# Brixton's Barrier Block (Southwyck House) - history, news and chat



## editor (Jan 5, 2005)

I've just posted up an interesting piece from the Guardian from 1995 when the Tories were desperately hanging on to power, pumping out the last of their dodgy rhetoric.

The Barrier Block dominated the entire front page with people saying rather nasty things about the place, describing it as "one of Britain's ugliest council estates".

You can read the article here


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 5, 2005)

Funny how ten years ago Major still thought he could criticize the Labour Party by attacking 'socialism.'


----------



## Bob (Jan 5, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I've just posted up an interesting piece from the Guardian from 1995 when the Tories were desperately hanging on to power, pumping out the last of their dodgy rhetoric.
> 
> The Barrier Block dominated the entire front page with people saying rather nasty things about the place, describing it as "one of Britain's ugliest council estates".
> 
> You can read the article here



Regardless of anything else like the quality of the housing inside I don't think even the barrier block's friends would call it pretty...


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Regardless of anything else like the quality of the housing inside I don't think even the barrier block's friends would call it pretty...


Wash your mouth out!

I think it's, err, 'distinctive' and the internal design is excellent.

I'd rather live in a landmark building like the Barrier Block rather than some nondescript me-too block of no architectural interest.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 5, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Wash your mouth out!
> 
> I think it's, err, 'distinctive' and the internal design is excellent.
> 
> I'd rather live in a landmark building like the Barrier Block rather than some nondescript me-too block of no architectural interest.



Somehow I don't think you'd be popular if you campaigned to have the demolished walkways restored (and the entrances opened up again) to "restore the integrity of architect's original vision".


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Somehow I don't think you'd be popular if you campaigned to have the demolished walkways restored (and the entrances opened up again) to "restore the integrity of architect's original vision".


Well no, and the original lift (and basement entrance) was a nightmare.

But everyone who has been into the block has been amazed at the fantastic views, the large south facing balconies, the big windows at the back and the solid construction.

BaRR13R Bl0cK RuLeZ!


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 5, 2005)

Darcus Howe begs to differ...




			
				Darcus Howe said:
			
		

> John Major was on the housing committee that approved this block of flats. Not only would I like to see it destroyed, I would like to see it blown up so that the whole of London could see the mushroom of smoke and the flames, so they'd know that its like would never be seen again. From the outside it looks like a prison--I am sure this was in the architect's head when he designed it. I have friends who live there, and I refuse to go round to see them.



New Statesman August 18th 2003


----------



## clandestino (Jan 5, 2005)

so that photo is the barrier block from the front - ie the coldharbour lane side - is that right? i can't see the balconies - which are lovely, i can confirm, on the evidence of mike and eme's - so i guess that must be right.

is it camera trickery or does that expanse of greenery that the bloke's standing in not exist any more? so the headline could have read 'grey, sullen wasteland...and in ten years time, there won't be any grass (or hardly any)'. 

i nominate the huge blocks off the walworth road going towards old kent lane as far more depressing than the barrier block. off the park, on the right hand side if you're coming from camberwell. immense things in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Darcus Howe begs to differ...
> 
> New Statesman August 18th 2003


Cantankerous old tosser doesn't even know that architect was a Polish woman.

(His quote is already on the site, btw)


----------



## eme (Jan 5, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> is it camera trickery or does that expanse of greenery that the bloke's standing in not exist any more? so the headline could have read 'grey, sullen wasteland...and in ten years time, there won't be any grass (or hardly any)'.


I guess it's before the garage was put there? but there still is grass.... and the trees have grown... and come springtime the lovely crocuses and daffs will pop up... yay.... 




ok, so they have to keep chopping the hedges and trees to prevent junkies from hiding behind them so much but hey....


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 5, 2005)

I like it, and I'd love to live there too.  As long as I had one of these...







To take out the crack-dealing scum.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 5, 2005)

Oh, please... Enough pk lite stuff already.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 5, 2005)

I think it's a wonderful building, ruined by the crack dealing shits that never seem to leave there.


----------



## alef (Jan 5, 2005)

My main problem with it, and with so many other large concrete constructions, is that it's *grey*. And it's such an easy thing to change, why do the English hate *c**o**l**o**r**s*, ffs?! 

Or is it just in big cities? In lots of seaside towns you get all sorts of lovely bright house colours. Please, please would someone paint the South Bank, paint the Trellick Tower, paint the Barrier Block!


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2005)

my tower block was painted orange a few years ago, beleive me, it hasn't improved the look of it in the slightest, I would much prefer grey to this headache inducing shade.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2005)

There was some talk a few years ago of slapping a fucking great mural all over the façade of the Barrier Block.

Thank fuck that ridiculous idea was shot down in flames.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 5, 2005)

Mr Gaijingirl and I just bought a flat this summer on the Tulse Hill estate.  At the same time there was (and probably still is) a flat for sale in the Barrier Block.  Now, having seen pictures of the inside of the flat and inside the complex itself we were quite keen to at least take a look.

The estate agent told us not to bother, we'd never get a mortgage on the place.      It was cash only..... 

We then got turned down on another XLA flat (those really nice ones opposite Mango Landin' on Brixton Water Lane)... before finally finding where we live now.

It's a shame really that there's so much prejudice around these buildings.... which, having seen lots last year, seem to often be quite spacious and well built compared to the "conversion flats"* which would be an alternative.....


* a large room with some dodgy cardboard walls making it into several small rooms....


----------



## Bob (Jan 6, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Mr Gaijingirl and I just bought a flat this summer on the Tulse Hill estate.  At the same time there was (and probably still is) a flat for sale in the Barrier Block.  Now, having seen pictures of the inside of the flat and inside the complex itself we were quite keen to at least take a look.
> 
> The estate agent told us not to bother, we'd never get a mortgage on the place.      It was cash only.....
> 
> ...



So true - my previous place (ex LA in Vauxhall red brick 1930s) was far far larger than virtually any conversion or new flats I've seen. Middle class anti council estate prejudice is collossal though....


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 6, 2005)

RaverDrew said:
			
		

> I think it's a wonderful building, ruined by the crack dealing shits that never seem to leave there.


Well if certain people didn't buy their wares, they might go away.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Well if certain people didn't buy their wares, they might go away.


Not much chance of that, I'm afraid. We've got dealers in the block, outside the block and around the block. And then there's the nightly sojourn from junkies keen to shoot up outside or slip into the block to smoke crack in the stairwell. And if things are really bad, we'll get a crackhead and a prostitute using our stairway facilities for nocturnal fun!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 6, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> My main problem with it, and with so many other large concrete constructions, is that it's *grey*. And it's such an easy thing to change, why do the English hate *c**o**l**o**r**s*, ffs?!




Course we don't.  







and before that it was a rather fetching pink, and before that a lovely pukey green


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 6, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Mr Gaijingirl and I just bought a flat this summer on the Tulse Hill estate.  At the same time there was (and probably still is) a flat for sale in the Barrier Block.  Now, having seen pictures of the inside of the flat and inside the complex itself we were quite keen to at least take a look.




You're not that couple who were in The Standard a while back are you?


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 6, 2005)

No.... I had that question on U75 before.... I am NOT Esmerelda wotshername....

I'm sure given the amount of property for sale on The Tulse Hill estate, there is more than one couple looking at flats there! 

I moved there from the St Matthew's Estate (we also had a fair few dealer/user/prostitute problems inside our building and outside our windows) and prior to that just off Acre Lane.  

Actually, the problems on St Matthew's caused our neighbour a near nervous breakdown and after having her door kicked through one night (the guy responsible also had a good go at ours after we had the temerity to call the police), she went back to Bristol.   

Luckily we're a bit thicker skinned than she was and also we have each other, whereas she was alone.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 6, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> No.... I had that question on U75 before.... I am NOT Esmerelda wotshername....



Many apologies   


Well I'm on Renton Close which is rather nice compared to some of the estates, although we did have a crack den in there until the owner was evicted


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 6, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> My main problem with it, and with so many other large concrete constructions, is that it's *grey*. And it's such an easy thing to change, why do the English hate *c**o**l**o**r**s*, ffs?!
> 
> Or is it just in big cities? In lots of seaside towns you get all sorts of lovely bright house colours. Please, please would someone paint the South Bank, paint the Trellick Tower, paint the Barrier Block!



No! No! No! Painted concrete looks like shit within a few years:

e.g. 1: Lambeth tower blocks (Arden, Pinter, Beckett?) at Stockwell that were painted canary yellow a few years ago)
e.g. 2: the spiral staircases at the South Bank that were painted white almost ten years ago and now get more graffiti than the bare concrete bits!

The surfaces have to be regularly repainted - creating an additional maintenance cost for the occupiers.    If the concrete is in in decent nick, often all it needs is a bit of water cleaning to take 30 years of grime off.

And BTW, the barrier block is mostly dark engineering brick not concrete -    painted brick has the same maintenance problems.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 6, 2005)

Minnie_the_Minx said:
			
		

> and before that a lovely pukey green



aubergine?


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 6, 2005)

Minnie_the_Minx said:
			
		

> Many apologies
> 
> 
> Well I'm on Renton Close which is rather nice compared to some of the estates, although we did have a crack den in there until the owner was evicted



Oohh Renton Close is NICE, we couldn't afford anything up there...

Mr GG wanted to buy a flat we saw overlooking the prison in the ex-prison officer flats which are really nice... (although when I say overlooking, I do literally mean looking in through inmates' windows) but it was also much too expensive for us.. great view though of the windmill and Battersea Power Station... and as you can imagine the security is pretty high round there!!   You actually have to go through the barrier for the prison to get into the flats!!  AND as compensation they have the lowest band in council tax!!


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 6, 2005)

When I first walked past the Barrier Block I thought it was Brixton Prision!

Then when you go around the other side though the ugly ducking morphs into a swan!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 6, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> aubergine?




isn't aubergine purplish?   


It was more a khaki colour really


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 6, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Oohh Renton Close is NICE, we couldn't afford anything up there...
> 
> Mr GG wanted to buy a flat we saw overlooking the prison in the ex-prison officer flats which are really nice... (although when I say overlooking, I do literally mean looking in through inmates' windows) but it was also much too expensive for us.. great view though of the windmill and Battersea Power Station... and as you can imagine the security is pretty high round there!!   You actually have to go through the barrier for the prison to get into the flats!!  AND as compensation they have the lowest band in council tax!!




We can see the Windmill and overlook the whole of London, AND we have the Penthouse Suite   

Out of curiosity, how much was the flat going for and how many bedrooms?


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 6, 2005)

Tried to Pm you, but your box is full


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 6, 2005)

Byker Wall Gallery


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 6, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Then when you go around the other side though the ugly ducking morphs into a swan!


 From the inside looking out, at least.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 6, 2005)

Minnie_the_Minx said:
			
		

> It was more a khaki colour really


Undercoat


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 6, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> From the inside looking out, at least.



Indeed!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 6, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Undercoat





That was there for years though wasn't it?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 6, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Tried to Pm you, but your box is full




It's not now


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 6, 2005)

Minnie_the_Minx said:
			
		

> isn't aubergine purplish?
> 
> It was more a khaki colour really



I think I meant to say avocado  but got led astray by the food fads thread in Suburban.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 6, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Well if certain people didn't buy their wares, they might go away.



If that's a dig at me IS, then it's a pretty shitty one !!!


----------



## Pip (Jan 6, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> When I first walked past the Barrier Block I thought it was Brixton Prision!
> 
> Then when you go around the other side though the ugly ducking morphs into a swan!



I like the back too, those flats look like they have nice little balconies, and apparently when it was designed the architect had visions of plants growing down off them which would have looked pretty lovely. 
Actually come to think of it, I'm really fond of the whole block front and back. When I was little my friend told me you got into the flats by walking along the white zig-zaggy bits and I refuse to accept there is any other access. I can see also see the back from my windows and like to think of it as a nice little barrier, protecting my estate from the noise and pollution of Coldharbour Lane (no seriously, it's really quiet and clean here).


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 6, 2005)

Enid Laundromat said:
			
		

> When I was little my friend told me you got into the flats by walking along the white zig-zaggy bits and I refuse to accept there is any other access.


ROFL! No wonder you gave me a withering look when I said it was a sound-baffle against the flyover that never got built......


----------



## sufilala (Jan 6, 2005)

*then & now*

oops wrong thread
sorry


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 7, 2005)

Enid Laundromat said:
			
		

> the architect had visions of plants growing down off them which would have looked pretty lovely.


I agree, it's a shame those massive containers (like a giant's windowboxes) have no plants in them, just dust dry earth...a wasted opportunity.....


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I agree, it's a shame those massive containers (like a giant's windowboxes) have no plants in them, just dust dry earth...a wasted opportunity.....


I'm doing my bit - slowly - but the earth is very low quality, and without any sort of watering system in place, it's hard to keep things alive (go away for a few days in the summer and the plants are completely dried out).

But Eme is planning big things this year and we're looking for some attractive hardy plants to liven up our strip of 'grey, sullen wasteland'...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 7, 2005)

Sempervivums...they'll survive drought and wind and they are lovely....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 7, 2005)

....not very trailing though...not trailing at all....


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 7, 2005)

This'll sort out that nasty drab grey








You could be the greenest council block in London


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 7, 2005)

RaverDrew said:
			
		

> If that's a dig at me IS, then it's a pretty shitty one !!!


At least when PK talks about shooting crack dealers he isn't speaking from the position of somebody who actually buys off them.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 7, 2005)

Surely there must be an environmental charity operating in South London that is willing and eager to work with the barrier block tenants and capable of bringing in both a lorry load of compost for soil improvement and something to provide a mulch on top. (Presumably bark chippings are a no-no because syringes are so easy to "lose" in them    ).

Or maybe the whole block's residents should go on a charabanc outing to Brighton while the BBC "Ground Force" team construct cantilevered "decks in the sky"!


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 7, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> At least when PK talks about shooting crack dealers he isn't speaking from the position of somebody who actually buys off them.



So you know who I USED to my my crack from then do you IS?   

Have you considered for even one minute, that a not very serious comment that I make about the barrier block being a great place to sniper dealers, may be driven by a hatred for as shitty drug that has devastated my own life and those of many around me?

I don't understand why you feel the need to make shitty unnecessary side swipes at me, over a light hearted comment.

Unless you really believe that I'm gonna get a sniper rifle and start taking people out??


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> At least when PK talks about shooting crack dealers he isn't speaking from the position of somebody who actually buys off them.


Wooooorgh! This is way out of order. 

How about respecting people's right to privacy here, IS?

(PM me if you'd like these comments removed, RD)


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 7, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Wooooorgh! This is way out of order.
> 
> How about respecting people's right to privacy here, IS?
> 
> (PM me if you'd like these comments removed, RD)



"I've ruined my life"

It's an established legal and moral principle that you can't invoke your right to privacy if you have alreay spilled your guts to the whole world.  And if you think I'm being unduly mean to a poor old drug addict, believe me, you don't know the whole story.


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> And if you think I'm being unduly mean to a poor old drug addict, believe me, you don't know the whole story.


 I don't believe he mentioned buying drugs in the Barrier Block in that other thread,  so don't you think your comments may be a tad unnecessary and perhaps a little vindictive in this thread?


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't know what you are on about IS, but I have sent you a pm.  Lets not derail the thread with this.


----------



## oryx (Jan 7, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Surely there must be an environmental charity operating in South London that is willing and eager to work with the barrier block tenants and capable of bringing in both a lorry load of compost for soil improvement and something to provide a mulch on top.



Groundwork do this sort of thing:

http://www.groundwork.org.uk/

(I've never worked with them directly but they once approached me about a very run-down estate I used to work on.)


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2005)

You've just aqcuired a homeless person sleeping under the tree outside the Barrier Block - he's been there all day. If he's still there when I leave to go the pub, I'll drop him off a sarnie.


----------



## Pip (Jan 7, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> You've just aqcuired a homeless person sleeping under the tree outside the Barrier Block - he's been there all day. If he's still there when I leave to go the pub, I'll drop him off a sarnie.



Or point him in the direction of the empty flat on the second floor.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 8, 2005)

Go Enid!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 8, 2005)

I shall put Mike in touch with the Moorlands Estate Community Garden....and I have some Sempervivums for Eme....


----------



## alef (Jan 8, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> No! No! No! Painted concrete looks like shit within a few years:
> 
> e.g. 1: Lambeth tower blocks (Arden, Pinter, Beckett?) at Stockwell that were painted canary yellow a few years ago)
> e.g. 2: the spiral staircases at the South Bank that were painted white almost ten years ago and now get more graffiti than the bare concrete bits!
> ...



Didn't know that, thanks for filling me in. I still have a strong dislike of grey, but yes peeling worn-out paint does look pretty bad.

Minnie Minx -- as ugly as the Elephant and Castle shopping mall is, wouldn't it be even worse in grey than pink?


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 9, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> You've just aqcuired a homeless person sleeping under the tree outside the Barrier Block - he's been there all day. If he's still there when I leave to go the pub, I'll drop him off a sarnie.



Class attitude. Was he there?


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Class attitude. Was he there?


He's gorn now!


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 9, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Minnie Minx -- as ugly as the Elephant and Castle shopping mall is, wouldn't it be even worse in grey than pink?



actully it looked quite nice pink

certainly better pink that the new red colour i think grey might even be better than red


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 9, 2005)

*At the Elephant*




			
				Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> actully it looked quite nice pink
> 
> certainly better pink that the new red colour i think grey might even be better than red



You reckon? Dirty rainwashed concrete (= "grey") us better than red?

I disagree I think ....


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 9, 2005)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> You reckon? Dirty rainwashed concrete (= "grey") us better than red?
> 
> I disagree I think ....



IIRC, the underlying 1960 Shopping Centre building (as visible from the railway side) is a mixture of concrete (not in too bad condition) and pale grey engineering brick.

The cladding installed in the late 70s -when the top floor of the shopping centre became conference facilities for the DHSS [now the Bingo    ] - consists of GRC (fibreglass reinforced cement?) panels,  in the "avocado" colour that was visible until the late 1980s when the "pink Elephant" makeover took place, and then painted red about ten years ago.   

Water is now working through the joints of the GRC cladding, causing streaking and staining of the painted surface.   In the short term (assuming that the redevelopment is eventually going to take place), stripping off the GRP panels back to the brickwork, and introducing energy-efficient coloured downlighting might be a better bet  .


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2011)

Interesting piece about the ill fated plans to drive an elevated motorway through the heart of  Brixton here:



> There were to be four concentric ring roads. The North Circular and the M25 were completed in the 1980s. But the innermost, Ringway 1 – dubbed the "Motorway Box", even though it looked more like a parcel the postman had squashed to fit through a letter box – was the real Trojan Horse: four interconnected motorways that would have caused 100,000 people to be evicted, and changed the lives of millions of Londoners. The North Cross Route was to slice from Harlesden to Hackney, the South Cross Route from Clapham Junction to Kidbrooke. The two parallel roads would be joined up by the West and East Cross Routes to form one bulbous, eight-lane ring road.


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/london-roads-to-nowhere-2207351.html

*edit - there's an error in there about the amount of skyscrapers that were going to be built in Brixton - it wasn't 50, but fourteen 50-storey skyscrapers. I've emailed the author.


----------



## T & P (Feb 8, 2011)

Fuck, that would have made for a fucking grim looking place, in not just Brixton but many other areas too...


----------



## Garek (Feb 8, 2011)

T & P said:


> Fuck, that would have made for a fucking grim looking place, in not just Brixton but many other areas too...


 
Thing is a lot of damage was done. We didn't escape unscathed.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 8, 2011)

Ed, didn't you do a thread about this very subject based on a piece you wrote for the non-board bit of U75 a few years ago?


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Ed, didn't you do a thread about this very subject based on a piece you wrote for the non-board bit of U75 a few years ago?


I think so. Here's the original article: 

http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/barrier1.html


----------



## _pH_ (Feb 8, 2011)

All sounds a bit T Dan Smith and 1970s Newcastle, even down to the barrier block looking just like the Byker Wall.


----------



## nick h. (Feb 8, 2011)

Fascinating stuff. I'd never wondered why Hackney and Shepherds Bush had bits of motorway in them. But I think the disastrous effect of the proposed roads is hugely exaggerated. Notting Hill hasn't exactly been ruined by the Westway. Neither has Brixton by its many railway lines.  There's no reason why the land under an elevated road should be blighted.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 8, 2011)

There was a load about this in that docu ting that was on a year or two ago.... also about the widespread road protests around the country... I can't remember the bloody name of the show!


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 8, 2011)

The thing I don't get in that article is this line:

Well, if these roads _had_ been built, London would have developed in different ways, and _different_ 'vibrant communities' (bleurgh) would have formed.

It's a weird kind of reverse-anti-nostalgia for something that never happened.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 8, 2011)

It would've looked gash tho. Highways never look good. Witness Elephant & Castle.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Fascinating stuff. I'd never wondered why Hackney and Shepherds Bush had bits of motorway in them. But I think the disastrous effect of the proposed roads is hugely exaggerated. Notting Hill hasn't exactly been ruined by the Westway. Neither has Brixton by its many railway lines.  There's no reason why the land under an elevated road should be blighted.


Motorways are about six times as wide as rail lines, and have constant traffic providing an endless backdrop of noise and air pollution. The motorway would have had a catastrophic impact on Brixton life.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 8, 2011)

What do you mean by 'catastophic' tho? Would it have meant the end of Brixton? Turned it into an m-way 'ghetto' in the shadow of the overpass pillars? Or would it have developed, but in a different way to that which has happened?


----------



## TruXta (Feb 8, 2011)

Well, it's hard to see how exactly Brixton would benefit from lying in the shadow of a giant motorway.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 8, 2011)

Well there is that, but it's the automatic assumption that it would have been bad. No one can know.


----------



## nick h. (Feb 8, 2011)

Um, Notting Hill anyone??? The noise problem seems to me to be no worse there than the noise we get at street level in Brixton. And plenty of useful community amenities have appeared under the Westway which would otherwise have been unaffordable because of land prices. Brixton wouldn't be so terrible with a motorway over it. I'm not saying the scheme is a good idea though. More roads create more traffic. I much prefer the current scenario of a car being next to useless in London. The way that cars and car culture have been allowed to influence this country is one of its biggest failings.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 8, 2011)

Isn't there a basic disconnect in what your saying nick? "Car culture... one of its biggest failings" in contrast to "Brixton wouldn't be so terrible". It's true that land under the highway could be utilised, but at what cost?


----------



## nick h. (Feb 8, 2011)

Not at all. Brixton would evolve with a mway, as Notting Hill has done. But it would be a mistake. Simple!

e2a: I'm assuming it would be Notting Hill stylee, i.e. high up, without a local interchange. Obv if it's at ground level (as in North Kensington) or there's a junction (as at Paddington) then it's about as good as a nuclear bomb.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> What do you mean by 'catastophic' tho? Would it have meant the end of Brixton? Turned it into an m-way 'ghetto' in the shadow of the overpass pillars? Or would it have developed, but in a different way to that which has happened?


What do you think might happen when you have a predominately poor population forced to live in an unspeakably ugly and bleak urban area?


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Um, Notting Hill anyone??? The noise problem seems to me to be no worse there than the noise we get at street level in Brixton. And plenty of useful community amenities have appeared under the Westway which would otherwise have been unaffordable because of land prices. Brixton wouldn't be so terrible with a motorway over it. I'm not saying the scheme is a good idea though. More roads create more traffic. I much prefer the current scenario of a car being next to useless in London. The way that cars and car culture have been allowed to influence this country is one of its biggest failings.


Notting Hill doesn't look like this:


----------



## TruXta (Feb 8, 2011)

editor said:


> What do you think might happen when you have a predominately poor population forced to live in an unspeakably ugly and bleak urban area?


 
Can anyone say Cross-Bronx Expressway?

ETA that picture above ed, that's looking west to east right? So is that Acre Lane that would've been swallowed by the motorway?


----------



## IMR (Feb 8, 2011)

Not much seems to thrive underneath elevated motorways and flyovers, despite a few exceptions along the Westway. Railway arches provide a more hospitable environment, even though they have a lot of problems with damp.


----------



## nick h. (Feb 8, 2011)

editor said:


> What do you think might happen when you have a predominately poor population forced to live in an unspeakably ugly and bleak urban area?



Isn't that pretty much what we have now?  Every big estate (apart from the Moorlands) is hideous.


----------



## Garek (Feb 8, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> What do you mean by 'catastophic' tho? Would it have meant the end of Brixton? Turned it into an m-way 'ghetto' in the shadow of the overpass pillars? Or would it have developed, but in a different way to that which has happened?


 
I think you only got to look at Hammersmith to see how negatively an area can be affected. And the Rochester Relief Road, that's another good example.

I do see what you are saying though.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Isn't that pretty much what we have now?  Every big estate (apart from the Moorlands) is hideous.


They may be 'hideous' to your eyes, but there's still a fairly rich mix of old and new housing, with the odd architectural gem scattered about. 

Brixton has seen definite environmental improvements in recent years and I think it would have been a different story for residents stuck under a grim concrete motorway scheme.

Or, to put it another way, how would you fancy living right next to a busy elevated motorway? It would have run _right outside my house_ and believe me, it would have been a hideous sight.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 8, 2011)

ed, your diagram was mislabelled when you created it, it was mislabelled a couple of years ago when you last did this thread, and it's mislabelled now. That's not St. Matthews Church, it's the town hall. HTH 

Also, note the dark grey line to the left of the motorway - that's the railway, so the motorway would have left the edge of coldharbour lane around granville market and crossed the highstreet by the railway bridges. What you've labelled Moorlands estate is actually the rushcroft, saltoun, kellet, mervan roads area.


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2011)

Crispy said:


> ed, your diagram was mislabelled when you created it, it was mislabelled a couple of years ago when you last did this thread, and it's mislabelled now. That's not St. Matthews Church, it's the town hall. HTH
> 
> Also, note the dark grey line to the left of the motorway - that's the railway, so the motorway would have left the edge of coldharbour lane around granville market and crossed the highstreet by the railway bridges. What you've labelled Moorlands estate is actually the rushcroft, saltoun, kellet, mervan roads area.


I was baffled myself by that , but it's a well vintage graphic that needs replacing anyhow. Can you do me a favour and just scrawl the correct areas on it? I intend to do a proper update to the article.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 8, 2011)

Have you got the original, without captions? I can overlay the road names myself


----------



## TopCat (Feb 8, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Fascinating stuff. I'd never wondered why Hackney and Shepherds Bush had bits of motorway in them. But I think the disastrous effect of the proposed roads is hugely exaggerated. Notting Hill hasn't exactly been ruined by the Westway. Neither has Brixton by its many railway lines.  There's no reason why the land under an elevated road should be blighted.


 
Look at the two communities on each side of the A12 going up to Hackney. The road totally dissects them.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 8, 2011)

Also, in Brixton the railways came first.


----------



## nick h. (Feb 8, 2011)

editor said:


> They may be 'hideous' to your eyes, but there's still a fairly rich mix of old and new housing, with the odd architectural gem scattered about.
> 
> Brixton has seen definite environmental improvements in recent years and I think it would have been a different story for residents stuck under a grim concrete motorway scheme.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, how would you fancy living right next to a busy elevated motorway? It would have run _right outside my house_ and believe me, it would have been a hideous sight.


 
This point scoring is getting tedious. I was talking about the big estates. It's fairly safe to assume I meant the likes of the Loughborough and St. Matthew's no? But you come back with old buildings and architectural gems.  And you're conveniently forgetting that your 'house' was designed with the motorway in mind.  If the original design had been kept your view would have been over a big landscaped garden/square where the Moorlands now sits.


----------



## fortyplus (Feb 8, 2011)

something like this came up in the search when we bought our house in 1989 as a blight/risk factor.

The road was planned to follow the railway line across Ferndale Rd to Clapham North.

But by 1989 that line was going to be used for the Eurostar, which pushed this motorway madness to the back burner.


----------



## plurker (Feb 8, 2011)

It's often chatted about in the pub that if similar had been done in Streatham it might actually be quite nice - take all the traffic off the High Road and put it up on an elevated section, or even tunnel it under...I had no idea this had been mooted in seriousness - thanks for the repeat of the thread matter - I was't on urban last time it came up


----------



## davesgcr (Feb 8, 2011)

Robert (f**ing) Moses destroyed the Bronx with his Cross - Bronx Expressway - it divided , destroyed and blighted well established communities , leading in part to the almost total collapse of part of the Borough from the 1960''s onwards (OK - there were other things as well as the cursed road) - see Robert Caro's book "The Power Broker" for his ruthless , autocratic , town planning style.

The furore and blight concerning Westway (the only piece of London's Motorway box built) - was huge and it effectively changed the LCC power base at the next election , causing the abandonment of the grand strategy - saving Wandsworth Common , Kensington etc from a concrete and rubber tyred hell. Planners thought the car was the future - Prof Peter Hall called for demoliton of much of Camden Town in favour of a new N-S road from Centre Point to the M1 - calling the area "worn out and outmoded" - 25 years later the same man climbed down , retracted the car mantra and called for investment in cross London rail links like Crossrail and the Jubilee line.

We had a lucky escape IMHO - and before any one bleats about the railways in the 19thC , with few exceptions like Shoreditch and St Pancras station - railways _*preceded*_ development , espacially (and ironicaly along the Hammersmith branch of the Met line via Ladbroke Grove, and the North London Line ran through open country from Camden to Hackney when built.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 8, 2011)

davesgcr said:


> Robert (f**ing) Moses destroyed the Bronx with his Cross - Bronx Expressway - it divided , destroyed and blighted well established communities , leading in part to the almost total collapse of part of the Borough from the 1960''s onwards (OK - there were other things as well as the cursed road) - see Robert Caro's book "The Power Broker" for his ruthless , autocratic , town planning style.
> 
> The furore and blight concerning Westway (the only piece of London's Motorway box built) - was huge and it effectively changed the LCC power base at the next election , causing the abandonment of the grand strategy - saving Wandsworth Common , Kensington etc from a concrete and rubber tyred hell. Planners thought the car was the future - Prof Peter Hall called for demoliton of much of Camden Town in favour of a new N-S road from Centre Point to the M1 - calling the area "worn out and outmoded" - 25 years later the same man climbed down , retracted the car mantra and called for investment in cross London rail links like Crossrail and the Jubilee line.
> 
> We had a lucky escape IMHO - and before any one bleats about the railways in the 19thC , with few exceptions like Shoreditch and St Pancras station - railways _*preceded*_ development , espacially (and ironicaly along the Hammersmith branch of the Met line via Ladbroke Grove, and the North London Line ran through open country from Camden to Hackney when built.


 
Interestingly, using public transport (tubes + trams) to develop outlying urban areas was also a favoured strategy of town planners and politicians in mid-20th century Oslo.

For more on the parallels to Bronx, and what happened there in the 70s and 80s I suggest looking at the work done by the Wallaces, Rodrick and Deborah.
# http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90143-R
# http://www.environment-and-planning.com/epa/fulltext/a23/a231701.pdf
# http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...0c210fe9cbe15da3ae59b4ecd8bda375&searchtype=a
# http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=...50LJ4xnvr3x2xmPl8dkqC_lZw#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Crispy (Feb 8, 2011)

Here's that image, recaptioned and with a little more clarity as to what's what.



Click it to make it a little clearer


----------



## TruXta (Feb 8, 2011)

Cheers, Cripsy, that helps a lot.


----------



## oryx (Feb 8, 2011)

Great thread, great article. I was hoping there might be a book mentioned at the end of the Indy article, but no. 

I've often mused about how Leeds and Manchester are so traversed by motorways when London isn't. I like both Northern cities but they have a different 'feel' to them from London because of the elevated motorways. 

One of my first jobs was working on that estate with the six tower blocks, that's cut in half by the Westway!


----------



## Crispy (Feb 8, 2011)

arse, vbulletin has mangled my image with crappy compression. I'll send you a PNG (and layered photoshop!) tomorrow, ed.


----------



## Ol Nick (Feb 8, 2011)

oryx said:


> I've often mused about how Leeds and Manchester are so traversed by motorways when London isn't. I like both Northern cities but they have a different 'feel' to them from London because of the elevated motorways.


 And does it work in those cities? Do the motorways mean people can get around easily. Or does it mean they spend longer in cars than we do on tubes?


----------



## oryx (Feb 8, 2011)

Ol Nick said:


> And does it work in those cities? Do the motorways mean people can get around easily. Or does it mean they spend longer in cars than we do on tubes?


 
I think it does mean people get around more easily by car than in London, yes. I'm only basing this on my own experience, though.


----------



## Garek (Feb 8, 2011)

Never been to Glasgow but always wondered how herrendous it must be to have a motorway ploughing right through it.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 8, 2011)

oryx said:


> I think it does mean people get around more easily by car than in London, yes. I'm only basing this on my own experience, though.


 
Simply down to scale I'd think.


----------



## T & P (Feb 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Here's that image, recaptioned and with a little more clarity as to what's what.
> 
> View attachment 13652
> 
> Click it to make it a little clearer


 Interesting. 

I wonder what route it would have taken to Clapham Junction. Presumbably it would have eaten up part of Clapham Common as well in its wake.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 9, 2011)

No, it would have stayed away from the common and followed the South London Line railway. No idea if that means beside (taking out Ferndale Road) or suspended over on legs. The area around Clapham North tube would have been flattened for a junction. It would have gone in cutting/tunnel under the railway at Queenstown Road/Battersea Park and end up crossing the river into Brompton, alongside the West London Line, then up past Brompton Cemetery and Earl's Court as the West Cross Route into Holland Park.


----------



## T & P (Feb 9, 2011)

A mighty mess, at any event.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 9, 2011)

Yes. Hundreds of homes demolished, roads re-routed, communities divided. It would have been hideous (just like the ECR is)


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 9, 2011)

Whoa!

Wasnt this in the Indie on Monday ? complete with U75 quotes?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 9, 2011)

The indy link is in the OP


----------



## marty21 (Feb 9, 2011)

Interesting article, I use the A12 occasionally, it's a depressing stretch of road.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 9, 2011)

> It would have been hideous (just like the ECR is)



Is that the M11 extension bit before you get to the A12? Considerably better than having to spend hours waiting on tiny roads in the middle of high streets, which it was before.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 9, 2011)

It _is_ the A12.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 9, 2011)

Ok, the 'new' bit, with the nice brickwork.


----------



## nick h. (Feb 9, 2011)

Junctions aside, it's all about elevation innit? A ground level motorway wrecks a community in much the same way as the Israeli West Bank Barrier.  Here's the East Cross Route bisecting Bow:








An elevated one causes massive disruption and destruction in the short term but new life emerges in its shadow.  Under the Westway:












In a few cases it even benefits the community in the long term by relieving congestion. (Not that this would ever apply in London.)


----------



## TruXta (Feb 9, 2011)

That last one sure as fuck ain't the Westway! Also, even if it's true that "new life can grow" that doesn't do much for those whose lives get warped out of recognition by such projects.


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 9, 2011)

nick h. said:


> An elevated one causes massive disruption and destruction in the short term but new life emerges in its shadow.



Ahem.   That short term tended to drag on a bit.    Most people of 45+ probably still associate Westway with the banners put up when it opened:  "Get us out of this hell"


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2011)

nick h. said:


> An elevated one causes massive disruption and destruction in the short term but new life emerges in its shadow.  Under the Westway:


Would you like to live under/or directly facing an elevated motorway Y/N?

And one thing those carefully selected photos don't show is the incessant noise and air borne pollution that blights the lives of anyone unfortunate enough to live nearby..


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2011)

And didn't it look _utterly divine_ under the Westway, a whole two decades after it was opened?







http://www.photo-zen.com/slideshows/lonback05.html


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 9, 2011)

I can't see there's any legs in the argument that motorways are good for an area really, whatever might spring up underneath them. Has anyone, ever, demanded one be built in their area?

As far as there are benefits to them they're for the people trying to get from somewhere else to somewhere else and just passing through.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 9, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Has anyone, ever, demanded one be built in their area? As far as there are benefits to them they're for the people trying to get from somewhere else to somewhere else and just passing through.


 
Loads I reckon, but probably more so in the States and other places with much space to try and fill and capital to garner. I bet the people living there regretted that decision after a while.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 9, 2011)

Nick's paradise:


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Loads I reckon, but probably more so in the States and other places with much space to try and fill and capital to garner. I bet the people living there regretted that decision after a while.



Maybe. More likely they've demanded they be built a convenient distance away from where they actually live I'd have thought.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 9, 2011)

I wasn't being entirely serious, but totally failed to put that through. Soz.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 9, 2011)

I might have got it but I'm English so I'm culturally programmed to take any slur on the intelligence of Americans entirely seriously.


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 9, 2011)

This is a rather awesome section of Chris' British Road Directory which deals with the Ringways project in detail. I was surprised to hear in the article that the North Circular was built in the 1980s, I thought it was built in the 1930s initially. Maybe widened in the 1980s.

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/ringways/


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 9, 2011)

Brixton was due to get not one but two new urban motorways


----------



## nick h. (Feb 10, 2011)

editor said:


> Would you like to live under/or directly facing an elevated motorway Y/N?


I'd be quite content on the Portobello Road 30 yards from the Westway.  Lots of people are. That's why it's so expensive. But I wouldn't like to live in the paradise which Southwyck House is today.

Just because you assert that something is catastrophic doesn't mean everyone will agree.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2011)

nick h. said:


> I'd be quite content on the Portobello Road 30 yards from the Westway.  Lots of people are. That's why it's so expensive. But I wouldn't like to live in the paradise which Southwyck House is today.


And that's the important bit you're still failing to grasp. 

Brixton is nothing like Portobello Road so the impact of an elevated motorway would have been entirely different.


----------



## paolo (Feb 10, 2011)

I'm not for one minute advocating urban motorways, but as a bit of road engineering I think the Westway is awesome. In terms of impact vs throughput, in such a dense area, it's something we've never managed before or since.

Look elsewhere in the capital and there's some real horror shows. Stuff where it's a straight carve. Pedestrians wanting to cross the divide are relegated to bleak bridges. Side paths, where they exist, are littered with "truckers cider" (bottles of piss). The land either side is relegated to either desperation housing, industrial estates, or "World of Sideboards" retail parks.

The Westway though - there's allsorts of shops, even clubs nestling underneath. It's not pretty, but it's a shit load better than the other arterials.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 10, 2011)

Crispy said:


> It _is_ the A12.


 
In which case all that stuff about precendence mentioned earlier in the thread falls down a bit since the route of the A12 has been a major road from London - Ipswich since the Romans. In fact it was _the_ main road as it ran from Colchester, the then 'capital' of Roman Britain.

And this is why using the precedence argument is always dodgy.


----------



## T & P (Feb 10, 2011)

nick h. said:


> I'd be quite content on the Portobello Road 30 yards from the Westway.  Lots of people are. That's why it's so expensive.


 And how much _more_ expensive do you think the area would be if it didn't have that hideous eyesore to contend with?

As Ed points out, the area is *still* desirable because it has always been one of the most expensive and sought after areas of London- well before the elevated highway was even thougth of. 

Mayfair or Chelsea would still be desirable to many if they had an elevated motorway across them. But _nowhere near_ as desirable as they are in their current form.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2011)

Brixton was already in huge decline by the 70s, and unlike the Westway, there were no plans to keep the local architecture. Instead the plans involved flattening vast swathes of Victorian housing and replacing them with 50 story tower blocks straddling the elevated motorway. 

So, nothing like Notting Hill at all then.


----------



## nick h. (Feb 11, 2011)

I give you Trellick Tower. But don't bother to reply, it's a redundant discussion. The main point at issue in this thread is your determination to win it.


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2011)

nick h. said:


> I give you Trellick Tower. But don't bother to reply, it's a redundant discussion. The main point at issue in this thread is your determination to win it.


WTF has Trellick Tower got to do with this? Are you really suggesting that the slew of 50-storey blocks built in a sea of concrete that were proposed for Brixton would somehow have ended up with the same value as the smaller and singular Grade II listed Trellick Tower? It's not even next to the motorway ffs.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 11, 2011)

It needs pointing out that Notting Hill and N Kensington in the 60s weren't anything like they are today, so I don't think that the comparison is all that off. That's not the point tho - the point being that I'd like to see some more evidence from nick that highways/motorways are a boon more than a bane to communities.

This site has some interesting comments:



> *Planning Disaster*
> In terms of people and communities, the elevated motorway was a disaster. Planned before the revolutionary Buchanan report of 1963, which called for new road schemes to take social and environmental factors into account, no attempt had been made to integrate it with the area through which it passed. The route was marked out on the map, the way cleared, and the road built. If an end of a street or a block got in the way, it was chopped, leaving houses in some cases less than 20 feet from passing traffic, their luckless inhabitants unable to claim compensation. As for the land left derelict under the motorway, the planners had given no thought to restoring it to local use.
> 
> 
> At the official opening of the Western Avenue extension in July 1970, local residents expressed their feelings. Shouts of 'Philistine!' and 'Get us re-housed now!' met the arrival of Michael Heseltine, Parliamentary Secretary at the Transport Ministry. Arriving by lorry the wrong way up an 'unopened' slip road and evading a police block, protesters from Walmer Road and Pamber Street advanced down the motorway causing total confusion among the procession of official cars. Some sang 'uncomplimentary songs, especially composed for the occasion', according to the Kensington Post. The ministerial cavalcade later drove the length of the twin dual-carriageway, stopping opposite a row of three-storey terraced houses in Acklam Road, North Kensington, where residents had hung, 'Get us out of this Hell- Re-house Us Now' on a huge banner outside their windows. It took residents and housing action groups up to two years of protracted lobbying and wrangling with the Greater London Council before all those most immediately affected by the motorway were eventually re-housed.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 11, 2011)

The thing is, that's a planning & implementation failure, which is a different thing from it simply being 'elevated roads are bad, mmmkay?'


----------



## TruXta (Feb 11, 2011)

I don't see how you can separate out the two - at least in the context of elevated roads in densely populated urban areas. Clearly an elevated road can be a good thing in certain circumstances - it can negate the effects on wildlife for example by not separating two sections of a species' population. So this thread is not and has not been a discussion of whether elevated roads per se are good or bad, rather it is precisely about planning and implementation in a given place and time.

To reiterate, I'm perfectly willing to concede that elevated roads can be good, just show me the evidence already.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 11, 2011)

TBH I'm doing a troll-lite on this issue...


----------



## nick h. (Feb 11, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I'd like to see some more evidence from nick that highways/motorways are a boon more than a bane to communities


 
Jesus wept, how come you've put me in the pro-motorway lobby??  Here's what I actually said, all of two pages ago: "there's no reason why the land under an elevated road should be blighted...Brixton wouldn't be so terrible with a motorway over it. I'm not saying the scheme is a good idea... More roads create more traffic. I much prefer the current scenario of a car being next to useless in London....Brixton would evolve with a mway, as Notting Hill has done. But it would be a mistake....A ground level motorway wrecks a community in much the same way as the Israeli West Bank Barrier...An elevated one causes massive disruption and destruction in the short term but new life emerges in its shadow...In a few cases it even benefits the community in the long term by relieving congestion. (Not that this would ever apply in London.)" I illustrated the last point with a pic of the Millau viaduct, just to encourage people to use their imagination and think about the rare scenarios when elevated motorways are beneficial to the local community. (Millau is on a main route from Paris to the South of France. The local roads used to be gridlocked during the holiday season.)


----------



## chrisscottd1 (Feb 27, 2011)

Under the Big Billboard thread a discussion started about the architect and style of the Barrier/Southwyck House (Bauhaus or not?). Despite having lived there since it was built I realize I know little about it – though have heard lots of stories.

On several sites a young Polish woman is credited as architect but no name given. She is said to have committed suicide – again, no details given. I had in my mind a story that she had been taught by a pupil of the Bauhaus schools – but remembered no details.

The more absurd street stories of the building being the wrong way around and the architect throwing herself to her doom from its roof when she realized are thoroughly exploded, but oddly pernicious.

I have found that Chief architect was Ted Hollamby, famous for his restoration of William Morris’ Red House. He was a member of the MARS (modern architectural research) group, and heavily influenced by Arthur Korn, an associate of Gropius and the Bauhaus.

Certainly fits in with severe style/form following function style of the place.

Where the Polish woman of legend fits in I have no idea.

Any corrections/information welcome


----------



## chrisscottd1 (Feb 27, 2011)

chrisscottd1 said:


> Under the Big Billboard thread a discussion started about the architect and style of the Barrier/Southwyck House


----------



## happyshopper (Feb 28, 2011)

chrisscottd1 said:


> I have found that Chief architect was Ted Hollamby, famous for his restoration of William Morris’ Red House.


 
And infamous for being planning chief in Lambeth.

See guardianobituaries


----------



## lordnoise (Feb 28, 2011)

Like all high rise. Great for young singles and young kidless couples. Carp for everyone else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2011)

lordnoise said:


> Like all high rise. Great for young singles and young kidless couples. Carp for everyone else.


 
That sounds a bit fishy to me.


----------



## lordnoise (Feb 28, 2011)

The world is swimming in it believe me.


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2011)

lordnoise said:


> Like all high rise. Great for young singles and young kidless couples. Carp for everyone else.


There's loads of families living in the Barrier Block and the wide covered walkways are handy for kids to play in.


----------



## lordnoise (Feb 28, 2011)

Is it a generally 'happy' estate ed ? Its always looked daunting to me ...


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2011)

lordnoise said:


> Is it a generally 'happy' estate ed ? Its always looked daunting to me ...


It used to be as rough as fuck and it's had some very dicey periods, but it's a lot better now and I think it's a very well built and very well designed block. It's leagues above the cheaply built blocks along Barrington Rd, for example.


----------



## chrisscottd1 (Feb 28, 2011)

The flats are well designed, slightly quirky, quite spacious, secure, light and warm. All except 4 one beds have their own outdoor space – the ground floor have gardens, the second reasonable sized courtyards and the upper floor sizable balconies. It was a convention at first that the upper floor was not let to families with children, but pressure of housing, peoples habit of coupling up and sprogging and their reluctance to move means that has gone by the board. There is also secure space in the walkways for some play, and easy access to Loughborough Park on the Moorland Road. With some small effort extra secure playspace could be created on the CHL frontage. On the whole the Barrier flats are better for families than most social housing in the area (I work in  the field and go into hundreds).

The block itself is quite a clever design (not the architects fault the motorway which drove its design was fortunately dropped) and, like Brixton itself, it has a strong sense of place and identity. No point here playing the  – _it’s Brixton, but on the borders of Clapham, almost South Chelsea really! _game. It’s the Barrier, its Brixton – deal with it!

I like the block and am a bit concerned that the developers plans to soften it by adding decorative cladding will look as absurd as make up and false eyelashes on a boxer.


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2011)

chrisscottd1 said:


> I like the block and am a bit concerned that the developers plans to soften it by adding decorative cladding will look as absurd as make up and false eyelashes on a boxer.


I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen, given the budget cuts.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 28, 2011)

Interesting defence of Modernism is Owen Hatherleys book Militant Modernism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/09/militant-modernism-owen-hatherley-reviewed

His blog:

http://nastybrutalistandshort.blogspot.com/


----------



## lordnoise (Feb 28, 2011)

I'm pleased things have turned around there - I remember leafleting there one winters evening the early 90s and being very worried about getting out. I was in Byker in Newcastle recently which has also turned itself around after a bad patch.

http://www.futurecommunities.net/case-studies/byker-estate-newcastle-1967-present

Is the Barrier listed ?


----------



## pootle (Mar 1, 2011)

chrisscottd1 said:


> On several sites a young Polish woman is credited as architect but no name given. She is said to have committed suicide – again, no details given. I had in my mind a story that she had been taught by a pupil of the Bauhaus schools – but remembered no details.
> 
> The more absurd street stories of the building being the wrong way around and the architect throwing herself to her doom from its roof when she realized are thoroughly exploded, but oddly pernicious.
> 
> ...


 
This seems to be something of an urban myth as I've heard the same about the architect of the Heygate on Walworth Road.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2011)

lordnoise said:


> I'm pleased things have turned around there - I remember leafleting there one winters evening the early 90s and being very worried about getting out. I was in Byker in Newcastle recently which has also turned itself around after a bad patch.
> 
> http://www.futurecommunities.net/case-studies/byker-estate-newcastle-1967-present
> 
> Is the Barrier listed ?



thanks for the website link. Most interesting.


----------



## chrisscottd1 (Mar 6, 2011)

*listing*



Gramsci said:


> thanks for the website link. Most interesting.



Thanks for that.

Comparison with Byker Wall, both construction and reputation, very valid. Like the Byker, the Barrier is an innovative design which was much maligned and it also suffered from poor management during the 80s.

We did start to apply for grade 2 listing, but more as a way of putting pressure on Council to correct the one great flaw in its design, staircases open to the street. (listed buildings are a serious inconvenience to Councils) 

The rather brutal looking but effective insertion of concierge pods and new lift towers has tampered with the original integrity of design too far for listing now I think. 

Fortunately  bothbuildings are begining to be appreciated at last.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2011)

chrisscottd1 said:


> The rather brutal looking but effective insertion of concierge pods and new lift towers has tampered with the original integrity of design too far for listing now I think.
> 
> Fortunately  bothbuildings are begining to be appreciated at last.


I rather like the Stalag-esque look of the extensions and think it matches up with the original design rather well.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2011)

I've unearthed some pretty horrid plans which were granted outline consent in 2002. 

The architect wanted to get rid of the green park in front of the block and add a nice new hidden space for ne'er do wells behind some seriously wonky looking buildings. One appears to be wearing a hat!












http://www.mcmorranandgatehouse.com/0204.htm


----------



## peterkro (Jun 3, 2011)

pootle said:


> This seems to be something of an urban myth as I've heard the same about the architect of the Heygate on Walworth Road.



I've heard that story about the Stockwell Park estate.This version says the female architect moved to Canada after it was finished and later committed suicide.


----------



## story (Jun 3, 2011)

I wonder why the architect in the story tends to be a woman?

I like the barrier block, always did. I had several sets of friends living there back in the day, it was the first place that I knew in Brixton. And far from feeling put off by the barrier aspect of it, it always felt to me like passing into the safety of a castle keep.

Got to know the Stockwell Park Estate as well but that was always gloomy and there was less of a community feel to it.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2011)

I've just posted up a new piece about the block 
http://www.urban75.org/blog/the-singular-beauty-of-southwyck-house-aka-the-brixton-barrier-block/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2011)

I have a memory niggling at me about having seen an estate with a similar design to the barrier somewhere in Germany, buggered if I can remember where, though.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2011)

editor said:


> I've just posted up a new piece about the block
> http://www.urban75.org/blog/the-singular-beauty-of-southwyck-house-aka-the-brixton-barrier-block/


 
I Like the photos.

And u make a good point. The people who actually live there arent asked there opinion.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 3, 2011)

Can we see more pictures of the rear of the block?


----------



## Belushi (Jun 3, 2011)

When boohoo and I were showing our counterparts from Washington DC around Brixtons murals they were very taken with the barrier block, and thanks to Urban I was able to tell them a little about it.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2011)

nagapie said:


> Can we see more pictures of the rear of the block?


I couldn't find the ones I'd taken before, but I'll try and snap some soon. It's not as imposing because there's housing close up to it.


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 22, 2012)

Just saw this hilarious Video on the Ringways. Thought people here might enjoy.


----------



## mango5 (Aug 15, 2016)

Barrier block serves as a striking illustration of urban alienation in a roundup of research on neuroscience of city living.
The Mystery of Urban Psychosis


----------



## bimble (Aug 15, 2016)

what a strange article. No doubt the study that its based on goes a bit deeper into why it might be that there's a higher rate of mental health issues amongst those living in social housing that in the pretty victorian streets next door, and doesn't blame it all on aesthetics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> what a strange article. No doubt the study that its based on goes a bit deeper into why it might be that there's a higher rate of mental health issues amongst those living in social housing that in the pretty victorian streets next door, and doesn't blame it all on aesthetics.


the 2007 study it's based on: http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...=Neighbourhood_variation_in_the_incidence.pdf


----------



## bimble (Aug 15, 2016)

I didn't need those illustrations to tell me that my ward, coldharbour, contains more people with severe mental health issues than leafy Herne Hill for instance, but interesting still. The numbers are very small, though. For instance, directly opposite me is a house run by a charity to help people who have been in residential psychiatric care to transition back to independent living, so even that one house would impact the results isn't it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> I didn't need those illustrations to tell me that my ward, coldharbour, contains more people with severe mental health issues than leafy Herne Hill for instance, but interesting still. The numbers are very small, though. For instance, directly opposite me is a house run by a charity to help people who have been in residential psychiatric care to transition back to independent living, so even that one house would impact the results isn't it.


only if it had been there in 2007 & the researchers were aware of it


----------



## CH1 (Aug 15, 2016)

mango5 said:


> Barrier block serves as a striking illustration of urban alienation in a roundup of research on neuroscience of city living.
> The Mystery of Urban Psychosis


I've always subscribed to the theory that concentrations of  cases of serious mental health problems were greater in social housing because that's where the patients concerned ended up being rehoused.

However the article takes a much broader look than that. I thought the opening paragraph rang bells - the sort of thing you might have read in The Independent or The Guardian any time from about 1985 onwards. Unsurprisingly therefore it turns out that the author is indeed a Guardian columnist - and a clinician.

I think we need a Marxist Aesthetic perspective on this. I reckon paranoia is a necessary part of human make-up. The sort of thing that drives art, religion and politics. Except that when it spills into dysfunctional behaviour, violence and domestic chaos it has only traditionally been accommodated in social housing estates.

The acid test for the author's aesthetic musings will come in 20 years time. Will the Battersea/Nine Elms/Vauxhall mega development produce paranoid schizophrenia because the environment is so anonymous and socially alienating?

Or is it in the end all down to money? Can you be as alienated as you like provided you've got the dosh to lubricate your ego in whatever way you choose?

Finally I would like to know from Vaughn Bell who wrote the Atlantic article - does he know anyone in the Barrier Block, Moorland Estate, or indeed the poorer parts of Lambeth? Maybe he just spotted the barrier block on a swift cruise past on the Overground to the Department of Psychiatry at Denmark Hill - and his mind flooded with associations?

I would only suggest to those who love living in the Barrier Block - maybe they should start listing proceedings as a precautionary measure against Lambeth's regeneration scheme Phase IV.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 15, 2016)

I can recommend _not _reading the comments.


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2016)

Not really sure why the block mentioned in the article, to be honest.


----------



## mango5 (Aug 16, 2016)

Here's why 






			
				article said:
			
		

> The area [ward including the notorious block] was found to have the highest rate of diagnosed schizophrenia in a large study of South London, even when compared with directly adjacent neighborhoods.


 Most of the research mentioned is quite recent (last couple of years). The photo of Shanghai is less understandable to me.


----------



## bimble (Aug 16, 2016)

The same ward, (Coldharbour) also contains the Loughborough estate, the towers of which are arguably a far crappier place to live than Southwyck House, really cheaply constructed. Maybe the author of the article for the independant just didn't bother walking this far up the road from the Village.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2016)

mango5 said:


> Here's why  Most of the research mentioned is quite recent (last couple of years). The photo of Shanghai is less understandable to me.


Yes, _the area_ has high rates of mental illness, but why this one particular block which is in fact a really well designed block, with some apartments (sadly) now sadly going for £400,000?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 16, 2016)

The barrier block flats are really nice, but it has a horrible relationship with the street. A podium of blank-faced parking, access ramps and ventilation grilles.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2016)

Crispy said:


> The barrier block flats are really nice, but it has a horrible relationship with the street. A podium of blank-faced parking, access ramps and ventilation grilles.


I'll be the first to admit that it's not to everyone's tastes, but that's due to their historic legacy. Inside the block is very well built, and it's impact could be considerably softened by landscaping over the vile car wash business, with its hideous metal fencing and cheap signage.

I still think the block has more worth than most of the bland shite going up around Brixton now though, most of which looks like cheaply-built Milton Keynes office blocks.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2016)

Much of the stuff in that article seems to have come from the articles on urban75, btw. 

A short history of the Barrier Block, Southwyck House, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton, London SW9 with photos, panoramas and general information.
A short history of the Barrier Block, Southwyck House, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton, London SW9 with photos, panoramas and general information.
The singular beauty of Southwyck House, aka the Brixton Barrier Block


----------



## purenarcotic (Aug 16, 2016)

There is much better and more interesting reference to how our local geography and environment can affect our mental health in Lynsey Hanley's 'Estates'.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> View attachment 90987 The same ward, (Coldharbour) also contains the Loughborough estate, the towers of which are arguably a far crappier place to live than Southwyck House, really cheaply constructed. Maybe the author of the article for the independant just didn't bother walking this far up the road from the Village.


I can't agree with this.

First of all "in the same ward" had me thinking of the charmingly named "Eden Ward" low security intensive care unit at Lambeth Hospital - for this is the first resort for those in Coldharbour requiring in-house care and assistance in the psychiatric department.

Second of all I disagree with your high-handed write-off of the New Loughbroough blocks.

It is amply clear from your picture that the New Loughborough Estate was designed with aesthetics in mind - pleasing to the eye as a 1950s architect might find, one who was accustomed to the ideas of Le Corbusier. The estate was system built by the LCC as part of a massive housing programme, such as we need today. It turns out that the construction methods had some serious defects leading to millions of pounds worth of concrete repairs over the years. It seems that there may have been high alumina cement used in the blocks, but more importantly the external panels, concrete and glazed, are bolted onto the structure. Some of these bolts were not properly tightened and also rusted, which again attacked the concrete and rusted iron expands fracturing the concrete. No doubt if these maintenance problems had arisen now the council would be inviting Lend Lease in to do a 100% demolition job like on the Heygate. 

Other than that I would say the flat designs are a good compromise - they are mainly maisonettes, design to replicate the feel of living in a house (this is also the case with Southwyck House by the way).

Unfortunately the 1994 Brixton Challenge alterations seriously compromised the aesthetic qualities of New Loughborough in the interests of security - adding manic entrance porches and concierge systems by local architect Greenhill Jenner (sadly recently liquidated).

In my opinion (though no doubt editor may not agree) the Greenhill Jenner alterations to the Barrier Block carried out at the same time, and also funded by Brixton Challenge, actually improve the situation there. Aesthetically the red and metal textures of the added in concierge and stairwell structural cladding relieve the tendency to bleakness of the original design [in my opinion].

I still can't see that the actual flat designs could cause schizophrenia - though possibly living in flats with much more anonymity than say cobbled streets in Lancashire might mean loneliness, isolation etc leading to mental disorder.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 16, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I think we need a Marxist Aesthetic perspective on this. I reckon paranoia is a necessary part of human make-up. The sort of thing that drives art, religion and politics. Except that when it spills into dysfunctional behaviour, violence and domestic chaos it has only traditionally been accommodated in social housing estates.



Art, religion - cultural activities. Culture in the broadest sense is a product of society as a whole. Marxist Aesthetics would relate culture to the underlying way society is run economically.

Under Capitalism- the system we live under now people are alienated from there full potential. The mass of people have to sell there labour to live. They do not have full freedom. Capitalism can produce an abundance of goods and the technology to free people from work ( selling there labour). Its only with Capitalism being superseded that alienation can be ended.

Then all can partake of making culture on an equal basis.

The article does not address the issue that recent urbanisation has been done under Capitalism.



> There are good reasons to think that city living might be the cause of some of these problems. The two big psychological negatives of city living, social isolation and social threat, are already well studied in mental health. They are risk factors for a range of psychological difficulties but have been particularly associated with misperceptions and paranoia.



It does not have to be this way.




> The data shows that urban environments reliably increase the chances of being diagnosed with schizophrenia or having related experiences like paranoia and hallucinations.



Its not that cities cause madness so much as the Capitalist system we live under may lead to certain types of mental disorders. In the article the first idea that this may happen comes from the 1900s in America. Which at that time was becoming an advanced Capitalist society. So its urbanisation under Capitalism that’s the problem. 

There is a debate in Marxist (influenced) circles that Capitalism is like schizophrenia. I really don’t know enough about this.



> When Jameson diagnoses our culture as schizophrenic, he is telling us that our culture is not fully human.



( This is going similar to Marxist idea that as individuals under Capitalism we are alienated from our labour and the products of our labour. So do not live in Marxist terms our full human potential. Which is true human freedom. )

Going about a city like London the culture one is bombarded by is consumer culture. Even if one cannot partake of it. Its not urbanisation as such but the form it takes. The pressures on individuals living in cities like ours is immense.

Talking to a Chinese friend- she is the generation that has grown up as China "modernises". She says there is a social rootlessness in her generation. The urbanisation plus capitalism post Mao has taken place at an incredible pace. Her city did not exist 30 years ago.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 16, 2016)

Crispy said:


> The barrier block flats are really nice, but it has a horrible relationship with the street. A podium of blank-faced parking, access ramps and ventilation grilles.


The first time I walked down Coldharbour Lane in about 2000, fairly fresh off the boat from Ireland I thought the Barrier Block was Brixton prison.


----------



## bimble (Aug 17, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Its not that cities cause madness so much as the Capitalist system we live under may lead to certain types of mental disorders. In the article the first idea that this may happen comes from the 1900s in America. Which at that time was becoming an advanced Capitalist society. So its urbanisation under Capitalism that’s the problem.



If we're going to get all macro and historical about it.. a part of the story has to be that (outside of communist style vast scale urban planning) the rapid growth of cities usually happens when great floods of young-ish people leave their families and villages behind to come and look for work on their own, which is a recipe for alienation of a whole nother kind and nothing to do with how big your windows are.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 17, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Art, religion - cultural activities. Culture in the broadest sense is a product of society as a whole. Marxist Aesthetics would relate culture to the underlying way society is run economically.
> 
> Under Capitalism- the system we live under now people are alienated from there full potential. The mass of people have to sell there labour to live. They do not have full freedom. Capitalism can produce an abundance of goods and the technology to free people from work ( selling there labour). Its only with Capitalism being superseded that alienation can be ended.
> 
> ...


My allusion to a Marxist perspective was a naïve comment about the role of income and or poverty in mental health diagnosis.
It is also notoriously the case that whereas white middle class individuals tend to be bipolar or depressed, poor and black service users are disproportionately schizophrenic - which to me raises issue of cultural prejudice in the clinical diagnostic system.

I tried to locate the diagnostic system currently used by SLAM - and it is here.  This is DSM-5 originated and maintained by the American Psychiatric Association. Unlike the article you cite - about post-Freudian and Lacanian ideas (Lacan has been described as a cult figure by some) this DSM-5 document is the business. These are the classifications used in letters NHS psychiatrists send to GPs/DWP about their patients. It has no bearing on Marx of course - only classification of patients by symptoms - as perceived by the psychiatrist.

Whereas the signs and symptoms of bipolar are relatively well defined in terms of how many episodes of this that or the other, when it comes to schizophrenia the clinician has a relatively free hand.

Basically DSM-5 is a masterpiece of elaboration. In American Psychiatric terms it serves rich customers by serving up definitions which have limited negative consequences, whereas poorer people are liable to be written off by the system without any particular attempt to resolve their issues - except large doses of major tranquillisers to keep them quiet.

Back to what I was saying money is the main factor in both living environment and access to suitable treatment. I guess such a comment is hardly Marxist analysis. Just a commonplace.


----------



## bimble (Aug 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> In American Psychiatric terms it serves rich customers by serving up definitions which have limited negative consequences, whereas poorer people are liable to be written off by the system without any particular attempt to resolve their issues - except large doses of major tranquillisers to keep them quiet.
> 
> Back to what I was saying money is the main factor in both living environment and access to suitable treatment. I guess such a comment is hardly Marxist analysis. Just a commonplace.



Also very relevant to the figures locally must be the fact that people of Carribbean decent living in the UK are apparently_ 9 times _more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia than white people. This is a huge number, and nobody has a simple answer as to why it is happening although money  and misdiagnosis definitely major factors.
Schizophrenia in black Caribbeans living in the UK: an exploration of underlying causes of the high incidence rate


----------



## Winot (Aug 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Also very relevant to the figures locally must be the fact that people of Carribbean decent living in the UK are apparently_ 9 times _more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia than white people. This is a huge number, and nobody has a simple answer as to why it is happening although money  and misdiagnosis definitely major factors.
> Schizophrenia in black Caribbeans living in the UK: an exploration of underlying causes of the high incidence rate



The play Blue/Orange is good on this. Recently revived - worth a look if it's still on.


----------



## bimble (Aug 17, 2016)

looks really good and of course i've missed it.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Also very relevant to the figures locally must be the fact that people of Carribbean decent living in the UK are apparently_ 9 times _more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia than white people. This is a huge number, and nobody has a simple answer as to why it is happening although money  and misdiagnosis definitely major factors.
> Schizophrenia in black Caribbeans living in the UK: an exploration of underlying causes of the high incidence rate


This was a topic of great interest 10-20 years ago - when some researchers claimed that 2nd generation Caribbean people were much more prone to psychiatric disturbance than their immigrating parents. This was deemed to be due to loss of identity due to lack of firm roots in the Caribbean or the host community.

Not sure if there is any recent research on this.


----------



## bimble (Aug 17, 2016)

Yes, that's mentioned in the study i posted above.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> If we're going to get all macro and historical about it.. a part of the story has to be that (outside of communist style vast scale urban planning) the rapid growth of cities usually happens when great floods of young-ish people leave their families and villages behind to come and look for work on their own, which is a recipe for alienation of a whole nother kind and nothing to do with how big your windows are.



Not necessarily. Coming to a city can be a freedom from a restrictive social life in rural areas/ small towns. Nor is the concept of a city inevitable. Something the article does not question. 

Not all communist ideas were about vast urban planning. Some saw breaking down the city/ rural divide. 

One of the problems with the article is that it takes the city as a given.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 18, 2016)

Read one one of the pieces linked into the article.

Living well in the Neuropolis

By a sociologist who is looking at crossing disciplines - neuroscience and urban sociology. Its possible now to monitor the brain as its encountering different environments.

Starts with short history of mental health and urban sociology. Since the emergence of modern cities in 1850s there has been concern rising mental illness. This was mixed in with fears of the race "degenerating", how city life is to be contrasted with a rural idyll and how sociology as a discipline started dealing with city life at its inception.

So they argue that mental health and modern city life have always been concerns.

Over the last 150 years a body of work has dealt with life in the city. Seems to me they are trying to put together a way of looking at the city that puts together the most personal experiences with the city itself. Breaking down the barriers between the individual body and the material city.

The city affects the brain but people can choose to alter the city (if they have the power to do that of course).


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 30, 2018)

something of a bump, but i've found that someone has published a book on the ringway schemes.

Rings Around London by Wayne Asher | Waterstones

might have to indulge in that...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

Puddy_Tat said:


> something of a bump, but i've found that someone has published a book on the ringway schemes.
> 
> Rings Around London by Wayne Asher | Waterstones
> 
> might have to indulge in that...



He has a few articles online.

Silvertown Tunnel plans show we don't learn from history

This does sound interesting book. I always assumed it was lack of funding that stopped road scheme.

It was local opposition and change in policy of London Labour party that scuppered road plans. London Labour party has been for road building.

Along with slow realisation that more roads led to more traffic. More congestion.



> They were stopped because protesters managed to change opinion in the London Labour Party, which, from being every bit as pro-motorway as the Tories, began to take a new interest in public transport. When Labour recaptured the greater London Council in 1973, they canned the Ringway project. But parts of the scheme can be seen in the East End, with the Westway, and biggest of all, the M25 – the ultimate proof that you can't solve traffic problems by building new roads.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 31, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> This does sound interesting book. I always assumed it was lack of funding that stopped road scheme.



The Ringway community centre in Grove Park has a bit about it (the name is intentional - the Grove Park Community Group formed in the aftermath of the anti ringway campaign, and the centre is on the route of the bit of Ringway 2 (that itself was a 1930s scheme - Southend Lane and Whitefoot Lane were built as dual carriageway, and I have a 1939 A-Z equivalent that shows it as complete.  Map I've done here. )


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2021)

Brixton and the Barrier Block in the Watch Dogs video game


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2021)

Some fluff on MyLondon today 









						Brixton's Southwyck House so 'ugly' it's often mistaken for a prison
					

There's even a rumour the building is the 'wrong way round'




					www.mylondon.news


----------

