spent a bit of time there, rather than peering at it from the bus.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

editor said:


> Compare and contrast with:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Two points here -

Do you seriously think that what worked for Victorian Brixton (relatively well-to-do semi-suburban shopping centre) is appropriate in 2010?

Would you agree that gardens are not the same thing as a public square? Therefore the argument is more about whether we want some tended gardens for people to wander about in with their parasols, or a public space that can be used for events?


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Two points here -
> 
> Do you seriously think that what worked for Victorian Brixton (relatively well-to-do semi-suburban shopping centre) is appropriate in 2010?
> 
> Would you agree that gardens are not the same thing as a public square? Therefore the argument is more about whether we want some tended gardens for people to wander about in with their parasols, or a public space that can be used for events?


I believe that a middle ground could have been found between the featureless sea of concrete and stone that we now have and some grass, plants and gardens. 

They could have, for example, kept a grass border instead of digging up the corner of Coldharbour Lane and replacing it with an extended pavement. The lack of a toilet is truly ridiculous: they want people to tarry awhile, but with no toilets available at night, they're just going to piss in the square - probably over the granite worm.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> I agree. The reason its like this is because it incorporates the principles of "Secured by Design".
> 
> "Public consultation was carried out in 2005 and showed that the
> community was keen to see the area developed into a safer and
> ...



Do you object to the principle of "secured by design"?

What is it about the principle of making places that people feel safe in that you don't like?

What do you think about the circulation routes on postwar housing estates that have blind corners and which aren't overlooked by people's houses, or are poorly lit? Do you reject the idea that some of the problems on these estates are caused by the design of them?


----------



## tarannau (Mar 2, 2010)

Do you think it's a good event space though Teuchter? It's difficult to envisage how they see the square working for most events - there are certainly practical drawback to its use for market purposes and the grass end towards Saltoun Rd seems smaller and more broken up than the simpler green which preceded it.

It's not horrendous, it just doesn't really hang together or add much at the mo.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 2, 2010)

BTW the square, either the old version or the flash-floored new style, is in no way equivalent or really comparable to a postwar housing estate.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2010)

Not best judged in Feb/March, imo. Waiting to see how people come to occupy the space over time.


----------



## pboi (Mar 2, 2010)

how is it acceptable that people will just piss in the square?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

editor said:


> I believe that a middle ground could have been found between the featureless sea of concrete and stone that we now have and some grass, plants and gardens.
> 
> They could have, for example, kept a grass border instead of digging up the corner of Coldharbour Lane and replacing it with an extended pavement. The lack of a toilet is truly ridiculous: they want people to tarry awhile, but with no toilets available at night, they're just going to piss in the square - probably over the granite worm.



There are several areas of grass at the south end of the space, and there are a load of new trees there too (more than there were before).

I imagine that part of the reason the grass areas were placed at that end rather than by the corner is that it will see less footfall. A grassy border by coldharbour lane would get churned up into a muddy mess, unless you fenced it off, which would kind of defeat the purpose. 

How often did you see people lounging around on the grass previously? Rarely I'd say. It's not really the place you would go if you want to have a picnic or stroll amongst some flowers - Brockwell park is just up the road.

Also you describe it as a "featureless sea of concrete and stone". I actually can't see much concrete myself. But anyway, you describe it like that to make it sound like something negative. What's intrinsically wrong with a a bit of open paved surface? It's something that London lacks compared to most European cities. It has plenty of precedent elsewhere.























As far as the toilets are concerned...yes of course it would be good if we had more public toilets (everywhere) but that's really a political decision - you can't blame the design of the square for that.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 2, 2010)

All your examples there are enclosed, Teuchter (apart from Red Square, which is windswept and bleak as you like!). I don't think the design for Windrush Sq. could really do much about that, without severely redefining the road and building layout.

The conversion of Raleigh house to the Black History museum will really help though


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Do you think it's a good event space though Teuchter? It's difficult to envisage how they see the square working for most events - there are certainly practical drawback to its use for market purposes and the grass end towards Saltoun Rd seems smaller and more broken up than the simpler green which preceded it.
> 
> It's not horrendous, it just doesn't really hang together or add much at the mo.



I think we'll have to give it a few months before we can really say how well it works in practice. 

I do think it's better than what was there before though. I struggle to think of what has been lost compared to the previous arrangement. Certainly I hardly ever saw people using the grassy bit previously.



tarannau said:


> BTW the square, either the old version or the flash-floored new style, is in no way equivalent or really comparable to a postwar housing estate.



I was just trying to make the point that the "secured by design" (or whatever you want to call it) thinking is a result of learning from some fairly serious design errors in many postwar housing estates.

There are serious consequences to creating spaces that are hard to police. And when I say police, I don't just mean the cops; it's about passers by and people in surrounding buildings too.

I think there can be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that somewhere should be easy to police, as if the aim is to somehow reduce people's freedoms. When in fact it's usually more about making places usable to greater number of people.

I know there's the thing about the street drinkers, and I'm sure people are thinking that this new space is designed to put them off... the thing is that I think that they should be allowed to use the new space just like anyone else is, but that doesn't mean that it's good if they basically take over the whole space which is effectively what tended to happen before, and the reason that happened before was partly that the area was somewhat separated off from the surroundings with the result that many people felt uncomfortable (with or without good reason) walking through it.

If it turns out the the council/police can more easily try and get the street drinkers off the new space, then the objection shouldn't be against the design of the space (or even the "secure by design" principles) - the objection should be against the fact that the council/police choose to adopt a policy that says not everyone should be allowed to use an area of public space.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 2, 2010)

A suprising number of people used to use the 'grassy bit' ime, well at least in hot weather.

Give it time to settle, but it looks a bit badly designed when it comes to events. The whole market idea for example, certainly seems an afterthought rather than something designed for.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

Crispy said:


> All your examples there are enclosed, Teuchter (apart from Red Square, which is windswept and bleak as you like!). I don't think the design for Windrush Sq. could really do much about that, without severely redefining the road and building layout.
> 
> The conversion of Raleigh house to the Black History museum will really help though



Well, I would happily see all the surrounding roads shut to all traffic except buses. But that's not going to happen and like you say, there's only so much you can do about that in the design of the square.

I'm sure I can think of some examples of public hardstanding spaces which have traffic running along one or more sides of them, that are successful. In any case, making it grass rather than paving doesn't deal with the issue of nearby traffic. I would say the nearby traffic just makes a grassy area all the less inappropriate.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

tarannau said:


> A suprising number of people used to use the 'grassy bit' ime, well at least in hot weather.
> 
> Give it time to settle, but it looks a bit badly designed when it comes to events. The whole market idea for example, certainly seems an afterthought rather than something designed for.



It's just speculation because I wasn't involved in it, but I would imagine that the arrangement of the area was somewhat restricted by certain elements that they weren't allowed to move, like the old public toilets for example.


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2010)

teuchter said:


> As far as the toilets are concerned...yes of course it would be good if we had more public toilets (everywhere) but that's really a political decision - you can't blame the design of the square for that.


Yes, you can because with all their vast budget, the toilets _that were already ther_e were simply given a lick of black paint and left locked. If you want people to come to the square in their droves, there should be proper facilities there. 

As Crispy says, I don't think your enclosed space comparisons are valid ones either. Red Square? LOL.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2010)

For me, the major problem for Windrush Open Space is it's bordered by two major A road and a side road, with all the noise and other pollution and safety considerations that brings.

I'd like to think the inclusion of Effra Road has only been postponed because that could be quite spectacular in terms of creating more of a European square and reducing especially noise pollution.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

editor said:


> Yes, you can because with all their vast budget, the toilets _that were already ther_e were simply given a lick of black paint and left locked. If you want people to come to the square in their droves, there should be proper facilities there.



I'm pretty sure the designers had no say in whether or not the toilets were reopened. Apart from anything else, the cost of doing that would be an ongoing maintenance one, not a one-off one.



> As Crispy says, I don't think your enclosed space comparisons are valid ones either.



So is your objection to the idea of it being paved spaced based on the fact that it is a semi-enclosed space? The examples were chosen to illustrate that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with an expanse of paved space.


----------



## pboi (Mar 2, 2010)

Pedestrianise CHL! Reduce the number of hairdressers and chicken shops! get a Costa and a pizza express !  (ok im trolling with that bit)


----------



## Jonti (Mar 2, 2010)

> Is it the result of some grand democratic consultation


No, not at all.  It is the result of the local nomenclature deciding what's likely to work best for us them.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 2, 2010)

> I'm pretty sure the designers had no say in whether or not the toilets were reopened.


And I'm pretty sure if the paymasters had wanted toilets,  the designers would've done what they were asked!


----------



## Jonti (Mar 2, 2010)

teuchter, we have been given a windswept expanse of designer rock on purpose. Windswept Square is supposed to be uninviting, so that people will not hang out there. 

This design goal has been achieved, but it is no surprise the designers' hearts were not in it, and that it shows.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 2, 2010)

There was a feasibility report into what could be done with those toilets

attached are photos of the current interior

note that any re-use of the space down there would have to comply with the DDA, which means a lift.


----------



## innit (Mar 2, 2010)

Crispy said:


> There was a feasibility report into what could be done with those toilets
> 
> attached are photos of the current interior
> 
> note that any re-use of the space down there would have to comply with the DDA, which means a lift.



Do the victorian public toilets which are in use have lifts?  Eg Westminster have quite a few in use.  I don't remember seeing lifts.  Is the legislation different for a space which is in continuous use, as opposed to reopening a space?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 2, 2010)

I'm just talking about repurposing the toilet space as something else. If reused as toilets, an accesible cubicle could be provided at ground level.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

innit said:


> Do the victorian public toilets which are in use have lifts?  Eg Westminster have quite a few in use.  I don't remember seeing lifts.  Is the legislation different for a space which is in continuous use, as opposed to reopening a space?



Exceptions can be made for pre-existing buildings, if making them DDA compliant would make the project overall unfeasible.

I'm not aware of anything that distinguishes between buildings in continuous use those which have been disused for a while, but there might be.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 2, 2010)

Crispy said:


> IIRC, the design calls those things windrushes, explicitly after the plant of the same name, which of course doesn't exist


This is beyond satire.

Is there really evidence that the square's designers thought that the Windrush after which the new square has been named must be a type of grass, and that their paymasters never noticed the ignorant howler?

I suppose given the nearby Rushcroft Road and Rush Common, someone may have made a lazy and ignorant assumption.  What is almost beyond belief is that _everyone_ involved in the design process was similarly ignorant.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

Jonti said:


> This is beyond satire.
> 
> Is there really evidence that the square's designers thought that the Windrush after which the new square has been named must be a type of grass,



Well, is there?

Does everything have to be literal?

Is it possible that they knew there was no such thing as a "windrush" plant, but decided that the image suggested by that name could be made into something that could contribute to the identity of the square?




Cynical rants on bulletin boards: pretty easy

Designing a public space in a way that keeps numerous different people and conflicting interests happy: pretty difficult


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

By the way, did one of the mods add an extra option to my poll, or am I going mad?


----------



## Mairead (Mar 2, 2010)

innit said:


> Do the victorian public toilets which are in use have lifts?  Eg Westminster have quite a few in use.  I don't remember seeing lifts.  Is the legislation different for a space which is in continuous use, as opposed to reopening a space?



Just spoken to a colleague of mine who is a bit of an expert on the DDA and he seems to think that as long as there are accessible toilets nearby (Tate Library) there would be no need to adapt these toilets.


----------



## innit (Mar 2, 2010)

Crispy said:


> I'm just talking about repurposing the toilet space as something else. If reused as toilets, an accesible cubicle could be provided at ground level.





Mairead said:


> Just spoken to a colleague of mine who is a bit of an expert on the DDA and he seems to think that as long as there are accessible toilets nearby (Tate Library) there would be no need to adapt these toilets.



Thanks both, that makes sense 

It would be great to see them in use in some way or another.


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2010)

teuchter said:


> By the way, did one of the mods add an extra option to my poll, or am I going mad?


Wasn't me!


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 2, 2010)

What I think is missing from the new Square is some form of performance space. Sounds hideous, but it needn't be. The whole point of the project is to give Brixton a central focus, somewhere to stage events.

A small amphitheatre would have worked. This then needn't have been used purely for official council based events. It could be an area used on an ad hoc basis by local groups.

Actually, nope. It would probably be taken over by the Bible bashers 

I do think the whole layout of the event at the weekend was confusing though. You're not sure where your attention should be. The seats locked down looking at the road, sum up for me where the planners have gone wrong - looking outwards, rather than inwards and encouraging use of the Square.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 2, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Well, is there?


That's what I asked 


> Does everything have to be literal?


Uhhh, no, I don't think so. But then again, I write poetry, so I would say that, wouldn't I? 


> Is it possible that they knew there was no such thing as a "windrush" plant, but decided that the image suggested by that name could be made into something that could contribute to the identity of the square?


Not really, no.  Why would anyone want to dilute the history encapsulated in the story of the real Windrush? 


> Cynical rants on bulletin boards: pretty easy


The same is true of toadying defenses; but that's not the point at all.





> Designing a public space in a way that keeps numerous different people and conflicting interests happy: pretty difficult


No one has denied that. There are better and worse ways of finding the balance.  And there's quite a few tweaks going to be needed to get the balance right.

Your indignant rant was caused by a simple question. Is there really a plant called a 'windrush' (perhaps a local name that isn't in the botany books and isn't uncovered by google), or is the monumental sculpture in the new square a monumental joke, albeit maybe intentional?  Which would make it a rather tasteless and insulting joke, in my view.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2010)

i haven't read the thread so i'm probably repeating what others have said, but public squares are for people to loiter/gather, yet this is just designed for people to walk through. what are they thinking?


----------



## innit (Mar 2, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Well, is there?
> 
> Does everything have to be literal?
> 
> ...



good god, did your mum design it or something?

I thought cynical rants (or at least petulant whines) were your normal MO tbh.

And I don't think anyone is being cynical, as it goes - they're just expressing their feelings about the new square.  Turns out some people don't like it.  Fair enough.


----------



## Mairead (Mar 2, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i haven't read the thread so i'm probably repeating what others have said, but public squares are for people to loiter/gather, yet this is just designed for people to walk through. what are they thinking?



But from what I saw yesterday (not been down there today yet) people were both gathering and loitering with abandon!


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2010)

that's cos we brixtonites are irrepressible!
those chairs need to go and be replaced by benches. comfortable ones and lots of them.


----------



## pboi (Mar 2, 2010)

saw some people conversing at like 2 in the morning, looked quite serene.

benches tho, deffo!


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 2, 2010)

revolving loveseats!! 


they don't seem to have catered for the domino players in this new design.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 2, 2010)

There should be public hangings in that square for anyone that says 'deffo'




The drinkers circle seemed back in operation this morning btw, restricting themselves to the fixed chairs near the old loos


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2010)

good.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 2, 2010)

tarannau said:


> The drinkers circle seemed back in operation this morning btw, restricting themselves to the fixed chairs near the old loos



I knew it wouldn't take long.


----------



## pboi (Mar 2, 2010)

peasants


----------



## Jonti (Mar 2, 2010)

you only say that 'cos they drummed you out


----------



## innit (Mar 2, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> good.



seconded.


----------



## pboi (Mar 2, 2010)

tarannau said:


> There should be public hangings in that square for anyone that says 'deffo'



fo sho


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

innit said:


> And I don't think anyone is being cynical, as it goes - they're just expressing their feelings about the new square.  Turns out some people don't like it.  Fair enough.



Of course, if some people don't like it fair enough. That is inevitable. What irritates me is assuming of the worst as a starting point, as if there's no possibility that anyone involved in the procurement/design/construction of the project had anything but bad intentions. It's just so overwhelmingly negative, and disheartening for the people who actually put a lot of thought and effort into these things, often in the face of a mass of difficulties and hinderances along the way. It could have been a bit of new paving, a few trees plonked about the place, and some bog standard park benches thrown in along with some cheesy off-the-shelf "public art" in the middle like any old town centre regeneration project in any old town in the UK. But it seems like an effort has been made not to do this, and maybe it's only if you've been involved in this kind of thing that you can appreciate how hard it is to achieve anything vaguely distinctive especially if you are working for a public body.

Constructive comment is one thing - say what you don't like and why, and maybe say what could have happened instead, and maybe give some examples of stuff you've seen elsewhere which you think has been effective.

But no, the starting point for some seems to be to suggest that the square has been intentionally designed to be unwelcoming, that the entire design team and clients were so lazy and ignorant as to not even realise that a windrush isn't actually a plant, and so on and so on. It's just a kind of conspiracy theory mindset - they are all just out to get us - and it doesn't seem to contribute anything useful to anything.

cf:



Jonti said:


> No, not at all.  It is the result of the local nomenclature deciding what's likely to work best for us them.





Jonti said:


> teuchter, we have been given a windswept expanse of designer rock on purpose. Windswept Square is supposed to be uninviting, so that people will not hang out there.
> 
> This design goal has been achieved, but it is no surprise the designers' hearts were not in it, and that it shows.





Jonti said:


> This is beyond satire.
> 
> Is there really evidence that the square's designers thought that the Windrush after which the new square has been named must be a type of grass, and that their paymasters never noticed the ignorant howler?
> 
> I suppose given the nearby Rushcroft Road and Rush Common, someone may have made a lazy and ignorant assumption.  What is almost beyond belief is that _everyone_ involved in the design process was similarly ignorant.




etc etc


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

Anyway, it's nice to say that out of those voting in the poll, more seem to feel it's an improvement than don't.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 2, 2010)

pboi said:


> peasants



you really are an unpleasant knuckledragging duurbrain


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, it's nice to say that out of those voting in the poll, more seem to feel it's an improvement than don't.


It's a bit of a meaningless poll though. considering just about anything would have been better than what was there before - and only three people think it's "Much better" now.

A more meaningful poll would have been to ask whether the redevelopment represented good value or not.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 2, 2010)

So it was designed by teuchter's mum!


> the square has been intentionally designed to be unwelcoming, that the entire design team and clients [didn't care] that a windrush isn't actually a plant


There's no argument that the whole thing has been designed to be "easily policed".  It's no great surprise that sits uneasily the "cosy and welcoming" vibe, so you can untwist your knickers, thanks.

And "What's that sculpture about?" is a perfectly sensible question. Even if the answer is "it's a silly and laboured pun on the name of the Windrush, that some may find in dubious taste".


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2010)

Jonti said:


> So it was designed by teuchter's mum!
> There's no argument that the whole thing has been designed to be "easily policed".  It's no great surprise that sits uneasily the "cosy and welcoming" vibe, so you can untwist your knickers, thanks.



So "easily policed" is necessarily the same as "unwelcoming" is it?

It would be more interesting if you could explain why the policy of ensuring that public spaces are easily policed is a misled one.



> And "What's that sculpture about?" is a perfectly sensible question. Even if the answer is "it's a silly and laboured pun on the name of the Windrush, that some may find in dubious taste".



It is a perfectly sensible question, but your post didn't come across as an interested question. It came across as an accusation.

Anyway, I presume you're similarly unhappy about the tile motifs in Brixton station.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 2, 2010)

I do think that design's a bit silly and trivial, yes, but I'm a big fan of the Stockwell Swan.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Mar 3, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Of course, if some people don't like it fair enough. That is inevitable. What irritates me is assuming of the worst as a starting point, as if there's no possibility that anyone involved in the procurement/design/construction of the project had anything but bad intentions. It's just so overwhelmingly negative, and disheartening for the people who actually put a lot of thought and effort into these things, often in the face of a mass of difficulties and hinderances along the way. It could have been a bit of new paving, a few trees plonked about the place, and some bog standard park benches thrown in along with some cheesy off-the-shelf "public art" in the middle like any old town centre regeneration project in any old town in the UK. But it seems like an effort has been made not to do this, and maybe it's only if you've been involved in this kind of thing that you can appreciate how hard it is to achieve anything vaguely distinctive especially if you are working for a public body.



Whatever the brief was I actually think they've done quite a good a job.  I think the negativity here is probably aimed exactly 'what' they were asked to design rather than the design itself.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 3, 2010)

My gut feel is that it's a bit early to say that it's met any brief, whatever the hell that might have been. Time will see if it succeeds in use.

It does succeed as a big open space, not that I'd say that's a particularly tricky design objective to achieve. What I'm really not sure is how it'll turn out for events - the grassed area looks smaller and less suited than what was there before, more awkwardly bisected by paths to boot and the variable heights of the surfaces around don't really provide a key focal area elsewhere. Equally the market idea seems an afterthought - the most plausible space seems to be a 'red' paved strip in the middle with lowered curbs for access, but that would seem to cut out the openess of the square and essentially divide it into half, restricting that precious visibility rationale. And that's without going into the power point provision, storage for traders and the possible impact and competition with the main market. It doesn't, outwardly at least, look like it's particularly well designed when it comes to those needs.  Shoehorning a new market in there with little planning seems a little daft when there are already underpopulated and renown market areas nearby - it whiffs a little of trying to find a purpose for the new costly sqaure

I don't think the new square looks terrible. It is however a little plain and uninspired for my tastes,  hard to justify as a priority spend if it's little more than a pathway on the way to the tube station. A few people were sitting in isolated chairs yesterday, basking in a little winter sun, but it hardly felt like the vibrant centre of the community either - the drinkers corner by the bogs were the only real group talking.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 3, 2010)

Is it a square? It's just a big old  'open space' surely. To characterise it otherwise invites ambitions that can't be realised - like the links above to what I would think of as proper European squares; it’s a false comparison made, I guess, because they have the word ‘square’ in common.


----------



## twistedAM (Mar 3, 2010)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Whatever the brief was I actually think they've done quite a good a job.  I think the negativity here is probably aimed exactly 'what' they were asked to design rather than the design itself.





tarannau said:


> My gut feel is that it's a bit early to say that it's met any brief, whatever the hell that might have been. Time will see if it succeeds in use.



I saw it for the first time today and thought it looked a bit shite to be honest but then again it was a dull windswept March afternoon and the proof will be in its usage when they complete the tenders and announce events.

Until then I reserve judgement.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 4, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> For me, the major problem for Windrush Open Space is it's bordered by two major A road and a side road, with all the noise and other pollution and safety considerations that brings.
> 
> I'd like to think the inclusion of Effra Road has only been postponed because that could be quite spectacular in terms of creating more of a European square and reducing especially noise pollution.




Overall I think the changes are really positive and I am really enjoying walking through the space to and from my home several times every day.  There are definitely some niggles, some of which will probably get sorted out over time but all in all I think it is great and has made a chopped up area feel much more cohesive.

I think that non-closure of Effra Road was a missed opportunity.There was a great deal of will in the council and TFL to close it but there were huge local objections by at least two residents groups to prevent that from happening on the grounds that it was safer to have traffic passing through the space. One of their main arguments (which was leafleted through local doors) was that the police had not been involved in the design process and that the council was being reckless with safety. Consequently the police addressed local meetings in Saint Matthews Estate Tenant's Hall to explain that their landscaping teams had been closely involved in the design process and that they strongly supported the closure of Effra Road. Despite this, the objections continued although I think it was from a very vociferous but steadily decreasing minority with strongly held views who claimed to be speaking on everyone's behalf. Whatever the subject matter objectors are always louder than consenters (and I say that having been both!).

I never thought that I would see a rare opportunity to reclaim roads for pedestrians lost because of local objection. Given that the roads were kept open because of the argument that having traffic driving through it increases safety it seems a little ironic that, on the day the square opened, all five lanes of Brixton Hill between Mass and the Fridge had to be closed for most of the day because someone was stabbed in full view of the A23.

I noticed that the stretch of road between the new square and St Matthews Peace Gardens is being paved so hopefully there will be an opportunity to see the two linked in the future if the Square proves to be a success.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 4, 2010)

They intend to close Effra road by the church for events, at least. They'd need to take some of the fence down to really link St Matthews up properly though.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Rushy said:


> I never thought that I would see a rare opportunity to reclaim roads for pedestrians lost because of local objection.


You're right, that is sad.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2010)

innit said:


> You're right, that is sad.



It is.

This illustrates how hard it is to get something that everyone is going to be happy with.

I wonder if the objections were all genuinely to do with "safety" or whether there was an element of people who didn't want to have to take a more roundabout route to get to their house by car if that bit of road was shut.

I think I'm right in saying that that bit of Effra Road running alongside the square is going to be raised to be level with the square, which is a way of trying to slow people down there. Maybe this has also been dropped though.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 4, 2010)

It's going to be cobbled, I know that much (just checking the planning drawings now)


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2010)

I like cobbles (the road surface, not the poster). So long as they're proper cobbles though.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 4, 2010)

They are using the same stones as they have already laid on Saltoun Rd. - a sort of modern square edged cobble. Looks good on Saltoun.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 4, 2010)

editor said:


> I like cobbles (the road surface, not the poster). So long as they're proper cobbles though.


'proper' cobbles have smooth heads and get all slippy in the rain so you can't use them any more. They have to be the rough-surfaced sort.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2010)

The correct term for what is used these days is in fact "setts", not "cobbles".








Cobbles





Setts


----------



## Rushy (Mar 4, 2010)

Has anyone noticed the new rusty "weathering steel" paving next to the old toilets? Never seen anything like that before.


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2010)

Rushy said:


> Has anyone noticed the new rusty "weathering steel" paving next to the old toilets? Never seen anything like that before.


It's a bit odd. Eme thought that they were in the shape of rifles at first!


----------



## Winot (Mar 4, 2010)

Rushy said:


> Given that the roads were kept open because of the argument that having traffic driving through it increases safety it seems a little ironic that, on the day the square opened, all five lanes of Brixton Hill between Mass and the Fridge had to be closed for most of the day because someone was stabbed in full view of the A23.



And that you are far more likely to have an accident with a car than be mugged etc.!


----------



## mrtea (Mar 4, 2010)

I like it, dont know how much it cost? they could of done alot more with the water feature and lights had they put out a commission to public artists . . . I am a bit confused tho' as to why the road gets lovely stone paving from france (read it on the wrapper!) and we get what looks like grit blasted walkways around the grass verges??


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 4, 2010)

Rushy said:


> I think that non-closure of Effra Road was a missed opportunity.There was a great deal of will in the council and TFL to close it but there were huge local objections by at least two residents groups to prevent that from happening on the grounds that it was safer to have traffic passing through the space.



That's so crap. Some people really will object to any change, just because it is a change


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 4, 2010)

No, they objected on the ground of improved personal safety - that was their view.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> No, they objected on the ground of improved personal safety - that was their view.



well yeah - fear of change basically.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 4, 2010)




----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 5, 2010)

Rushy said:


> Has anyone noticed the new rusty "weathering steel" paving next to the old toilets? Never seen anything like that before.



I think it is to make obvious the area that can't take heavy loads.   We were worried at the 2008 Christmas lights switch-on when one of the contractors tried to park their van on the pavement.   There was a serious prospect that it would plunge into the abandoned loos below.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 5, 2010)

I would not like to plunge into an abandoned loo.  However it would be preferable to plunging into one still engaged in looly business.


----------



## Janh (Mar 5, 2010)

Rushy said:


> Has anyone noticed the new rusty "weathering steel" paving next to the old toilets? Never seen anything like that before.



I found this rusty paving a pleasant surprise. Nice urban texture.


----------



## newbie (Mar 5, 2010)

quimcunx said:


> they don't seem to have catered for the domino players in this new design.



just shrieks of social exclusion, doesn't it?  tmm it's a significant signal of the fact that the designers don't know, or don't care, about people who don't behave just like them.

There's little for kids either.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2010)

newbie said:


> just shrieks of social exclusion, doesn't it?  tmm it's a significant signal of the fact that the designers don't know, or don't care, about people who don't behave just like them.
> 
> There's little for kids either.



What, specifically, would you have liked to see there, that isn't?


----------



## Rushy (Mar 5, 2010)

newbie said:


> just shrieks of social exclusion, doesn't it?  tmm it's a significant signal of the fact that the designers don't know, or don't care, about people who don't behave just like them.



But wouldn't it be a little patronising for the council to to tell people exactly where to play dominoes? The old 'gardens' didn't have any specific place for the guys to play - they just adopted a spot in public space over time and made it their own and I'm sure they will do again. That's much more organic than trying to make one space cater too specifically for a myriad of user needs. It is easy to forget just how resourceful people are.

I agree that if a sign goes up saying "No boardgames" that would be pretty socially exclusive (and probably highly unsuccessful)!


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 5, 2010)

I think it might fall under the heading 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'.


----------



## mrtea (Mar 5, 2010)

I remember seeing a park in New York City like this once, It was wonderful, They had the single seats like we do, fixed to the ground, then they also had playing areas with two single seats and a small playing table between them. Do we have any tables? I cant recall seeing any . .


----------



## tarannau (Mar 5, 2010)

How difficult would it have been for the designers to spot that people played dominos on pretty much every warm day out on the square? Just how tricky would it have been to put a few chair facing each other with provision for a table or surface of some kind?

There's no reason to defend the designers of this scheme here - the chair placement is affected and not particularly conducive to much activity.


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2010)

Loads of public squares in NYC have permanent domino tables. Considering that the square is supposed to be all about the Windrush generation it seems odd that there's no provision for them to play their traditional game.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 5, 2010)

I think it's just a name not a representation of the  culture of part of the community.

And I still don't think of it as a 'square'.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 5, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I think it's just a name not a representation of the  culture of part of the community.
> 
> And I still don't think of it as a 'square'.



Either "a" community or "any" community really as Brixton is made up of so many different communities.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 5, 2010)

I guess it depends what you mean by "all about" the Windrush Generation. It is definitely named to commemorate the Windrush Generation. But surely it is built to serve everyone in Brixton equally.

The BCA on the neighbouring site will definitely be "all about" the Windrush generation (and more). The BCA were one of the design partners on this project so I guess they didn't see tables as essential to social and cultural inclusiveness. That said, work is supposed to start on the new BCA building at Raleigh Hall some time this year (according to their site) which will presumably be a perfect opportunity for changes such as the incorporation of a fixed table or two in the square to be pushed through if people haven't already established their own way of using the space by then. It is probably the ideal time for people to express concerns to both the Council and the BCA.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 5, 2010)

Well the BCA will also have its own little bit of public space infront of it, so there's scope for tables there


----------



## pboi (Mar 5, 2010)

the area between the toilets and the grass and ahead of the fountain thingy...fucking bleak


----------



## Crispy (Mar 5, 2010)

you mean infront of raleigh hall? that's on purpose, cos the BCA building's courtyard will open on to it, which is designed for events.


----------



## pboi (Mar 5, 2010)

fair enough. BCA? Brixton Community ... Action?


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2010)

Does anyone know how much this all cost?


----------



## innit (Mar 5, 2010)

pboi said:


> fair enough. BCA? Brixton Community ... Action?



Black Cultural Archives, isn't it?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2010)

editor said:


> Does anyone know how much this all cost?



It cost X thousand pounds of hard-earned tax-payers money.

More to the point, does anyone here have the ability to relate the figure to anything else in a meaningful manner?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2010)

Crispy said:


> you mean infront of raleigh hall? that's on purpose, cos the BCA building's courtyard will open on to it, which is designed for events.



What's the status of the BCA project? Is there any timescale to it at the moment?


----------



## pboi (Mar 5, 2010)

where are the WCAs stored?

I jest.

Cant wait for them to use the space and get some events going.


----------



## story (Mar 5, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> No, they objected on the ground of improved personal safety - that was their view.



I think there was also concern about the resulting increase of traffic on the residential streets (Kellett and Mervan Rd).


----------



## innit (Mar 5, 2010)

teuchter said:


> It cost X thousand pounds of hard-earned tax-payers money.
> 
> More to the point, does anyone here have the ability to relate the figure to anything else in a meaningful manner?



Er, yes, with my brains.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 5, 2010)

teuchter said:


> What's the status of the BCA project? Is there any timescale to it at the moment?


Construction should start this year, but there's no recent news.


----------



## innit (Mar 5, 2010)

editor said:


> Does anyone know how much this all cost?



This document shows that last year, they were projecting a cost of £4.25m.

It also says that the square lacks greenery in order to make the space more versatile for different types of use.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 5, 2010)

innit said:


> This document shows that last year, they were projecting a cost of £4.25m.
> 
> It also says that the square lacks greenery in order to make the space more versatile for different types of use.


And to reduce maintenance costs, no doubt


----------



## tarannau (Mar 5, 2010)

Er, yes. Strangely enough, some of us also have experience of working with architects on pitches and branding work.


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2010)

innit said:


> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/brixton-phase3-questions-and-answers.pdfIt also says that the square lacks greenery in order to make the space more versatile for different types of use.


Got to love that. Get rid of the grass because it's not "versatile" enough.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 5, 2010)

Well, it's not. The square is an area of high foot traffic, under which extensive grass would quickly be worn down. The grass in old windrush square only survived because the area was fenced off


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2010)

editor said:


>



What?


----------



## innit (Mar 5, 2010)

editor said:


> Got to love that. Get rid of the grass because it's not "versatile" enough.



I know... but I can see their point, tying in with Crispy's point about maintenance costs.

There's not much point having grass, then holding a market on it 3 days a week so that it gets totally obliterated and would need to be re-turfed several times a year.  I guess they want the square to get heavy use and they are being realistic.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Er, yes. Strangely enough, some of us also have experience of working with architects on pitches and branding work.



So how does the £4.25M cost stand up to your analysis?


----------



## innit (Mar 5, 2010)

In all fairness, versatile is my (probably poor) choice of word - the document actually says



> *Why has more greenery not been included in the design?*
> The use of paving in the square will allow it to be used for more community events and exhibitions, increase accessibility for wheelchairs and prams and allow emergency services and delivery vehicles to access the square when necessary.


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2010)

innit said:


> In all fairness, versatile is my (probably poor) choice of word - the document actually says


That still bollocks though. The old raised grass bed on the corner was hardly a problem. 

In fact, people used to live sitting on it in the summer and having their lunch.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 5, 2010)

Just FYI, the area of grass in the new square is pretty much exactly 2/3 of the old one. 1,455 sq.m. down to 955 sq.m.


----------



## story (Mar 5, 2010)

I saw some folks sitting happily on the paving the other morning when the grass was wet.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 5, 2010)

I hope the kids use the fountain in summer. People will work out  how to use the space in time, I think. That might not be exactly as before but they might find even find more uses.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2010)

editor said:


> That still bollocks though. The old raised grass bed on the corner was hardly a problem.
> 
> In fact, people used to live sitting on it in the summer and having their lunch.



Because it was a raised grass bed. So it was unlikely that many people would walk on it or attempt to drive vehicles across it or pitch stalls on it.

Of course the new square could have had lots of raised beds in it, and been a Victorian strolling garden rather than an urban square.

But it's not.

Anyway, come the summer I bet you'll see people happily sitting on the steps on that corner.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I hope the kids use the fountain in summer. People will work out  how to use the space in time, I think. That might not be exactly as before but they might find even find more uses.



Somebody was moaning earlier in the thread about the possibility of the mist from that fountain blowing across the square on windy days. But I note from that Q&A document that it has sensors that will switch it off when it is too windy and/or cold.

I saw it this morning from the bus by the way. I thought the mist looked quite good in the low morning sunlight.


----------



## innit (Mar 5, 2010)

editor said:


> That still bollocks though. The old raised grass bed on the corner was hardly a problem.
> 
> In fact, people used to live sitting on it in the summer and having their lunch.



Yeah, I've sat there a fair few times.  It was always lovely to see the crocuses growing there too.  I do think it's a shame they haven't incorporated some raised grassy areas.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 5, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, come the summer I bet you'll see people happily sitting on the steps on that corner.



And playing dominoes


----------



## innit (Mar 5, 2010)

I am glad, however, that they didn't name it Roots Square.


----------



## story (Mar 5, 2010)

I'm hoping that they'll plant bulbs in the future. I can see why they couldn't put them in for this spring.

The grass that was there before was just starting to become a naturalised environment when they dug it up. Some bluebells, native wildflowers, all sorts of interesting things were beginning to colonise it, and then they destroyed it. Bah! 

Budget cuts means that the grassy areas of Brixton are mowed less often, allowing things to settle and grow. Anyone remember when the old Windrush Square was a dense carpet of daisies/


----------



## innit (Mar 5, 2010)

Planting bulbs is a great idea... a bit of guerilla gardening could be in order


----------



## ajdown (Mar 5, 2010)

innit said:


> I am glad, however, that they didn't name it Roots Square.



After the local celebrity?


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 5, 2010)

Went down again today - a few chairs were being sat in and enjoyed but only those facing inwards - what a silly thing to have so many facing outwards to the traffic - a real mistake I think.  The grassy area could be really heavily used if we get a decent summer - I could imagine meeting friends there even though I'm next to the park.


----------



## newbie (Mar 5, 2010)

teuchter said:


> What, specifically, would you have liked to see there, that isn't?



somewhere flat for people to stand and sit by to slam dominoes down, plus somewhere close by for their little kids to clamber on or even- horror- kick a ball against.  Doesn't seem hard to me, there was a group of people who'd claimed their little bit of space to gather, and who don't appear to have been thought about.

It's not even necessary to make a specific council approved dominoes space, just a design with bit more versatility for the users.  Like some small walls round a tree, for instance 



Rushy said:


> But wouldn't it be a little patronising for the council to to tell people exactly where to play dominoes? The old 'gardens' didn't have any specific place for the guys to play - they just adopted a spot in public space over time and made it their own and I'm sure they will do again. That's much more organic than trying to make one space cater too specifically for a myriad of user needs. It is easy to forget just how resourceful people are.
> 
> I agree that if a sign goes up saying "No boardgames" that would be pretty socially exclusive (and probably highly unsuccessful)!


Do the users of the skatepark feel patronised because provision has been made for them? Is there any real difference?

There isn't a spot that obviously lends itself to colonisation by the dominoes players.  Not to my eye anyway, but then I don't play the game.  I hope they find themselves a space in the square, bring their own box, perhaps, but they could well decide to play elsewhere, effectively excluded from the brand new space.  We'll see when the weather warms up a bit.


----------



## paolo (Mar 5, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> Went down again today - a few chairs were being sat in and enjoyed but only those facing inwards - what a silly thing to have so many facing outwards to the traffic - a real mistake I think.



I assumed they were mostly facing that way to face the sun?

(Excuse if I'm being dumb and the sun doesn't point that way in the summer).


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 5, 2010)

All year around the sun rises over the Ritzy and sets beyond Acre Lane.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 6, 2010)

editor said:


> That still bollocks though. The old raised grass bed on the corner was hardly a problem.
> 
> In fact, people used to live sitting on it in the summer and having their lunch.


I'm going to miss sitting on that corner, eating my sandwiches and watching the world go by 

I've visited the new square everyday over the last week, at different times, including at night.  Some of those days have been fine and sunny, and it really does look to my eyes as if the space now attracts fewer users.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> somewhere flat for people to stand and sit by to slam dominoes down, plus somewhere close by for their little kids to clamber on or even- horror- kick a ball against.  Doesn't seem hard to me, there was a group of people who'd claimed their little bit of space to gather, and who don't appear to have been thought about.
> 
> It's not even necessary to make a specific council approved dominoes space, just a design with bit more versatility for the users.  Like some small walls round a tree, for instance
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I totally agree with the comparison. Whilst the skate park is used by all ages it is essentially classified and provided by the council as a "youth facility" (their description) as are swings and climbing frames. I doubt it ever would have been provided if it were for purely adult needs. It gives kids a safer environment to engage in something that can actually be quite dangerous. Unless you are suggesting that the dominoes players are a predominantly "special needs" group I think it would be patronising to expect the cater for them in the same way as they do a bunch of kids. Like you said, they could easily bring a box or lightweight table and put it where ever they want - using the chairs/turd bench provided or not. It'll also make the game a damned side more fun to watch since the gents will be able to upturn the tables like they used to do in the Effra - something they couldn't do with a heavy fixed table! But anyone who feels strongly that these chaps have been excluded should really make the effort to petition the BCA and Council who I am sure will be able to incorporate it into the imminent Raleigh Hall development.

As for space to kick about on - the lawn directly opposite on the St Matthews Road boundary of the peace gardens is pretty large, hardly used and enclosed by a fence. And there are swings and a slide (also underused).

I don't think the new space was ever intended to be recreational facility or playground. It's day to day purpose is to be a public throughfare and space to congregate -it provides a blank canvas for people to make their own. If any public area is judged on whether it provided very specifically for lots of different needs I guess it would be deemed to failure.


----------



## newbie (Mar 6, 2010)

I think "special needs" is too strong, it's just a local pastime that could have had provision made.

Perhaps it boils down to _blank canvas_ opposed to _versatility_, or to just who the space is intended for.  The dominoes players, and their kids, could well end up in the peace garden, along with the drinkers.  If that's the outcome the symbolism will be obvious.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 6, 2010)

it's been taken over by skaters - posh kids with big teeth. they look like they're from that sitcom outnumbered.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 6, 2010)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> it's been taken over by skaters - posh kids with big teeth. they look like they're from that sitcom outnumbered.



A lot of them today!!!


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 6, 2010)

It was great first thing - well, 11.00ish. Had three lovely chats, including Dot on her way home to Streatham who was making sure the sq. will be ok for the big Methodist congregation on Good Friday, the poshest Parky/weekend copper in the world and a nice woman from Brixton Hill with a coffee and paper - they all loved it. I loved my muffin as well. Funny thing we found was the angle of the chairs invites conversation with strangers but wasn't acute enough to force it.

The more I think about it the more I like that nothing's prescribed; some people sit on the steps, others on the concrete thing, some even on the chairs. Maybe some on the grass. Kids messing in the fountain, dad and son having a kick about, all good as fas as I could see.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2010)

Few photos today of skateboarders. 

 Excellant use of square

 Bet the architects and Council didnt forsee this one.

 Hope its regular weekend thing.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2010)

The Dragon at last weekends opening of square.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 6, 2010)

The Olympics Opening ceremony will be like; a supermarket trolley with a bit of old tat tied to it - Welcome to London.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> I think "special needs" is too strong, it's just a local pastime that could have had provision made.
> 
> Perhaps it boils down to _blank canvas_ opposed to _versatility_, or to just who the space is intended for.  The dominoes players, and their kids, could well end up in the peace garden, along with the drinkers.  If that's the outcome the symbolism will be obvious.



I think it is a real shame you feel that way about it but appreciate that you're not the only one. There are plenty of things about the space that aren't the way I would have done it, and plenty of details which I don't care for and some which I think are tacky - but all in all I get a good, dare I saw almost uplifting, feeling walking through it which I never got from the old set up.

I think it is a real pity if you dismiss the gardens around the back of the church in such a negative way. That area alone is at least as big as the old Windrush Square. I can see it from my window and there are very rarely any drinkers in that area, day or night. It is not even in sight of where the drinkers currently meet on the opposite site of the church - as well as being separated by a small gate. 10 years ago it was a little hairy with people shooting up at the bottom of the clock tower but that has  been cleaned up for quite some time now. It's only 50m from the new square, most of it is grass, loads of space for kids to play, railings to keep kids and balls off the road, a couple of benches, swings, the bank is about to be covered in daffs as it is every spring, it has fantastic old yew trees and it is south facing so it gets sunshine all day. It is a wonderful resource to have in the centre of an inner city area, it provides a great contrast to the new square and yet you feel that someone would only choose to use such a space if they were being socially excluded. I think that's a real pity.

I'm no fan of Lambeth Council. I've had plenty of run-ins with them. But I do sometimes find myself thinking that it must be truly soul destroying for those trying to make any positive change to the place.

As for the domino players - I'm sure they'll work something out that suits them.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Do you object to the principle of "secured by design"?
> 
> What is it about the principle of making places that people feel safe in that you don't like?
> 
> What do you think about the circulation routes on postwar housing estates that have blind corners and which aren't overlooked by people's houses, or are poorly lit? Do you reject the idea that some of the problems on these estates are caused by the design of them?



U say in later post that S by D was relevant to circulation routes in postwar housing estates. This is a square not a housing estate. 

Problems on estates come from more than one source. This thread is about a square. One of my problems with S by D is that something that was supposed to be used for large estates gets used on other projects like this.

The objection to S and D is that imo Police views trump local opinion. There was a lot of public consultation on the square. If S by D was to be used then why bother with making local people appear they have a big say in it when they dont. 

We will have to see how it goes but on first seeing the finished square I was surprised how obviously it was designed for easy (cheap) maintenance and Policing. Saves the Police a lot of manpower if they have good sightlines across the square. Last Friday I saw one copper standing outside Kentucky looking across the square. I thought that now it just needs one copper to police the whole space. Brilliant design. 

Is this going to be a convivial space where people can interact in a spontaneous way? Or are we all getting to used to being under under "benevolent" surveillance? 

I agree if you think that planning is an element in altering peoples behaviour.

Have u read Ground Control?


http://www.annaminton.com/Ground_Control.htm


----------



## Jonti (Mar 6, 2010)

> I think it is a real pity if you dismiss the gardens around the back of the church in such a negative way. That area alone is at least as big as the old Windrush Square. I can see it from my window and there are very rarely any drinkers in that area, day or night. It is not even in sight of where the drinkers currently meet on the opposite site of the church - as well as being separated by a small gate. 10 years ago it was a little hairy with people shooting up at the bottom of the clock tower but that has been cleaned up for quite some time now. It's only 50m from the new square, most of it is grass, loads of space for kids to play, railings to keep kids and balls off the road, a couple of benches, swings, the bank is about to be covered in daffs as it is every spring, it has fantastic old yew trees and it is south facing so it gets sunshine all day.


I've used that space with my kids, but no, it's not popular, not with anyone.  

One has to run the gauntlet of the A23 or its feeder roads just to access the place, and once one is in there the smell and noise from the traffic is intrusive.

I'd guess that's why children do not ask to be taken to that playground to play!


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 6, 2010)

Rushy said:


> I think it is a real pity if you dismiss the gardens around the back of the church in such a negative way. That area alone is at least as big as the old Windrush Square. I can see it from my window and there are very rarely any drinkers in that area, day or night. It is not even in sight of where the drinkers currently meet on the opposite site of the church - as well as being separated by a small gate. 10 years ago it was a little hairy with people shooting up at the bottom of the clock tower but that has  been cleaned up for quite some time now. It's only 50m from the new square, most of it is grass, loads of space for kids to play, railings to keep kids and balls off the road, a couple of benches, swings, the bank is about to be covered in daffs as it is every spring, it has fantastic old yew trees and it is south facing so it gets sunshine all day. It is a wonderful resource to have in the centre of an inner city area, it provides a great contrast to the new square and yet you feel that someone would only choose to use such a space if they were being socially excluded. I think that's a real pity.



Unfortunately the playground is pretty much impossible to get into at the moment through the combination of TfL's delayed works to relay the pavements of the rest of the Effra Road/St Matthew's Road triangle, and the closure of the steps behind St Matthew's tower - reportedly bits of the tower are falling off again because of frost damage


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I've used that space with my kids, but no, it's not popular, not with anyone.
> 
> One has to run the gauntlet of the A23 or its feeder roads just to access the place, and once one is in there the smell and noise from the traffic is intrusive.
> 
> I'd guess that's why children do not ask to be taken to that playground to play!



Yes - of course you are right, it is close to the A23. As is the new square. The road is sadly a blight on both sites. My point isn't that the area round the back of the church is perfect. It is that it already provides what several people complain the new square lacks, e.g. playing areas for children to kick a ball, grassland to sit on, etc.. but despite having that facility within throwing distance people choose not to use it. Probably because it is next to a busy road. Just like the new square.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 6, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> Unfortunately the playground is pretty much impossible to get into at the moment through the combination of TfL's delayed works to relay the pavements of the rest of the Effra Road/St Matthew's Road triangle, and the closure of the steps behind St Matthew's tower - reportedly bits of the tower are falling off again because of frost damage



An unusual (and short term) combination of events though, it has to be said!


----------



## Jonti (Mar 6, 2010)

I've often wondered why that playground is not used much. There's actually a number of these mini-playgrounds here and there.  Like further south down Rush Common, and there's another on the "Brockwell Park Estate" (that's the redbrick estate on Dalberg Road, between Barnwell Road and Effra Parade). All three of these mini-playgrounds are hardly used, though valued by those who do use them.  They're rather isolated,  and not associated with any other recreational facility.  

Then I think of the playgrounds that are popular, like the one by the One O'clock Club in Brockwell Park.  And wider afield, the Princess Diana Memorial Playground, or the Adventure Playground in Battersea Park. What these have in common I think, is precious little ~ except that they are also associated with something for grownups to do.  

Few parents take the kids to the playground as an end in itself.  The kids' stuff needs to be part of a wider scene that attracts the kids' carers too. That's the key, I think.  So I'd expect a playarea in the new square to be used as it's right by the Library and the Ritzy, and a safe walk from even more adult attractions.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2010)

Walked through the square today around lunchtime and it was full of people including plenty sitting in those newfangled not-benches seats and kids playing in the fountain thing. A few skateboarders too like others have mentioned. I'm slightly surprised that they haven't put in any little metal stops in the steps and stuff like they often do to stop skaters.
Interestingly the christian singers have stayed put on the KFC corner rather than using the new space...


----------



## pboi (Mar 7, 2010)

KFC has more traffic id imagine.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 7, 2010)

Don't forget also the bus stops, there were several people 'leafletting' the bus stop queues in connection with the evangelists on the corner.

Strangely enough, there seemed to also be two independent groups of lefties out "for their cause" yesterday too, one down at the end of the market by Boots blocking the pavement there, and one on the Barclays side of the hoarding outside the old Woolworths with their typically obscure _cause du jour_.  Why couldn't they work together if they're both on the same side of the political spectrum, and only cause one obstruction in an already very busy, and too narrow, piece of pavement?


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Mar 7, 2010)

Just moved back to my flat on the Windrush Square end of Rushcroft Road after two years living abroad. I have to say that I think the new Square is great. 
Spent Saturday jetlagged and slumped on the sofa. All I could hear outside was kids shouting and running around happily. Could anyone imagine that happening back in 2005-6 when things were really bad?!
Few quibbles: Not sure about the "fountain", which seems to me could be more accurately described as "large puddle maker", though dare say it will get popular in the summer. Also, agree with previous commentators about the fact that there could be more chairs scattered about. Guess more can be added in due course? 
The old public loos look a bit out of place, but assume they were listed and immovable. And yes, it is flat, but isn't that the point? 
But overall, I think its a fantastic open space. I really hope its utilised properly. 
Agree that the Ritzy cafe will be hugely popular in the summer months. Can't we get a locally ownd coffee stall thing going? Always thought that someone selling fresh coffee outside KFC or closeby would make a fortune from Tube commuters.


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 7, 2010)

RushcroftRoader said:


> Can't we get a locally ownd coffee stall thing going? Always thought that someone selling fresh coffee outside KFC or closeby would make a fortune from Tube commuters.



There was a guy doing this as part of Brixton Bazaar (a small market) until recently - outside KFC.  Someone said he'd moved to outside McDs - although I've not seen him.  Gaijinboy got quite friendly with him - nice guy.


----------



## Winot (Mar 7, 2010)

RushcroftRoader said:


> Can't we get a locally ownd coffee stall thing going? Always thought that someone selling fresh coffee outside KFC or closeby would make a fortune from Tube commuters.



Opus (of Acre Lane) have opened an outpost (inpost?) in the Piano House just off Brighton Terrace.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 7, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> There was a guy doing this as part of Brixton Bazaar (a small market) until recently - outside KFC.  Someone said he'd moved to outside McDs - although I've not seen him.  Gaijinboy got quite friendly with him - nice guy.



he's in the window of the newsagent next to mcds


----------



## Crispy (Mar 8, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Few photos today of skateboarders.
> 
> Excellant use of square
> 
> ...



There were loads of them out on Saturday when I was passing by. On the way home, they'd all disappeared, replaced by two police officers


----------



## editor (Mar 8, 2010)

Crispy said:


> There were loads of them out on Saturday when I was passing by. On the way home, they'd all disappeared, replaced by two police officers


Damn kids using a public square!


----------



## newbie (Mar 8, 2010)

Rushy said:


> I think it is a real shame you feel that way about it but appreciate that you're not the only one. There are plenty of things about the space that aren't the way I would have done it, and plenty of details which I don't care for and some which I think are tacky - but all in all I get a good, dare I saw almost uplifting, feeling walking through it which I never got from the old set up.
> 
> I think it is a real pity if you dismiss the gardens around the back of the church in such a negative way. That area alone is at least as big as the old Windrush Square. I can see it from my window and there are very rarely any drinkers in that area, day or night. It is not even in sight of where the drinkers currently meet on the opposite site of the church - as well as being separated by a small gate. 10 years ago it was a little hairy with people shooting up at the bottom of the clock tower but that has  been cleaned up for quite some time now. It's only 50m from the new square, most of it is grass, loads of space for kids to play, railings to keep kids and balls off the road, a couple of benches, swings, the bank is about to be covered in daffs as it is every spring, it has fantastic old yew trees and it is south facing so it gets sunshine all day. It is a wonderful resource to have in the centre of an inner city area, it provides a great contrast to the new square and yet you feel that someone would only choose to use such a space if they were being socially excluded. I think that's a real pity.
> 
> ...




I don't want to be unduly negative.  I was against the idea from the start, so now it's here I'd really like to be proved wrong.  

this is all speculation anyway, it'll take a year or so to get an idea of how the space is used through the seasons.


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> he's in the window of the newsagent next to mcds



aha - I shall tell gb.. I don't drink coffee so honestly wasn't looking that hard... but he'll be pleased to hear this.  Although he does often get his coffee in Max's cafe opp the Rec - £1 for a capuccino!


----------



## Rushy (Mar 8, 2010)

RushcroftRoader said:


> Can't we get a locally ownd coffee stall thing going? Always thought that someone selling fresh coffee outside KFC or closeby would make a fortune from Tube commuters.



The TfL FAQ document says the square has the facilities for a coffee shop in the centre but needs planning permission which the council will need to progress. The Rush Common Act was a problem for planning because it prevents the building of anything above the level of the ground. The whole square is part of Rush Common.

Could just let someone park one of those Piaggio coffee bikes on the square?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 8, 2010)

Hang on!  The old Tate Gardens are not part of Rush Common (are they?) and the old toilets were in Rushcroft Road, which was street, not common land (surely?).

The new square seems to be a mix of "abandoned" public highways, common land, and the land Mr Tate bequeathed.

Not that I'm an expert, just what I've heard.  Perhaps one of the Brixton Society's experts could give a definitive answer!


----------



## Rushy (Mar 8, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Hang on!  The old Tate Gardens are not part of Rush Common (are they?) and the old toilets were in Rushcroft Road, which was street, not common land (surely?).
> 
> The new square seems to be a mix of "abandoned" public highways, common land, and the land Mr Tate bequeathed.
> 
> Not that I'm an expert, just what I've heard.  Perhaps one of the Brixton Society's experts could give a definitive answer!



Definitely Rush Common. There is a map attached to this guidance leaflet. http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...-AC1E-3F1E73EB6CBD/0/RushCommonNewsletter.pdf

Before Windrush Square became a garden there was a large garage on the site but it was pulled down because it contravened the 1806 Act.

I have a copy of the enclosures map somewhere and I'm pretty certain that it also runs along Brixton High Street north of Coldharbour Lane  - the land on which Iceland is built was was covered by the statute but no one took any enforcement action when it and other developments were carried out. Brixton High Street was a big wide area for its full length.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> There were loads of them out on Saturday when I was passing by. On the way home, they'd all disappeared, replaced by two police officers



I saw 2 police on bikes in the middle of the square about 7pm. Be interesting to see how Skateboarders are tolerated. If this really is "our" public space.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> The Olympics Opening ceremony will be like; a supermarket trolley with a bit of old tat tied to it - Welcome to London.



Very funny


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 9, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> I saw 2 police on bikes in the middle of the square about 7pm. Be interesting to see how Skateboarders are tolerated. If this really is "our" public space.



Well so far we've identified four groups of the community who aren't allowed to use it:

1. Dominos players.
2. Skateboarders.
3. Street drinkers.
4. Coffee sellers.

I imagine this won't turn out to be an exhaustive list.

In fact, I imagine the list of people who are welcome to use it will extend to

1.  People who want a quiet sit down beside a busy road.
2.  Lambeth Council publicity events.


----------



## newbie (Mar 10, 2010)

tbf, while we've been discussing the lack of specific provision for dominoes, I don't think anyone is suggesting they're actually banned from the square.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 10, 2010)

Why should skateboarders get to use the new square when they have a perfectly good skate park about 5 minutes away on Stockwell Road?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 10, 2010)

Because it's quite a walk away to go and see them?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 10, 2010)

el-ahrairah said:


> Well so far we've identified four groups of the community who aren't allowed to use it:
> 
> 1. Dominos players.
> 2. Skateboarders.
> ...


Have we? I seem to have missed quite a lot.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 10, 2010)

Backgammon?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 10, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Why should skateboarders get to use the new square when they have a perfectly good skate park about 5 minutes away on Stockwell Road?


Because they're kids and they try new things to see if they're more fun but if they're not they move on. I'm sure you remember being like that.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Because they're kids and they try new things to see if they're more fun but if they're not they move on. I'm sure you remember being like that.



I grew up in the country so such issues never arose, we had fields and lanes and hills and stuff, and could go around safely without the current "paedo round every corner" paranoia that society instills in kids these days.


----------



## innit (Mar 10, 2010)

ajdown said:


> I grew up in the country so such issues never arose, we had fields and lanes and hills and stuff, and could go around safely without the current "paedo round every corner" paranoia that society instills in kids these days.



you bizarre and hideous person, what does this have to do with kids skateboarding in the square?


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2010)

innit said:


> you bizarre and hideous person




The square looks pretty but sort of odd at night. Like a theme park car park or something.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Why should skateboarders get to use the new square when they have a perfectly good skate park about 5 minutes away on Stockwell Road?


Why would someone try a new restaurant when there's a perfectly good one 5 minutes away?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> U say in later post that S by D was relevant to circulation routes in postwar housing estates. This is a square not a housing estate.
> 
> Problems on estates come from more than one source. This thread is about a square. One of my problems with S by D is that something that was supposed to be used for large estates gets used on other projects like this.



I think I made it clear that I was mentioning postwar housing estates as background to the thinking that currently is embodied in "Secure by Design" guidelines.

Yes problems on housing estates come from lots of sources. One of those is spaces which are not overlooked or cared for. Because there are also problems that do not spring directly from this, doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

You say that your problem with S by D is that it is "something that was supposed to be used for large estates gets used on other projects like this". Firstly - I amn't aware of any mention anywhere, except from you that "Secured by Design" principals have been applied to the square. In any case, even if someone says they have - so what? It is just a name for a set of policies. Who cares what you call it.

The question is, what, specifically, has been applied to the square, that you think is a result of "S by D" type thinking, that has been detrimental?

You haven't answered the question about whether you disagree that making people feel safe to use the space is a sound principle. 

What do you want? Do you want more stuff on the square for people to hide behind, out of the view of passers by? Do you think that would make it a better space? If people want to do stuff covertly, then is a public space the right place to provide facility to do so? Isn't the clue in the term "public space"?




> The objection to S and D is that imo Police views trump local opinion. There was a lot of public consultation on the square. If S by D was to be used then why bother with making local people appear they have a big say in it when they dont.



What evidence do you have that "Police views" trump local opinion?

It seems that one of the missed opportunities for the space - the closure of the section of Effra Road - was missed because of objections from local people (according to posts on this thread at least). It seems that the local authorities (and presumably the police) would have been OK with this closure, but it was the public consultation that resulted in it not happening, because of concerns about safety and the fact that apparently these people would feel safer walking across the square if there was traffic on that bit of road.



> We will have to see how it goes but on first seeing the finished square I was surprised how obviously it was designed for easy (cheap) maintenance



Shocking - designing stuff for easy maintenance - imagine that! We all know how people like to see lots of public money being spent on the maintenance of public space and buildings (cf grumblings about City Hall window cleaning). And they love to see stuff falling apart because the local authority can't afford to, or won't, spend enough money on their upkeep (cf most housing estates)



> and Policing. Saves the Police a lot of manpower if they have good sightlines across the square. Last Friday I saw one copper standing outside Kentucky looking across the square. I thought that now it just needs one copper to police the whole space. Brilliant design.



Again, shocking



> Is this going to be a convivial space where people can interact in a spontaneous way? Or are we all getting to used to being under under "benevolent" surveillance?



Does the fact that people can see people doing stuff prevent them from acting in a convivial and spontaneous way? What kind of convivial spontaneity, specifically, do believe it going to be prevented by the fact that someone can see most of the square from the KFC corner?



> Have u read Ground Control?
> 
> 
> http://www.annaminton.com/Ground_Control.htm



No, but I'm familiar with most of the issues discussed there.

I totally agree that the development of privately controlled "public space" is not a positive thing. Gargantuan hopping malls, gated estates, privately run streets, that kind of thing.

But you are confusing two different things: on one hand, privately owned spaces where the owners of those spaces can enforce whatever rules they want (whether this is dress codes or photography bans or whatever), and on the other hand, true public spaces and questions about the way they are surveilled/policed.

As I think I already said on this thread, I am not happy with the idea, for example, that street drinkers be moved on from Windrush square. But that is a political/policing policy. You can have a square which is easily policed in the sense that most activity on it is visible from the perimeter, where street drinkers are tolerated. Or you can have a square where much activity is not visible from its perimeter, and yet have a policy where street drinkers _are_ moved on. 

In other words, if you are unhappy about the way the square is policed, then your argument should be with the politicians who decide that, not with the  design of the square. Unless there is something about the design of the square that makes the enforcement of those political decisions easier _to the detriment of the quality of the space_. And I don't see that that is the case, and you haven't explained why you think it is the case.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 10, 2010)

The fetish with "easy-to-police" spaces is more than faintly paranoid and ridiculous.  

In Brixton,  "easy-to-police" means one cannot even have a bus shelter outside KFC.  It's a small but vital sacrifice citizens are expected to pay, to make the area "easy-to-police".  It's essentially a rubbish and paranoid mantra.

FFS, a shopping mall, arcade or market is not "easy-to-police", but that's not necessarily a problem, is it?


----------



## Rushy (Mar 11, 2010)

Jonti said:


> The fetish with "easy-to-police" spaces is more than faintly paranoid and ridiculous.
> 
> In Brixton,  "easy-to-police" means one cannot even have a bus shelter outside KFC.  It's a small but vital sacrifice citizens are expected to pay, to make the area "easy-to-police".  It's essentially a rubbish and paranoid mantra.



There is a bus shelter more or less outside KFC. Last night, about 6.15pm, it was full of blokes with a stereo having a 'party'.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

What's all this stuff about bus shelters Jonti?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 11, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Have we? I seem to have missed quite a lot.



It's all in the _interpretation_, LC!


----------



## tarannau (Mar 11, 2010)

They removed the bus shelter on KFC corner to deter ne'er do wells. Now they either stand where the shelter used to be, or move down the road slightly to the other stop.

Bonkers.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 11, 2010)

That's right.  

The case of the missing bus-shelter outside KFC formed an amusing subtext to the doomed Bazaar project. As tarannau says, there used to be a bus shelter there, but it was removed.  I understand this was at the request of the Police, as it has been identified as a small but significant part of the infrastructure of organised crime and depravity that grips the nation. Allegedly.

Now, folks waiting for the 250 to Croydon stand in the rain.  One hopes they are at least warmed by the thought that their cold and discomfort is bringing the local weed retailers to their knees.

Folks who'd spotted this particular insanity didn't rate the chances of the Brixton Bazaar surviving on that corner for long.  Heck, if a bus-shelter for the 250 bus poses an intolerable threat to policing in Brixton, then who knows what effect half-a-dozen market stalls on that corner would have!

It hardly bears thinking about!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2010)

The question remains - what specifically has been missed out from the new square, as a result of "policing concerns", that would have made it a better space?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> You say that your problem with S by D is that it is "something that was supposed to be used for large estates gets used on other projects like this". Firstly - I amn't aware of any mention anywhere, except from you that "Secured by Design" principals have been applied to the square. In any case, even if someone says they have - so what? It is just a name for a set of policies. Who cares what you call it.
> 
> The question is, what, specifically, has been applied to the square, that you think is a result of "S by D" type thinking, that has been detrimental?
> 
> You haven't answered the question about whether you disagree that making people feel safe to use the space is a sound principle.




Use S by D is clear from Council literature that I quoted in an earlier post. Its also here,

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/exeres/177E365C-4B68-4E19-A56E-085BDD6EB47B.htm

And before u say anything the webpage learly says that this is to be applied to large regeneration projects.

Making something safe can be done by for example having a full time gardener onsite. If you are asking how i think a public space can be made safe theres one example. Dont come back saying that would cost to much as thats not the question u asked.

It is-- and here i need to back to Ground Control-- leading to public space becoming placed of surveillance and regulation from above. Rather than spaces where people can interact in a spontaneous way. The Eds name of Windswept square is apt.

The thing is if the Council/Tfl had just decided to move the traffic and pave the area without making such a song and dance of it i wouldnt commented.

Its the Council /GLC thats been going on about this being some great public space .


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 12, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> I agree. The reason its like this is because it incorporates the principles of "Secured by Design".
> 
> "Public consultation was carried out in 2005 and showed that the
> community was keen to see the area developed into a safer and
> ...



For the benefit of Teuchter previous post.I think its clear who had big say in layout of square.

I was at some of the early "consultation" on this so i know what happened to it.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 12, 2010)

Gramsci - I know you've only been a member here for  eight years but could you have a word about the quoting thing. Cheers.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 12, 2010)

i've had a bash at fixing the quotes


----------



## Choc (Mar 13, 2010)

that place is far out man......

when you know the "old" brixton it seems unreal.

i went over it last midnight and literally couldn't believe my eyes.  (and i already was surprised to sit in a new victoria line tain beforehand -i think gentrification is finally taking place [whilst i lived there of course it was only talked about but not around but now its happening :0)

strangely scattered chairs around too!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Use S by D is clear from Council literature that I quoted in an earlier post. Its also here,
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/exeres/177E365C-4B68-4E19-A56E-085BDD6EB47B.htm
> 
> ...



I'm not arguing about the fact that the police and others had an input into the design of the space.

You still haven't said specifically what it is you don't like about the design. You say you would be happy with there being a gardener. For some reason you are happy to be surveilled by a gardener but not anyone else. And I take it this would be a 24hr gardener.

What benefit would introducing the gardener provide? Would it allow you to build some walls and stuff for people to sit behind, that the gardener could then monitor? Would it then be a better public space?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> i've had a bash at fixing the quotes



Thanks Crispy

8 years and my computer skills are still C-


----------



## Jonti (Mar 13, 2010)

I don't know why you're being so defensive about Windswept Square, teuchter.  The nomenclatura got what they paid £4m for, so they're happy.

I'm certainly prepared to believe it would have been better to have ended up with something more like Golden Square in Soho, but hey! I guess Soho doesn't have the problems that Brixton has.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I'm certainly prepared to believe it would have been better to have ended up with something more like Golden Square in Soho, but hey! I guess Soho doesn't have the problems that Brixton has.



One imagines Soho has it's own particular problems, surely?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2010)

Well here goes. Looked up my copy of Anna Mintons book Ground Control pages 70-74 summarise S by D. Here is my summary of it.

 S by D based on design principle of Defensible Space coined by Oscar Newman in 1973 book Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City.

 Researching 3 deprived neighbourhoods he found that if residents could mark boundaries they could feel ownership of space. 

 For politicians and it holds the promise that crime can be designed out. It also fits in with Broken Window theory of policing. Rather than deal with the political and economic causes of deprivations S by D and Broken Windows policing provides seemingly easy solution to social problems.

 Came to UK in early 1970s. It has been used in all sorts of developments not just deprived estates.

 Opposing view to Newman was that of Jane Jacobs in her book The Death and Life of the Great American Cities. Her argument was for traditional street patterns where "eyes on the street" were a natural surveillance. That strangers were not seen as a fear as in Newmans work.

 Those who oppose S by D argue it causes people to be more fearful of interacting with strangers. That it does not decrease crime. 

 Secured by Design was spearheaded by ACPO in 1998. Influenced by US Crime Prevention through Environmental Design CPTED.

 This has lead to Police rather than Architects responsible for the way places look.

 Anna Minton book contains the example of residents in Fazakerley who worked with a firm of Dutch Architects to set out a scheme only to find it ditched as it didnt fit in with S by D.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2010)

jer said:


> One imagines Soho has it's own particular problems, surely?



I use Golden sq and Soho sq. Soho sq is prettier. 

Interesting examples in the light of me using A Mintons work. Both squares have gardeners who daily maintain the squares. They dont intrude on people but there presence does make the squares feel safe. There are gardeners huts in each square. It not that Gardeners pry into what people do its more that they are "eyes on the square" if anything does happen.

Both squares are surrounded by buildings which are used all day as offices. The ground floors are offices, coffee shop and bars. So there is natural surveillance.

They are closed at night.

The mixture of people in Soho means that its a tolerant area.

Interestingly many of these squares were private years ago.

They do have bye laws on behaviour which are posted up at entrance to squares.

The hard drug dealing takes place in other parts of the West End.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 13, 2010)

> Her argument was for traditional street patterns where "eyes on the street" were a natural surveillance. That strangers were not seen as a fear as in Newmans work.
> 
> Those who oppose S by D argue it causes people to be more fearful of interacting with strangers. That it does not decrease crime.


This is coming to the nub of the matter, I think.

As architecture, Windswept Square speaks volumes about the distrust of the nomenclatura for the rest of us.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I'm not arguing about the fact that the police and others had an input into the design of the space.
> 
> You still haven't said specifically what it is you don't like about the design. You say you would be happy with there being a gardener. For some reason you are happy to be surveilled by a gardener but not anyone else. And I take it this would be a 24hr gardener.
> 
> What benefit would introducing the gardener provide? Would it allow you to build some walls and stuff for people to sit behind, that the gardener could then monitor? Would it then be a better public space?



See above post. I was chatting to someone to day about the Sq. Seems S by D did play an important part in sq. 

However the issue at this point is how the square will be policed and how the Council will allow its use.

I was told that the police moved the Skaterboarders on the same day i took photos. I hope this isnt the way the square is going to be policed.


----------



## pboi (Mar 13, 2010)

its clearly not for Skateboarders, so dont be surprised if they are moved on


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> See above post. I was chatting to someone to day about the Sq. Seems S by D did play an important part in sq.
> 
> However the issue at this point is how the square will be policed and how the Council will allow its use.
> 
> I was told that the police moved the Skaterboarders on the same day i took photos. I hope this isnt the way the square is going to be policed.



So the issue isn't with the design of it after all, but the manner in which it is policed?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> This is coming to the nub of the matter, I think.
> 
> As architecture, Windswept Square speaks volumes about the distrust of the nomenclatura for the rest of us.



Still waiting for a specific example of what kind of thing you think would make it a better space.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Mar 14, 2010)

teuchter said:


> The question remains - what specifically has been missed out from the new square, as a result of "policing concerns", that would have made it a better space?


The entire square should be surrounded by 10 foot high dominoes.



Gramsci said:


> Opposing view to Newman was that of Jane Jacobs in her book The Death and Life of the Great American Cities. Her argument was for traditional street patterns where "eyes on the street" were a natural surveillance. That strangers were not seen as a fear as in Newmans work.


I doubt Jacobs would have any problems with the square's design. It is open, easy to cross and lends itself to a wide variety of uses at different times of the day, ensuring that there are always people around to see what is happening there. Disconnecting a public space in an urban area from the world around it makes it inherently unsafe (e.g. every park dumped in a residential area in an attempt to relieve urban blight)


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2010)

teuchter said:


> So the issue isn't with the design of it after all, but the manner in which it is policed?



Its both.

As its done now the contstructive way forward is to see how its policed fron now on.

There was a thread a while back about the Greens who were giving away free veggie food in the Tate gardens on sundays who the police arrested.

Some of us complained to Cllrs about this. 

Id be curious to see what happens if something like this happens again.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2010)

pboi said:


> its clearly not for Skateboarders, so dont be surprised if they are moved on



Who says?

Clearly some posters like me thought it was ok.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2010)

Damarr said:


> The entire square should be surrounded by 10 foot high dominoes.
> 
> 
> I doubt Jacobs would have any problems with the square's design. It is open, easy to cross and lends itself to a wide variety of uses at different times of the day, ensuring that there are always people around to see what is happening there. Disconnecting a public space in an urban area from the world around it makes it inherently unsafe (e.g. every park dumped in a residential area in an attempt to relieve urban blight)




Fair point. Its how the future use is controlled thats now the question.

Interesting critique of Jane Jacobs here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/12/jane-jacobs-new-york-history


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 14, 2010)

I suspect Jane Jacobs would have sided with those who want to see a cafe to bring extra life to the square all year round, rather than those who seem to have designed out the cafe on some purist principle that any above ground structure would be an encroachment of common land and contravene the Rush Common Act 1806.

I reckon that a temporary cafe [to last until a long term solution for the loos was sorted out] could have been built for not much more than the cost of that absurd granite turd.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 14, 2010)

There is already the Ritzy cafe, and I'd imagine there will be one as part of the BAC too once that is open.


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 15, 2010)

But the design of Windrush Square makes no provision for there to be any tables outside the Ritzy because it still assumes a path for vehicle movements in front of the Ritzy/Library.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 15, 2010)

it's all lit up at night. only just noticed on the ride home from work.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 15, 2010)

Looks nice in the dark, doesn't it?


----------



## ajdown (Mar 15, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> any above ground structure would be an encroachment of common land and contravene the Rush Common Act 1806.



Acts can be got rid of just as easily as they were implemented.

Surely a 200 year old law that bears no resemblance to modern society's needs, when Brixton was a very different place, is no longer needed?

Especially when the area - the square - is technically already 'built on' by virtue of being mostly covered in paving slabs anyway?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 15, 2010)

teuchter said:


> There is already the Ritzy cafe, and I'd imagine there will be one as part of the BAC too once that is open.


Fwiw, I don't think this abbreviation can work given there's another BAC a couple of miles down the road and long-established; it's just going to cause endless confusion.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 15, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Fwiw, I don't think this abbreviation can work given there's another BAC a couple of miles down the road and long-established; it's just going to cause endless confusion.



Not as confusing as jumbling up the three letters in the wrong order.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 15, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Acts can be got rid of just as easily as they were implemented.
> 
> Surely a 200 year old law that bears no resemblance to modern society's needs, when Brixton was a very different place, is no longer needed?
> 
> Especially when the area - the square - is technically already 'built on' by virtue of being mostly covered in paving slabs anyway?



The act refers to building "above the level of the land".

I'm not sure that the Rush Common Act is irrelevant. It plays an important part in maintaining the green spaces it created up Brixton Hill, Effra Road and Josephine Avenue (the long front gardens). Without it much of this land almost certainly would have been developed when the Regency houses were demolished and St Matthews Road Estates were built in the 60s-70s. Protection of Rush Common is a key part of Lambeth Planning's Unitary Development Plan (and they have responsibility for administering the Act too).

Having been overlooked for quite a long time, building encroachment on Rush Common is a sensitive issue at the moment and so I guess the council is keen not to see too much precedent allowing building upon it.

That said, the new Windrush sculptures would have required permission under the act so it seems that the council is prepared to take a pragmatic view on how to apply it. 

I reckon giving a licence for one of those Piaggio coffee bikes to be based on the square might be a good start and then take it from there.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 15, 2010)

Rushy said:


> Not as confusing as jumbling up the three letters in the wrong order.


Glad someone spotted my deliberate mistake.


----------



## bosie (Mar 17, 2010)

I just saw the plans for the BCA building on the website below. It doesn't look like there will be a cafe - a missed opportunity. It also seems, unless I am mistaken, that the BCA builiding will be behind a big wall/gate that will separate it from the square, which I think is a real shame. 

http://theclarksonalliance.com/projects/heritage/black-cultural-archives/gallery


----------



## shakespearegirl (Mar 17, 2010)

It was very busy in the slight sunshine this afternoon. A good mix of people incl skateboarders. No one seemed to be moving them on. I think its a real improvement on what was there before, a lot more open.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 17, 2010)

bosie said:


> I just saw the plans for the BCA building on the website below. It doesn't look like there will be a cafe - a missed opportunity. It also seems, unless I am mistaken, that the BCA builiding will be behind a big wall/gate that will separate it from the square, which I think is a real shame.
> 
> http://theclarksonalliance.com/projects/heritage/black-cultural-archives/gallery


The Notice that a planning application has been made is now attached to the railings at the front of the building.







I think the best idea is for a cafe to replace the old toilets.  All the services are in place there, and it's well situated for the purpose.  A cafe there would work a little like the gardeners huts in Soho Square and Golden Square 





Gramsci said:


> ... Interesting examples in the light of me using A Mintons work. Both squares have gardeners who daily maintain the squares. They dont intrude on people but there presence does make the squares feel safe. There are gardeners huts in each square. It not that Gardeners pry into what people do its more that they are "eyes on the square" if anything does happen...


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Mar 18, 2010)

Any idea on anticipated visitor numbers for BCA?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 22, 2010)

Here is are photos showing other ideas for square. I was in the Barbican last week at took these except the Sculpture which was in the entrance to the Royal Academy.

Most pleasant and this bit is open to public.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 22, 2010)

bosie said:


> I just saw the plans for the BCA building on the website below. It doesn't look like there will be a cafe - a missed opportunity. It also seems, unless I am mistaken, that the BCA builiding will be behind a big wall/gate that will separate it from the square, which I think is a real shame.
> 
> http://theclarksonalliance.com/projects/heritage/black-cultural-archives/gallery



I was sure there was going to be a Cafe at one point.


----------



## editor (Mar 22, 2010)

A reminder of how much greenery we've lost (pic from Google Street Map)


----------



## Crispy (Mar 22, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> I was sure there was going to be a Cafe at one point.


The left hand side of the little square at the front of the BCA will be a cafe serving counter/bar but from the size of it, only for outdoor events - no sit down indoors space. The square itself has passive provision for a cafe in the middle somewhere near the grass, but it can't be built without some overruling of the Rush Common Act (as mentioned already on the thread), so it's all down to the Ritzy and their wonderful service to provide refreshments on the square


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 23, 2010)

They've used those bolted down chairs on Great Suffolk Street too I've noticed. Although they're in backward facing twins...
The cycle racks at the Saltoun Road end are going to be pointless, perfect place to pinch something.


----------



## happyshopper (Mar 23, 2010)

editor said:


> A reminder of how much greenery we've lost



It tends to be greener in the summer.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 20, 2010)

Went for a little sit down on the grass on Sunday afternoon/evening - lots more people using that end of the space than previously. Kids playing in the fountains, all the chairs occupied with people having a natter watching the world go by. Bike parking full of bikes, Ritzy cafe doing good trade. I'd call it a success.

Only downer was two arsehole cops hassling two old boys calming enjoying a few bottles of guiness on the seats under the tree - talking to them like they were retarded or something "If we catch you with AL - CO - HOL again, you will be A - REST - TED, do you UN - DER - STAND?".  and then made them leave. Thank you brave officers for improving my security! Cunts.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2010)

happyshopper said:


> It tends to be greener in the summer.


Tends to be even greener when you haven't removed areas of grass and the odd tree!


----------



## teuchter (Apr 20, 2010)

At the weekend it was packed full of happy people, both on the green bits and the paved bits and the seating that all the old fogeys on here were getting their knickers all in a twist about.
Time for the cynics to admit they were wrong and abandon their attempts to get the terribly clever 'windswept square' moniker into common parlance.
That said I'm not so impressed to hear about the police hassling the guinness drinkers. Perhaps some sort off mass guinness drinking sit-down protest is required?


----------



## miss minnie (Apr 20, 2010)

The square does seem to have come into it's own with the good weather... especially that fountain.

I had some time to kill so sit and read a book next to it one day last week and very pleasant it was.  Nice to see people smiling and chatting to strangers. 

Only things not to my taste are the 'windrush' sculpture and the donut-seat thingy but there seem to be lots of people who like the latter enough to use it so fair play to them.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2010)

teuchter said:


> At the weekend it was packed full of happy people, both on the green bits and the paved bits and the seating that all the old fogeys on here were getting their knickers all in a twist about.
> Time for the cynics to admit they were wrong and abandon their attempts to get the terribly clever 'windswept square' moniker into common parlance.
> That said I'm not so impressed to hear about the police hassling the guinness drinkers. Perhaps some sort off mass guinness drinking sit-down protest is required?



Actually im one of the old "fogeys" who recently told the Council to back off hassling the skateboarders. Along with a few other locals. 

It is possible the Police have been told to back off. The Council did say they had asked the police to have a big presence when the square was open.

The issue of the drinkers has also been raised . My understanding is that the street drinkers outreach team has circulated leaflets and talked to street drinkers. They have been told if they dont annoy other people they will be left alone.

If this is not happening id like to know so it can be brought up with Council.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 23, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> The square does seem to have come into it's own with the good weather... *especially that fountain*.




Anyone been standing on the fountain when it suddenly goes on?


----------



## timothysutton1 (Apr 23, 2010)

*Rival market on Windrush Square*

Apparently the council will be setting up a revenue generating market on Windrush Square.

Surely the last thing the failing indoor markets need is added competition?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 23, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> The issue of the drinkers has also been raised . My understanding is that the street drinkers outreach team has circulated leaflets and talked to street drinkers. They have been told if they dont annoy other people they will be left alone.
> 
> If this is not happening id like to know so it can be brought up with Council.



That is good to know. If I see them being hassled I will be sure to report it here.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 23, 2010)

timothysutton1 said:


> Apparently the council will be setting up a revenue generating market on Windrush Square.
> 
> Surely the last thing the failing indoor markets need is added competition?



What will the Windrush Square market be selling?


----------



## timothysutton1 (Apr 23, 2010)

teuchter said:


> What will the Windrush Square market be selling?



As far as I have heard, crafts and/or French Market.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 23, 2010)

timothysutton1 said:


> As far as I have heard, crafts and/or French Market.



Well, then they won't really be competing with the traditional market, surely.


----------



## timothysutton1 (Apr 23, 2010)

teuchter said:


> ...they won't really be competing....



But if the indoor markets are going to survive they need to diversify.

The success of Wild Caper and Rosie's Deli, plus the various projects in Granville Arcade, are proof of that.

I know these do not bring any revenue to the council, but if the Lambeth is serious about saving the markets they should be supporting such ventures, not creating competition in Windrush Square.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2010)

timothysutton1 said:


> Apparently the council will be setting up a revenue generating market on Windrush Square.
> 
> Surely the last thing the failing indoor markets need is added competition?



I think this is where the market stallholders that were outside the KFC are moving to. There was a thread on them as some posters werent happy they were suddenly told to leave the corner of CHL.


----------



## innit (Apr 27, 2010)

timothysutton1 said:


> But if the indoor markets are going to survive they need to diversify.
> 
> The success of Wild Caper and Rosie's Deli, plus the various projects in Granville Arcade, are proof of that.
> 
> I know these do not bring any revenue to the council, but if the Lambeth is serious about saving the markets they should be supporting such ventures, not creating competition in Windrush Square.



Wild Caper and Rosie's are also likely to push up rents and rates in that part of the covered market, which I would guess is a far more immediate threat to the other stallholders than a French market in Windrush Square.


----------



## 5t3IIa (May 24, 2010)

I went to your Windrush Square for the first time ever yesterday and sat on shiny fat grass under a tree for _hours_, along with loads of other people. Also sat outside Ritzy for a bit.

It's lovely 







Qualifier: I'd never been before.


----------



## editor (May 24, 2010)

The Square could really, really use more trees.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2010)

I find the current tree quantity perfectly adequate.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2010)

Well, now it's been there for a while, my considered response is 'It's much better than before.' Especially the statue of Ganesh


----------



## quimcunx (May 25, 2010)

5t3IIa said:


> I went to your Windrush Square for the first time ever yesterday and sat on shiny fat grass under a tree for _hours_, along with loads of other people. Also sat outside Ritzy for a bit.
> 
> It's lovely



I expect that had a lot to do with the quality of the company.  


Bearing in mind I spent 14 hours there between 3pm Friday and 9pm Sunday I'm going to declare it a success.


----------



## story (Jun 7, 2010)

It's all gotten rather grubby, hasn't it.

Is there no plan or budget for washing the drippings and splashings and whatnot from the pale floor? 

Around some of the chairs there are dark stains of sticky mess and dropped takeaway food.

Mostly I am enjoying the square, but the grot is starting to annoy me.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2010)

Maybe this rain will be helpful.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 7, 2010)

I sit on the grass.  The dirt doesn't show up so bad.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 7, 2010)

The problem is not brixton specific - anywhere with lots of fast food and nightlife tends to pick up a greasy layer on the pavements. Westminster can afford daily scrubbing, not so Lambeth.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jun 7, 2010)

Crispy said:


> The problem is not brixton specific - anywhere with lots of fast food and nightlife tends to pick up a greasy layer on the pavements. Westminster can afford daily scrubbing, not so Lambeth.



I'd  be intrigued to know what has happened to the street-cleaning budgets.   A lot of extra money was put into "streetcare" by the 2002-2006 Lib Dem-Tory coalition council and cleaning rotas were close to Westminster frequencies.

I recall the complaints from some of the pettier members of the Lib Dem and Tory back benches that Brixton was getting swept so often that you could eat your dinner from the pavements but their own wards in Streatham, Norwood and North Lambeth didn't get the same benefit.

Have Labour actually cut back the cleaning in central Brixton by stealth, in the  last few years, knowing that:
- very few people were giving the council credit for town centre cleanliness but a lot more get pissed off by the state of their own residential street, and 
- many people would blame the ongoing roadworks chaos in central Brixton for greater litter levels?   

Now that the digging is finally just about finished, is it finally more obvious?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 7, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> I'd  be intrigued to know what has happened to the street-cleaning budgets.   A lot of extra money was put into "streetcare" by the 2002-2006 Lib Dem-Tory coalition council and cleaning rotas were close to Westminster frequencies.
> 
> I recall the complaints from some of the pettier members of the Lib Dem and Tory back benches that Brixton was getting swept so often that you could eat your dinner from the pavements but their own wards in Streatham, Norwood and North Lambeth didn't get the same benefit.
> 
> ...




Maybe they've run out of money after cleaning gum off the streets


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2010)

I did notice recently that there is an awful lot of gum on the pavement alongside the town hall at the moment..


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 7, 2010)

I suppose street cleaning is a little more difficult while the streets are all dug up.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2010)

You would have thought that it would be packed this sunny afternoon, but that unyielding expanse of concrete seems to be doing the job....


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 4, 2010)

No fan of the square but it boiled my piss to see how the marquee contractors disrespected the furniture and more importantly the ancient mile marker by securing their ratchet straps around them to act as guy ropes to their marquee last week


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2010)

what's wrong with that? did they damage it?


----------



## timothysutton1 (Jul 5, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> ...ratchet straps...



You would have thought with all the money spent on the square they would have factored in 'covered events' and the need to secure marquees and the like.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 5, 2010)

editor said:


> You would have thought that it would be packed this sunny afternoon, but that unyielding expanse of concrete seems to be doing the job....



Odd isn't it? 
Some days it is rammed and others (same weather) totally empty. 
I like the square myself but like it much more when it is full of people.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 5, 2010)

I'd prefer a bit more grass but I've spent quite a lot of time there in the last month on weekends and weekdays and it usually looks well-used and happy.   

I certainly feel well-used and happy when I'm lounging there.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2010)

If it wasn't for the Ritzy cafe, it would feel even bleaker.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 5, 2010)

Bleaker than what?  It doesn't feel bleak.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2010)

quimcunx said:


> Bleaker than what?  It doesn't feel bleak.


A big wide open empty expanse of concrete with no one in it feels a bit bleak to me.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 5, 2010)

Isn't it the difference between a square and a park though?  

The square mostly plays host to workers taking a lunch break, people meeting up to go to the movies,  parents taking a break with kids, shoppers laden with bags resting their feet etc.  Its a meeting place more than a destination.

Its not a place I go just to hang out on a sunny day.  Parks are much nicer places for that.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 5, 2010)

editor said:


> A big wide open empty expanse of concrete with no one in it feels a bit bleak to me.



It's hardly Dartmoor and it's not empty (there are people in your pic) and it's rarely quiet for long, ebbs and flows.   And as I said it's mostly been quite busy when I've seen it. 

And what minnie says.     Although I have hung out there for hours and hours at a time.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> Isn't it the difference between a square and a park though?
> 
> The square mostly plays host to workers taking a lunch break, people meeting up to go to the movies,  parents taking a break with kids, shoppers laden with bags resting their feet etc.  Its a meeting place more than a destination.
> 
> Its not a place I go to just to hang out on a sunny day.  Parks are much nicer places for that.


It used to be a lot busier, but it seems it was busy with the 'wrong' sort of local people in the past. Most public squares are bustling places in my experience.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 5, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> Its not a place I go just to hang out on a sunny day.  Parks are much nicer places for that.



Agree on the meeting place. I have seen people lazed out on the grass for long periods though. Nice to have somewhere central to just relax or wait for people without needing to buy a drink though. 

If I planned to spend a long period of time then I would take the time to walk to Brockwell park though.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 5, 2010)

It looks better, but it's still mostly underused and in need of a purpose. It's looking surprisingly grubby already, particularly underneath some of the chairs - which, disconcertingly, seem to often used as early morning toilets with suspicious stainage underneath. 

Good to see some marquees in the place, but the set up was clumsy to say the least. Like others I had to wince when I saw some of the canopies secured around the oldest remaining historical object in the square and wrapped around one of the already small number of installed chairs. Poor show and design really. Equally the square felt cut off coming down via Rushcroft, the marquees becoming a barrier into the square rather than providing a welcoming approach. Early days perhaps, but it doesn't bode particularly well for the facilities provided, nor the suitability for other events.

The periodic exiling of drinkers across the road to outside St Matthews grates more than a little too. Equally the dominos players that tend to be in place every morning (bringing their own boards and positioning them on top of bins, often bringing their own chairs) are pushed out by lunchtime. The Ritzy's doing well out of it perhaps, but I'm not sure that should have been a huge priority - instead of one united space for the town, it's often become a kind of more policed cafe zone with the usual suspects increasingly pushed off into immediate, neighbouring spaces. IThe balance doesn't seem quite right yet


----------



## Ms T (Jul 5, 2010)

What's happened to the idea of having markets on there at the weekend?


----------



## tarannau (Jul 5, 2010)

It doesn't look that suitable for the purpose, unless there are some convertable design bits I'm missing - power provision, access and sightline reservations all seem to apply.  Equally I'd be hugely wary of introducing more competition to markets that already have more than a bit of spare capacity - it seems daft to start seeking new spaces when the existing ones are far from full. I think it should only host occasional events at best personally.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 5, 2010)

I thought the job was out to tender amongst the various markets or something?

Can't see it being used to host a veg market owing to the mess.  There could be a small craft market with street food perhaps.  I wouldn't want the entire space covered in stalls.

Having regular market stalls every weekend closes down the space available for event hosting.  It also turns it into a commercial profit centre when it is supposed to be for public use. 

Imo, they _could_ invite local shops and services to take stalls from time to time.  Speaking to people at the Lounge and Federation Coffee for instance, they are a bit miffed that the Ritzy benefits from the new square so much and wouldn't mind being able to pitch their wares from a small stall there.  I could see Bookmongers there, the smaller eateries doing street food and drinks etc.  A chance for Brixton small businesses to promote themselves perhaps?  Rather than have outsiders come and compete in such a prime location.  Just a thought.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 5, 2010)

tarannau said:


> It doesn't look that suitable for the purpose, unless there are some convertable design bits I'm missing - power provision, access and sightline reservations all seem to apply.  Equally I'd be hugely wary of introducing more competition to markets that already have more than a bit of spare capacity - it seems daft to start seeking new spaces when the existing ones are far from full. I think it should only host occasional events at best personally.



Power supply in the floor near the curly turd sculpture.
Access from Rushcroft - electronic controls.

I liked those cheese and sausage stalls they had by KFC and doubt they cannibalised anything in the market. There was also talk about the Tunstall craft stalls moving over there but not sure if that is still being talked about.

I am still really enjoying the square. Agree that it all looks a bit mucky under some of the chairs which is a shame. Who moves on the domino players? I've seen them all times of day. 

I'm afraid that, from a purely selfish POV, I just don't miss the big groups of drinkers. Most of them are fine and as innocuous as the next person but they so often attracted a really disruptive and aggressive few. There are still drinkers there from time to time but not nearly as much of the old rowdiness.  

I really hate the fountain. Particularly since I actually went to the final public planning meeting, spoke up about not wanting to miss a trick and pointed to the fountains outside the RFH and Somerset House which people interact with. Consequently they added a specific condition to the planning approval about having to approve fountain details. Big difference that made - just looks like a big leak.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 5, 2010)

I could see the power supply, but they way they'd hooked it up helped to essentially split the square in two and looked clumsy. Stalls blocking off Rushcroft pretty much to the road-edge on one side, power cabling running behind. Add the shoky securing of the marquees/stalls and it wasn't too encouraging as a layout, particularly given the fact they had more set up time for that music event than most. 

My gut feel is a bit like Minnie's really - I don't think it really works if there are too many stalls there, let alone a regular presence.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 5, 2010)

editor said:


> You would have thought that it would be packed this sunny afternoon, but that unyielding expanse of concrete seems to be doing the job....



Everyone was at home watching the Tennis.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 5, 2010)

I think it would attract a lot more people if there was better seating and a half decent fountain.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2010)

shoky securing?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2010)

the fountain is quite good i thought - like the one outside RFH


----------



## Rushy (Jul 5, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> the fountain is quite good i thought - like the one outside RFH



The one ouside RFH is reallly fun - it sort of creates rooms an people get stuck inside inside it until a wall of water disappears and they can get out. Ours just makes a mist and a big dribble (unless I have missed something). Looks its best lit at night and kids do like running in it so I am probably being  a bit critical but generally I think it's disappointing.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 5, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> the fountain is quite good i thought - like the one outside RFH




Really?  I've not even been on to the new square, only seen it from a distance, but it looks nothing like the one outside the RFH.  I was at that one last week and took some pictures.  Not been up close to the one in Brixton so would appreciate a picture of that


----------



## innit (Jul 5, 2010)

If only it looked like that!


----------



## tarannau (Jul 5, 2010)

Well, if that's the super-soaker of the fountain world, then Brixton's version is a pound shop water pistol equivalent in comparison

That said the fountain works well enough with kids. I just think it's a little uninspiring and underpowered - I've seen it catch a couple of people unawares so far too.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2010)

The Windrush Square fountain in all its magnificent  glory:


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 5, 2010)

innit said:


> If only it looked like that!




It does... according to Orang Utan 

I think maybe he was taking the piss


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Well, if that's the super-soaker of the fountain world, then Brixton's version is a pound shop water pistol equivalent in comparison
> 
> That said the fountain works well enough with kids. I just think it's a little uninspiring and underpowered - I've seen it catch a couple of people unawares so far too.




i like that idea though


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 5, 2010)

editor said:


> The Windrush Square fountain in all its magnificent  glory:




Is that it?  In full flow?  

What are those cones there for?  Warning that it's a wet floor?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2010)

editor said:


> The Windrush Square fountain in all its magnificent  glory:



it looked better than that when i saw it - not quite as magnificent as the RFH one though


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 5, 2010)

This one's good


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2010)

LOL McDonalds - at least there's one of those on a corner nearby!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 5, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> LOL McDonalds - at least there's one of those on a corner nearby!




Fucking everywhere in Singapore, often full of people on their laptops 

There's a Starbucks opposite


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2010)

Was there no angle that didn't involve a multinational in the background . . .


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 5, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Was there no angle that didn't involve a multinational in the background . . .




I think another corner would have been Converse.  

Female clothing shop well known in this country, but can't remember the name of it


----------



## Crispy (Jul 5, 2010)

editor; said:
			
		

> You would have thought that it would be packed this sunny afternoon, but that unyielding expanse of concrete seems to be doing the job....


It's not concrete, it's quite nice stone


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 5, 2010)

"Reconsituted Stone" AKA Concrete


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 6, 2010)

Crispy said:


> It's not concrete, it's quite nice stone



  You often have to make this point don't you..


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2010)

editor said:


> The Windrush Square fountain in all its magnificent  glory:



Whether they are or not, those three cones don't at all look co-opted to make a point


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Whether they are or not, those three  cones don't at all look co-opted to make a point


Sorry, exactly what are you  saying here? What 'point'?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 6, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> You often have to make this point don't you..


 afraid so


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 6, 2010)

Crispy said:


> afraid so



I still hate the HH entrance to the park though...


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2010)

editor said:


> You would have thought that it would be packed this sunny afternoon, but that unyielding expanse of concrete seems to be doing the job....



Selectively angled/timed photographs can't change the fact that most people, as evidenced by the poll results, are pretty happy with the new square and don't seem to be troubled by the [non-existent] "unyielding expanse of concrete".


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Selectively angled/timed photographs can't change the fact that most people, as evidenced by the poll results, are pretty happy with the new square and don't seem to be troubled by the [non-existent] "unyielding expanse of concrete".


Ahem. It's not "selectively angled/timed" - it was exactly as I saw it when I was there on Sunday - and I posted the same picture to facebook at the time. 

Just about every time I've been in the area it's looked the same and I'm not really bothered about what the skewed poll says. 

Had the poll had an option that said it was an improvement on what was there before (really no achievement there) but poor value for money considering what's been spent, I suspect that it might have gathered more than a few votes.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2010)

editor said:


> I posted the same picture to facebook at the time.



Well, that's it. Definitive proof!

It's strange that every time I've walked through on a sunny day, the seats in the "concrete wasteland" section have been well occupied. Maybe it's just coincidence



> Just about every time I've been in the area it's looked the same and I'm not really bothered about what the skewed poll says.
> 
> Had the poll had an option that said it was an improvement on what was there before (really no achievement there) but poor value for money considering what's been spent, I suspect that it might have gathered more than a few votes.



The poll indicates the answer to the question that was posed, which was to what extent the new arrangement is an improvement on the old one. Most people think it's a significant improvement. I didn't ask about value for money because that's a different question. You can't say a poll is skewed because you want to answer a different question to the one that is asked. That would be like saying the General Election was skewed because it didn't provide you with an option to comment on which candidate had the best hairstyle.

The "value for money" question isn't an unreasonable one of course. But it does depend on having some method of determining what is value for money. I can't answer it because I am not a Quantity Surveyor with detailed knowledge of current costs of landscaping projects. I would imagine you would have to compare it with similar schemes that you do consider value for money, and include the relevant figures. Earlier in the thread I asked for this but no-one has ventured anything.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

teuchter;10853101]It's strange that every time I've walked  through on a sunny day said:


> The poll indicates the answer to the question that was posed, which was  to what extent the new arrangement is an improvement on the old one.


Seeing as the old square was a neglected dump, it's hardly a  surprise that people think the new version - that's had untold millions  spent on it - is an improvement. A far more pertinent question would be to ask if they think the money's been well spent or if it could have been done better, IMO.

Here's the last lot of photos I've taken of the square. No agenda, just honest snapshots of Brixton life, like I'm always taking - and it's not my fault if there's barely anyone in them!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2010)

*The camera never lies.....*

Hastily taken on my way home from work this evening - about 8pm on a greyish weekday. Seems to be being used.
















And a demonstration of why grass isn't really much good for heavily trafficked/used space:


----------



## nagapie (Jul 7, 2010)

The grass looks like that because of the weather, there's been no rain. Our grass outside our block of flats looks like that and hardly anyone walks or sits on it.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Hastily taken on my way home from work this evening - about 8pm on a greyish weekday. Seems to be being used.


Yes. By about seven people!


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

nagapie said:


> The grass looks like that because of the weather, there's been no rain. Our grass outside our block of flats looks like that and hardly anyone walks or sits on it.


Shame they have directed some of that money for all that posh stone into some sprinklers for the grass. 

You can get them from the pound shop.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

Mr Ed - I think you're hung up on the 'square' thing. It patently isn't except in name. Eventually, when it's fully developed, it may develop some characteristics of, say,  a European Sq but not many. From everything I've seen, such places need a large range of eatery and cafe type places, to be enclosed and to not have an A road running through them. People don't use the square per se, but the retailing around the sq.

In other words, as a 'square' it's not.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Mr Ed - I think you're hung up on the 'square' thing. It patently isn't except in name. Eventually, when it's fully developed, it may develop some characteristics of, say,  a European Sq but not many. From everything I've seen, such places need a large range of eatery and cafe type places, to be enclosed and to not have an A road running through them. People don't use the square per se, but the retailing around the sq.


I don't care what it's called. I'm just disappointed that so much money was spent on something that seems to be hideously under-performing in an area that really could use a bit if inspiration.
That's all.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2010)

The grass is partly like that because of the weather, yes, but if you go and look at it you can see it's all trampled down and there are parts that are bare earth. And you can see rectangular yellow imprints where stuff has been sat on it.

You could put grass and an irrigation system right across the space, yes, which would cost to install and cost to maintain, which would have to be switched off when anyone was using the grassy areas, and would prompt a thread on here about money wasted on expensive irrigation schemes when simple paving would have been more suited to function.

You could buy some 99p sprinklers from the pound shop and watch them get trashed within an hour or two. Actually they should have got the seating and lighting from the pound shop too.

I like the way the "bleak concrete" has been reclassified as "posh stone" to serve a different argument.

I'm not sure what the expectations are for a well used public space on a grey weekday evening - if a majority of seats being used isn't good enough, what are we aiming for? 200 Morris Dancers 24 hours a day?


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 7, 2010)

What I don't understand is why two of the grassy areas are yellowing and dying but the other two are still green - when, as far as I can see, both are used equally?  There's no real shade on the two green bits (the trees are still too weedy for that...)... ?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2010)

editor said:


> I don't care what it's called. I'm just disappointed that so much money was spent on something that seems to be hideously under-performing in an area that really could use a bit if inspiration.



I think that what you're struggling to understand is how difficult it is, in reality, to do something "inspirational" when there are so many constraints and so many people ready to jump on your back about spending money on something unconventional or beyond purely functional. (As demonstrated by this thread)

You have to look at this in the context of what generally passes for "design" of new public space in the UK.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> What I don't understand is why two of the grassy areas are yellowing and dying but the other two are still green - when, as far as I can see, both are used equally?  There's no real shade on the two green bits (the trees are still too weedy for that...)... ?



I'd guess a mixture of shade (buildings as well as trees) and the fact that there aren't so many people walking on them. It might also happen that the way the ground lies, any water there is tends to go in that direction.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

editor said:


> I don't care what it's called. I'm just disappointed that so much money was spent on something that seems to be hideously under-performing in an area that really could use a bit if inspiration.
> That's all.


What do you expect people to be doing there because, at this stage, I can only see standing around as an option?

What is it that's under-performing?


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I like the way the "bleak concrete" has been reclassified as "posh stone" to serve a different argument.


It looks like a bleak expanse of concrete from a distance and the expensive nature of the stone only really becomes apparent when you get close to it.

What could have improved it? It's not my area of expertise but maybe a decent fun fountain for kids rather than the sad dribbling excuse tucked away in the corner might have been better. Or at the least redesigning the current one that's there so it doesn't form big puddles towards Rushcroft Road. Oh, and having it _turned on_ kinda helps too.

And perhaps a little open cafe and some shade at the other end. More greenery. A garden for the old folks. A paddling pool, open air screen, a bit of inspiration, whatever - I'm not an architect but _surely_ you can't think that the square is the best that could have been done in that space with all that money?


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> What do you expect people to be doing there because, at this stage, I can only see standing around as an option?


That'll be because they've taken away just about all of the seats, innit.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

So you'd like more people to sit in the space. ok.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

Some domino tables would have been nice too.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 7, 2010)

I'm slightly torn by the place to be honest. One one hand it's clearly better than the decaying bunch of random decaying features that were there before; it can be quite pleasant to pass on a sunny evening. The architects have made a reasonable stab at the brief.

That said, it's a bland and sterile brief. A designed to be safe multi purpose space that excels at no activity. Not a great meeting point, resting place, event space, kids outdoor play area or market venue - the best we've seen so far is a clumsily set-up music event. Maybe it'll improve, but it's unchallenging and somewhat uninspirational so far. I can't help but feel that there were better ways to regenerate and breathe life into more of Brixton.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

Well, it's early days init.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 7, 2010)

Yep, but the feeing that it could be in Anytown, Continentiville kind of lingers. I don't dislike the place, it does seem a little too bland for it to have been a priority for Brixton in the wider sense. I'd like to think that sustained new investment will follow - the BCA building could make a difference for example -  but I'm hardly confident in the present climate.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2010)

Editor, I think that what you want is a kind of pleasure garden, but what we have is an urban public square. I have nothing against pleasure gardens but in this instance an urban public space is more appropriate.

I don't think it's the best thing that could imaginably have been done with that space - I can make plenty of criticisms of it myself, but all in all, making allowances for what they are likely to have been briefed with, and the numerous conflicting opinions they must have had to try and resolve as part of the "consultation" process, I don't think it's a bad job. Remember that this is the kind of thing that passes as urban public space in much of this country:






Also, I still haven't seen anyone try to make an objective case for it being bad "value for money".



For what it's worth, here's something that I would consider a very good example of public space (although I have to admit I'm yet to see it in person and don't know how it has weathered with time) - Thomas Heatherwick's "blue carpet" in Newcastle. A simple idea, carefully followed through, that makes that place something special. It's good exactly because it doesn't try and cram too much stuff in. An understanding of what urban public space is and does.

I'm sure that the local internet message boards have found plenty to complain about nonetheless.













http://www.hughpearman.com/articles3/blue.html


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

As above, a bunch of people _walking through_ a space. In none of the above is the space being _used_.


I'm not sure why people have different expectations.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 7, 2010)

It's precisely the lack of 'use' that makes windrush square not a square, as teuchter says.  It's a wide pavement and always has been. If the other three sides had as much use as the bit by the ritzy, then you could call it a square i think.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jul 7, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Editor, I think that what you want is a kind of pleasure garden


I want a pleasure garden


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

Its officially called a 'square.'
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/...FutureLambeth/BrixtonCentralSquareProject.htm



> Windrush Square is the new public open space in the heart of Lambeth, opposite the Edwardian town hall. Part of the historic Rush Common, it has been formed by the amalgamation of the Tate Library Gardens with the adjacent, old Windrush Square. The part of Rushcroft Road that used to separate the two areas has been closed and incorporated into the new square. The works, carried out by Transport for London, have taken nearly a year and this will be the first Open Garden Squares Weekend opportunity to see the result.
> http://www.opensquares.org/detail/WindrushSq.html



I wish we could have seen some of the energy and imagination that's starting to be seen in Brixton Village happening in the square. Or, if they don't want people to actually sit there or to interact with the space, put some gardens and trees back so it's less barren.

As for value, has anyone got a figure for how much this all cost?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 7, 2010)

You can call it a square, but with only about an eighth of its perimeter put to any active use, it can't live up to the name. A residential street, a ruin, and two busy roads. Not what you'd find around the edges of any self respecting town square. Eliminate the 6 lanes of traffic and you could make something like this






Ok so the town halls not quite as grand, but hey


----------



## tarannau (Jul 7, 2010)

Do that and you could then take a leisurely stroll past the crumbling facade of St Matthews towards the attractions of Halfords and even Carpetright!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2010)

^ Editor wouldn't like that either though, because it's just an expanse of windswept posh concrete-stone with no seats and people milling about instead of engaging in distinct activities.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 7, 2010)

Brixton Splash is coming up soon isn't it? That'll be a good opportunity to use the space.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

teuchter said:


> ^ Editor wouldn't like that either though, because it's just an expanse of windswept posh concrete-stone with no seats and people milling about instead of engaging in distinct activities.


It's already got more people milling about than all your photos combined!

If you're happy with a space that cost a ton of money that is barely used and has ended up with less seats, less people, less greenery and less activity than what was there before, that's fine. 

If the purpose was to have a new square/triangle/whatever more or less devoid of people then I would have preferred more trees, more gardens and more grass rather then expensive stone and a piddling fountain that is less interesting than the one it replaced.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 7, 2010)

But it is used.  It's used plenty. There are not less people.  There are more people.  We must be living in different dimensions. 

There is more room for people now as the space has taken in the bit in front of that derelict building providing a more inviting place to sit.  I must have spent 30 or 40 hours there in the last month or so.  10 times as much as I have spent there in the preceding 20 years of living here.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm still not understanding this perception of a square - any square - as something that's _used_. People walk through and people sit at tables in cafes and other commercial outlets around a square, but where is all this_ use_ that's happening everywhere other than Windrush?


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2010)

quimcunx said:


> But it is used.  It's used plenty. There are not less people.  There are more people.  We must be living in different dimensions.


I can see you're keen on the place, but I'm only offering my experience (and photo evidence) of what I see when I go by. 

Maybe it's usually rammed to the gills and I just happen to go by when it's momentarily empty, but I certainly don't know any friends who have suggested meeting or hanging out in the square. 

There's barely any seats for starters.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I'm still not understanding this perception of a square - any square - as something that's _used_. People walk through and people sit at tables in cafes and other commercial outlets around a square, but where is all this_ use_ that's happening everywhere other than Windrush?


You're missing the point. I don't care what it's called or if it's a square or not I just want something that I think brings benefits to the community commensurate with its cost. 

Do you ever sit in the square/space/park? Do you think it represents the best value and best use of the space? Do you think it makes for an attractive centrepiece for Brixton?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2010)

I have used it but it loses an enormous amount by being sided by two busy road, in terms of noise but mostly (for me) pollution.

I really don't think it can work well - as some here would like it to work - as an informal  social or leisure space while bordered in the way it is. But I do also think it's the first summer and it has potential, perhaps more for organised activity - which is of course different again from an informal social space.

Maybe innovation, maybe the rest of the development when it comes online, maybe the Ritzy will us it better . . . time init. But the noise and pollution from the roads . . . not good.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 8, 2010)

editor said:


> You're missing the point. I don't care what it's called or if it's a square or not I just want something that I think brings benefits to the community commensurate with its cost.
> 
> Do you ever sit in the square/space/park? Do you think it represents the best value and best use of the space? Do you think it makes for an attractive centrepiece for Brixton?



Yes. I don't know because I don't know what else would have been possible with the money available.  Yes.  I think it is much much improved on what was there.  

I don't think it's perfect.  I'd like more grass but then I'm not sure where as it would be worn away with footsteps. I like the fountain. The kids have fun in it but I suspect it could have been better without costing more.  I think there are quite a few seats but I think some could have been better placed. There could have been more too.  

What it has done is taken the underused patch of grass in front of that building and brought it into the square and it is now much much more used than it used to be.  It was never going to be for people to spend the whole day there but to be welcoming for those who want to take a little time out and chill or sit and have their lunch.   In that I think it has succeeded.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2010)

Oh, I think the grass bit at the 'back' and the walk into the square from Effra Parade  is far more successful. Its the big stone expanse, feeble dribbling fountain, handful of screwed down chairs and tree-and-grass-starved vista outside the Ritzy and library that I don't like.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 8, 2010)

editor said:


> It's already got more people milling about than all your photos combined!



This might be because it's on the Mediterranean, is many times larger than Windrush Square, is the main square and principle civic space for quite a sizeable city with a tradition of outdoors socialising, has a major tram station on one side of it, and forms part of a series of promenades and running through the town.

Windrush square, on the other hand, is a relatively small space at the loosely defined centre of a locality on the periphery of the central part of a large city, sited away from the main transport interchange (tube<>bus) which functions partly (as others have said) as a kind of extended pavement but is required to accommodate events and gatherings at certain times which are not the times at which either you or I took the photos posted on this thread.

Even having said all that, I'd hazard that the density of persons per square meter probably isn't much greater in the Montpellier example than Windrush Sq this evening when I walked through, and unlike Windrush Sq I can't see any groups of happily seated people.



> If you're happy with a space that cost a ton of money



Just a few posts ago you asked how much it all cost! Despite this having been discussed somewhere earlier in the thread. How can you be all outraged at how much it all cost if you don't, well, know how much it cost??



> that is barely used and has ended up with less seats, less people, less greenery and less activity than what was there before, that's fine.



It seems that most people don't share this perception.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Just a few posts ago you asked how much it all cost! Despite this having been discussed somewhere earlier in the thread. How can you be all outraged at how much it all cost if you don't, well, know how much it cost?


Because I can recall quite hefty figures being bandied about. 

So how much did it officially finally cost when it was all finished then? (amazingly some projects do go over budget, you know)  

Not sure why you seem to be getting all worked up about this, to be honest. I don't _have_ to like it, nor do I have to agree that the bland expanse that has been foisted on the square is the best use of the space.



teuchter said:


> It seems that most people don't share this perception.


It's not perception. It's a fact. There are a lot less seats in the stone area outside the Ritzy/library, and the grass areas have vanished too.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 8, 2010)

I can't be bothered digging out the numbers because I don't feel qualified to have much of an opinion on them.

At what figure does reasonable turn into "hefty", then, for a project of this size and nature? Approximately? £500,000? £1M? £5M? £10M? £50M?


The reason I'm getting "worked up" about it, probably, is that 

-----
Actually, I'm just going to go to bed.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 8, 2010)

Still, at least this new development settles one thing for good. If this is Brixton Central Square, then SW2 is certainly the heart of Brixton proper. Sorry Stockwellians


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2010)

Will try and do a daily headcount when I go past on the bus each day. Can't guarantee accuracy but it might help this thread a bit


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2010)

At 07:30 this morning there were 4 people sitting down and 6 people standing around. Plenty of people strolling through and a solid number of Pigeons. More to follow.


----------



## Winot (Jul 8, 2010)

I'd like to know if it is the same pigeons staying throughout the day, please, or different pigeons coming and going.

Also are they gentrifying pigeons from Clapham.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2010)

Winot said:


> I'd like to know if it is the same pigeons staying throughout the day, please, or different pigeons coming and going.
> 
> Also are they gentrifying pigeons from Clapham.





They need tagging but this may make me late for work!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 8, 2010)

Can you also estimate the average enjoyment of the square level of the square users, on a scale of 1 to 10?


----------



## tarannau (Jul 8, 2010)

5 with a shaky hand indifferent motion. 6 on a particularly warm day if a child you know is enjoying himself in the fountain.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 8, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Will try and do a daily headcount when I go past on the bus each day. Can't guarantee accuracy but it might help this thread a bit



This evening I sat on the grass for an hour.  At any one time in the paved bit, being as the grass doesn't count apparently, I counted up to 6 people on chairs by the defunct toilets with various people stopping to chat to them, 8 people on the turd and when I walked past about 8 people sat on the stepped bits circling the tree and another 3 or 4 sat on chairs round the tree.  Then of course lots of people sat outside the ritzy. 

The cutest little toddler made a break from her dad and bolted for the fountain.  He just caught her in time but she kept heading back and he relented and let her have a run in.  Then she dashed out then in again.  Very cute.  

In one respect the water feature is quite good.  It's mistyness means people can walk through without getting soaked, but still enjoy the little thrill, or a cooling down.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 8, 2010)

Badgers said:


> They need tagging but this may make me late for work!


Would ASBOs suffice?


----------



## story (Jul 8, 2010)

I came past at about 5:15 this evening and there were loads of people there. Lying about on the grass, sitting in the chairs, chatting in groups, reading the paper.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 8, 2010)

I estimated a 75% occupancy rate of the chairs at about 2045 this evening. The chairs around the tree were fully occupied and there were people sitting on one of the steps. The lowest chair occupancy rate was to be found at the S end of the promenade of square-headed trees and there were quite a few people sitting on the grass.


----------



## Bob (Jul 9, 2010)

Cost £7m IIRC.

Nicer definitely, but not £7m nicer.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I estimated a 75% occupancy rate of the chairs at about 2045 this evening.


That's, what, ten people or so? Wow.



Bob said:


> Cost £7m IIRC.
> 
> Nicer definitely, but not £7m nicer.


Spot on.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Bob said:


> Cost £7m IIRC.
> 
> Nicer definitely, but not £7m nicer.





editor said:


> Spot on.



What is it worth, then? (Numbers please)


----------



## tarannau (Jul 9, 2010)

Would I prefer 7m spent elsewhere is probably a better question?

Sparking new Electric Avenue with new drainage, smooth surfaces and attractive Victorian canopies? A properly renovated indoor market area building on the history and providing new business opportunities? Or a much revamped Rec or leisure centre, providing health benefits.

I know it doesn't work like that, but I reckon you could have done a bodge job on the older square to provide much the same 'functionality' and spent the money more productively elsewhere. It's not bad, but it's hardly inspiring or providing new facilities other than to the Ritzy.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Would I prefer 7m spent elsewhere is probably a better question?
> 
> Sparking new Electric Avenue with new drainage, smooth surfaces and attractive Victorian canopies? A properly renovated indoor market area building on the history and providing new business opportunities? Or a much revamped Rec or leisure centre, providing health benefits.
> 
> I know it doesn't work like that, but I reckon you could have done a bodge job on the older square to provide much the same 'functionality' and spent the money more productively elsewhere. It's not bad, but it's hardly inspiring or providing new facilities other than to the Ritzy.


Spot on.

Seven million quid on the square and still no toilets.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Spot on.
> 
> Seven million quid on the square and still no toilets.




I doubt there ever will be.  Too scared of the drug users/suppliers taking them over probably


----------



## tarannau (Jul 9, 2010)

What's different from the Popes Road toilets or something in the centre of town, say Covent Garden or Soho?

Palming responsibility off onto McDs and a pissoir that only occasionally rises is a terrible solution imo.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 9, 2010)

tarannau said:


> What's different from the Popes Road toilets or something in the centre of town, say Covent Garden or Soho?
> 
> Palming responsibility off onto McDs and a pissoir that only occasionally rises is a terrible solution imo.




Maybe it's a nicer class of drug user/vendor there 

More to the point, why do men get facilities and women don't?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Spot on.
> 
> Seven million quid on the square and still no toilets.



So, what is it actually worth - the work that has been done for that £7M?

Why won't you give us a number?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 9, 2010)

I'd like to know how much that fountain cost. 

Money could have been better spent on loos for ladies


----------



## tarannau (Jul 9, 2010)

It's alright Minnie. The men's facilities don't work all that often. Both times when I've come up from the tube busting for a mighty urination the pop-up urinal has been distinctly stuck in the floor. I made it into an open PofW once but the other time, short of an amenable policeman with capacious hat, I'm slightly ashamed to say that i needed to join the Brixton Alleyway peeing society.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 9, 2010)

tarannau said:


> It's alright Minnie. The men's facilities don't work all that often. Both times when I've come up from the tube busting for a mighty urination the pop-up urinal has been distinctly stuck in the floor. I made it into an open PofW once but the other time, short of an amenable policeman with capacious hat, I'm slightly ashamed to say that i needed to join the Brixton Alleyway peeing society.




I don't know what it is with men and their bladders


----------



## tarannau (Jul 9, 2010)

Why do we need to say what's it worth Teuchter? All I know is that I feel that money should have been spent elsewhere - there seem better priorities and projects more likely to produce positive benefits.

It wasn't worth blowing what seems to be most of the regeneration budget, with little sign of bigger things to come, on a multipurpose half hearted square/walkthrough imo. It's just not that exciting or distinctive a scheme, nor does it add much functionality to the area.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 9, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Why do we need to say what's it worth Teuchter? All I know is that I fell that money should have been spent elsewhere - there seem better priorities and projects more likely to positive benefits.
> 
> It wasn't worth blowing what seems to be most of the regeneration budget, with little sign of bigger things to come, on a multipurpose half hearted square/walkthrough




Not to mention the amount of traffic disruption this all caused.  You'd expect something a bit more spectacular for the years of hassle we've put up with


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Why do we need to say what's it worth Teuchter?



Because it's completely meaningless to say something is too expensive if you haven't the faintest idea of what the "correct" price is.

Unless you are saying that the scheme is entirely worthless and has not improved anything, in which case £100 would also be too expensive.

If you do think it's entirely worthless, then I'm afraid you are clearly in the minority as most people seem pretty happy with it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Because it's completely meaningless to say something is too expensive if you haven't the faintest idea of what the "correct" price is.
> 
> Unless you are saying that the scheme is entirely worthless and has not improved anything, in which case £100 would also be too expensive.
> 
> If you do think it's entirely worthless, then I'm afraid you are clearly in the minority as most people seem pretty happy with it.




I think there was a missing poll option of "better than it was, but still crap".  I bet if that option were there, more people would have voted that

However, I am happy with the new traffic layout with the traffic going straight up the Hill rather than round the Church


----------



## tarannau (Jul 9, 2010)

I'm not sure what you feel it necessary to come across as so patronising tbh. I worked, in a previous life, with plenty of architects and developers and oversight over their spend on various projects. I can't claim utter expertise, but equally it's hardly unreasonable to say that £7m could be spent constructively elsewhere

That, however, is immaterial. There's an opportunity cost to spending so much on one aspect of regeneration and £7m on one square with little purpose seems beyond the pail to me and others it seems. Wouldn't you agree that there seem greater priorities in the area, projects more likely to regenerate or offer more to the wider community?

You seem unable to stop putting words in the mouthes of others either. I have in no way said the development is worthless. And I don't appreciate the vast oversimplification and strawman misuse of the poll if I'm honest.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I think there was a missing poll option of "better than it was, but still crap".  I bet if that option were there, more people would have voted that


That would have got my vote.


----------



## Ms T (Jul 9, 2010)

Does the 7 million include all the work on the roads/traffic, though, which has much improved traffic flow, and cut down on the number of cars along Effra Road?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 9, 2010)

I was given to understand that there were also substatial waterworks and other such things included in that £7m bill.

Ms T - completely agree with you on the traffic, it's a lot better than it was.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

There are lots of things that money could be spent on to benefit the area.

Each has a cost and each has a benefit. If a greater benefit can be derived from a similar cost by using the money elsewhere then it makes sense to do so.

Unfortunately of course, benefits are subjective. I happen to think that the TfL improvements to the centre of Brixton have improved things significantly. More space for pedestrians, no barrier in the middle of the road, a more direct route up the hill and less traffic thundering past Windrush Square, and a better Windrush square that is being used more than it used to be.

Maybe you don't happen to think these things are significant; perhaps I place more value on the quality of public space than you do.

It's fair enough to criticise the design of the scheme itself but once people just start saying something is "too expensive" without any idea of what this kind of work usually costs, or how the cost was distributed across the various elements of the scheme, or how much of it was money that would have had to be spent on road repairs and the like anyway, or how much alternative schemes like refurbing the rec centre would actually cost... it just seems a bit of a meaningless discussion to me. Just a kind of reactionary moaning really.

If someone were to say, well, the road/pavement improvements cost about £1M and the square itself cost £5M and it would cost £3M to refurb the Rec centre or £2M to refurb the indoor market, then don't you agree that that's a very different scenario to, say, one where the road/pavement improvements cost £3M and the square cost £2M and refurbing the rec centre would cost £9M and refurbing the indoor market would cost £6M?

Where has this £7M figure come from, anyway?

The TfL info says that Phase 3 (Windrush Sq *and* changes to traffic flow around St Matthews etc) was set to cost £4.25M. It's entirely possible there was a cost overrun but it would be good to see where these numbers are coming from.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> I was given to understand that there were also substatial waterworks and other such things included in that £7m bill.
> 
> .



Who cares! Let's just all throw random numbers around in an ill-informed manner!


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Who cares! Let's just all throw random numbers around in an ill-informed manner!


Seeing as you're so hung up about the numbers, why don't you research the exact final cost?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Seeing as you're so hung up about the numbers, why don't you research the exact final cost?



Because I'm not the one complaining about it being bad value for money. I'm not actually the one who's "hung up about the numbers".


----------



## tarannau (Jul 9, 2010)

Again, you seem to be arguing from a viewpoint riddled with logical fallacies. 

It's not a simple discussion of whether it's bad value for money, or whether people know enough to make educated pricing comparisons, but whether folks could see £7m make a significant and better difference elsewhere in Brixton. 

I can't recall anyone uttering the words 'too expensive' other than you Teuchter fwiw.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Because I'm not the one complaining about it being bad value for money. I'm not actually the one who's "hung up about the numbers".


You're the one disputing the figure that was posted up. So how much did it cost then?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

totally Dwyer.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 9, 2010)

This and that thread about Brixton pubs are providing excellent entertainment value on the po-faced indignitude scale recently  Keep it up!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

tarannau said:


> I can't recall anyone uttering the words 'too expensive' other than you Teuchter fwiw.



There has been repeated allusion to it being too expensive. Just from the past couple of pages:



editor said:


> a space that cost a ton of money
> ....
> expensive stone





editor said:


> I just want something that I think brings benefits to the community commensurate with its cost.
> ....
> Do you think it represents the best value and best use of the space?





editor said:


> I can recall quite hefty figures being bandied about.





Bob said:


> Nicer definitely, but not £7m nicer.





editor said:


> Spot on.





tarannau said:


> I reckon you could have done a bodge job on the older square to provide much the same 'functionality'





editor said:


> Seven million quid on the square and still no toilets.





tarannau said:


> It wasn't worth blowing what seems to be most of the regeneration budget,





tarannau said:


> £7m on one square with little purpose seems beyond the pail to me and others it seems.



etc etc etc


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


> You're the one disputing the figure that was posted up.



I'm not disputing, just questioning the source.




> So how much did it cost then?



I don't know. Which is one of the reasons I can't offer an opinion on value for money. It's the same reason you can't offer a meaningful opinion on value for money. I'd have thought you would get this point by now. I've only been repeating it for several pages already.

The best figure I have at present is the projected £4.25 including a substantial amount of road realignment. I do not know what proportion of that can be attributed to the square itself.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Saying "OMG outrage this square cost £7m" is pretty much similar to saying "OMG outrage benefit cheats cost the country £3bn".

The numbers are only of any use if put into context and checked for accuracy and what they actually include.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 9, 2010)

You are comparing apples to oranges Teuchter. People saying that they would prefer the money to be spent elsewhere is not the same as people blankly claiming that it is 'too expensive' with no context whatsoever. This distortion and oversimplification does you no credit whatsoever. Strangely enough people do have a conception of the value of money, particularly if they've been involved in community projects or initiatives - nobody would deny that £7m (or less even) is a soignificant sum

Who has said 'OMG Outrage' then or mentioned anything about benefit cheats then? Don't be a hysterical plum


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

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

Do you think the project delivered value for money?

To clarify, when I say value for money, I mean:

Could the same amount of money have been spent on other improvements to the public spaces or buildings in central Brixton and resulted in a greater benefit?

Those who wish to complain about poll options that aren't there, please form an orderly queue. Thank you.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> This and that thread about Brixton pubs are providing excellent entertainment value on the po-faced indignitude scale recently  Keep it up!



It's a mass outbreak of Onketitis. . . .


----------



## tarannau (Jul 9, 2010)

Who has suggested, anecdotally or not, that the work cost in the region of £550k? 

I suspect that this might not be the most honest or constructive way to kick off a discussion


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

I don't know.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Who has suggested, anecdotally or not, that the work cost in the region of £550k?



I am suggesting, anecdotally, that it seems infeasible that it would have cost less than £500,000.

What do you think the minimum feasible cost would be?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 9, 2010)

There is already a thread on this subject.


----------



## Onket (Jul 9, 2010)

I'd need to know how much it cost before I could answer the question.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> There is already a thread on this subject.



The other thread is about whether or not the new square is an improvement on the old one.

Several complaints were made on that thread about the fact that the issue of value for money was not dealt with in the poll options and therefore I have created this poll in response to that feedback.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

The poll specifically on the subject of value for money currently indicates that 100% of respondents consider the scheme fairly good value for money even though they do not know the cost.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=16807


----------



## Crispy (Jul 9, 2010)

Really? Looks like tedious point scoring and staring over the rims of your glasses whilst interrupted from a very important and worthwhile book to wither us all with your lofty opinion, most of which you choose to withhold because it amuses you to see the plebs crash and splutter around in their ignorance.

_Looks like_, anyway.


----------



## zenie (Jul 9, 2010)

Why not just do a FOI request and find out?


----------



## gabi (Jul 9, 2010)

Dunno how much it cost, dont care, love it..


----------



## Onket (Jul 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> It's a mass outbreak of Onketitis. . . .



Please explain this further.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## Onket (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


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



Isn't that the entire point though?


----------



## tarannau (Jul 9, 2010)

Out of two whole votes Teuchter. Desperate and petty much?



Poor show chap


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 9, 2010)

I think we need a poll asking if people are using the square more now than before, or less, or the same.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

Onket said:


> Please explain this further.



Ok!


----------



## Onket (Jul 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Ok!



Go on then......


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

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



> The new Brixton Central Square will link three existing spaces that form the heart of Brixton - Tate Gardens, Windrush Square and St Matthew's Peace Garden. The vision is to create a high quality public space of local, national and international importance that expresses the significance of Brixton as part of the multi-cultural fabric of London.
> 
> Gross Max Landscape Architects were appointed in 2004 following an international design competition. The scheme will create space in front of the Ritzy Cinema and Raleigh Hall, providing the opportunity for outdoor public events. Materials have been carefully selected to match the character of the surrounding civic buildings, and artworks in the square will reflect Brixton's multicultural status.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Onket (Jul 9, 2010)

That's an estimated figure, estimated in advance.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

Onket said:


> That's an estimated figure, estimated in advance.


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

Unless you know differently, of course.


----------



## Onket (Jul 9, 2010)

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

Something to go on though, yes.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 9, 2010)

Onket said:


> That's an estimated figure, estimated in advance.


Also note it's for all the improvement works - including the pavement widening/resurfacing on the high street, and the rerouting of traffic up Brixton Hill.


EDIT: I think.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jul 9, 2010)

Another fan of the square here (I love the idea of those individual seats as opposed to benches) but the costs are staggering. 

I have to deal on occassion with Lambeth council and the way that anything they do gets handled leads me to believe that the costs could be at least halved on anything and everything they are involved with and with people still eating well on the back of it. 

Its a tiny example I know but I met with a Roofer this week who showed me the bill presented to Lambeth by their main contractor for £1000 and the amount he recieves, £500.

All they do is fax the work sheet over to him and pocket £500 for the pleasure. And I am sure that this can be multiplied to take into account projects like this.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

Onket said:


> I have not heard anything either, but that doesn't mean the figure isn't wildly inaccurate, of course.
> 
> Something to go on though, yes.


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


----------



## Onket (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


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



Exactly.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 9, 2010)

2 secs googling;
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/3500.aspx

"TfL intends to invest £6m into the project for highway and traffic works, and public space improvements, subject to funding being available"

Therefore 500k didnt even cover the wanky architects/consultants fees


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

I haven't had to dig this out since the latter days of El Jefe . . . . .


----------



## Onket (Jul 9, 2010)

According to the ed on the other thread- it was £9.5 million.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> 2 secs googling;
> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/3500.aspx
> 
> "TfL intends to invest £6m into the project for highway and traffic works, and public space improvements, subject to funding being available"


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

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


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 9, 2010)

So there are no figures for how much the design and ornamentation of the lolling area between coldharbour lane and whatever the other road is?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 9, 2010)

Onket said:


> According to the ed on the other thread- it was £9.5 million.



Fuck, some difference and remember this was/is at a time when a lot of contractors are buying work, they should have retendered.


----------



## zenie (Jul 9, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Fuck, some difference and remember this was/is at a time when a lot of contractors are buying work,* they should have retendered*.


 

hehehe this is Lambeth, probably went to their mates firms.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 9, 2010)

Are we assuming that TFL were paying all the bill, or was 6.5m their contribution towards the whole scheme?

Wasn't there some funding from Bozza's office or related agency?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> 2 secs googling;
> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/3500.aspx
> 
> "TfL intends to invest £6m into the project for highway and traffic works, and public space improvements, subject to funding being available"
> ...



4 years out of date and that figure appears to include the road improvement works as well as the square


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


> A more recent estimate put the figure at* £9.5m*.
> 
> http://www.designforlondon.gov.uk/what-we-do/all/brixton/



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

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


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





So to say the project was too expensive without making any effort to research the actual cost is fine ... and yet to start a thread asking whether criticism of costs without knowing what they were is valid, is somehow in contrast totally pointless?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Really? Looks like tedious point scoring and staring over the rims of your glasses whilst interrupted from a very important and worthwhile book to wither us all with your lofty opinion, most of which you choose to withhold because it amuses you to see the plebs crash and splutter around in their ignorance.
> 
> _Looks like_, anyway.



Much as spluttering plebs might amuse me, I'm not witholding my opinion. My opinion is that I can not form an opinion at present due to lack of details.

It's quite true that this whole business is interrupting my more important other work, however.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


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



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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> Another fan of the square here (I love the idea of those individual seats as opposed to benches) but the costs are staggering.
> 
> I have to deal on occassion with Lambeth council and the way that anything they do gets handled leads me to believe that the costs could be at least halved on anything and everything they are involved with and with people still eating well on the back of it.
> 
> ...



Well - if this is true, it indicates the problem is with the way in which work is procured, rather than the work that is chosen to be done. In other words, these problems would still apply even if the money had been spent on the rec centre or whatever.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 9, 2010)

There's no poll option for 'ask me in 15 years time' 
I cannot pass judgement until then. If it wears well and is used well for a reasonable length of time, well, probably yes.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> There's no poll option for 'ask me in 15 years time'
> I cannot pass judgement until then. If it wears well and is used well for a reasonable length of time, well, probably yes.



This is a very good point actually.

The "return" on something like this, assuming it's done well, will be spread over quite a long period of time, compared to some other types of project. This (along with things like maintenance cost) has to be taken into account when making a judgement.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


The page source says 'copyright 2009.'


----------



## Crispy (Jul 9, 2010)

Stoat Boy; said:
			
		

> Another fan of the square here (I love the idea of those individual seats as opposed to benches) but the costs are staggering.
> 
> I have to deal on occassion with Lambeth council and the way that anything they do gets handled leads me to believe that the costs could be at least halved on anything and everything they are involved with and with people still eating well on the back of it.



I was under the impression that this was a TFL funded and planned project, not Lambeth?


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

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



> Mayor unveils new bigger, brighter, greener Windrush Square in Brixton
> 26 FEBRUARY 2010
> 
> *Following a nine month makeover and a GLA Group investment of £9.7m,* a new-look Windrush Square was officially opened by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, in Brixton today (Friday, 26th February). The Mayor was joined by Tessa Jowell, Minister for London, Lambeth Council leader Steve Reed, and Windrush veterans who travelled to the UK on Empire Windrush in 1948.
> ...



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


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

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

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

Is there any point to this thread, btw?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

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

Why do you use the adjective "staggering"?


----------



## Bob (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


> It seems that the previous figure of £9.5m was inaccurate.
> 
> In fact, it cost _another £200,000_, taking the total to a fairly staggering £9.7m (see other thread for source).
> 
> Is there any point to this thread, btw?



I think there's a point.

Which is that Lambeth keep on doing stuff like Windrush square - which on balance is nice - but astoundingly expensive.

So I think a lot of people would agree that if a benevolent millionaire (ok probably billionaire to have a spare £9m) offered to give us Windrush Square we'd be happy, but we don't want to pay for it ourselves.

The new pavements and stuff outside Herne Hill station are a bit like this - quite nice but probably not worth the cash.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2010)

Are there examples of similar developments that have cost lots less?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

How about if it cost £10 million and lasted 20 years - is that any better?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Bob said:


> I think there's a point.
> 
> Which is that Lambeth keep on doing stuff like Windrush square - which on balance is nice - but astoundingly expensive.
> 
> ...



What sort of figure would you have in mind, if you were asked what would be a reasonable sum for the public purse to pay for Windrush Square?

(Also as a matter of pedantry, Lambeth did not pay for it.)


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Why do you use the adjective "staggering"?



Maybe because for a bit of block laying its a fucking rip off. I would suggest the majority of cost was swallowed up in consultancy fees. Mostly TfLs probably.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 9, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> I have to deal on occassion with Lambeth council and the way that anything they do gets handled leads me to believe that the costs could be at least halved on anything and everything they are involved with and with people still eating well on the back of it.



We get bills for works done on our estate and they're laughable... a memorable example was £50 to remove a dead fox...


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Maybe because for a bit of block laying its a fucking rip off. I would suggest the majority of cost was swallowed up in consultancy fees. Mostly TfLs probably.



You have to admit it was rather more than "a bit of block laying".

You say quite confidently that it's a rip off - obviously you are au fait with the usual costs of this kind of project. What figure would you consider reasonable (so far, everyone who has expressed an opinion that it is too expensive seems to be dodging this question for some reason)?


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> You say quite confidently that it's a rip off - obviously you are au fait with the usual costs of this kind of project. What figure would you consider reasonable (so far, everyone who has expressed an opinion that it is too expensive seems to be dodging this question for some reason)?


Mr Pot is on the phone for you, Mr Kettle.


You repeatedly refused point blank to bother finding out how much the development cost but still had time to start a totally pointless and stupid poll.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


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



To me, it would be a staggeringly high figure for a 2 bed flat in Brixton because I know a 2 bed flat in Brixton might be around £220K. It would be a staggeringly low figure for a Boeing 747 because I believe a 747 would cost about £130M.

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



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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Mr Pot is on the phone for you, Mr Kettle.
> 
> 
> You repeatedly refused point blank to bother finding out how much the development cost but still had time to start a totally pointless and stupid poll.



Neither of these sentences make sense to me.

If I am Mr Kettle, who is Mr Pot?


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> obviously you are au fait with the usual costs of this kind of project.



Actually yes I am and £1.5m but im aware that anything involving TfL /Crossrail/ Lu then x10


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I don't know what the cost generally of a public square refurbishment in London is.



And it appears, despite your architectural pretensions ,it is beyond your intellect/expertise to work it out.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


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



It's not the officially published figure for what we are discussing.

But in any case I'm not making any assertions about the cost, so I don't see why it's incumbent on me to do any research.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> And it appears, despite your architectural pretensions ,it is beyond your intellect/expertise to work it out.



Indeed it is (at least, without doing a large amount of research which I don't have the time or inclination to do), as I have stated many times.

It would be interesting to know how you came to your £1.5M figure.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> It would be interesting to know how you came to your £1.5M figure.



I benchmarked it against other similar projects Ive been involved with.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> I benchmarked it against other similar projects Ive been involved with.



Are you able to give any details of any of those?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 9, 2010)

Of course, although since you dont appear to have any actual relevant pratical experience or knowledge Id be wasting my time. I dare say you're the dogs at reflected ceiling plans
Interesting though your defence of this scheme, which frankly is architecturally on a par with a surburban driveway, (and a rather crappy one at that).


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

Well, tis up to you whether or not you want to share whatever information you have. If comprehending it requires "relevant practical experience or knowledge" then it would imply you feel the lay person's opinion on this whole thing is of even less value than I might suggest.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jul 9, 2010)

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

Does that mean that they managed to spend £5million on the earlier street works from Stockwell Park Walk to the Town Hall, or are they including the LDA's committed funding to Raleigh Hall/Black Cultural Archives


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2010)

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


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jul 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Well - if this is true, it indicates the problem is with the way in which work is procured, rather than the work that is chosen to be done. In other words, these problems would still apply even if the money had been spent on the rec centre or whatever.



Well I saw the paper work relating to the job. Its not the worst though. That has to a lady charged 15000 by Lambeth for installing a new central heating system. Now I wont bore you with the details suffice to say that I could have got the same job done for 3 grand and with us still pocketing half of that as profit. Never seen exploitation like it.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2010)

Some sort of event there today


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2010)

Fair few people there today. A lot of security and a few police already. The BBQ looks good


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 11, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Some sort of event there today


A duel between the editor and teuchter with bbq and live music afterwards.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2010)

It was quite busy yesterday. But not_ £10 million_ busy


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> A duel between the editor and teuchter with bbq and live music afterwards.



Perhaps there will even be a 'cheap' bar . . .


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Fair few people there today. A lot of security and a few police already. The BBQ looks good



I saw that.What was it about? All I saw there when I strolled past was a few tents and some music but not many people. The people were wisley sitting outside the Ritzy.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2010)

Apparently it was Jamaica day according to the BBC News and there was a sprinter there to inspire the handful of people who showed up. Why wasn't this publicised properly?

They put the tents right next to the fountain too, so once again it remained turned off on the kind of day when people would have really enjoyed using it.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2010)

I did see some kids sprinting and people timing them. That was this morning early though. Could not work out what was going on or what it was for then.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2010)

I still find the paved area towards Effra Road a bit confusing - with the change from the stone in the square, it sort of feels like you're on one of those shared car/pedestrianised roads and should watch out for traffic.


----------



## Onket (Jul 12, 2010)

teuchter wins.


----------



## netbob (Jul 12, 2010)

*Wrong kind of stone*

This morning the council were doing an experiment to see if they can clean the tree stains off the stone. 4 people observing and one poor sod left to try and do the actual cleaning with an indoor cleaner thingy:







As I walked past I overheard "I think we're going to have to do the whole square".


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2010)

As long as objective inquiry wins against reactionary sensationalism, I am happy


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> As long as objective inquiry wins against reactionary sensationalism, I am happy



You've missed a full stop at the end of that sentence.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> It's quite true that this whole business is interrupting my more important other work, however.



Whats that then?  You love this dont u?


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> As long as objective inquiry wins against reactionary sensationalism, I am happy


Man starts a poll asking if something is good value or not.
Man omits to mention how much the aforementioned thing actually costs.
Man is made of tumbling, crumbling fail bricks.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2010)

memespring said:


> This morning the council were doing an experiment to see if they can clean the tree stains off the stone. 4 people observing and one poor sod left to try and do the actual cleaning with an indoor cleaner thingy:
> 
> 
> 
> As I walked past I overheard "I think we're going to have to do the whole square".


  indeed.


----------



## Onket (Jul 12, 2010)

See post #22.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2010)

Onket said:


> See post #22.


Yes. And? Pointless poll remains pointless poll.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2010)

"tree stains" ?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2010)

http://www.ehow.com/how_6207618_remove-oak-tree-stains-pavers.html


----------



## tarannau (Jul 12, 2010)

That's a euphemism for piss stains, clearly.

The Jamaica day celebrations were indeed pretty meagre. I got a leaflet thrust into my hand, bumped into Badgers on the way back and forgot all about it tbh. Bit of a strange set up at 9 in the morning too - a load of McDonalds' gobbling security guards in blazers guarding a drum barbecue, whilst the DJ tested out the system with 'Where's your head at?' for some unknown reason.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2010)

tarannau said:


> bumped into Badgers on the way back and forgot all about it tbh.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 12, 2010)

To be fair, I did have a shitload of barbecue food to prepare that day too. I was distracted, nay focused, by the challenges ahead.

Clearly you weren't worth a leaflet from the attractive Jamaica Day promotional team.

(((Badgers)))


----------



## Onket (Jul 12, 2010)

And teucher wins, as I said.


----------



## netbob (Jul 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> "tree stains" ?



It is mainly the fruit from the plane tree that has been staining the stone I believe.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 12, 2010)

Like bollocks it has. What are the suspicious grubby stains positioned just under most of the chairs then?

You know, the chairs that more than occasionally look damp and even, ahem, drippingly brown in the morning.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2010)

editor said:


> Man starts a poll asking if something is good value or not.
> Man omits to mention how much the aforementioned thing actually costs.
> Man is made of tumbling, crumbling fail bricks.



It seems like you haven't really cottoned on to the point I'm making - I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to clarify it any further, though. The absence of actual cost information is what this is all about.



I'd like to apologise to all readers for the full stop I missed out earlier, by the way.


----------



## Onket (Jul 12, 2010)

memespring said:


> It is mainly the fruit from the plane tree that has been staining the stone I believe.



Is this a surprise, then?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2010)

tarannau said:


> To be fair, I did have a shitload of barbecue food to prepare that day too. I was distracted, nay focused, by the challenges ahead.
> 
> Clearly you weren't worth a leaflet from the attractive Jamaica Day promotional team.
> 
> (((Badgers)))



The cut of my jib I suppose


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2010)

thank you. 

for the record I thought your poll was very pointy indeed. 

(((missed points)))


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2010)

I'd like to point out some missed capitalisation in the post above.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> It seems like you haven't really cottoned on to the point I'm making - I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to clarify it any further, though. The absence of actual cost information is what this is all about.


So this whole thread is a childish exercise to highlight the fact that you can't be bothered to research how much the square actually cost, yes?

Several people have offered opinions based on the reported cost of the square, yet you still scurry about trying to claim some bizarre high moral ground without actually having a clue about the costs.

Great work. Great poll.

Bored with this now.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> So to say the project was too expensive without making any effort to research the actual cost is fine ... and yet to start a thread asking whether criticism of costs without knowing what they were is valid, is somehow in contrast totally pointless?



Sorry Teuchter but your poll is not about whether criticism of costs without knowing them is valid .

The questions in your poll do not ask anything about validity of ones opinions. They merely ask if one thinks it good value for money under certain critieria.


----------



## Onket (Jul 12, 2010)

editor said:


> So this whole thread is a childish exercise to highlight the fact that you can't be bothered to research how much the square actually cost, yes?
> 
> Several people have offered opinions based on the reported cost of the square, yet you still scurry about trying to claim some bizarre high moral ground without actually having a clue about the costs.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2010)

Onket said:


>


God, you're boring in this thread. 

Nothing to add of any worth, just dull, pointless, point-scoring stirring. 

*yawn


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2010)

editor said:


> God, you're boring in this thread.
> 
> Nothing to add of any worth, just dull, pointless, point-scoring stirring.
> 
> *yawn


I thought dull pointless point scoring was the whole point of this thread?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2010)

memespring said:


> This morning the council were doing an experiment to see if they can clean the tree stains off the stone. 4 people observing and one poor sod left to try and do the actual cleaning with an indoor cleaner thingy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So the stone stains then? 

Outside the ritzy by the end of the week the stone is sticky from spilt beer.

Next time im going to look at stone.


----------



## Onket (Jul 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> I thought dull pointless point scoring was the whole point of this thread?



Correct.

It's not dull though. Not particularly interesting, granted, but not exactly dull.


----------



## Onket (Jul 12, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> So the stone stains then?



That's basically I was cack-handedly saying in post #548.

They've selected a stone without thinking of possible staining issues, have they?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2010)

The only surface that wouldn't stain is inch-thick stainless steel. It's central Brixton and it will pick up a layer of beer, piss, gum, grease and vomit no matter what. The missing piece of the puzzle is regular and rigorous cleaning, something that Lambeth can't afford (but other boroughs can)


----------



## Onket (Jul 12, 2010)

I'd imagine theres a scale of 'stain repellence' from inch thick steel that wouldn't stain to something else. Rather than one or the other.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2010)

editor said:


> So this whole thread is a childish exercise to highlight the fact that you can't be bothered to research how much the square actually cost, yes?



No - more to highlight the fact that some people are happy to make judgements about whether the cost of the square is excessive, a) without actually knowing what it cost and/or b) lacking the expertise necessary to judge the cost meaningfully.

It's an attitude that curses all sorts of things. Jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts, or their context. Usually it doesn't go down so well on U75.

Whether or not I have done any "research" is entirely irrelevant. As it happens I have, and it turns out I can't easily find the facts anywhere. Nor can anyone else it seems.



> Several people have offered opinions based on the reported cost of the square,



No "cost of the square" has been reported on this thread, or anywhere else easily accessible on the internet.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 12, 2010)

Many do have the expertise, however you wrap it up, to consider how else nigh on £10 million could be spent on Brixton and what positive effects that could lead to. Your attempt to distort the other thread into such a reductive argument is a bit bizarre to say the least.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> No - more to highlight the fact that some people are happy to make judgements about whether the cost of the square is excessive, a) without actually knowing what it cost and/or b) lacking the expertise necessary to judge the cost meaningfully.


If you had any real interest in a grown up discussion, I would have thought you would have been better employed researching the actual figures involved rather than starting a pointless thread with a pointless poll full of pointless options.

What's your expertise to judge costing in this area, btw? And why haven't you bothered to research the costs? And why do you keep missing the point of what people are saying?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> The questions in your poll do not ask anything about validity of ones opinions. They merely ask if one thinks it good value for money under certain critieria.



See the last three options in the poll.

Also, the poll allows me to see whose opinion is most likely to be reliable. For example, anyone choosing options 5, 6, 7, or 8 may be worth paying attention to.

Only one person ("bob") has answered that they do know how much it cost but sadly they have made no contribution to the thread to share their knowledge with us. We also have gixxer1000, who claims to have benchmarked the cost against other costs. However, they have also declined to share the actual cost, or any details of other comparable schemes, for reasons which are not very clear.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Many do have the expertise, however you wrap it up, to consider how else nigh on £10 million could be spent on Brixton and what positive effects that could lead to. Your attempt to distort the other thread into such a reductive argument is a bit bizarre to say the least.



Part of the reason for creating this thread was to avoid the other thread getting caught up in an argument over this specific point.

Just to repeat myself once again,

_No-one here actually knows or is willing to share what the Windrush Square improvements actually cost._


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2010)

editor said:


> If you had any real interest in a grown up discussion, I would have thought you would have been better employed researching the actual figures involved rather than starting a pointless thread with a pointless poll full of pointless options.



I think the best we can do here is agree that pointlessness is subjective.



> What's your expertise to judge costing in this area, btw?



Limited, as previously and repeatedly stated.



> And why haven't you bothered to research the costs?



Please refer to multitudinous previous replies.



> And why do you keep missing the point of what people are saying?



Once again, we will just have to agree that the question of who is "missing the point" is a subjective matter.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2010)

Counted 19 on chairs, 4 on the turd but could not count everyone lounging on the grass tonight at just before 7pm. 

Update tomorrow


----------



## lang rabbie (Jul 12, 2010)

memespring said:


> It is mainly the fruit from the plane tree that has been staining the stone I believe.








I didn't think the "bobbles" on plane trees were moist enough to leave a stain when they drop


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

A few observations;
Do we need to know to the second decimal point how much this scheme cost to pass judgement?
Apparently so Although I think its damning that this information isnt easily extractable.

Your smoke and mirrors re scope is irrelevant in so far as the main body of the works in time/plant/materials was the square.

Progress was painfully slow, not helped no doubt by the fact that the majority of works were undertaken during the winter months/there appeared to be  delays in coordinating service ducts. 

This was much commented upon at the time, so purely on this basis its a valid comment that the project wasnt efficient.

Also am I just being cynical in noticing that so many of these pavement works (Brixton Water lane/ Brockwell Park) appeared just before the election


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> We also have gixxer1000, who claims to have benchmarked the cost against other costs .



Although  "2nd gear drive-by" tendering . I can tell you  that anything over £1.5m is a fucking rip off.

Can you explain why it isnt?
Maybe explain why in this present climate it costs more to "design" something rather than actually construct it


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

I don't think it's fair to say that the scope of what was covered by the (?)£10M is "irrelevant". There was quite a lot of stuff done other than the square itself. I can't imagine that rearranging traffic signalling and road alignments and working at night and shifting street furniture around and all the rest of it is exactly cheap, or insignificant in comparison to the cost of the square itself.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Although  "2nd gear drive-by" tendering . I can tell you  that anything over £1.5m is a fucking rip off.
> 
> Can you explain why it isnt?
> Maybe explain why in this present climate it costs more to "design" something rather than actually construct it



I can't explain why it isn't a 'rip off' because as I keep saying I am expressing no view as far as the cost is concerned. It might be possible to do so if you were to give us some details of these other projects you are comparing it with.

I'm not sure what you mean about it costing more to design than construct, though. What has brought you to that conclusion?


----------



## sir.clip (Jul 13, 2010)

I dont Care how much it cost.
I think its ok, but in reality there are alot of other parts of Lambeth that could do with alot more important work rather than a decorative makeover for lambeth HQ..

Value for money is hard to judge if the figure is not clear from the begining. 
I doubt Lambeth actually know how much it has really cost. so i think not putting a figure on it is actually a good idea. Its a john lewis approach to polls.


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

What was wrong with the old square? Looking at it on Google Streetview, it looked lovely...very green with a brick wall you can sit on. Adding more bike racks and a fountain shouldnt cost £10 million surely?


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

memespring said:


> It is mainly the fruit from the plane tree that has been staining the stone I believe.



The grass has been concreted over...so they may as well cut down the tree too!


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2010)

rover07 said:


> The grass has been concreted over...so they may as well cut down the tree too!



It's not concrete, it's quite nice stone


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I can't explain why it isn't a 'rip off' because as I keep saying I am expressing no view as far as the cost is concerned.



Fairly intrical to your Poll though isnt. So hypothetically, assume it cost more than 1.5m 




teuchter said:


> It might be possible to do so if you were to give us some details of these other projects you are comparing it with.



Since you wouldnt know their detailed scope, you wouldnt (apparently) be able to make a conclusion. Besides you appear to know nothing about construction and I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> It's not concrete, it's quite nice stone



I never realised it was stone!! 

 

Sorry there was no count this morning, I will report back later


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

From your vitriol and defensive stance you appear to have a vested interest please declare this.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2010)

Yep, kind of getting used to the morning photos and reports now 


I wonder if the glory that is Lambeth  BC  will perhaps try a Henry the Hoover today . . . .


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> It's not concrete, it's quite nice stone



Ok, stone.

Grass would be easier to maintain though. Sap from the tree and piss would soak into the ground. Also the sight and smell of fresh grass has a positive effect in busy urban areas IMO


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

"Vitriol"?!


My "vested interests":

- Brixton resident
- Supporter of principle of investment in public space
- Supporter of principle of road/street design aimed at improving things for pedestrians/public transport users.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> See the last three options in the poll.
> 
> Also, the poll allows me to see whose opinion is most likely to be reliable. For example, anyone choosing options 5, 6, 7, or 8 may be worth paying attention to.
> 
> Only one person ("bob") has answered that they do know how much it cost but sadly they have made no contribution to the thread to share their knowledge with us. We also have gixxer1000, who claims to have benchmarked the cost against other costs. However, they have also declined to share the actual cost, or any details of other comparable schemes, for reasons which are not very clear.



Incorrect Teuchter. There is nothing in the poll about validity. 

I might think my opinion on the square is valid even if I say i dont know how much it costs.

If you wanted a poll about validity you should have put different questions.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 13, 2010)

This isn't about canvassing people's real opinions or specific questions, this is Teuchter's petty attempt to reduce discussion on the other thread into a simple 'good value' question, so that he take some fatuous 'conclusions' from an artificially limited debate.

To be fair, it hasn't worked very well. He looks like a bit of a plum


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2010)

tarannau said:


> This isn't about canvassing people's real opinions or specific questions, this is Teuchter's petty attempt to reduce discussion on the other thread into a simple 'good value' question, so that he take some fatuous 'conclusions' from an artificially limited debate.
> 
> To be fair, it hasn't worked very well. He looks like a bit of a plum


I'd have to agree with you there. He's turned what could have been an interesting discussion into a slightly obsessive mission to 'prove' something or another.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> See the last three options in the poll.
> 
> Also, the poll allows me to see whose opinion is most likely to be reliable. For example, anyone choosing options 5, 6, 7, or 8 may be worth paying attention to.
> 
> Only one person ("bob") has answered that they do know how much it cost but sadly they have made no contribution to the thread to share their knowledge with us. We also have gixxer1000, who claims to have benchmarked the cost against other costs. However, they have also declined to share the actual cost, or any details of other comparable schemes, for reasons which are not very clear.



So this poll is really about u finding out whose opinion u think is valid.

U dont say this in your poll questions or the the question u put.

I assumed as the question is about ones opinion about the value of the square it was about that. Now u reveal its about u using a poll for a different purpose.

If u wanted to do a poll on validity of opinions u should have done it like this:

"Do u think its valid to have an opinion on the value for money of the square if u dont know or cant 100% independanly verify the actual cost of the square?"

Yes
No
I Dont care


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

If they have now decided to be concerned about staining to the concrete (or reconstituted stone) then perhaps they should ban events vehicles from parking on the square.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Incorrect Teuchter. There is nothing in the poll about validity.



Are we arguing about the difference between a "valid" opinion and a "qualified" opinion? This seems a little pedantic.



> I might think my opinion on the square is valid even if I say i dont know how much it costs.



But your opinion on the cost of the square would not be valid if you didn't know the cost of the square. 




> If you wanted a poll about validity you should have put different questions.



I wanted a poll that asked the questions that were asked in the poll that I posted. And that is what I got, seeing as I was kind enough to provide myself with exactly what I wanted.


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

Do you think £10 million is good value for money Teuchter?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2010)

I note from the poll 50 people think it's at least an improvement and 4 thing it's worse than before. 

I make that a 92.6% approval rating. Not often Lambeth get that.

/lies, damn lies and statistics . .


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

Seems a lot just to repave a small area and take out some railings. Then add a few chairs, bike stands and a couple of bits of street art.


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

Anyone know how much the 2 giant turds and the elephant cost?


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

Say a million pounds each...plus the fountain. So thats £4 million.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

rover07 said:


> Do you think £10 million is good value for money Teuchter?








teuchter said:


> My opinion is that I can not form an opinion at present due to lack of details





teuchter said:


> I don't know if it would be a staggeringly anything cost for a public square refurbishment in London because I don't know what the cost generally of a public square refurbishment in London is.





teuchter said:


> But in any case I'm not making any assertions about the cost,





teuchter said:


> Indeed it is (at least, without doing a large amount of research which I don't have the time or inclination to do), as I have stated many times.
> 
> .





teuchter said:


> I can't explain why it isn't a 'rip off' because as I keep saying I am expressing no view as far as the cost is concerned.


.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Where do you get this £10 million figure from, rover07?


----------



## tarannau (Jul 13, 2010)

Hey Teuchter, can you think of any other uses for that near £10 million that may pay greater dividends in Brixton, or is that beyond the scope of this artificially limited, slightly snide thread?

You seem to be constantly evading this point see.


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

Somewhere in the thread £9.7 million is quoted. I've rounded it up.


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

They should have come to me. I would have done it for £1 million.

Ok the elephant would have been a bit crappy as im no sculptor.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 13, 2010)

The elephant was extra anyway. And it's gawn now anyhow


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

I guess you could get an art student to make one though.

How much? £5000 say would be a fair price.


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

tarannau said:


> The elephant was extra anyway. And it's gawn now anyhow



Oh why?


----------



## tarannau (Jul 13, 2010)

Charitee stole it!


----------



## Mation (Jul 13, 2010)

editor said:


> It seems that the previous figure of £9.5m was inaccurate.
> 
> In fact, it cost _another £200,000_, taking the total to a fairly staggering £9.7m (see other thread for source).


How much does this sort of thing usually cost?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2010)

Mation said:


> How much does this sort of thing usually cost?


A "staggering", "ludicrous", "wasteful" or "criminal" amount of money depending on the reactionary tendencies of the estimator.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Hey Teuchter, can you think of any other uses for that near £10 million that may pay greater dividends in Brixton, or is that beyond the scope of this artificially limited, slightly snide thread?
> 
> You seem to be constantly evading this point see.



It depends what the £10M actually paid for, as I keep repeating. Did it pay for just the square, or did it pay for all the road/street improvements that have been going on in central Brixton for the last couple of years? If it paid for the road improvements, was there roadwork stuff that needed to happen anyway? If there was, how much would it have cost if this scheme hadn't happened?

And what other ways could £10M be spent, and how do you make an objective comparison? The BCA is due to cost £6.3M but how much will it cost to run per year from then on, and how would this compare to the per year cost of maintenance of the Brixton centre public spaces, and what would its lifespan be before requiring renovation and again how would this compare to Windrush Square and associated work? How does it compare to the £25M of public money for the Evelyn Grace Academy and again what are lifespan costs and anyway how do you try and compare the benefit of improved public space for tens of thousands of people compared to a new school that will benefit a couple of thousand?

I don't know how to answer those questions really, and I don't think many people do, even people that make the decisions about allocating funding. A lot of it comes down to how loudly various parties shout and stuff like that, doesn't it? There are all sorts of examples where varying monetary values are attributed to things in an irrational way.

I'd say that if you're going to try and judge whether something like this is "good value for money" you should at least make, as a starting point, some sort of comparison to similar stuff done elsewhere. Only then (assuming this test does indeed indicate that it's been overly expensive) can you start to look at why - whether it's the brief, spec, design, procurement, construction or whatever that's at fault.

But before you even get to that point, you have to be clear what the thing actually cost in the first place, don't you? That's hardly a controversial statement.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

Heres 750k worth of square;

http://www.architecture.com/UseAnAr...sNew/Landscaping/LyricSquare/LyricSquare.aspx


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2010)

same designers too


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Heres 750k worth of square;
> 
> http://www.architecture.com/UseAnAr...sNew/Landscaping/LyricSquare/LyricSquare.aspx



Or, £1.7 million, depending who you ask.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

Well £6m gets you this! 
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/six-shortlisted-for-£6m-king’s-cross-square/3132451.article

The 7,000sq m King’s Cross Square, which will be bigger than Leicester Square!!!!!


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

Dont know it but 500k gets you St Johns Sq Clerkenwell


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Or, £1.7 million, depending who you ask.




that project appears to be a simple repaving and addition of furniture. Which might lead one to suspect that the majority of the supposed £9.7m budget for windrush square went on the associated roadworks and infrastructure


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

From google satellite view, Windrush Sq seems to be about 2.5 x the area of the Hammersmith one. (That is not including the newly paved area of Effra Road, or the bit outside KFC.)


So scaling up based simply (and simplistically) on area, 750k would translate into £1.875M or if you prefer the £1.7M figure for Hammersmith, that would translate into £4.25M for Windrush Sq.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Dont know it but 500k gets you St Johns Sq Clerkenwell



About 13% of the area of Windrush Square, again judged from Google.

So £500 >>> £4.14M.

It seems that somewhere around £4M might be the "going rate" for a square the size of Windrush square, if relatively simply paved.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2010)

Great maths, very sound reasoning!

*paging Mr Ed*


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> About 13% of the area of Windrush Square, again judged from Google.
> 
> So £500 >>> £4.14M.
> 
> It seems that somewhere around £4M might be the "going rate" for a square the size of Windrush square, if relatively simply paved.



Nope dosent work like that, try scaling down 61 acres of Granary Sq or even Kings Cross , remember the cost is front end heavy


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

Also remember the original quote, circa 6m, was for a larger Square anyway- it was to include closing off Effra road. (mourns watering down /loss of greenery of project)

"The proposal includes a glasshouse and winter garden packed with plants from Africa and the West Indies, which will be lit from within at night to create a giant shadow projection of the plants on the structure's outer skin."


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Great maths, very sound reasoning!
> 
> *paging Mr Ed*


Err, no. That's actually a wild, uneducated guess. 

What am I being 'paged' for anyway?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Nope dosent work like that, try scaling down 61 acres of Granary Sq or even Kings Cross



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

By my Google estimations, about 1.25 x the size.

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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


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



Not yet it isnt but wait until the demolition of all that single storey nastiness is complete.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Also remember the original quote, circa 6m, was for a larger Square anyway- it was to include closing off Effra road. (mourns watering down /loss of greenery of project)



If we include Effra Rd, then that probably takes it to something near enough the size of KX.


Both images same scale in case someone thinks I'm making it all up:


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Not yet it isnt but wait until the demolition of all that single storey nastiness is complete.



No, I am including for that.

I think you need to check your numbers a bit more carefully before posting.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> No, I am including for that.
> 
> I think you need to check your numbers a bit more carefully before posting.



Post up the link of what scheme youre using.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

editor said:


> Err, no. That's actually a wild, uneducated guess.



We can't be doing with that kind of thing around here, can we! 

Staggering!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Post up the link of what scheme youre using.



The one you gave me 

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/six-shortlisted-for-£6m-king’s-cross-square/3132451.article


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2010)

I have traced off the areas, discounting any roads.

The area on the left is 1.64x as large as the area on the right


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

Yeah show us the footprint of the new square. Maybe colour it in on your Google picture.


----------



## Onket (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> We can't be doing with that kind of thing around here, can we!
> 
> Staggering!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Obviously we can haggle forever exactly where you draw the line, but I struggle to see how a maximum cost of £1.5M for Windrush Square fits in with those numbers.

They seem to suggest something around £4 to 4.5M.


----------



## rover07 (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Obviously we can haggle forever exactly where you draw the line, but I struggle to see how a maximum cost of £1.5M for Windrush Square fits in with those numbers.
> 
> They seem to suggest something around £4 to 4.5M.



The others have buildings on. Windrush has none. So £2 - 2.5 million is probably about right.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

rover07 said:


> The others have buildings on.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2010)

This notion that costs for entirely different redevelopments in entirely different areas all universally simplify down to a simple, one-size-fits-all calculation is really naive, you know.

I've posted up the official costings from the press release and I'm not really inclined to comment on teucher's completely wild guesses based on random Google images.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2010)

Windrush isn't flat either, it's got tiers and everything. Have those others?

Have they even got dinky lighting?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Obviously we can haggle forever exactly where you draw the line, .



Yes especially as you have no idea as to the profile of KC square, Ill send a plan if Im allowed. You have also included Saltoun Rd in your Windrush plan  
Its approx 2x larger.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

editor said:


> This notion that costs for entirely different redevelopments in entirely different areas all universally simplify down to a simple, one-size-fits-all calculation is really naive, you know.



To be honest its fairly prevalent in the industry.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> So scaling up based simply (and simplistically) on area, 750k would translate into £1.875M .



Yeah Ill take that. Not to bad for a quick thumb suck


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

editor said:


> This notion that costs for entirely different redevelopments in entirely different areas all universally simplify down to a simple, one-size-fits-all calculation is really naive, you know.
> 
> I've posted up the official costings from the press release and I'm not really inclined to comment on teucher's completely wild guesses based on random Google images.



1. Construction costings based on square metre rates are commonplace as a means of getting a ball-park figure in the absence of other information

2. As it happens, the Lyric Square and St Johns square schemes seem if anything to be less complex than the Windrush one; the KX one is unknown

3. Those estimates pointing to a figure in the £4M region are the only attempt anyone on this thread has made to make a stab at what a "going rate" cost might be (except for gixxer1000's £1.5M figure which he initially tried to justify with the examples I've used above)

4. Despite being the one who originally brought up the cost of the square and moaned about it being "staggeringly" expensive you haven't provided any explanation of how you came to that conclusion and I think that anyone can see that it wasn't based on anything objective at all

5. The projected spend for the square itself was £4.25M which seems to tally with the figures I have speculated upon

6. You have have not posted any post-construction official costings for the square by itself

7. My guesses are not "completely wild"; they are based on scaled and measured comparisons of the various schemes mentioned

8. They are not based on "random google images" as is blatantly obvious

9. Have you considered applying for a position at the News Of The World?.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Yes especially as you have no idea as to the profile of KC square, Ill send a plan if Im allowed. You have also included Saltoun Rd in your Windrush plan



Saltoun Rd was repaved along with the rest of the square, as was Rushcroft Rd. I decided to be generous and not include the bit of Effra road that was also repaved seeing as it is TfL maintained as far as I know, and also it was finished off after the square opened. It's a bit academic as we are all guessing what scope of work we are talking about as being included in what figure.



> Its approx 2x larger.



Based on the reliability of your evidence so far, I will believe it when I see it.

Even if it is 2 x larger, then 6M would scale down to 3M (or more, if we take into account your front-loaded scaling thing) which is twice your 1.5M estimate.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Saltoun Rd was repaved along with the rest of the square, as was Rushcroft Rd. I decided to be generous and not include the bit of Effra road that was also repaved seeing as it is TfL maintained as far as I know, and also it was finished off after the square opened. It's a bit academic as we are all guessing what scope of work we are talking about as being included in what figure..



Its a road- Its not part of the Square (cars drive down it/park on it). Saltoun Rd was also finished off after the Square. 



teuchter said:


> Based on the reliability of your evidence so far, I will believe it when I see it.
> 
> Even if it is 2 x larger, then 6M would scale down to 3M (or more, if we take into account your front-loaded scaling thing) which is twice your 1.5M estimate.



You were to lazy to do the research for yourself so I pointed you in the right direction. 
The art to this is not only looking for the similarties but also the differences in the scaling.eg. Do half as many people traffic Windrush as Kings x? 
Is there a tube station? etc etc 
Its not a science but youre to dogmatic to be anything other than an internet "expert" thats why your opinions count for nothing in the real world.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2010)

teuchter; said:
			
		

> 9. Have you considered applying for a position at the News Of The World?.



Ha!


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2010)

Ps i think you me and him are all qualified in architecture to some extent. Shouldn't we be fighting the common enemy?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 13, 2010)

I quite like the Lyric Square - it has a ground-level fountain that children try to chase pigeons into - but I wouldn't say it was much of a public space. It's more like an open area in a mall. You basically use it as a cut-through or if you're sitting at one of the pubs and cafés around the edges.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Ps i think you me and him are all qualified in architecture to some extent. Shouldn't we be fighting the common enemy?



Prince Charles?


----------



## jezg (Jul 13, 2010)

editor said:


> Apparently it was Jamaica day according to the BBC News and there was a sprinter there to inspire the handful of people who showed up. Why wasn't this publicised properly?
> it.



The event was publicised via a very good quality attractive flyer that came thru my door from Aviva(sponsor) and UK Athletics. I'm on one of the roads off Effra Rd, no idea how broad the flyering was.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 14, 2010)

Crispy said:


> It's not concrete, it's quite nice stone



Why don't you just make it your tagline?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 14, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> Why don't you just make it your tagline?


 Why not?


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 14, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Why not?



Love your new tagline... You need an AJ style "actually...." at the end though...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 14, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Are we arguing about the difference between a "valid" opinion and a "qualified" opinion? This seems a little pedantic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You dont read other peoples posts properly.

What I was saying is that if you want a poll about validity u should do it  and say that is what its about.

I said I "might" think my opinion was valid. Not that i think it is . I was making an example. This is an instance of u not reading peoples posts properly.

To say im being Pedantic is a bit rich coming from u. I have been following your posts. You nit pick every detail of others posts.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 14, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> You dont read other peoples posts properly.
> 
> What I was saying is that if you want a poll about validity u should do it  and say that is what its about.
> 
> I said I "might" think my opinion was valid. Not that i think it is . I was making an example. This is an instance of u not reading peoples posts properly.



No, I can assure you that I read your post carefully. You said you "might" think your opinion was valid, I responded:

_But your opinion on the cost of the square *would not* be valid if you *didn't* know the cost of the square._

Note use of conditional "would". If you had said, "I think my opinion is valid" I would have responded:

_But your opinion on the cost of the square *is not* valid if you *don't* know the cost of the square._



> To say im being Pedantic is a bit rich coming from u. I have been following your posts. You nit pick every detail of others posts.



This I cannot deny. 

As for whether my poll explicitly asked "whether criticism of costs without knowing what they were is valid" (as I implied in my reply to the Editor in post 22) I can see that there is a (pedantic) argument to be made that that question was not explicitly asked, even though in my opinion it was fairly clear that part of the purpose of the thread/poll was to make that specific point. I say "make" because it is not really something that needs to be "asked": the answer to "is criticism of costs without knowing what they are valid" is "of course it isn't".

Therefore I will happily withdraw this part of my post 22:



> So to say the project was too expensive without making any effort to research the actual cost is fine ... and yet to start a thread asking whether criticism of costs without knowing what they were is valid, is somehow in contrast totally pointless?



And replace it with:



> So to say the project was too expensive without making any effort to research the actual cost is fine ... and yet to start a thread that
> a) makes the point that criticism of costs without knowing what they are is obviously insane,
> b) allows the identification of those posters whose opinion may be of some worth,
> c) allows the identification of those posters who are simply engaging in uninformed sensationalism,
> - is somehow in contrast totally pointless?



I hope this clears up any confusion.


----------



## billythefish (Jul 14, 2010)

Budget is one thing... scope of works is another.
For example, weren't the old fuel tanks still in the ground where the Texaco garage used to be? If so, they would have cost a bit to remove and infill.
Also - there was all the re-paving around the St. Matthew's island, outside the fridge, KFC corner etc.; the new road layout; were these included in the budget for Windrush Square?
One thing's for sure, the project was more than a simple bit of re-paving and landscaping.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 14, 2010)

billythefish said:


> Budget is one thing... scope of works is another.
> For example, weren't the old fuel tanks still in the ground where the Texaco garage used to be? If so, they would have cost a bit to remove and infill.
> Also - there was all the re-paving around the St. Matthew's island, outside the fridge, KFC corner etc.; the new road layout; were these included in the budget for Windrush Square?
> One thing's for sure, the project was more than a simple bit of re-paving and landscaping.



My hunch (in the absence of any firm information): the figure of around £10M relates to the entire scope of work including the high street and all the things you mention above; something like £4M relates to the square itself, inasmuch as it is possible to isolate it from the grander scheme.


----------



## innit (Jul 15, 2010)

Saw an old woman having a great big pee while sitting on one of the chairs the other day.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 15, 2010)

innit said:


> Saw an old woman having a great big pee while sitting on one of the chairs the other day.



she'll stain the concrete  quite nice stone.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 15, 2010)

innit said:


> Saw an old woman having a great big pee while sitting on one of the chairs the other day.



The proposals produced after the first public consultation included drains under each seat for exactly this purpose but they were taken out as a cost cutting exercise.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2010)

Rushy said:


> The proposals produced after the first public consultation included drains under each seat for exactly this purpose but they were taken out as a cost cutting exercise.


 
A seat with a hole in it and a drain underneath... I think there is a technical term for this...


----------



## lang rabbie (Jul 15, 2010)

*Quite Nice Stone*

Not sure where the stuff that isn't York stone was sourced, but I note that the granite, including the chunk for the giant turd, is sourced from Fujian in China.

BBS Granite Concepts case study


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2010)

Even in Aberdeen, the great granite city itself, granite these days is sourced from China and Portugal and all sorts of places...


----------



## strung out (Jul 15, 2010)

i was there this evening. thought it looked quite nice. better than before anyway.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2010)

strung_out said:


> i was there this evening. thought it looked quite nice. better than before anyway.



Did you think it represented good value for money?


----------



## strung out (Jul 15, 2010)

how much did it cost?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 15, 2010)

One hundred new pounds.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2010)

strung_out said:


> how much did it cost?



No-one knows. Just make something up, and then give your opinion.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2010)

quimcunx said:


> One hundred new pounds.



What is that in shillings?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 15, 2010)

2000.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2010)

quimcunx said:


> 2000.



Oh my days!


----------



## strung out (Jul 15, 2010)

i counted nine people sat on chairs at about 10.30 by the way


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 15, 2010)

am or pm?


----------



## strung out (Jul 15, 2010)

pm

at £10m, that's over a million quid per person


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 15, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Oh my days!



4000 sixpences!


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 15, 2010)

strung_out said:


> pm
> 
> at £10m, that's over a million quid per person



Only if the square only existed for the time it took you to count the people.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2010)

strung_out said:


> pm
> 
> at £10m, that's over a million quid per person



That is scandalous.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2010)

Monday 19/07 update: 

Counted 18 people seated in chairs, 7 on the turd and at least 20 on the grass.


----------



## strung out (Jul 19, 2010)

i counted 19 on the chairs on sunday!


----------



## section106 (Jul 20, 2010)

*Value for Money*

Jesus Christ!!! 

Six pages and numerous post on semantics ! ! 

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

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

However, I think it will prove to represent value for money. For a start, it looks better than before. It's also easier to walk through the square now. Late at night, it feels safer than before. Street drinkers dont gather in there anymore, etc...

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


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2010)

section106 said:


> However, I think it will prove to represent value for money. For a start, it looks better than before. It's also easier to walk through the square now. Late at night, it feels safer than before. Street drinkers dont gather in there anymore, etc...
> 
> The project aimed to create a safe, high-quality public space. The rationale behind was  to avoid those "collectives perceived as threatening" to gather in groups. Thats why there are no benches and chairs are grouped in a maximum of three.  I think its called "designing out crime". Another aim was to give the square an identity, to promote sociability (everytime I pass by there is quite a lot of people on the grass enjoying the sun), and to ease people's movement.


Not sure why it's "easier" to walk through the square, but could you describe the key elements of its new "identity," please?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 20, 2010)

There are still street drinkers there.  It's just that lots of other people are there now too.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 20, 2010)

editor said:


> Not sure why it's "easier" to walk through the square


 
Because the lo-level walls around the big tree, and the fences round the grass, have been removed.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2010)

section106 said:


> Jesus Christ!!!
> 
> Six pages and numerous post on semantics ! !
> 
> ...


 
There are a whole 24 other pages here, included in which is some discussion of the various things you mention above.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Because the lo-level walls around the big tree, and the fences round the grass, have been removed.


Not sure that I ever found them to be such a huge impediment myself.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 20, 2010)

editor said:


> Not sure that I ever found them to be such a huge impediment myself.


 
good for you


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2010)

*Windrush Square Seating Update*

Tuesday 20th July 2010 - 17:37 
Temperature approx 25-26°C

20 people occupying 33 seats gives an approximate occupancy rate of 60.606061% 
15 on the turd 
8 on the grass


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2010)

Stay tuned for the next update


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2010)

33 seats?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 21, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> 33 seats?


 
I counted them twice


----------



## Badgers (Jul 22, 2010)

Not one seat occupied this morning. 

This is clearly an anarchic protest at the cost of the square and the choice of stone used (((solidarity)))


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Jul 23, 2010)

22/7/10 @ 23:37 

15 (approx) seats occupied

no turd action

and quite a few people milling about, though they might have been waiting for a bus


----------



## teuchter (Jul 23, 2010)

There were 3 people on seats yesterday morning at about 9.45.


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2010)

I still find it weird the way that the flooring changes as you get closer to Effra Road - it's done so badly that it feels like you're stepping into the road.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 23, 2010)

They had spray wagons on the square 2 or 3 mornings last week, firing their high pressured jets at the stained concrete/nice stone/pisssurface. Worryingly, despite the presence of multiple vehicles, many clipboarded officials and men in high visibility jackets, they never seemed to get much past the Ritzy. It could be Brixton's equivalent of the Forth Bridge at that rate.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 23, 2010)

editor said:


> I still find it weird the way that the flooring changes as you get closer to Effra Road - it's done so badly that it feels like you're stepping into the road.


 
What do you mean exactly? How does it change?


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2010)

teuchter said:


> What do you mean exactly? How does it change?


Haven't you seen it? It goes from stone to brick as you step down from the area outside the Ritzy into the wide open expanse close to the road (to the right, below). It's clearly designed to mark a different zone of some sorts.







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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 23, 2010)

It's a different material to the roadway. And you'd have to go over the kerb. I'm not going to lose any sleep over people accidentally driving onto the square on account of it having a non-uniform paving material (which is hardly unusual).

I'd have thought you'd be in favour of having differently paved areas - what with the complaints about the uninterrupted "expanse" of posh non-concrete.


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2010)

Is understand now that you are on some sort of bizarre, near-religious mission to defend just about every aspect of the new square design, but other people's opinions are just as valid, you know, and I don't like the way that open expanse feels like it's part of the road. My girlfriend feels the same, too. 

End of.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 23, 2010)

End of what?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 23, 2010)

editor said:


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


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


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2010)

Crispy said:


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


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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 23, 2010)

editor said:


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


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


----------



## Crispy (Jul 23, 2010)

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 23, 2010)




----------



## Onket (Jul 23, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2010)

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


----------



## Onket (Jul 23, 2010)

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


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2010)

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

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

Might explain why it looks poor in design terms.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 23, 2010)

13, perhaps 14 seated tonight. 

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


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2010)

section106 said:


> Jesus Christ!!!
> 
> Six pages and numerous post on semantics ! !
> 
> ...



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

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

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

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


----------



## Badgers (Jul 27, 2010)

2 on the seats 
2 on the turd

That was just past 11pm last night though.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 27, 2010)

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 27, 2010)

About 11 seated this morning around 9.30.


----------



## Onket (Jul 27, 2010)

Halfheated, eh. Interesting.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 28, 2010)

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


----------



## Crispy (Jul 28, 2010)

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


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 28, 2010)

put a club down there - like ginglik/public life


----------



## Crispy (Jul 28, 2010)

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


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 28, 2010)

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


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 28, 2010)

or they could always be actually used as toilets


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2010)

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


----------



## Badgers (Jul 29, 2010)

Only 1 seat in use this morning


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


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


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

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


----------



## tarannau (Jul 29, 2010)

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

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


----------



## tarannau (Jul 29, 2010)

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

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

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

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


----------



## tarannau (Jul 29, 2010)

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

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

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


----------



## tarannau (Jul 29, 2010)

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

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


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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

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


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 29, 2010)

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

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

/toilet chat


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

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

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


----------



## tarannau (Jul 29, 2010)

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

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


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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



tarannau said:


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


Absolutely.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


> gixxer1000 was moaning .


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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


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


That would have been nice. Educational too.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


> No need really, as the space in front of Kings Cross is actually not that much bigger than Windrush Square.
> 
> By my Google estimations, about 1.25 x the size.
> 
> £6M / 1.25 = £4.8M scaled-down cost for Windrush Square; presumably more if we are to believe the "front end loading" you talk about is significant.



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

WS is  0.43 x Kings x

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

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

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

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


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



_Loony Lambeth Councillors Spend Taxpayers' Millions on Toilets open for 20 Days a Year_

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



Gixxer1000 said:


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


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

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


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


> The fact that the Popes Road toilets require an attendant is, I imagine, the reason they close at night. The same would apply to the ones in Windrush Square.
> 
> In addition I would imagine that the age of the building and infrastructure (and subsurface location) would mean the Windrush Square ones would be a lot more costly to maintain. And they wouldn't conform to modern accessibility standards.
> 
> And I haven't said that people would be "up in arms about a lack of imagination" if public toilets were offered.  Some people would ask questions about the cost, though, and whoever made the decision would have to be able to justify it on cost grounds.


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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

editor said:


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


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

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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

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


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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

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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

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


----------



## tarannau (Jul 29, 2010)

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



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



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

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


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2010)

tarannau said:


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


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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


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



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



teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

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

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

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

4630/7000 x £6M = *£3.97M*

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



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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Who would have thought the crap rusty fountain took so much time/money/craftsmanship to be so shit;
> 
> http://www.hargreavesfoundry.co.uk/casestudies/casestudyview/23


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


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 29, 2010)

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

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

Has anyone FOId tfl or Lambeth yet?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


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



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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> TfL ;
> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/6597.aspx
> 
> "Tate Gardens and Windrush Square will be joined together to create a 3000m2 area which will be used for a mix of cultural activities and events."
> ...



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

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





Gixxer1000 said:


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


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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


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



Suggested by whom?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> So between no one knowing how much it cost, what the complete extent of the works were (are we talking _only_ about WS, or the re-alignment of the roads, resurfacing etc all the way down the high street), axes being ground by various types, does anyone seriously think we're going to get an answer to this?
> 
> I mean Ed would probably argue til the cows come home that even if it only cost £500K that it's still shite VFM, and others would argue the same point at £10m, if that included all the other works.
> 
> Has anyone FOId tfl or Lambeth yet?


 
No - would you like to volunteer?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Well, I'm afraid it ain't. I have measured it directly of a CAD version of the OS map. Even if you look at it on Google satellite you can see that it's more than 3000m2.
> 
> Maybe they meant that 3000m2 is the effective open area for events.
> 
> ...



LOL hope you subtracted the tree, the toilets etc.

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Suggested by whom?


 
TfL prior to work.

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

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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


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



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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


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



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

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

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




Gixxer1000 said:


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



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

The only numbers I am aware of are:

£10M final cost for whole of Brixton Centre works

£4.25M projected cost for WS

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





Gixxer1000 said:


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


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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


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



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





teuchter said:


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



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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 29, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Ah, so you are saying it was a rip-off as in, if it was a privately owned square, it could have been delivered for less money?
> 
> The problem with this is that it is a publicly owned square.
> .


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


----------



## Badgers (Jul 29, 2010)

12 seated
2 on the turd

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


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



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



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



I haven't manipulated anything.

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

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

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


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


 
Relative to what? How could this have been avoided?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2010)

editor said:


> How about: "would you prefer slightly less fancy stone paving and toilets or just the fancy stone?"
> 
> I'd say some the provision of decent toilets would have been appreciated more by the majority of residents and visitors. What do you think, Mr Windrush Square #1 fan?


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

As for this "Number 1 Fan" stuff - why is it so important to portray me as being so blindly enamored of the new square? I've already said that there is stuff to criticise and stuff that might have been better. My view is simply that given the conditions it had to be created under, I don't think it's a bad job. And reasoned criticism of it is fine - it's the uninformed criticism that irritates me. For example, going off on one about how "staggeringly expensive" it is _without even knowing how much it cost_. 

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


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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



teuchter said:


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



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

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


 
How about this:

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

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

So my first go at an answer to the question

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

would be:

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2010)

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


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2010)

teuchter said:


> How about this:
> 
> Let's say the existing natural stone paving cost about £65 per m2.
> Let's say we replace it with bog standard concrete slabs at a super-cheap price of £15 per m2.
> ...


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

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


----------



## Crispy (Jul 30, 2010)

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


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 30, 2010)

it's just a square


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2010)

Crispy said:


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


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

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

Which I'm going to do again now.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2010)

editor said:


> Weird how you're quick to try and rubbish people's opinions about the development by throwing around completely unqualified and wild guesses on costings, yet you won't spend any time at all actually researching the real overall cost.
> 
> If you're so hung up on costing, why don't you get the actual figures so you've got something to argue against?



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

Have I understood the rules properly here?


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2010)

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

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


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2010)

teuchter said:


> A press release, giving a single figure as the cost for all the work in Brixton, of which Windrush Square is only part. And along with that no attempt to relate anything to any similar schemes or any kind of going rate.
> 
> The reason I've posted so many times on this thread is that I have to keep pointing out the same basic things over and over again.


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

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

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

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


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2010)

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


----------



## Badgers (Jul 30, 2010)

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

Four seated and an empty turd.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 30, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## Badgers (Aug 4, 2010)

16 seated 
1 on turd


----------



## Badgers (Aug 5, 2010)

13 seated 
2 on turd 

Around 12:00 today ^


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 5, 2010)

turdwatch


----------



## tarannau (Aug 5, 2010)

Sadly that's not too inaccurate in the morning. Somebody's a very dirty boy on those chairs.


The sprayclean team were out again Wednesday or perhaps the day before, moving very slightly away from the Ritzy and towards the tree. That's 4 visits I know about in the past month, and it's only very marginally better. 

The fountain seems buggered too of late, blowing everywhere in the wind and leaving a big puddle and drain channel of water down to one side by Rushcroft. It was a bit of a damp rubbish-attracting piss-stream the other other day. It doesn't seem to be holding up very well to use.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2010)

South Bank:






Brixton:





Why didn't they put in a drainage grill further away from the circle? Did they think the water would only go up and come down vertically, no matter what the weather?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 6, 2010)

Ah yes, the cones photo again.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Ah yes, the cones photo again.


OK. Imagine the cones aren't there. Now tell me what you think of a design that leaves vast puddles dribbling their way towards Rushcroft Road. Are you impressed? Do you think perhaps the fountain could have been in a better location and that a better job could have been done with the drainage?

And how about the shape, size, strength of the fountain. How does that shape up to the picture above which shows the kind of fountains seen in quite a few locations in the UK. 

Have you an opinion, or are you blinded by the cones?


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2010)

To be fair, they've also put crash barriers around the edges of the sprinkers this morning, or at least just to the right of the thing - it looks as if they're doing some repairs anyway.

I'm slightly more indifferent to it than the Ed - it looks good on a sunny day - but it's been a bit of a dribbling, rubbish attracting eyesore of late, not helped by it gushing a trench of water onto the square and gutters. I'm guessing that something's not working properly at the moment - my understanding that it was meant to turn off in higher winds, but come gusty Wed/Thurs it had created a bit of an exclusion zone, discharging its watery payload mainly into Rushcroft Road.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 6, 2010)

editor said:


> tell me what you think of a design that leaves vast puddles dribbling their way towards Rushcroft Road. Are you impressed?


 I think it's a water feature that isn't yet working  as intended. It's not particularly ambitious, it's not supposed to be an 'attraction' - which is your photographic comparison with the 'Appearing Rooms', seasonal,  South Bank project, it causes no diminution of space when not switched on and kids will enjoy it. It's not the end of the world that it's got teething problems and I'm not interested in a  rush to judgement about it.

You are though.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I think it's a water feature that isn't yet working  as intended. It's not particularly ambitious, it's not supposed to be an 'attraction' - which is your photographic comparison with the 'Appearing Rooms', seasonal,  South Bank project, it causes no diminution of space when not switched on and kids will enjoy it. It's not the end of the world that it's got teething problems and I'm not interested in a  rush to judgement about it.
> 
> You are though.


The fountains in Somerset Square cause zero diminution of space when not switched on. And yes - I am "rushing" to criticise something paid for by taxpayers that has been up and working for *several months*. The way the water slops all over Windrush Square smacks of poor planning/execution to me, Why shouldn't I criticise it?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2010)

I imagine the fountains at Somerset House or the one on the South Bank were staggeringly expensive.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Aug 6, 2010)

But you dont know how much they cost, so you cant possibly comment <sniggers>


----------



## teuchter (Sep 7, 2010)

**update**

Well, some time ago I was berated (by people who couldn't be bothered to do some proper research before making sensationalist statements) for being too lazy to go and find out the facts for myself (to counter their spurious remarks).

So I made FOI requests to both Lambeth council and TfL, asking what the final cost of the square was.

Lambeth's response was a bit vague, although to be fair to them, the funding for the actual building work itself didn't come from them. However, they did confirm that prior to the work starting it was established that:




			
				Lambeth said:
			
		

> costs associated with clienting and funding the progression of designs of the square to for a planning application to be around £55,000, which would be met within existing budgets of the Future Lambeth / Revitalise Physical Regeneration Programme



TfL have stated that:



> In November 2009, the gyratory system around St Matthews Church was removed and Brixton Hill widened to allow two-way traffic.  These changes have helped improve road safety and access to the town centre.  The improvement works in Brixton Town Centre have provided benefits to the local community, drivers and users of public transport and are complimented by the new Windrush Square.  Funding for the scheme was provided by the LDA and TfL.  The total investment is £9,685,000. Of this total investment £2.9million was committed to Windrush Square.



So there you have it.

The "staggering" £10M was (as suspected) not for the square but for the entirety of the works to the town centre.

The actual cost of the square itself is identified as *£2.9M*.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 7, 2010)

I've put this on the other thread too but if anyone is interested:

In response to FOI requests:

Lambeth have stated that prior to the work starting it was established that:




			
				Lambeth said:
			
		

> costs associated with clienting and funding the progression of designs of the square to for a planning application to be around £55,000, which would be met within existing budgets of the Future Lambeth / Revitalise Physical Regeneration Programme



TfL have stated that:




			
				TfL said:
			
		

> In November 2009, the gyratory system around St Matthews Church was removed and Brixton Hill widened to allow two-way traffic.  These changes have helped improve road safety and access to the town centre.  The improvement works in Brixton Town Centre have provided benefits to the local community, drivers and users of public transport and are complimented by the new Windrush Square.  Funding for the scheme was provided by the LDA and TfL.  The total investment is £9,685,000. Of this total investment £2.9million was committed to Windrush Square.


----------



## strung out (Sep 7, 2010)

i can finally vote on the poll


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Well, some time ago I was berated (by people who couldn't be bothered to do some proper research before making sensationalist statements) for being too lazy to go and find out the facts for myself (to counter their spurious remarks)..


You've got that a bit arse about tit, you div. It was you who couldn't be arsed to do any research at the time, and it was you who started this pointless, childish poll when the amount wasn't known.

But well done for finally getting off your arse. Eventually.

Oh, and do I think the square represents the very best value residents could have got for £3m? No, I don't. 

And that windswept puddle-making 'fountain' is still a disaster. 

You wouldn't think it to look at it, but this pic was actually taken on a dry day!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 7, 2010)

Now now, according to Hargreaves the fountain:








> With a strong sense of drama, it produces a dome of mist which is lit from below the rings of cast iron. This atmospheric creation is the focal point of a hard landscaping scheme to unite three well-loved and well-used local landmarks – Tate Gardens, Windrush Square and St Matthews Peace Gardens – and provides a safe and high quality public space for the residents of Brixton



Furthermore



> Hargreaves Foundry brought together its specialist team in Halifax to produce the unique and* technically challenging water feature*, while its Hargreaves China production team supplied the 16 tons of paving materials.




























Still shite though


----------



## teuchter (Sep 7, 2010)

editor said:


> You've got that a bit arse about tit, you div. It was you who couldn't be arsed to do any research at the time, and it was you who started this pointless, childish poll when the amount wasn't known.


 
Just a brief recap. 



editor said:


> Here's the official press release for the opening with the total cost: *£9.7 million *
> 
> 
> 
> I trust this meets teucher's "standards for proper research" (even if he seems unable to do any himself).



No, it didn't meet my standards for proper research, and the information that I have now made available vindicates my suspicion of that "research", because that "research" turned up a figure which was 334% of the actual, correct figure.

Anyway that is to some extent a moot point because what this is really about is this:



editor said:


> Oh, and do I think the square represents the very best value residents could have got for £[insert any figure you feel like here]? No, I don't.


 

And yes there is a problem with the overspill from the fountain.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 7, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Just a brief recap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


I don't think it should even be allowed to be called a fountain.  Spray maybe?


----------



## Winot (Sep 8, 2010)

teuchter wins - end of thread


----------



## Crispy (Sep 13, 2010)

teuchter said:


> The "staggering" £10M was (as suspected) not for the square but for the entirety of the works to the town centre.
> 
> The actual cost of the square itself is identified as *£2.9M*.


 
Excellent work, mr teuchter  - That's a totally reasonable price for the scale of works undertaken IMO, so any controversy can be laid to rest.


----------



## Onket (Sep 13, 2010)

Winot said:


> teuchter wins - end of thread


 
He'd already won way back, tbf.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2010)

So everyone agrees that the square - and its marvellous fountain, wide open spaces and paucity of seats and trees - represents the best possible value for money? 

Jolly good. That's settled then.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 13, 2010)

not "best possible" but "good" - yes, IMO.

4630 sq.m.
£2.9m

£626/sq.m.

This is a good price, for town center urban landscaping


----------



## Onket (Sep 13, 2010)

I feel it's quite expensive for what we've got out of it, actually.

But then, if it is the market rate, etc....


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> not "best possible" but "good" - yes, IMO.
> 
> 4630 sq.m.
> £2.9m
> ...


That's just the hard money side of it, but how about how it looks, its value to the community, its design,  its capabilities to host functions, the quality of its fountain, the feel of the place etc etc?

Do you think that's the best we could have got or do you think it falls short?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 13, 2010)

It could have been better. That fountains not fantastic, and the cycle parking is in the wrong place, but otherwise its good and has always been a pleasant place to be in when I've been there. I've relaxed on the grass with friends several times, due to the reduced traffic going up effra road and the lack of fences. I'd never done that in all the time I lived in brixton. The layout seemed to work well enough for events at brixton splash. If the underground toilets could have been removed, i think a more cohesive layout could have been achieved. They're in completely the wrong place.

It looks good and seems to be used well.


----------



## co-op (Sep 13, 2010)

editor said:


> That's just the hard money side of it, but how about how it looks, its value to the community, its design,  its capabilities to host functions, the quality of its fountain, the feel of the place etc etc?
> 
> Do you think that's the best we could have got or do you think it falls short?


 
The real reason it fails as a true town square - or at least as a place which will really work as a 'civic forum' is basically because it's a motorway lay-by; and there's no design of the peripheral space which gets rid of the 6 lanes of traffic going N-S and the 5/3 lanes going Acre Lane - Coldharbour Lane. I reckon.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> It could have been better. That fountains not fantastic, and the cycle parking is in the wrong place, but otherwise its good and has always been a pleasant place to be in when I've been there. I've relaxed on the grass with friends several times, due to the reduced traffic going up effra road and the lack of fences. I'd never done that in all the time I lived in brixton. The layout seemed to work well enough for events at brixton splash. If the underground toilets could have been removed, i think a more cohesive layout could have been achieved. They're in completely the wrong place.
> 
> It looks good and seems to be used well.


I like the grassy bit at the 'back.'


----------



## Crispy (Sep 13, 2010)

co-op said:


> The real reason it fails as a true town square - or at least as a place which will really work as a 'civic forum' is basically because it's a motorway lay-by; and there's no design of the peripheral space which gets rid of the 6 lanes of traffic going N-S and the 5/3 lanes going Acre Lane - Coldharbour Lane. I reckon.


 
This is true. A traditional Square has active frontages on at least 3 sides. Windrush Square has 1/2 an active side. The other half of that side is derelict (but hopefully the BCA will get built). One other side is a residential road and the other two are busy through roads. Its function is more like that of a wide pavement.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2010)

I think people are getting a bit too hung up on whether or not it's a "square". No design could eliminate the A23, or magically turn a residential street into an "active frontage". It would have been nice to redirect the traffic going up Effra road so that it formed a continuous space with the St Matthews Gardens; this hasn't happened due to residents' objections so you can't blame that on the designers.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's a "square". It's a public space. There are lots of public spaces in lots of cities and each is different and gets used differently. The brief here was to improve this bit of public space in such a way that it works in the way that is required in this location. Most people seem to agree it's a significant improvement on what was there before, and it appears to have been delivered on a reasonable budget. It's not perfect but it's pretty good considering the nature of the client(s) and the budget.

It would have been better if I had designed it, on an unlimited budget and with the power to overrule anyone else involved or consulted upon as I saw fit. Unfortunately on this occasion this was not the case, and therefore the result falls short of that particular potentially high standard.


----------



## T & P (Sep 13, 2010)

editor said:


> That's just the hard money side of it, but how about how it looks, its value to the community, its design,  its capabilities to host functions, the quality of its fountain, the feel of the place etc etc?
> 
> Do you think that's the best we could have got or do you think it falls short?


 A bit of a mischievious question isn't it? Even if you get a finished product that you think is really, really good, could anyone say was the best it could have possibly been?

Perhaps what you should be asking is, 'is the new square a significant improvement in relation to the previous setting, and has it made the place more welcoming and enjoyable for the community?'

My answer would be a resounding 'yes', and judging by comments both here and in the 'real' world I've heard, I'd say a great many locals would agree.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2010)

T & P said:


> My answer would be a resounding 'yes', and judging by comments both here and in the 'real' world I've heard, I'd say a great many locals would agree.


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> 4630 sq.m.
> £2.9m
> 
> £626/sq.m.
> ...



Without wanting to sound like the Taxpayer's Alliance - I think anyone involved with the urban design professions has to ask why are such projects so expensive in *absolute *terms, and not just relative to other publicly procured projects.  

From memory it requires about 60 bricks per square metre and top quality pavers can be got for under £400 for a pallet of 400, so the raw materials amounted to less than 10% of overall costs per square metre.

So where exactly was the value added (or the money wasted on fruitless activities/poorly co-ordinated tasks) ?  I know there was some more fundamental work to relay drains and create storm chambers etc [although it is not clear whether those were charged to the cost of the square or the street works], but otherwise this was not a major piece of civil engineering.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 14, 2010)

It'd be nice to get a breakdown of materials and labour, yes


----------



## editor (Sep 14, 2010)

I wonder if they're ever going to fix the fountain or if the Windrush Puddle is set to become a permanent feature of Windswept Square.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> Without wanting to sound like the Taxpayer's Alliance - I think anyone involved with the urban design professions has to ask why are such projects so expensive in *absolute *terms, and not just relative to other publicly procured projects.



It's a valid question to ask ... although if you are talking about "expensive" then it has to be in relation to _something_ else. 

It's a little simplistic to talk about raw materials just in terms of the cost of stone pavers though ... there are all the specially shaped ones to form steps and so forth, granite kerb edges which need to be made to the correct radius before they arrive on site, and so on. It's not like you just order 4000 square metres of paving slabs. Then there's all the other stuff - lighting and all the wiring for it, the partly matured trees, and other street furniture.

And then there are labour costs and machinery and all the overheads a contractor has to pay to keep a site running.

It would be interesting to see how it breaks down, like Crispy says. Someone else can do the FOI for that, though.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2010)

editor said:


> I wonder if they're ever going to fix the fountain or if the Windrush Puddle is set to become a permanent feature of Windswept Square.


 
Maybe you could see if you could get something done about it beyond complaining on here.


----------



## co-op (Sep 14, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I think people are getting a bit too hung up on whether or not it's a "square". No design could eliminate the A23, or magically turn a residential street into an "active frontage". It would have been nice to redirect the traffic going up Effra road so that it formed a continuous space with the St Matthews Gardens; this hasn't happened due to residents' objections so you can't blame that on the designers.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether or not it's a "square". It's a public space. There are lots of public spaces in lots of cities and each is different and gets used differently. The brief here was to improve this bit of public space in such a way that it works in the way that is required in this location. Most people seem to agree it's a significant improvement on what was there before, and it appears to have been delivered on a reasonable budget. It's not perfect but it's pretty good considering the nature of the client(s) and the budget.



I wasn't really criticising it (the redesign) on the basis of not being a 'proper' square, I was saying that _any_ redesign would have been screwed by the A23. There's something about having a thundering motorway next to a space that pretty much destroys it. Editor posted some photos comparing Windrush with the South Bank a while back on this thread and although you can argue it's an unfair comparison in some ways it did make me wonder why that bit of the southbank is so nice compared to WS - and one key reason for me is that it's on the river, not on an urban motorway.

FWIW - and some on here may not be surprised to hear this - I'd close the road and happily. 

Bring back the Effra!


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 14, 2010)

> a thundering motorway



The A23 isn't a motorway, thundering or otherwise. It's a 2.5-lane road with a 30mph limit. Not a motorway. But then you are a crazy person when it comes to cars.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 14, 2010)

co-op said:


> Bring back the Effra!


 
It's a sewer. Best left underground.


----------



## editor (Sep 14, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Maybe you could see if you could get something done about it beyond complaining on here.


With my critical article on Windrush Square being #1 in Google for "Windrush Square fountain" and the threads here coming in #2 and #3, I'm sure if anyone gives a fuck at the council they would have already read my comments.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2010)

I would have thought that a brief email to a local councillor or MP would have much more chance of actually resulting in some action than relying on someone at the council idly googling "Windrush Square Fountain", seeing some stuff on the internet and volunteering to do something about it.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> The A23 isn't a motorway, thundering or otherwise. It's a 2.5-lane road with a 30mph limit. Not a motorway. But then you are a crazy person when it comes to cars.


 
As someone who has to try and cross it at least once a day I beg to differ. It's not literally a motorway of course but it is a multi-lane road which is very busy, carries a lot of heavy traffic and the 30mph limit isn't exactly universally observed.

But then again I'm another crazy person when it comes to cars.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 14, 2010)

editor said:


> I wonder if they're ever going to fix the fountain or if the Windrush Puddle is set to become a permanent feature of Windswept Square.


 


teuchter said:


> Maybe you could see if you could get something done about it beyond complaining on here.


 


editor said:


> With my critical article on Windrush Square being #1 in Google for "Windrush Square fountain" and the threads here coming in #2 and #3, I'm sure if anyone gives a fuck at the council they would have already read my comments.



Ed - you've done a great job setting up this website and it is a real asset to the community but I am surprised that you think it should stop you having to take the same consultation routes as anyone else. As well as all the great stuff this site is also mixed in with quite a lot of shit (petty arguments, abuse, etc..) I would be pretty disappointed to think that someone at the council was spending too much time filtering through all of that looking for some gems from anonymous posters. If you have taken the time to write a constructive article send it to key people: councillors, MPs, Town Centre Manager, Chief Executive and Planning. You can do it by email and it will take you five minutes. You could even add key quotes from posters on U75. And they have to respond. The only advice I would give you for any such correspondence is that you will be taken more seriously if you are seen to give some credit as well as constructive criticism - the council reps are often a sensitive bunch and your voice will easily get lost in amongst all the angry people who do nothing but complain all day (which I am sure you are not).  



teuchter said:


> I would have thought that a brief email to a local councillor or MP would have much more chance of actually resulting in some action than relying on someone at the council idly googling "Windrush Square Fountain", seeing some stuff on the internet and volunteering to do something about it.



I actually went to the committee meeting at which the plans for the square were finally approved. There were no details for the fountain and I spoke for a minute or so on how the fountain would be the centrepiece and how there was an opportunity to do something special like Somerset House or the temporary one outside RFH, etc.. The committee seemed to be completely (dare I say enthusiastically) in agreement and added a specific condition that the design of the fountain would have to be separately approved. Not sure who eventually signed it off but unfortunately conditions do not have to be publically consulted and I presume it was just a box ticking exercise by a junior rather than a properly considered approval: "Have they submitted a design for a fountain? Yes. Has it been submitted on the correct size piece of paper? Yes. Is the scale correct and is there an arrow showing north? Yes. Is it time to go home? Almost. TICK!". I imagine that the council themselves aren't too impressed with the fountain and I'll certainly be asking the Town Centre Manager whether there is any likelihood that it could be changed - often these things are easier to get done if tied into another project.

That said, I have been looking forward to the new square since it was proposed in about 2000 and I am really pleased with the final result. Given a blank canvass and autocratic free reign it is not entirely what I would have built but it is a vast improvement and I love walking across it (just not too close to the fountain when the wind is blowing!). Yes you can pick holes in it but you can pick holes in anything.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 14, 2010)

I should also add that nothing is likely to come of a single letter. If you think it is important you have to keep working at it until you get the attention of a sympathetic ear and then help maintain its momentum.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 14, 2010)

teuchter said:


> As someone who has to try and cross it at least once a day I beg to differ. It's not literally a motorway of course but it is a multi-lane road which is very busy, carries a lot of heavy traffic and the 30mph limit isn't exactly universally observed.
> 
> But then again I'm another crazy person when it comes to cars.


 
I ride down it every day, busier than some roads in London, not as busy as others - personally I find it easier and safer to ride down than many other roads I have to take on my commute, but horses for courses...


----------



## co-op (Sep 14, 2010)

Crispy said:


> It's a sewer. Best left underground.


 
It's a sewer because that's what we chose it to be. Could easily be a river again.


----------



## co-op (Sep 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> The A23 isn't a motorway, thundering or otherwise. It's a 2.5-lane road with a 30mph limit. Not a motorway. I am unable to understand the concept of simile. Especially when it comes to the A23 in Brixton which is a whispering glade of sylvan delight, casting mellow vibes where so e'er it goes. But then I am a crazy person when it comes to cars.


 
Fixed it for you.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 14, 2010)

And you need to learn the difference between similie and hyperbole.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 14, 2010)

A23 doesn't bother me at all when I'm sitting in windrush square but it's right outside my living room window too so I'm used to chilling out to its mellow vibes.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 14, 2010)

Well the nice thing is that the A23 northbound no longer has to go up Effra road, making the grassy bit much more pleasant. A damn shame it wasn't closed altogether.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 14, 2010)

Is it still the A23, or has the bit along Effra road been reclassified as A204?


----------



## Onket (Sep 14, 2010)

Interesting stuff. This is what it's all about.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 14, 2010)

As a council tax payer, I'm happy enough with the remodelled area. It looks better, seems to have more than just the collection of characters getting pissed in front of the Ritzy around it when I go past, and it's not been horrendously expensive, plus there's been a really useful traffic flow remodelling thing happen which benefits me as a pedestrian, cyclist, bus user _and_ car driver.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> As a council tax payer


 
you had little to do with windrush square, which was paid for by TFL


----------



## co-op (Sep 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> And you need to learn the difference between similie and hyperbole.


 
And you need to learn that the two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 14, 2010)

Crispy said:


> you had little to do with windrush square, which was paid for by TFL


 
As a regular user of TfL's services...etc

Hang on, if that's the case, where's the beef? Was there a load of local money thrown at this, or not?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2010)

As far as I can make out from the responses I got, the funding all came from TfL and the LDA, with the exception of c. £55,000 from Lambeth which paid for the "clienting" of the design.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Sep 14, 2010)

So what percentage of this anecdotal figure of £10M was consultants or internal fees? Do you know the breakdown?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2010)

If I knew the breakdown I would post it.

Feel free to do an FOI to find out.

Which are the consultants that you generally feel should be dispensed with?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Sep 15, 2010)

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


----------



## Crispy (Sep 15, 2010)

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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


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


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

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

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

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

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



Gixxer1000 said:


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



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



Gixxer1000 said:


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



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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Sep 15, 2010)

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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> was estimated as circa £3m.


 
Where / when / by whom?


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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

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

You disagree. Well, there you go.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 16, 2010)

What I recall clearly is:



editor said:


> Spot on.
> 
> Seven million quid on the square and still no toilets.


 


teuchter said:


> Where has this £7M figure come from, anyway?
> 
> The TfL info says that Phase 3 (Windrush Sq *and* changes to traffic flow around St Matthews etc) was set to cost £4.25M. It's entirely possible there was a cost overrun but it would be good to see where these numbers are coming from.


 


editor said:


> Seeing as you're so hung up about the numbers, why don't you research the exact final cost?


 


teuchter said:


> Because I'm not the one complaining about it being bad value for money. I'm not actually the one who's "hung up about the numbers".


 


editor said:


> You're the one disputing the figure that was posted up.


 


teuchter said:


> I'm not disputing, just questioning the source.





editor said:


> So how much did it cost then?





teuchter said:


> I don't know. Which is one of the reasons I can't offer an opinion on value for money. It's the same reason you can't offer a meaningful opinion on value for money. I'd have thought you would get this point by now. I've only been repeating it for several pages already.
> 
> The best figure I have at present is the projected £4.25 including a substantial amount of road realignment. I do not know what proportion of that can be attributed to the square itself.


 


editor said:


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


 


Onket said:


> That's an estimated figure, estimated in advance.


 


editor said:


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


 


Onket said:


> I have not heard anything either, but that doesn't mean the figure isn't wildly inaccurate, of course.
> 
> Something to go on though, yes.


 


editor said:


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


 


teuchter said:


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


 


editor said:


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





lang rabbie said:


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





teuchter said:


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


 


editor said:


> It was quite busy yesterday. But not_ £10 million_ busy


 
and then from this thread:



teuchter said:


> Do you think the new Windrush Square represents good value for money?
> 
> Anecdotal evidence suggests that the cost of the work is somewhere in the region of £500,000 to £10,000,000.





editor said:


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


 


editor said:


> A more recent estimate put the figure at* £9.5m*.
> 
> http://www.designforlondon.gov.uk/what-we-do/all/brixton/


 


teuchter said:


> I don't think there's a date for that article unless I'm missing something so we don't know how up to date it is.
> 
> It's not entirely clear whether the figure is just for Phase 3, or all phases, and how much is attributable to the square itself.


 


editor said:


> It seems that the previous figure of £9.5m was inaccurate.
> 
> In fact, it cost _another £200,000_, taking the total to a fairly staggering £9.7m (see other thread for source).


 


teuchter said:


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


 


editor said:


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


 


teuchter said:


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


 


editor said:


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



etc etc etc

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

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

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


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Sep 16, 2010)

teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## teuchter (Sep 16, 2010)

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

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


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 6, 2011)

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

	
	
		
		

		
			





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


----------



## newbie (Jun 4, 2011)

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


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2011)

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


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2011)

teuchter said:


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


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


----------



## Crispy (Jun 4, 2011)

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


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2011)

Crispy said:


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


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


----------



## colacubes (Jun 4, 2011)

Crispy said:


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



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


----------



## nagapie (Jun 4, 2011)

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

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


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2011)

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


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jun 4, 2011)

teuchter said:


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


 
Details of tables and chairs fees payable here.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 4, 2011)

editor said:


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


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


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2011)

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


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


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


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


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 4, 2011)

editor said:


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


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


----------



## newbie (Jun 4, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Details of tables and chairs fees payable here.


 
thankyou, I've never heard of that before.

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

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

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


----------



## newbie (Jun 4, 2011)

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


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 4, 2011)

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

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


----------



## newbie (Jun 4, 2011)

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


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2011)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2011)

teuchter said:


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


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

Lots have nice fountains that you can sit around too.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 4, 2011)

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


----------



## newbie (Jun 4, 2011)

teuchter said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 4, 2011)

newbie said:


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


Indeed!

So this public space is apparently up for rent to commercial enterprises?  Can the entire space be rented out?  What on earth is the council's policy on it?


----------



## newbie (Jun 4, 2011)

tbh I'm slightly unsure what I think.  On the one hand I don't want commerce intruding on public space, but on the other sitting out there with a drink and a nibble is clearly a popular thing to do and I'm actually not against people enjoying themselves.

I am, though, sure that a grand a year is far, far too little money for what they're getting. Plus, of course, that fifteen quid an hour, all in, after 7pm.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Indeed!
> 
> So this public space is apparently up for rent to commercial enterprises?  Can the entire space be rented out?  What on earth is the council's policy on it?


 
You could ask the council.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 4, 2011)

newbie said:


> tbh I'm slightly unsure what I think.  On the one hand I don't want commerce intruding on public space, but on the other sitting out there with a drink and a nibble is clearly a popular thing to do and I'm actually not against people enjoying themselves.
> 
> I am, though, sure that a grand a year is far, far too little money for what they're getting. Plus, of course, that fifteen quid an hour, all in, after 7pm.


I wonder if they'll be putting braziers out in the cold weather to make the most of their grand.

Wonder what Brixton's other commercial enterprises think about it.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2011)

newbie said:


> tbh I'm slightly unsure what I think.  On the one hand I don't want commerce intruding on public space, but on the other sitting out there with a drink and a nibble is clearly a popular thing to do and I'm actually not against people enjoying themselves.
> 
> I am, though, sure that a grand a year is far, far too little money for what they're getting. Plus, of course, that fifteen quid an hour, all in, after 7pm.


 
I would agree that the council should be getting as much revenue out of it as possible. I don't think the current arrangement (as depicted in that photo) looks like something of detriment to others' use of the public space though. 

I think a first step is to find out what they are *actually* paying though. 

It would be interesting to compare with how much the farmers' market stands pay for their pitches.


----------



## newbie (Jun 4, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Wonder what Brixton's other commercial enterprises think about it.


 
in foreign parts the waiters dodge the traffic to serve their customers.  Maybe KFC should get some waiters, I'm sure the drivers on CHL would be considerate


----------



## newbie (Jun 4, 2011)

teuchter said:


> I think a first step is to find out what they are *actually* paying though..


 
yes I agree, the 'tables and chairs' document* may not be the only charge.


* I've just reread it, and realised it's actually £20 per hour after 7pm, not £15 as I said previously.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


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


 
That's my main objection to the way they've redeveloped the outside space in front of the RFH. It's all closed off and watched over by security people and generally _sanitised_ now. It's horrible and soulless. I much preferred it as it was.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

teuchter said:


> I would agree that the council should be getting as much revenue out of it as possible.


 This is what is all wrong about the management of public spaces. No they should not be seeking to maximise revenue! They should be seeking to maximise the _goodness_ of the place pure and simple.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is what is all wrong about the management of public spaces. No they should not be seeking to maximise revenue! They should be seeking to maximise the _goodness_ of the place pure and simple.


 
Yeah I thought about qualifying that statement in case someone came and said something like this.

Having decided to allow a section of the square to be used by the Ritzy, the council should be getting as much revenue out of it as possible.

Obviously the revenue potential should not be the only or main factor taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to allow it in the first place.


----------



## Pat_b (Dec 11, 2012)

Hello

I've lurked on Urban 75 for a while but haven't posted.  I'm studying part time and working part time.  I have to write an essay about whether we should feel positive or negative about public space in the 21st Century with reference to a case study. Most urban public space debate is fairly negative, and that was my kneejerk reaction as well, but my impression of the Windrush Square redevelopment and the responses on here are relatively positive. 

I live in Peckham but have been working in Brixton a lot over the last year so have spent quite a bit of time here but before that didn't come too often.  Would anyone be able to give me their impressions of what the space was like before?  When it was called Trinity Gardens.  Was it as widely used as it is now or less widely used?  Google image search doesn't throw up too many photos, does anyone have any photos of the space then?  Does anyone know when it was redesigned before that?  Questions questions...

If anyone would be willing to have a chat about the space in person then there'd be a few free pints in it for you.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 11, 2012)

Pat_b said:


> Hello
> 
> I've lurked on Urban 75 for a while but haven't posted. I'm studying part time and working part time. I have to write an essay about whether we should feel positive or negative about public space in the 21st Century with reference to a case study. Most urban public space debate is fairly negative, and that was my kneejerk reaction as well, but my impression of the Windrush Square redevelopment and the responses on here are relatively positive.
> 
> ...


 
Trinity Gardens is another square altogether. It was recently redeveloped after winning a grant on a TV show.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 11, 2012)

Was it ever called Trinity Gardens?
Trinity Gardens is another square, just off Brighton Terrace.


----------



## Pat_b (Dec 11, 2012)

You're right.  I know Trinity Gardens well, I have no idea why I put that.  What was it called before Windrush Square?


----------



## Pat_b (Dec 11, 2012)

Am I right in thinking the current Windrush Square created by the joining together of Tate Library Gardens and an older, smaller Windrush Square?


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 11, 2012)

Don't know what the bits were called.  They took over the end of a road to join the bit in front of the library to a walled/iron fenced off small grassy square that was very rarely used.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 11, 2012)

Pat_b said:


> Am I right in thinking the current Windrush Square created by the joining together of Tate Library Gardens and an older, smaller Windrush Square?


Yes. And Brixton Oval. And the end of Rushcroft Road.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2012)

Pat_b said:


> Hello
> 
> I've lurked on Urban 75 for a while but haven't posted. I'm studying part time and working part time. I have to write an essay about whether we should feel positive or negative about public space in the 21st Century with reference to a case study. Most urban public space debate is fairly negative, and that was my kneejerk reaction as well, but my impression of the Windrush Square redevelopment and the responses on here are relatively positive.
> 
> ...


There's loads of archive material about Tate Gardens/Windrush Square on urban75:

http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/tate1.html
http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/tate2.html
http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/tate-library-garden.html
http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/tate.html


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2012)

Pat_b said:


> Hello
> 
> I've lurked on Urban 75 for a while but haven't posted. I'm studying part time and working part time. I have to write an essay about whether we should feel positive or negative about public space in the 21st Century with reference to a case study. Most urban public space debate is fairly negative, and that was my kneejerk reaction as well, but my impression of the Windrush Square redevelopment and the responses on here are relatively positive.
> 
> ...


 
You should read this thread too:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...quare-represents-good-value-for-money.255193/

that will tell you a bit about people's feelings about public space and what it is "worth".


----------



## Ms T (Dec 11, 2012)

What happened to the idea of having a market in the square?


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2012)

Ms T said:


> What happened to the idea of having a market in the square?


Sadly, the "new cafe and public toilets" haven't appeared either. Still, at least there's less competition for the Ritzy.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 11, 2012)

I used to use Windrush square a lot, I rarely do now. I liked to sit on the raised grassy bit with my kids. It just looks a bit sterile now. Easier to cut through than it was though. I quite like the rushes sculpture.


----------



## Frumious B. (Dec 11, 2012)

I miss the grassy bit near the tree. I never understood the 'need' to pave it. Was it just to discourage street drinkers?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 11, 2012)

Well, there's still plenty of drinkers, they're just richer ones with more expensive alcohol.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 11, 2012)

It does actually make me sad that the older boozers got gentrified out of their old pubs and now have been controlled drinking zoned out of Windrush Square, yet posher, louder, younger, better dressed (and largely white) drinkers never seem to get fined and moved on.

I know the following song isn't anything to do with Windrush Square or Brixton, but I find a line in the chorus goes through my head when I observe stuff like that happening.




_They're tryin' to wash us away_
_They're tryin' to wash us away_


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> It does actually make me sad that the older boozers got gentrified out of their old pubs and now have been controlled drinking zoned out of Windrush Square, yet posher, louder, younger, better dressed (and largely white) drinkers never seem to get fined and moved on.


The irony is that the younger, richer replacements often cause far more of a nuisance too, as a stroll down Coldharbour Lane at kicking out time will testify.


----------



## simonSW2 (Dec 11, 2012)

Pat_b said:


> Hello
> 
> I've lurked on Urban 75 for a while but haven't posted. I'm studying part time and working part time. I have to write an essay about whether we should feel positive or negative about public space in the 21st Century with reference to a case study. Most urban public space debate is fairly negative, and that was my kneejerk reaction as well, but my impression of the Windrush Square redevelopment and the responses on here are relatively positive.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Pat - you should pick up a book called Ground Control by Anna Minton. It's a superb look at public Vs private space, very readable, fascinating and often quite shocking (in terms of policy and selling off public space). There was an updated edition published this year with a chapter on the Olympics. It's a great book. The added bonus being that the author Anna Minton lives in Brixton (iirc)..


----------



## Pat_b (Jan 8, 2013)

Thanks (belatedly) for all your responses.  They've been really helpful.  Simon SW2 I got Ground Control for Christmas and it is a great book.  I tweeted (my first tweet) Anna Minton for her opinion on Windrush Square hoping for a quote.  She said 'it's very good', so that's that.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 8, 2013)

The real issue is fixing up the pavement light strips.


----------



## Pat_b (Jan 8, 2013)

Can anyone tell me whether people used to skate at the square before it was redeveloped?  I know the use of the space after the redevelopment for skateboarding has been covered earlier in the thread but wasn't sure if it used to be used in this way?  Based on my very limited memories of it/photos it seems it wouldn't have really worked as there was too much grass/brick but I could be wrong.


----------



## simonSW2 (Jan 8, 2013)

@Pat_b - ah, I'm really pleased you've read the book - shame the author only gave you such a vague quote though!!

also: I don't recall Windrush Square being used by skaters, not in the period just before the redevelopment anyway, maybe earlier on.. probably not that attractive when Stockwell Skate Park is so near.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 8, 2013)

Pat_b said:


> Can anyone tell me whether people used to skate at the square before it was redeveloped? I know the use of the space after the redevelopment for skateboarding has been covered earlier in the thread but wasn't sure if it used to be used in this way? Based on my very limited memories of it/photos it seems it wouldn't have really worked as there was too much grass/brick but I could be wrong.


When I first moved to Brixton in early 81 a lot of young people skated *everywhere* but that area wasn't particularly used more than anywhere else I don't think. Gramsci has lived in Brixton longer than me, and can be relied upon for good info about that sort of thing.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 8, 2013)

editor said:


> The irony is that the younger, richer replaments often cause far more of a nuisance too, as a stroll down Coldharbour Lane at kicking out time will testify.



They're proper noisy... braying, pissed up twats *mad*


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jun 27, 2013)

Thought the water feature had a built in motion detection system. Rode bike through it last week and water switched off as i entered the circle. Tried it again just now and got soaked.


----------



## editor (Oct 21, 2013)

Here's a 1908 view of the area. I know which I prefer the look of.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 21, 2013)

Just how old are you?


----------



## editor (Oct 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Just how old are you?


Obvs, I wud have preferred it with sum graff over the library innit.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 21, 2013)

I have a few different postcards of the old town centre which I'll try to scan in at some point. The thing which really stands out on all of them (including yours above) is just how little those Victorian senders had to say to each other.


----------



## newbie (Oct 21, 2013)

isn't that because they sent them two or three times a day? 3 daily deliveries back then, and (just imagine it) no phones.  So p/cs were the common way to communicate quickly.


----------



## editor (Oct 21, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I have a few different postcards of the old town centre which I'll try to scan in at some point. The thing which really stands out on all of them (including yours above) is just how little those Victorian senders had to say to each other.


Don't forget that some folks would knock out a vast amount of letters every day, and with up to ten deliveries per day, some fired off postcards like we use text messaging.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 21, 2013)

editor said:


> ten deliveries per day,




I'm still impressed we manage one.


----------



## Manter (Oct 21, 2013)

editor said:


> Don't forget that some folks would knock out a vast amount of letters every day, and with up to ten deliveries per day, some fired off postcards like we use text messaging.


I didn't know that. That's pretty impressive logistics


----------



## Rushy (Oct 21, 2013)

Manter said:


> I didn't know that. That's pretty impressive logistics


I bet they were like buses. You wait all day and then ten come along at once.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 22, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I bet they were like buses. You wait all day and then ten come along at once.



My father told me post was delivered on Christmas Day when he was child in the 30s.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 22, 2013)

leanderman said:


> My father told me post was delivered on Christmas Day when he was child in the 30s.


Still does as far as I know. From a sled and wearing a big red onesie.


----------



## fortyplus (Oct 22, 2013)

editor said:


> Here's a 1908 view of the area. I know which I prefer the look of.
> 
> View attachment 42253


So it was gated then. Who got to go in?


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2013)

fortyplus said:


> So it was gated then. Who got to go in?


The public. It was a public park. Parks have gates.


----------



## happyshopper (Oct 22, 2013)

editor said:


> The public. It was a public park. Parks have gates.




I bet they kept the street drinkers out.


----------



## simonSW2 (Oct 22, 2013)

editor said:


> Here's a 1908 view of the area. I know which I prefer the look of.
> 
> View attachment 42253



Is that the Henry Tate head statue in the middle of the park? I always thought that might have come much later..


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2013)

happyshopper said:


> I bet they kept the street drinkers out.


I'll see if I can fire up  time machine and check for you.


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2013)

simonSW2 said:


> Is that the Henry Tate head statue in the middle of the park? I always thought that might have come much later..


Looks like it. That's been moved around all over the shop. He did pay for the library, mind.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2014)

Here's an interesting shot of how the square looked in 1960.  I'm liking the grass, trees and gardens. 







http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/lambeth/lambeth-assets/galleries/brixton/tate-library-1960


----------



## Crispy (Jan 25, 2014)

It's pretty, but it's atrocious urban design. Pedestrians coralled with fences and major desire lines blocked off.


----------



## Rushy (Jan 25, 2014)

So much better now that The Oval and Rushcroft Road have been closed to traffic and you can walk straight through the square from the CHL crossing. The large pedestrian area around the tree is totally closed off from three sides.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 25, 2014)

I'd forgotten how definitive the results of the poll were.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 25, 2014)

From the same site, here it is in 1892






Those were the days


----------



## Rushy (Jan 25, 2014)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 47208
> 
> I'd forgotten how definitive the results of the poll were.


Is there a technical difference between "No real improvement" and "Not really any better or worse"?


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Is there a technical difference between "No real improvement" and "Not really any better or worse"?


The real question should have been:
"Do you think the new square represents value for money given the £_x_ millions spent on it?"
or...
"Do you think a better job could have been done for the £_x_ million investment"?


----------



## Belushi (Jan 25, 2014)

editor said:


> Here's an interesting shot of how the square looked in 1960.  I'm liking the grass, trees and gardens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That Tree is bloody enormous!


----------



## teuchter (Jan 25, 2014)

editor said:


> The real question should have been:
> "Do you think the new square represents value for money given the £_x_ millions spent on it?"
> or...
> "Do you think a better job could have been done for the £_x_ million investment"?


I'm surpised you've forgotten the giant thread on which exactly that question was examined.


----------



## Rushy (Jan 25, 2014)

editor said:


> The real question should have been:
> "Do you think the new square represents value for money given the £_x_ millions spent on it?"
> or...
> "Do you think a better job could have been done for the £_x_ million investment"?


It cost a fair bit less than doing up the house on the corner.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I'm surpised you've forgotten the giant thread on which exactly that question was examined.


Funnily enough, you didn't seem inclined to start a poll on that issue.


----------



## T & P (Jan 25, 2014)

editor said:


> The real question should have been:
> "Do you think the new square represents value for money given the £_x_ millions spent on it?"
> or...
> "Do you think a better job could have been done for the £_x_ million investment"?


TBF that applies to many other works and redevelopments up and down the country. I'm still amazed that the Oxford Circus repainting and resurfacing job cost several million Pounds.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2014)

T & P said:


> TBF that applies to many other works and redevelopments up and down the country. I'm still amazed that the Oxford Circus repainting and resurfacing job cost several million Pounds.


Oh for sure, but it would have been interesting to see if people thought it represented good value for money or not.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 25, 2014)

editor said:


> Funnily enough, you didn't seem inclined to start a poll on that issue.



http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...quare-represents-good-value-for-money.255193/

Full of nuanced poll options


----------



## editor (Jan 26, 2014)

Crispy said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...quare-represents-good-value-for-money.255193/
> 
> Full of nuanced poll options


But seeing as the thread starter didn't bother to provide any actual information about how much the project cost, it attracted little interest with the most popular vote being, "I don't know how much it cost so I can't judge whether it represents good value for money."


----------



## boohoo (Jan 26, 2014)

He did mention this in his op:


> To clarify, when I say value for money, I mean:
> 
> Could the same amount of money have been spent on other improvements to the public spaces or buildings in central Brixton and resulted in a greater benefit?



Perhaps he needed to ask the question above and not whether it represented good value for money as a decent breakdown of costs would be needed.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 26, 2014)

editor said:


> But seeing as the thread starter didn't bother to provide any actual information about how much the project cost, it attracted little interest with the most popular vote being, "I don't know how much it cost so I can't judge whether it represents good value for money."


First you complain that I should have started a thread asking if the project was value for money.

You are reminded that I did a thread on that very issue.

Then you complain that the thread should have had a poll.

It is pointed out that said thread did in fact have a poll.

Then you complain that the thread didn't open with full information on the cost of the project, when the whole point of the thread was that that information wasn't clearly available. And you moan about me not being bothered to provide that information even though in the course of the thread I went to quite considerable effort trying to pin it down including making two FOI requests, one to TfL and one to Lambeth.

What do you want next? The moon on a stick? I'll bring it to you and you'll tell me it's the wrong kind of stick, or you only wanted a half moon, or it's made of fancy posho cheese when you wanted cheddar from Iceland.


----------



## editor (Jan 26, 2014)

teuchter said:


> First you complain that I should have started a thread asking if the project was value for money.


You started a poll asking people if something was value for money when you had no idea how much it actually cost. Great work, that. Marvellous.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 28, 2014)

I wonder how many of the pavement-set strip lights still work?

The resurfaced and cobbled road is not exactly durable either


----------



## Crispy (Jan 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I wonder how many of the pavement-set strip lights still work?
> 
> The resurfaced and cobbled road is not exactly durable either


They never are. I don't know why urban designers keeping using them.


----------



## Manter (Jan 28, 2014)

Crispy said:


> They never are. I don't know why urban designers keeping using them.


whenever works are done they seem to end up with inserts of tarmac too- I'm surprised the gas, water etc people aren't required to replace the same surface, but some of them end up a real patchwork


----------



## leanderman (Jan 28, 2014)

Manter said:


> whenever works are done they seem to end up with inserts of tarmac too- I'm surprised the gas, water etc people aren't required to replace the same surface, but some of them end up a real patchwork



Our Victorian predecessors would never have been so shoddy


----------



## Manter (Jan 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Our Victorians predecessors would never have been so shoddy


I feel I am skating v close to making some daily mail-esque point about the decline of craftsmanship


----------



## editor (May 30, 2014)

Good to see that the fountain has finally got a bit of oomph to it.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 30, 2014)

We just need to get rid of those two hundred pigeons shitting all over the square and we are in business for the Summer.


----------



## editor (May 30, 2014)

The 'before':


----------



## editor (May 5, 2015)

Someone mailed me this: 


> Hello there,
> Im trying to find out about opening times of the fountain at Windrush
> square, Brixton Oval.
> Can you please email me the details when they are surely on as we
> ...


Does anyone know the answer?


----------



## David Clapson (May 5, 2015)

Epic bump. Someone at Parks should know. Perhaps it depends on how hot the weather is?


----------



## steeeve (May 13, 2015)

Does anyone know what species the big tree is?


----------



## Rushy (May 13, 2015)

steeeve said:


> Does anyone know what species the big tree is?


London Plane.


----------



## steeeve (May 13, 2015)

Rushy said:


> London Plane.



cheers, would have settled a bet but we were both wrong


----------



## Rushy (May 13, 2015)

steeeve said:


> cheers, would have settled a bet but we were both wrong


What did you guys think it was?


----------



## steeeve (May 13, 2015)

embarrassed to say but the bet was that I said it definitely wasn't a horse chesnut tree


----------



## Rushy (May 13, 2015)

steeeve said:


> embarrassed to say but the bet was that I said it definitely wasn't a horse chesnut tree


Well you were right!


----------



## steeeve (May 13, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Well you were right!



I decided on normal chestnut because the spores looked spikey from the ritzy, ridiculous in hind site, I'm normally good on trees, I don't think they grow in Yorkshire

ETA - that species not trees in general


----------



## Rushy (May 13, 2015)

steeeve said:


> I decided on normal chestnut because the spores looked spikey from the ritzy, ridiculous in hind site, I'm normally good on trees, I don't think they grow in Yorkshire
> 
> ETA - that species not trees in general


Funnily enough, I have a chestnut grown from a Yorkshire conker in my garden in Brixton.


----------



## boohoo (May 13, 2015)

steeeve said:


> I decided on normal chestnut because the spores looked spikey from the ritzy, ridiculous in hind site, I'm normally good on trees, I don't think they grow in Yorkshire
> 
> ETA - that species not trees in general



If it was a chesnut tree that size, it would be a very old one.


----------



## steeeve (May 13, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Funnily enough, I have a chestnut grown from a Yorkshire conker in my garden in Brixton.



conkers are horsechestnuts!

The internet tells me that the London plane is part of the sycamore/maple family, both of which i'd discounted because of the spikey seeds/spores, ah well everyday's a school day!


----------



## steeeve (May 13, 2015)

boohoo said:


> If it was a chesnut tree that size, it would be a very old one.



It must be pretty old, the conversation started by me only just noticing how massive it was despite passing it everyday for years


----------



## boohoo (May 13, 2015)

steeeve said:


> It must be pretty old, the conversation started by me only just noticing how massive it was despite passing it everyday for years



London plane trees grow quickly - so it's probably not that old - 100 plus? The old Brixton trees are on Josephine Avenue and Brockwell Park


----------



## steeeve (May 13, 2015)

boohoo said:


> London plane trees grow quickly - so it's probably not that old - 100 plus? The old Brixton trees are on Josephine Avenue and Brockwell Park



nothing on Josephine comes close to that size, Brockwell maybe


----------



## boohoo (May 13, 2015)

steeeve said:


> nothing on Josephine comes close to that size, Brockwell maybe



Josephine Avenue has an old oak tree - probably a few hundred years old. It's little but oaks grow slowly.
The oak at Brockwell Park is considered to be around 500 years old and is probably as big as the plane tree.


----------



## steeeve (May 13, 2015)

boohoo said:


> Josephine Avenue has an old oak tree - probably a few hundred years old. It's little but oaks grow slowly.
> The oak at Brockwell Park is considered to be around 500 years old and is probably as big as the plane tree.



The discussion was on size over age! I will seek out the oaks you mention though


----------



## boohoo (May 13, 2015)

steeeve said:


> The discussion was on size over age! I will seek out the oaks you mention though



There is a great story around the Josephine Avenue oak - that Queen Elizabeth 1 went on a boat down the Effra to meet Raleigh who lived down that way and they hung out under the oak tree.  (The Effra wasn't navigational in that manner, there is no evidence that Raleigh lived in Brixton and I think Elizabeth did come to Brixton once but (a) I'm not sure Brixton even existed then  except maybe in the name the Brixton hundred and the Brixton Causeway (b) it was to the Stockwell Manor house (when it was on the site of the skateboard park)).


----------



## Rushy (May 13, 2015)

boohoo said:


> There is a great story around the Josephine Avenue oak - that Queen Elizabeth 1 went on a boat down the Effra to meet Raleigh who lived down that way and they hung out under the oak tree.  (The Effra wasn't navigational in that manner, there is no evidence that Raleigh lived in Brixton and I think Elizabeth did come to Brixton once but (a) I'm not sure Brixton even existed then  except maybe in the name the Brixton hundred and the Brixton Causeway (b) it was to the Stockwell Manor house (when it was on the site of the skateboard park)).


Maybe the Brixton Hill water main had burst again? That's almost navigable.


----------



## boohoo (May 14, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Maybe the Brixton Hill water main had burst again? That's almost navigable.



oh yes - use of wrong word...

Someone did try to pass an Act so that they could make some part of it navigable however it didn't amount to anything - The path of the river is very easy to see around Central Hill and on Gypsy Road. When you get a big downpour or burst water main (like the one on Brixton road a few years ago), the contours of the landscape can reveal the path of the river - someone I met who lives at the bottom of Central Hill is on the path of the river and when they have heavy rain, the basement gets flooded.


----------



## billythefish (May 14, 2015)

boohoo said:


> oh yes - use of wrong word...
> 
> Someone did try to pass an Act so that they could make some part of it navigable however it didn't amount to anything - The path of the river is very easy to see around Central Hill and on Gypsy Road. When you get a big downpour or burst water main (like the one on Brixton road a few years ago), the contours of the landscape can reveal the path of the river - someone I met who lives at the bottom of Central Hill is on the path of the river and when they have heavy rain, the basement gets flooded.


Wasn't Brixton Water Lane a tributary to the Effra? I read somewhere that it was a stream bed often used as a road (there are still examples of this kind of 'right of way' in the Cotswolds).


----------



## CH1 (May 14, 2015)

billythefish said:


> Wasn't Brixton Water Lane a tributary to the Effra? I read somewhere that it was a stream bed often used as a road (there are still examples of this kind of 'right of way' in the Cotswolds).


If it was that would be the bit between the Hoot and Dulwich Road.

According to *Effra: Lambeth's Underground River* published by The Brixton Society in the 1980s, reprinted in 1993 and still available AFAIK the last two tributaries were one from the ponds in Brockwell Park and a stream down Tulse Hill roughly through Tulse Hill Estate.

This map is in the booklet - a hand drawn map illustrating the text.

I don't know if this helps.


----------



## billythefish (May 14, 2015)

CH1 said:


> If it was that would be the bit between the Hoot and Dulwich Road.
> 
> According to *Effra: Lambeth's Underground River* published by The Brixton Society in the 1980s, reprinted in 1993 and still available AFAIK the last two tributaries were one from the ponds in Brockwell Park and a stream down Tulse Hill roughly through Tulse Hill Estate.
> 
> ...


Interesting! That would explain the vented manhole near the Leander Road entrance to the Estate that I can always hear rushing water from.


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2015)

billythefish said:


> Interesting! That would explain the vented manhole near the Leander Road entrance to the Estate that I can always hear rushing water from.


Also the very noticeable dip into Elm Park from both sides on Craignair, Claverdale and Athlone Roads


----------



## boohoo (May 15, 2015)

billythefish said:


> Interesting! That would explain the vented manhole near the Leander Road entrance to the Estate that I can always hear rushing water from.



There is some story that water springs up behind Leander Road house and that there is a willow tree in the back gardens that is in damper soil (could be complete bullshit!)

It was Henry Hastings, 1st Baron Loughborough in 1664 who obtained an act of Parliament to make the river navigable from Brixton causeway to the Thames.


----------



## teuchter (May 15, 2015)

What's Leander Road House?


----------



## newbie (May 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> If it was that would be the bit between the Hoot and Dulwich Road.
> 
> According to *Effra: Lambeth's Underground River* published by The Brixton Society in the 1980s, reprinted in 1993 and still available AFAIK *the last two tributaries* were one from the ponds in Brockwell Park and a stream down Tulse Hill roughly through Tulse Hill Estate.
> 
> ...


Not sure that's right tbh.  There are springs all along Rush Common which have occasionally bubbled to the surface down near the Town Hall, and have now been further channeled in the recent flood relief works.  Surely there was a stream (possibly seasonal) running down the hill to meet the Effra somewhere in the centre?

This image, of Brixton Causeway c1845 appears to show water.


----------



## boohoo (May 15, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What's Leander Road House?



sorry - slightly drunk posting last night.  I meant behind the Leander Road houses. The other year I tried street view to see if I could spot a willow but no luck.


----------



## boohoo (May 15, 2015)

newbie said:


> Not sure that's right tbh.  There are springs all along Rush Common which have occasionally bubbled to the surface down near the Town Hall, and have now been further channeled in the recent flood relief works.  Surely there was a stream (possibly seasonal) running down the hill to meet the Effra somewhere in the centre?
> 
> This image, of Brixton Causeway c1845 appears to show water.



I think the water in the picture is actually the road surface.


----------



## CH1 (May 15, 2015)

newbie said:


> This image, of Brixton Causeway c1845 appears to show water.





boohoo said:


> I think the water in the picture is actually the road surface.



I was wondering if it was where the reservoir is. Might make sense that's where the reservoir ended up. Pure speculation - I have no evidence.


----------



## newbie (May 15, 2015)

boohoo said:


> I think the water in the picture is actually the road surface.



I wondered that, it might be, it's very hard to tell.  But there are definitely springs towards the top of the hill, they're very visible most winters, and the water has to go somewhere.  There's also some sort of implication in the name Causeway.


----------



## boohoo (May 15, 2015)

newbie said:


> I wondered that, it might be, it's very hard to tell.  But there are definitely springs towards the top of the hill, they're very visible most winters, and the water has to go somewhere.  There's also some sort of implication in the name Causeway.



Maybe. The paths of rivers is dependent on the geology of the area? A book I've got suggests the Causeway area is made of River Terrace Gravel (made up of stratified gravels and sands) caused by the paths of the Thames and its tributaries.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2015)

There's been a bit of discussion here about the state of the Square these days, so I've posted this up:






Is Brixton’s Windrush Square looking a bit tatty these days?


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2020)

Just to update this thread: 









						Lambeth Council release statement about the concrete blocks in Windrush Square
					

Lambeth Council have finally got around to informing residents about what’s been happening in Brixton’s Windrush Square, after workmen were seen installing huge concrete blocks around t…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				












						In photos: more large concrete blocks are installed around Windrush Square in Brixton
					

We’re going to have to get used to Windrush Square looking a lot less attractive from now on, as another batch of ugly concrete blocks were installed around its perimeter last night. The heav…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

Voting results as of 15/07/2020, for the record.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Voting results as of 15/07/2020, for the record.
> 
> View attachment 222437



This was first posted up in 2010


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2020)

Some Windrush Square/Tate Gardens history 










						From the leafy Tate Gardens to the concrete blocks of Windrush Square – a history of the heart of Brixton
					

With Windrush Square (formerly Tate Gardens) currently flanked by heavy concrete blocks in response to a possible terrorist threat, we thought it would be interesting to take a look at how the site…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Rushy (Aug 24, 2020)

Application (Rush Common Consent) is in for 156 new bollards surrounding Windrush Square. 






						20/02792/RUS     |              Community safety public realm improvement works involving the installation of 1100mm high Heritage style cannon-shaped bollards along the perimeter of Windrush Square.                  |                                
					






					planning.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## Jimbeau (Aug 24, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Application (Rush Common Consent) is in for 156 new bollards surrounding Windrush Square.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder who decided they ought to be specified with 'cannon-style heritage shrouds', when all of the rest of the Windrush Square street furniture is polished stainless steel.

It's as though someone decided that they needed to be a) more expensive and b) uglier than necessary.

Plus there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to coordinate the spacing with the paving pattern.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 24, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Application (Rush Common Consent) is in for 156 new bollards surrounding Windrush Square.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No photo mock ups of the proposal to show what it would look like. Very poor application.

Nearest I could find is this picture.

Large Cannon Bollard - Heritage Street Furniture

Looks llke Council are going to use off the peg run of the mill bollards.

No imagination went into this. Its not in keeping with the rest of the square as Jimbeau points out.

If the Council insist this is necessary the should get proper design work done.

The meagre amount of docs associated with the application shows no design input..

They probably asked the police. Which would explain why its such shit design.

From the letter this was put together by an officer.

The Council letter goes on about importance of Windrush square yet this permanent alteration of square has not been thought out. It shows no respect for the existing layor/ design.

IMO it undermines the square.

Its also going to be visually intrusive as the black bollards are very different element added to the square.

Whole point of design was its openness.


----------



## mx wcfc (Aug 24, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> No photo mock ups on the proposal which is poor show.
> 
> Nearest I could find is this picture.
> 
> Title: Cast Iron Bollards UK | Street Furniture | Broxap


Get local artists/school kids to do this sort of thing with them.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> No photo mock ups of the proposal to show what it would look like. Very poor application.
> 
> Nearest I could find is this picture.
> 
> ...


Well I agree with most of that.
I'm not sure what they have submitted to themselves should really have been validated, although perhaps different minimum requirements apply to this compared to a normal planning application.
For the benefit of those who can't be bothered to look in the planning database:


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2020)

If anyone wants to comment on the paucity of the design or insuficient level of information:






						20/02792/RUS     |              Community safety public realm improvement works involving the installation of 1100mm high Heritage style cannon-shaped bollards along the perimeter of Windrush Square.                  |                                
					






					planning.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## Jimbeau (Aug 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If anyone wants to comment on the paucity of the design or insuficient level of information:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A few thoughts having looked at the detail a bit more.

The bollards specified in the application are by Safetyflex. The exact model isn't clear, but from the dimensions my guess is that they are the Truckstopper 5 - designed to stop an 18 ton truck travelling at 50mph. Interestingly, the default shroud is smooth stainless steel and a much better match to the rest of Windrush Square.






						Truckstopper 5 from Safetyflex
					

PAS68 rated Truckstopper 5 Anti-Terrorist Security Bollards from Safetyflex



					www.safetyflexbarriers.com
				




If this is correct then to me that seems to be an over-specification given the difficulty in getting sufficient run-up to achieve those kinds of speeds for any vehicle, let alone an HGV.

The bollards are massive too. Nearly 4ft tall and over a foot thick. As drawn they are at 1200mm and 1400mm centres - leaving gaps between them of 875mm and 1075mm respectively. To put it another way, around the main entry points to the square they're less than three bollard-widths apart. These things don't just drop into a hole either, they need a foundation trench 1200mm wide and 400mm deep.

Not only is this in contravention of the design and access statement for Windrush Square (which has a minimum 1100mm clear width between all fixed street furniture), it sets them far closer together than the manufacturer's own recommendations - which call for 1200mm gaps. It suggests to me that whoever did the setting out doesn't understand the basic arithmetic.

Then there is the exact placing of each bollard. The details around the CHL and Saltoun Road crossings are especially problematic. Windrush Square is not a level site and has been contoured so that all the main paths are step-free shallow gradients. What happens when - say - an electric wheelchair user finds a huge new bollard in the middle of a path, such as at the corner in front of BCA?

I'll stop now. I haven't even begun on the aesthetic and conceptual implications yet and I'm getting annoyed and have work to do...


----------



## Rushy (Aug 25, 2020)

To be fair, the only thing being assessed in this application is whether the proposal meets the requirements of the Rush Common Act which is to maintain the open nature of Rush Common. Presumably there will be a full planning application along.

Rush Common policy and guidance states that when assessing an application under the Rush Common Acts, only the effect on its open character can be taken into account. Other aspects of the aesthetics are irrelevant. There is supposed to be a presumption against any building above the land but lately the council seems to agree every Rush Common application. You could probably built a 10ft brick wall across the middle of the square and they would argue that it does not affect it's open nature.


----------



## Jimbeau (Aug 25, 2020)

Rushy said:


> To be fair, the only thing being assessed in this application is whether the proposal meets the requirements of the Rush Common Act which is to maintain the open nature of Rush Common. Presumably there will be a full planning application along.
> 
> Rush Common policy and guidance states that when assessing an application under the Rush Common Acts, only the effect on its open character can be taken into account. Other aspects of the aesthetics are irrelevant. There is supposed to be a presumption against any building above the land but lately the council seems to agree every Rush Common application. You could probably built a 10ft brick wall across the middle of the square and they would argue that it does not affect it's open nature.


You're right of course, this is a box-ticking exercise and all the detailing will get developed and assessed when they make the full application.   

Nevertheless, if this is being put out for comment as the first impression of the permanent modification to a landmark public space barely a decade old, then Lambeth ought to be smart enough to expect people to give it some critique. Not least because the temporary barriers have already changed peoples' perceptions of how the space works, plus they need to be above reproach when they're looking at approvals of their own schemes!


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2020)

*Similar threads merged and outdated poll from 2010 removed from start page. For reference, these were the results:


----------



## teuchter (Aug 25, 2020)

Rushy said:


> To be fair, the only thing being assessed in this application is whether the proposal meets the requirements of the Rush Common Act which is to maintain the open nature of Rush Common. Presumably there will be a full planning application along.
> 
> Rush Common policy and guidance states that when assessing an application under the Rush Common Acts, only the effect on its open character can be taken into account. Other aspects of the aesthetics are irrelevant. There is supposed to be a presumption against any building above the land but lately the council seems to agree every Rush Common application. You could probably built a 10ft brick wall across the middle of the square and they would argue that it does not affect it's open nature.


There isn't actually a plan that shows the full extent of where the bollards are going to be, though. Just those two extracts showing localised areas.


----------



## Jimbeau (Aug 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There isn't actually a plan that shows the full extent of where the bollards are going to be, though. Just those two extracts showing localised areas.


I'd supposed that's what the red line on the site plan was lazily trying to indicate - but it greatly wants for clarity.

There's an interesting argument to be made though about the fact that St Matthews Peace Gardens are also part of Rush Common lands, and that the original Windrush Square proposal saw the bottom of Effra Road being pedestrianised to unite the two parts. Even as implemented, the hardscape language on both sides of the road (plus the perma-sinking cobbles in the roadway) has been designed to make them at least visually seem to be continuous.

Using that logic, a big line of bollards could easily be argued to affect the open character of Rush Common.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2020)

Mind you, it would be fun if the bollards really were 1100m high, as detailed in Lambeth's docs,


----------



## teuchter (Aug 25, 2020)

Jimbeau said:


> I'd supposed that's what the red line on the site plan was lazily trying to indicate - but it greatly wants for clarity.


The red line is just to show the location and extent of the application site... but they've drawn it on such a small scale map, the roads are totally out of scale and it doesn't reflect the actual shape of the space.



Jimbeau said:


> There's an interesting argument to be made though about the fact that St Matthews Peace Gardens are also part of Rush Common lands, and that the original Windrush Square proposal saw the bottom of Effra Road being pedestrianised to unite the two parts. Even as implemented, the hardscape language on both sides of the road (plus the perma-sinking cobbles in the roadway) has been designed to make them at least visually seem to be continuous.
> 
> Using that logic, a big line of bollards could easily be argued to affect the open character of Rush Common.



I don't think a line of bollards that you can walk between and which are well below eye level really affects the "open character"... if they do, then what about all the other street furniture, trees and so on.

I do think a line of bollards of an inappropriate design could look rubbish though.


----------



## Jimbeau (Aug 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The red line is just to show the location and extent of the application site... but they've drawn it on such a small scale map, the roads are totally out of scale and it doesn't reflect the actual shape of the space.



Of course, but they've gone and stuck a bollard visual in the corner of it, which makes it more than just a site plan. But no real need to split hairs.



teuchter said:


> I don't think a line of bollards that you can walk between and which are well below eye level really affects the "open character"... if they do, then what about all the other street furniture, trees and so on.



It's hardly Richard Serra's Tilted Arc, but I think a legion of these buggers marching across the space will change my psychogeography of its edges. Whether the Planning Committee thinks that meets with their own subjective interpretation of 'open character' remains to be seen.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 26, 2020)

Jimbeau said:


> You're right of course, this is a box-ticking exercise and all the detailing will get developed and assessed when they make the full application.
> 
> Nevertheless, if this is being put out for comment as the first impression of the permanent modification to a landmark public space barely a decade old, then Lambeth ought to be smart enough to expect people to give it some critique. Not least because the temporary barriers have already changed peoples' perceptions of how the space works, plus they need to be above reproach when they're looking at approvals of their own schemes!


Absolutely - critique away. Just highlighting that formal comments on aesthetics and concept should go on the right application as they can be very easily ignored / lost on this RUS one. Your point about the recommended distancing between posts seems relevant to the RUS application. To be honest, it is unusual for the RUS to happen first - I wonder if there will be an FUL planning application. Maybe it is being done under special powers?

A real bug bear of mine about RUS applications is that it is not a requirement of such an application to have a plan showing which parts of the site are actually designated Rush Common land. This one doesn't bother.


----------



## happyshopper (Sep 15, 2020)

Just had a letter from Jay Ward, Projects Manager-Public Realm, about the changes in Windrush Square. It says "_Following recommendations from the Council's Police advisor on security matters, temporary measures to increase safety on and around Windrush Square were implemented ..._".

Now I don't know what the threats to safety are, but I'm guessing that most other participants on this thread don't know their extent or degree either. That's in the nature of such intelligence about threats from covert organisations. But whatever the validity of such advice, once it's been given, there's no way that it's going to be dismissed by the Council. The downside is just too great. Even with a tiny risk, the Council is simply not prepared to run the slightest chance of headlines such as "_Lambeth were warned of the risk of this kind of tragedy, but over-ruled their professional advisors_".


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

happyshopper said:


> Just had a letter from Jay Ward, Projects Manager-Public Realm, about the changes in Windrush Square. It says "_Following recommendations from the Council's Police advisor on security matters, temporary measures to increase safety on and around Windrush Square were implemented ..._".
> 
> Now I don't know what the threats to safety are, but I'm guessing that most other participants on this thread don't know their extent or degree either. That's in the nature of such intelligence about threats from covert organisations. But whatever the validity of such advice, once it's been given, there's no way that it's going to be dismissed by the Council. The downside is just too great. Even with a tiny risk, the Council is simply not prepared to run the slightest chance of headlines such as "_Lambeth were warned of the risk of this kind of tragedy, but over-ruled their professional advisors_".



So you are saying if the advice is bollox the Council still have to follow it.

I did read the doc and there is no specific threat.

Since Tony Blair government telling public of the 45 minutes threat of Saddam Im sick of being told to just go along with this shit.

War was justified on Iraq by government "experts".

I have no faith in central or local government or police on matters of terrorism threats.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 17, 2020)

I share Gramsci's scepticism on intelligence-led public realm changes. Though I suppose when it comes to extreme right terrorists they maybe know a thing or two.

As it happens Jay Ward seems be a traffic engineer/planner., largely with TFL. Seems like he signs off LTN stuff as well as "raised traffic tables" and the like - which are (or are presented as) safety measures.

So I would like to know if all this anti-terrorism action in Windrush Square is out of a TFL traffic budget (his ex-employer by the way)?

I think a better all-round greener solution to Windrush Square would be to revert to the Victorian/Edwardian design - which had been promoted by Cllr Andy Roe back in the mid 1990s, when he pressured the Director of Environmental Services, Paul Dufflield, to have the old bus station in front of Rayliegh Hall (now BCA) demolised. Of course there would be more (double?) the space to green. They would have to fix the crappy council sprinkler system that barely keeps the grass outside the Black Cultural Archives alive.

Shrubs have the virtue of being highly resistant to the onslaught of terrorist motorists wishing to mow down crowds - in fact they probably deter them even trying. And they create oxygen and clean polluted air.

Never mind living in a bunker - led's call for a greener Brixton Central (non political of course).


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

It's called "Tate Library and Gardens" because those are public gardens, not a public square. They are a different thing, somewhere for people to stroll rather somewhere that gatherings and events can happen.

It would be an effective anti-terrorrist scheme because there would be no gatherings to mow down, not because some shrubs would stop a truck.

This would be providing public safety by preventing public gatherings.

Nostalgia for Victorian civic infrastructure often ignores the way the urban environment has changed since then... when they created those gardens, they would not have been in the midst of a busy traffic junction dominated by the internal combustion engine.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2020)

A lot of Victorian infrastructure has stood the test of tme. The Railway stations for example. 

St Pancreas was under threat of demolition for years. Its been refurbished and works a a space.

The Gardens along the Embankment- put there after the Thames was narrowed to accomodate the new sewers. These still work well as public space. 

So no its not nostalgic to keep some Victorian infrastructure. 

The reason the Windrush square was rebuilt in way it was is that police wanted clear sight lines across the space. This is not progress imo.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2020)

Drummers in the square












In photos: The drummers under the Bovril sign, Windrush Square, Brixton


----------



## Mld (Nov 6, 2020)

Recently I've seen several Lambeth "Environmental Health Officers" patrolling outside KFC, windrush square, Brixton road, electric avenue in the mornings. Lived in this area 5 years and haven't seen this kind of presence.

Their role appears to be warning/fining people for littering. Seen several vulnerable people stopped or others just walking away refusing to give details.

Whilst I don't agree with littering, I feel this parol/fine tactic by Lambeth is in poor taste, particularly given the current situation this year. Surely these resources would be better spent aiding the community rather than a cash pot.

Would appreciate if anyone has anymore information on this?

Thanks. M


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2021)

It appears to have turned into an ad hoc skate park recently!


----------



## gaijingirl (Feb 6, 2021)

editor said:


> It appears to have turned into an ad hoc skate park recently!
> 
> View attachment 253055



ooh - interesting.


----------



## David Clapson (Feb 6, 2021)

Mld said:


> Recently I've seen several Lambeth "Environmental Health Officers" patrolling outside KFC, windrush square, Brixton road, electric avenue in the mornings. Lived in this area 5 years and haven't seen this kind of presence.
> 
> Their role appears to be warning/fining people for littering. Seen several vulnerable people stopped or others just walking away refusing to give details.
> 
> ...


They've been doing it for 3 years Love Lambeth  Lots of councils have 'litter police'.


----------



## GarveyLives (Feb 12, 2021)

​


*6 February 2021:  Members of the community commemorate the 76th anniversary of the birth of Bob Marley at The African and Caribbean War Memorial in Windrush Square ... with inevitable consequences.*


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2021)

GarveyLives said:


> ​
> 
> 
> 6 February 2021:  Members of the community commemorate the 76th anniversary of the birth of Bob Marley at The African and Caribbean War Memorial in Windrush Square ... with inevitable consequences.


What's your opinion on this incident?


----------



## TopCat (Feb 12, 2021)

editor said:


> What's your opinion on this incident?


Alas we will never know.


----------



## David Clapson (Feb 13, 2021)

Ignorant twats. Blood on their hands.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2022)

Still not finished:



















						Bollards! Could the work in Windrush Square finally be completed soon?
					

There’s a sign up in Windrush Square claiming that the job of installing zillions of hefty black bollards was expected to be completed in November last year, but there’s still plenty mo…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (Feb 18, 2022)

HOW MUCH?! Windrush Square bollards cost over £2 MILLION – that’s £13k per bollard – as Lambeth Council admits no terrorism threat


----------



## CH1 (Feb 18, 2022)

editor said:


> HOW MUCH?! Windrush Square bollards cost over £2 MILLION – that’s £13k per bollard – as Lambeth Council admits no terrorism threat


Bollards - the Man's Cigarette!


----------



## editor (Feb 18, 2022)




----------



## GarveyLives (Feb 19, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> Ignorant twats. Blood on their hands.



... and yet, they were at it again only a month later, two miles away






(Source: as stated in image)

*"Who the cap fit, let them wear it!"*

(Source:  Robert Nesta Marley OM)​


----------



## friendofdorothy (Feb 19, 2022)

editor said:


> HOW MUCH?! Windrush Square bollards cost over £2 MILLION – that’s £13k per bollard – as Lambeth Council admits no terrorism threat


from the council who said had very little money available to spend on anything . . .  austerity . . . no money for repairs . . .


editor said:


>



ffs!  looks like you couldn't get a double buggy or wide wheelchair through that. what were they thinking?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 19, 2022)

editor said:


> HOW MUCH?! Windrush Square bollards cost over £2 MILLION – that’s £13k per bollard – as Lambeth Council admits no terrorism threat



Council report on Capital Investment Programme says that the extra funding comes from this budget:


> Sustainable
> Transport/Public Realm
> 
> Works to develop transport infrastructure and their
> ...



I don't see how erecting bollards on Windrush Square is justified use of this budget.

Especially as the Council report says that erection of these bollards under equality impact will have negative effect on  electric wheelchair users and the partially sighted. They do argue they have used TFL guidelines for spacing. But fact they put this into report under EI says its negative effect.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 19, 2022)

Report also says the Council will pay for any costs that Southern Gas incur in future if they have to do maintenance works. Part of site has TFL as landowner who charge for this.


----------



## David Clapson (Feb 22, 2022)

To be fair, I think it should be spelt out how much of the money comes from sources other than Lambeth council. And I don't think it's reasonable to go off on one about 'no current threat' existing.  That just means that nobody is known to be currently targeting the square.  It doesn't mean that unknown nutters aren't targeting the square. And it doesn't mean that the known nutters don't have a secret plan to target the square. So it doesn't mean that gatherings in the square are safe now or will be safe in the future. And it doesn't mean that far right/white supremacist threats have magically disappeared.  The council, police and Tfl have a duty to protect community gatherings in the square, many of which have a majority of black attendees. Black lives matter, so if they need money spent on protecting them, spend the money.  The protection afforded by the bollards is likely to encourage more community gatherings to take place. They encourage the community to make themselves heard. The article is hopelessly misleading and biased. Worthy of the Daily Mail in my opinion.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> To be fair, I think it should be spelt out how much of the money comes from sources other than Lambeth council. And I don't think it's reasonable to go off on one about 'no current threat' existing.  That just means that nobody is known to be currently targeting the square.  It doesn't mean that unknown nutters aren't targeting the square. And it doesn't mean that the known nutters don't have a secret plan to target the square. So it doesn't mean that gatherings in the square are safe now or will be safe in the future. And it doesn't mean that far right/white supremacist threats have magically disappeared.  The council, police and Tfl have a duty to protect community gatherings in the square, many of which have a majority of black attendees. Black lives matter, so if they need money spent on protecting them, spend the money.  The protection afforded by the bollards is likely to encourage more community gatherings to take place. They encourage the community to make themselves heard. The article is hopelessly misleading and biased. Worthy of the Daily Mail in my opinion.


So you're not so bothered with the bollards going _£1,856,000_ over budget or the fact that there was no credible or pressing threat that necessitated such outrageously expensive measures?

And Daily Mail? LOL. If they get to hear about Lambeth spunking so much money away they'll have a real field day.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 22, 2022)

I suspect that part of the motivation for the bollards is that Lambeth intend to use the square for more income generating events. As I recall, the last events strategy - the same one that removed the eight day limit for "major events" in brockwell Park - claimed that their research (carried out on the first weeks of lock down) demonstrated that residents desperately want more town centre events too. This way it conveniently comes out of a security budget.


----------



## David Clapson (Feb 22, 2022)

editor said:


> So you're not so bothered with the bollards going _£1,856,000_ over budget or the fact that there was no credible or pressing threat that necessitated such outrageously expensive measures?
> 
> And Daily Mail? LOL. If they get to hear about Lambeth spunking so much money away they'll have a real field day.


I covered the threat adequately. Please read my post properly. I'd add that you have no idea what undisclosed security threats there may be. It's in the nature of security that it's best not to reveal much publicly. But even the most biased, ignorant person would have to concede that community gatherings in the square are an obvious terrorist target.  You're ignoring that because you want to indulge in a kneejerk reaction to bash the council. The more scrutiny the council gets the better, but there's no point attacking them when you deliberately choose not to see their point of view. It doesn't help anyone, and it reduces your own credibility. 

I suggest you should note that Jacqui Dyer is involved. I've known her since before she was a councillor. Her work rate is fearsome, she achieves a great deal, she's very intelligent, her values are beyond reproach and she gives masses of unpaid time to the community. She's one of the most generous people in the borough.  If you slag off her work without even talking to her you're making a silly mistake. 

It's unfortunate that the project went over budget. We've already discussed one of the reasons, which was the contractors discovering unmapped utilities. That wasn't foreseeable and it's the fault of someone involved with some other project years ago.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> I covered the threat adequately. Please read my post properly. I'd add that you have no idea what undisclosed security threats there may be. It's in the nature of security that it's best not to reveal much publicly. But even the most biased, ignorant person would have to concede that community gatherings in the square are an obvious terrorist target.  You're ignoring that because you want to indulge in a kneejerk reaction to bash the council. The more scrutiny the council gets the better, but there's no point attacking them when you deliberately choose not to see their point of view. It doesn't help anyone, and it reduces your own credibility.


In case you missed it, I didn't write the article but I find plenty to be angry about over such a _catastrophic_ overspend that worked out ay each bollard coasting £13,000.


----------



## David Clapson (Feb 22, 2022)

And the budget wasn't 1.8m over. 1.8m is the total. The overage is 0.34m.  Skilled debating from you, as usual.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 22, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> To be fair, I think it should be spelt out how much of the money comes from sources other than Lambeth council. And I don't think it's reasonable to go off on one about 'no current threat' existing.  That just means that nobody is known to be currently targeting the square.  It doesn't mean that unknown nutters aren't targeting the square. And it doesn't mean that the known nutters don't have a secret plan to target the square. So it doesn't mean that gatherings in the square are safe now or will be safe in the future. And it doesn't mean that far right/white supremacist threats have magically disappeared.  The council, police and Tfl have a duty to protect community gatherings in the square, many of which have a majority of black attendees. Black lives matter, so if they need money spent on protecting them, spend the money.  The protection afforded by the bollards is likely to encourage more community gatherings to take place. They encourage the community to make themselves heard. The article is hopelessly misleading and biased. Worthy of the Daily Mail in my opinion.



Your adamant support of bollards for this site makes me wonder why you said something different about Brixton House bollards,

I would have thought your insistence on unknown terrorist threats would mean you'd support bollards outside the new theatre.

Post in thread 'Brixton news, rumours and general chat' Brixton news, rumours and general chat





> new Brixton House theatre seems to have anti-terror bollards. Are they now the norm for anywhere where a crowd gathers? Seems a bit OTT.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 22, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> To be fair, I think it should be spelt out how much of the money comes from sources other than Lambeth council. And I don't think it's reasonable to go off on one about 'no current threat' existing.  That just means that nobody is known to be currently targeting the square.  It doesn't mean that unknown nutters aren't targeting the square. And it doesn't mean that the known nutters don't have a secret plan to target the square. So it doesn't mean that gatherings in the square are safe now or will be safe in the future. And it doesn't mean that far right/white supremacist threats have magically disappeared.  The council, police and Tfl have a duty to protect community gatherings in the square, many of which have a majority of black attendees. Black lives matter, so if they need money spent on protecting them, spend the money.  The protection afforded by the bollards is likely to encourage more community gatherings to take place. They encourage the community to make themselves heard. The article is hopelessly misleading and biased. Worthy of the Daily Mail in my opinion.



So what are the sources other than Lambeth council?

What I posted up was from Council reports.

So can you post up sources of funding for this that don't come from Council please.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 23, 2022)

from this report looks like all original funding comes from Lambeth.

CIL are money from developers they pay to Council when they obtain planning permission for large developments. The money going to put in infrastructure to benefit the community. So Council could argue that this is at no cost to the Council Tax payer. I'd argue that using it to pay for bollards is stretching what CIL is really for.



> The cost of the measures proposed in this report is estimated to be £1,447,509; the contract value of
> £1,107,596 is included within this total. On 20 July 2020 the Cabinet approved the 5-year Capital
> Programme which included an allocation for Transport and Public Realm from which this will be spent. It
> is expected that this will be financed by Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> And the budget wasn't 1.8m over. 1.8m is the total. The overage is 0.34m.  Skilled debating from you, as usual.


The total spend was £2,104,218, as documented in the council's own report:





			https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s135063/Lambeth%20L3%20Public%20Realm%20Project%20Phase%202%20-%20ODDR%20Part%20I.pdf


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2022)

I do find it strange that Lambeth suddenly discovered all these hitherto unknown utilities pipes seeing as they'd completely dug up Windrush Square only 13 years previously:


----------



## DaphneM (Feb 23, 2022)

editor said:


> I do find it strange that Lambeth suddenly discovered all these hitherto unknown utilities pipes seeing as they'd completely dug up Windrush Square only 13 years previously:
> 
> View attachment 311557


Very strange... if only they explained it in the document...

2.2 Windrush Square was redeveloped in 2009/10 as part of the Brixton town centre redevelopment works. This historical project undertaken by Transport for London and the Greater London Authority involved significant changes to the carriageway alignment and vertical levels in the square. This has led to numerous issues for the current project with utilities being shallower than information from records and feasibility investigations revealed.

2.3 As a result, there have been many unforeseen redundant and unregistered elements exposed only in the build phase, requiring safe management to enable the installation of the security bollard foundations. Examples of these are redundant gas mains and valves, redundant and idle electrical mains and steel pipe ducts, unidentified illegally installed power cables in telecommunication chambers and utilities trapped in concrete foundation assets of others.

2.4 To address these challenges, utility providers have required significant diversions and proving of locations of assets before agreeing the proposals near or over their assets. Utilities providers have had long lead in times to do the works as they have been impacted by Covid-19 and Brexit in terms of materials and personnel.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 23, 2022)

> unidentified illegally installed power cables in telecommunication chambers


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Very strange... if only they explained it in the document...
> 
> 2.2 Windrush Square was redeveloped in 2009/10 as part of the Brixton town centre redevelopment works. This historical project undertaken by Transport for London and the Greater London Authority involved significant changes to the carriageway alignment and vertical levels in the square. This has led to numerous issues for the current project with utilities being shallower than information from records and feasibility investigations revealed.
> 
> ...


So no one checked the figures being presented, resulting in the sky high overspend? And why isn't Lambeth pursing those responsible for damages?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 23, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Very strange... if only they explained it in the document...
> 
> 2.2 Windrush Square was redeveloped in 2009/10 as part of the Brixton town centre redevelopment works. This historical project undertaken by Transport for London and the Greater London Authority involved significant changes to the carriageway alignment and vertical levels in the square. This has led to numerous issues for the current project with utilities being shallower than information from records and feasibility investigations revealed.
> 
> ...



What this does not say is that this was to all intents and purposes a Lambeth project.

At that time Brixton had a Town Centre Manager. Jo Negrini. Who moved onto to Croydon to be Chief Exec. Messed up so badly she had to go. 

The revamp of the square was led by her as Lambeth Council project with funding from TFL and GLA.

It was a project seen to its end by senior Lambeth officer.

So Lambeth should have been aware of the issues with this site.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 24, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> What this does not say is that this was to all intents and purposes a Lambeth project.
> 
> At that time Brixton had a Town Centre Manager. Jo Negrini. Who moved onto to Croydon to be Chief Exec. Messed up so badly she had to go.
> 
> ...


A year ago Jo Negrini was reported as working for Arup the engineering consultancy.
Plenty of scope to continue ignoring illegal underground power connection in telecoms chambers there then.








						Negrini lands cushty consultancy with ex-council supplier
					

EXCLUSIVE (and available in all good, and some not-so-good, newsagents): The exec who walked away with a £440,000 pay-out from the borough she helped to bankrupt has re-emerged with a juicy ‘…




					insidecroydon.com


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2022)

These guys were royally taking the piss over the weekend: they set up this marquee complete with contactless card payment!


----------



## CH1 (Sep 5, 2022)

editor said:


> These guys were royally taking the piss over the weekend: they set up this marquee complete with contactless card payment!
> 
> View attachment 341048


That looks like a box of Carib beer on the ground there. Did you ask to see their Lambeth parks authority to trade and alcohol license?


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2022)

CH1 said:


> That looks like a box of Carib beer on the ground there. Did you ask to see their Lambeth parks authority to trade and alcohol license?


I walked swiftly by. I'd no interest in hassling them.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 5, 2022)

Looks like they're plugged into the mains. I doubt you can unlock the cover to the socket unless you have permission and a key. I've also seen people operating the big sliding bollards to get vans out recently. Just one van at a time, not for a big event. So maybe the council is allowing vendors on the square. They've done it in previous years. There was a jerk chicken outfit which used to be there every week. There might be something about it on the council site if anyone can be arsed to look.


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> Looks like they're plugged into the mains. I doubt you can unlock the cover to the socket unless you have permission and a key. I've also seen people operating the big sliding bollards to get vans out recently. Just one van at a time, not for a big event. So maybe the council is allowing vendors on the square. They've done it in previous years. There was a jerk chicken outfit which used to be there every week. There might be something about it on the council site if anyone can be arsed to look.


I think they had a generator.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 6, 2022)

CH1 said:


> That looks like a box of Carib beer on the ground there. Did you ask to see their Lambeth parks authority to trade and alcohol license?



it says colombia on the box, more likely fruit or veg produce.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 6, 2022)

CH1 said:


> That looks like a box of Carib beer on the ground there. Did you ask to see their Lambeth parks authority to trade and alcohol license?


We could get you a clipboard. You would suit it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2022)

TopCat said:


> We could get you a clipboard. You would suit it.



ch1 recently


----------



## CH1 (Sep 6, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 341281
> ch1 recently


And there was I identifying as


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> Looks like they're plugged into the mains. I doubt you can unlock the cover to the socket unless you have permission and a key. I've also seen people operating the big sliding bollards to get vans out recently. Just one van at a time, not for a big event. So maybe the council is allowing vendors on the square. They've done it in previous years. There was a jerk chicken outfit which used to be there every week. There might be something about it on the council site if anyone can be arsed to look.



I read the latest Brixton blog paper version and it has front page about ASB in central Brixton. On Windrush square it say the main socket has been broken into and tampered with. So others can use it. The article ( trying to find it online) basically says the Council have lost control of Windrush square.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2022)

CH1 said:


> A year ago Jo Negrini was reported as working for Arup the engineering consultancy.
> Plenty of scope to continue ignoring illegal underground power connection in telecoms chambers there then.
> 
> 
> ...











						Ex-council CEO Negrini’s company finds business a struggle
					

Tough times for Jo Negrini, who is encountering her very own cost of living crisis. The chief exec who did so much to bankrupt the council, leading to hundreds of jobs being axed, dozens of public …




					insidecroydon.com
				




Poor Negreedy is finding life hard in the private sector.

Labour Council bureaucrats like her did well with well paid jobs for Labour Councils. With big handouts when they leave.

A really obnoxious person who unfortunately I had to deal with when she was one of Lambeths favourite senior officers.

Quite why people like her manage to get their noses in the trough at local Councils doesn't say much for the ability of Labour Cllrs to not see through them.

Her attitude to her job was to do whatever she thought the Labour group wanted. They loved her for it. A go to officer.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 6, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> Ex-council CEO Negrini’s company finds business a struggle
> 
> 
> Tough times for Jo Negrini, who is encountering her very own cost of living crisis. The chief exec who did so much to bankrupt the council, leading to hundreds of jobs being axed, dozens of public …
> ...


I thought I heard she had gone back to Australia. Its more vibrant over there these days - particularly in the multi-cultural and LGBTQ+ department.

What's all this about: Jo Negrini named NLA's New Londoner of the Year - Develop Croydon


----------



## Rushy (Sep 6, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> I read the latest Brixton blog paper version and it has front page about ASB in central Brixton. On Windrush square it say the main socket has been broken into and tampered with. So others can use it. The article ( trying to find it online) basically says the Council have lost control of Windrush square.


Sounds to me like someone at Brixton Blog is very keen to prepare the way for Ros Griffiths to "save the day" with her newly acquired Friends of Windrush Square community wash. Nothing but transformation into an international touri$t de$tination could save the day.


----------



## editor (Sep 6, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Sounds to me like someone at Brixton Blog is very keen to prepare the way for Ros Griffiths to "save the day" with her newly acquired Friends of Windrush Square community wash. Nothing but transformation into an international touri$t de$tination could save the day.


With $$$$  jobs for the Brixton Project _GUARANTEED!_

Triple G&Ts all around!


----------



## CH1 (Sep 7, 2022)

editor said:


> With $$$$  jobs for the Brixton Project _GUARANTEED!_
> 
> Triple G&Ts all around!


Is she connected to The Brixton Project? They seem to be different people.
Even so The Brixton Project was threatened with striking off last month - looks like they failed to do their return on time.
All sorted out next day. But I love the idea that their property and rights could have been declared bono vacancia and vested in the crown.
Sounds like the last revenge of Boris Johnson!


----------



## CH1 (Sep 23, 2022)

Must be time they changed the bollards in Windrush Square. The present ones have been there all of six months.
How about this for an on-trend minimalist space-age design? Edgy and vibrant eh?


----------



## TopCat (Nov 16, 2022)

Walking through the Square at 05:30am I note with some alarm over 15 people either slumped over due to heroin, cooking up heroin, or blatantly injecting heroin. Maybe three people shouting but most just off their nut. It was a bleak scene.


----------

