# Brixton Central Square



## Robin (Aug 20, 2004)

Hello everyone.

Have you heard about this? I hadn't until yesterday - check out the details here - Brixton Central Square (if you have comments leave them on that page rather than on this forum so more people see it)

Looks pretty cool to me



Robin


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2004)

Thanks for the link, but I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of those weird graphics and that grossmax website is a triumph of style over content.

It all looks like a 1st year graphics student's work to me.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 20, 2004)

There's a thread about it here:

Brixton Central Square


----------



## Woody (Aug 20, 2004)

A simple, line-drawn plan would have been more helpful.  If it goes ahead,let's hope it's not like to over-designed, changing-rooms type mess that has taken forever to put in place (still not finished) near Streatham station.  If there is a direct link between flashy graphics and fleashy execution I worry!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 20, 2004)

Hello Robin, welcome to the Brixton Forum.    We're really nice people, innit   

The project is the one out of the first 10 of the Mayor's _100 new public spaces for London_ initiative. 

Click here for info on "100 spaces..." 

Click here to download a ridiculously large PDF update of the plans

One part of the plan which I particularly like, but which doesn't appear to have sunk in with many people yet, is the closure of Effra Road by 2008. I presume they mean the bit from the junction of Coldharbour Lane to where the road splits behind the church.


----------



## Woody (Aug 20, 2004)

Sorry Robin mate - didn't notice it was your first post.  So: welcome!


----------



## Woody (Aug 20, 2004)

Hatter - any idea where the traffic would go?


----------



## Bob (Aug 20, 2004)

Woody said:
			
		

> Hatter - any idea where the traffic would go?


I think it would go round the other side of the church so there would not be a one way outside the Fridge...

Hello Robin


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 20, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> Hello Robin, welcome to the Brixton Forum.    We're really nice people, innit




Everybody that doesn't wear a hat is a nice person.  Beware of the hat wearers - they're trouble   

Robin - you could have introduced yourself.  Now you've probably missed out on the Hobnobs


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 20, 2004)

Bob said:
			
		

> I think it would go round the other side of the church so there would not be a one way outside the Fridge...
> 
> Hello Robin




They'd have to find somewhere else to start certain buses off from then wouldn't they?


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 20, 2004)

Wow. I not only live right by but work for Landscape Review, so this is right up my alley. It took me a minute to get my bearings with the wooden model but now I see it. It looks great. But the plan and perspective thing is a bit daft. What is that supposed to be? The other one's quite cool. Everyone in landscape architecture  is doing those computer graphics with black and white photoshopped-on people lately. PS welcome, Robin.


----------



## wiskey (Aug 20, 2004)

what is THIS??? supposed to be telling me??


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 20, 2004)

wiskey said:
			
		

> what is THIS??? supposed to be telling me??



That someone on the design team is going through an early Soviet Constructivist phase?  

Even though Gross Max have designed some successful schemes, this one looks suspiciously like "magazine architecture" to me.

At the danger of sounding like some "designing out crime" advocate, is a covered gazebo structure a practical option for this site, given the ongoing problems of dealing?


----------



## hatboy (Aug 20, 2004)

That design is very disappointing in my view. Not nearly good enough.


----------



## pooka (Aug 21, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> That design is very disappointing in my view. Not nearly good enough.



I understand that Brixton Forum (the chair of which was on the selection panel) is to hold an event about this in the autumn. Doubtless everyone can throw in their two-pennerth.


I'm very inadept at interpretting those 'artist impressions' jobbies, even with loads of technology laid over, into what the place might look, feel, smell, sound like. 

I suppose you've got to start with asking 'What's a Square for' and the answer must be something to do with 'Teeming with activity' - like Trafalgar, St Marks, the great campi of Italian cities - except for early morning, when its just the pigeons and street sweepers.

This one looks a bit sinisterly empty and windswept - nor is it clear what will bring the crowds in, or that there are sufficient crowds to fill it anyways, day after day. Perhaps the most imaginative use would be to shift the outdoor market onto it, on market days, and relieve the congestion in the retail centre. Rows of colourful stalls, beneath the camponile of the Town Hall, would have a lovely market town feel.

Well done for finding the pictures Robin....where did they come from? I can't get my way round the Max site. Shall Tribal be involved in the project?


----------



## clandestino (Aug 21, 2004)

i can't picture it. the model isn't very clear and i just can't see where it's going to be. 

is there something missing? like, perhaps, effra road? does this plan block that off?

it doesn't feel right to me.


----------



## miss minnie (Aug 21, 2004)

can you see the church in the lower right corner?  tate library in the upper left? 

it looks like a bit of effra road will be closed off and incorporated into the scheme.


----------



## clandestino (Aug 21, 2004)

i don't see how it's practical. surely it'll create huge traffic problems. 

i'd rather see coldharbour lane pedestrianised.


----------



## theBEAST666 (Aug 21, 2004)

Could be good, but then again....
traffic in Brixton is a nightmare already. That new junction just before you get into brixton hasn't been tested yet either. And they stopped people turning right there up the road next to max roach park, do they think a measly curb and barrier will stop the brixton rude boy drivers I ask you?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2004)

Robin said:
			
		

> Hello everyone.
> 
> Have you heard about this? I hadn't until yesterday - check out the details here - Brixton Central Square (if you have comments leave them on that page rather than on this forum so more people see it)
> 
> ...



   What is perfect.co.uk/robin?Do you work for the Council?Why say post up comments on your website rather than here?You started the thread here-if people want to post up comments they can do it here.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2004)

Their was a two page article in the SLP about it-with a date for the meeting about it.Ill try and post it up later.The SLP artcicle was good they asked several people what they thought about it-including the manager of the Ritzy and Fridge bar.The comments reflected some of the concerns that I have of the scheme in general.

  That joining up the 3 separate spaces will make dealing etc worse as it will spread it out over a larger area.Also that Brixton is a pretty wacky place-For example St Matthews Peace Gdn sometimes is where post clubbers crash out.Unless its heavily policed to the point where its just an anodyne space this wont work.However with the introduction of the Red Card Zone I believe this will be the first step to sanitise the space.As one of the people in the SLP piece said the harmless street drinkers could be pushed out.

   The plans show not only Effra closed but the top end of Rushcroft Rd where it goes through what is now The Tate Gdns/Windrush Sq.The original consultation for the Sq proposed several alternatives-including one which did not close Effra Rd.

   I think Pooka asked an interesting question-What is a square for?The proposals for a Sq started when New Labour were in power.As Lang Rabbie pointed out the plans seem like "Soviet" style.IMO the scheme had more to do with that "Modernising" New Labour administration wanting to do something that would make tham look good.Whilst the were getting stick for selling schools libraries etc.Also gave something for the new Brixton Neighbourhood Forum to do that was not in the Councils view whinging about services etc.

  As often happens the scheme has now a momentum of its own.The GLA are involved.Council bureaucrats are in employment through it.It has taken a life of its own.To say that the whole project is misguided and that their are other issues in central Brixton that need sorting out first is to court scorn from the Council.


----------



## hatboy (Aug 21, 2004)

I want this to happen. But I want it to be great. The linked plan is deeply inadequate.


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 21, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> What is perfect.co.uk/robin?Do you work for the Council?Why say post up comments on your website rather than here?You started the thread here-if people want to post up comments they can do it here.



I think that's a fairly negative attitude.   A minute or so's browsing of the site would have revealed that he's in advertising, sorry "new media".  Perhaps Robin simply asked people to post comments there, because unlike the Urban 75 forums, you don't have to register to get on to his website.

Perfect.co.uk is now primarily a political 'blog.   

However, it is a long standing independent website, which I browsed regularly back in the "good old days" when it was a gloriously minimalist guide [archived version here]  to the best designed bits of the interweb thingy, with a rather handy toolkit attached.    

It was some years before I realised that Robin was Brixton based.   To the best of my knowledge, I've never met him.




			
				perfect.co.uk said:
			
		

> brief glimpses of near perfection
> 
> What can I say? It should be fairly self explanatory. On the previous page are links to sites which make me draw a deep breath and help me to remember why I'm here
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2004)

That explains it more clearly.Just get a bit iffy when people come on and say post up on my website etc with no explanation at the start of thread.


----------



## newbie (Aug 22, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> I suppose you've got to start with asking 'What's a Square for' and the answer must be something to do with 'Teeming with activity' - like Trafalgar, St Marks, the great campi of Italian cities - except for early morning, when its just the pigeons and street sweepers.



I've said before this whole project smacks of architects and town planners trying to win awards.

What is the question to which this square is the answer?  How does it relate to 'what's in it for the people of Brixton?' or  'why does Brixton need or want a world class square' followed by 'what else could the money be spent on that we'd get more benefit from?'.





			
				pooka said:
			
		

> Perhaps the most imaginative use would be to shift the outdoor market onto it, on market days, and relieve the congestion in the retail centre.



No, No and thrice No.  That's just going to kill the unique market and central Brixton daylife stone dead in an attempt to find a use for something inherrently pointless.


btw the view from the square on Robins website looks from the Ritzy towards the Town Hall and the bottom of Acre Lane. [ _ edit: erm, no it doesn't.  Put that down to posting too early on a sunday morning.  _ ] There is no traffic!  So where has it all gone?  This is one of the busiest roundabouts in S London, but the planners have airbrushed it out.  

I contend that few will sit in this square with heavy buses and trucks and millions of cars and bikes roaring past.  Not without anaesthetic anyway.  Maybe on occasional days in suummer, but on a wet TRuesday morning in February?  No chance.

What will this look like 5 or 15 years after the opening ceremony.  Stained concrete, tattered canopy and still utterly empty without even anywhere to sit.


----------



## pooka (Aug 22, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> No, No and thrice No.  That's just going to kill the unique market and central Brixton daylife stone dead in an attempt to find a use for something inherrently pointless.



I take your point, newbie. Though perhaps the facility for a Sunday market of some sort. Sunday markets in London are leisure pursuits as much as part of the supply chain and a distinctive Sunday market would bring people and money into the area.


In relation to the existing market, everything I know about successful markets elsewhere says that:

(1) They need very light-touch management, otherwise they're killed dead.

(2) But they do need some management.

The present outdoor market is not being managed at all and is steadily killing itself. Overcrowding by mega-stalls, shrouded in tarpaulin's and (increasingly) selling crap, including sub-standard fruit and veg.

It's sad to witness.

In respect of the square, I have the same apprehensions as you. Given that it is going to go ahead, what would you put there to make it busy?




			
				newbie said:
			
		

> I've said before this whole project smacks of architects and town planners trying to win awards.




To be fair, the chair of the Area Forum sat on the selection panel and is, I think, very enthusiastic. Maybe there's a groudswell of opinion beyond Urban75 for the project? Certainly hatboy's keen and I'd like to see something done with the dead spaces round there - St Matthews and Windrush Sq.

It could have been worse - word has it one of the whackier proposals was to build the City Academy on it! Perhaps that's just someone taking the piss.


----------



## hendo (Aug 22, 2004)

Where's the toilet?


----------



## miss minnie (Aug 22, 2004)

ah!  a gentleman!   the trees not good enough for you then?


----------



## clandestino (Aug 22, 2004)

can someone please explain to me how this isn't going to cause huge traffic problems? pooka? robin? it seems like a major point is being ignored here just for the sake of a supposedly great idea. hatboy's right - if this does happen, it has to be done correctly. 

perhaps drawing up a more realistic plan showing traffic flow with the square in place would be a start. how is traffic supposed to go up brixton hill for example? i get the 59 from outside the tube station to go home up the hill. where is that going to go if part of effra road's blocked?

surely brixton road/brixton hill/streatham high road is a major artery? blocking that seems like madness.


----------



## pooka (Aug 22, 2004)

Ianw - I don't by any means present myself as an apologist for this scheme! Though I do think intelligent use of underused space in the area would be good - I'm not convinced a _grande projet_ is the answer, for much the same reasons as rabbie, gramsci and newbie.

I imagine that the impact on traffic will depend on how much roadspace is provided by other means - if space is nicked from St Matthew's gardens to compensate for loosing the lower end of Effra - and how the loss of the gyratory is accomodated with lights or whatever other means of control (the gyratory itself is currently controlled by lights).

 I note that the scheme is subject to TfL's studies, so we may find it declared infeasible or that it ends up looking hugely different to the current version - perhaps buses will be allowed to sneak back and forth across the Square (along the line of Effra Road) at 5mph with tramlike discipline? That would fit in with giving public transport the edge over private cars generally.


----------



## hendo (Aug 22, 2004)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> ah!  a gentleman!   the trees not good enough for you then?



  

There's always been a big debate about/problem with  pissing in that area and I just wondered if they'd put a Public Toilet in the plan.


----------



## pooka (Aug 22, 2004)

hendo said:
			
		

> There's always been a big debate about/problem with  pissing in that area and I just wondered if they'd put a Public Toilet in the plan.



If I recall, it's been argued by the Powers that Be that they can't reopen the underground loos at Brixton Oval cos they'd contravene the Disabilities Discrimination Act. When asked why they can't be reinstituted on the surface, the answer is that 'the sewers are too deep'. Maybe that's something to do with it? (Begs the question - how do residential and commercial properties round about get by?)

Alternatively, maybe there are toilets in the proposal but no-one had the stomach to let Gross Max's graphic designer loose on them?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> To be fair, the chair of the Area Forum sat on the selection panel and is, I think, very enthusiastic. Maybe there's a groudswell of opinion beyond Urban75 for the project?



  I agree with a lot of what Newbie posted.Also half the problem I have with it is that its going to go ahead anyway.This is a Council project.To qualify what Newbie said I also think its for the Council to win awards for itself as well.The Brixton Area Forum is no more representative of the area than U75.

  As Ive said before I think the 3 spaces should be kept separate and maintained properly.Windrush sq does need proper landscape gardening to make it a better space.This would be cost effective and more likely to "design out crime".

  I did go to the early consultation meetings on it and the Raligh Hall.Their were those not so keen.I rememeber the old people who live in the sheltered housing at the top of Saltoun Rd being concerned how this would affect them-dont blame them.Their concerns were not taken on board-but of course they could be labeleed as "against change in Brixton".


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2004)

Found this on the SLP website--May 7 2004

 " LBLs assistant director of development told Brixton Area Forum the design would aim to get rid of crime which plagues the 3 open spaces.

   She said:"There is no pont creating a beautiful piece of public realm if it is overrun by drug dealers.The borough commander is on the selection panel,making sure we have the full input of the police to ensure we design out crime,a plan for managing the space and a visible presence all the time."

  The meeting heard full time patrols would be necessary to keep the square crime free."

  Their is a contradiction here.The new "public realm" is supposed to "design out crime" yet "full time patrols" would be needed.Going back to the interesting question of what a "public realm" is for- this does not seem that inviting space to me.It will be under heavy surveillance.The GLA is pushing the idea of public spaces.

  IMO the idea of public spaces is that they are free and open.I suppose the idea of the public square could be traced back to Ancient Greece-where the democratic citizens met.I know this is not that historically accurate but its these part myths/ideals that mean something.

  If a democratic open London/Brixton is to be encouraged where its citizens feel part of it this is not the way to do it IMO.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2004)

Gross Max state(SLP 13/8/04)That 

  "Whilst most of London is too reserved,Brixton has a buzz and energy which is both exciting and absorbing..the fragmented open spaces are underused.The task is to turn the ordinary into the extraordinary."

  I dont think the Tate Gdns or St Matthews are underused.Windrush sq is has it has no seats for starters.Went past the Tate yesterday and it was full of the Tate drinkers.I went past St Matthews late last night and it had clubbers in it.The new Red Card zone will mean that these people will eventually be moved on.Thus whilst Gross Max acknowledge that Brixton has "energy" IMO the new plans and how this space is managed will take that away.

  The same article in the SLP had comments from locals.One said of the Tate drinkers:

  "I think their is a kind of snobbery about the Tate Gardens.These are old guys who come from a different generation.They have faced problems and never made it,but in Carribean culture you live life outside...They may not be an attractive sight to the community but they are not doing any harm-they are part of the community."

  Another local commented that,

  "Joining them together is only going to mean fencing off... a bigger space...I dont feel threatened in Brixton myself but if I see somebody sitting in the street,they are not usually reading a book..they are having a spliff...We are used to it -we are here everyday.Brixton is for Brixton people and it is not easy for others."

   And Ive heard other people make comments like this.Trouble with consultation is that contrary views can be filterd out.And really having the Chief of Brixton Police on the design selection panel-who gave him the right to represent Brixton views?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Ianw - I don't by any means present myself as an apologist for this scheme! Though I do think intelligent use of underused space in the area would be good - I'm not convinced a _grande projet_ is the answer, for much the same reasons as rabbie, gramsci and newbie.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2004)

It looks like a school art project made from everyday objects.
I'm sure they've used polo mints in there somewhere


----------



## hatboy (Aug 23, 2004)

There's no doubt that design is complete rubbish. Everyone interested should attempt to ensure the final one is MUCH, MUCH better. 

Those are Hula Hoops sprayed white by the way I reckon.


----------



## academia (Aug 23, 2004)

I thought they were giant polos, I'm quite looking forward to seeing those.

If the Gross Max design is anything like their website then the new square will be ugly, disfunctional and very hard to get into.


----------



## pooka (Aug 23, 2004)

> Everyone interested should attempt to ensure the final one is MUCH, MUCH better.



How?


----------



## miss minnie (Aug 23, 2004)

hula hoops/polo mints...

max roach park is sometimes visited by fly-tippers leaving big piles of car tyres.  i reckon these architects think that it must be a normal occurrence in brixton's open spaces and they figure they'll just go with the flow but paint them white.


----------



## newbie (Aug 23, 2004)

Gross Max said:
			
		

> "Whilst most of London is too reserved,Brixton has a buzz and energy which is both exciting and absorbing..the fragmented open spaces are underused.The task is to turn the ordinary into the extraordinary."



So, because there is one chunk of unnecessary and useless public open space created recently because someone thought it would be a good idea, they want to enlarge it by destroying two useful and historic historic areas that are integral to the town centre? This is all about covering up the failure that is Windrush Square. 

There is indeed quite a lot of fragamented public space around the centre, but to suggest its all underused is wrong.  Some of it, like the skatepark or Tate Gardens is well used & part of modern local identity.  The Peace Garden has developed a nocturnal life that can't have been imagined when it was being discussed.   The pedestrianised bit of Tunstall Road opposite the tube seems to work.  Does Trinity Gardens count as a fragment?

But one grand guesture by modern planners, Windrush Square is almost totally deserted and another, Max Roach Park always seems pretty underused to me, so it must be time for another one.   And hey, all over the country large, sterile urban public spaces are being created so Brixton must need one, right?

Have you noticed that the models always present Gods view?  Unless they start providing tethered balloon rides we'll never see that view.  We'll see a wide open lump of barren concrete or somesuch to trudge across in the pouring rain.


----------



## hatboy (Aug 23, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> How?



Wednesday October 6, Assembly Rooms, 7pm - Brixton Central Square public meeting.


----------



## clandestino (Aug 23, 2004)

forgive my ignorance hatboy. i haven't been to a public meeting of this sort before but feel that this may well be my first. where are the assembly rooms? in the town hall?


----------



## pooka (Aug 23, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Wednesday October 6, Assembly Rooms, 7pm - Brixton Central Square public meeting.



As I understand it, the line is that all the consultation that's going to happen, happened two years ago. This is just going to be an information giving meeting. But it would be good if there was such a stregnth of feeling shown that they couldn't help but be affected. 

I guess people need to be clearly sorted beforehand - otherwise it all comes across as being incoherent and they'll just do what they want anyway.


How would you change what's on offer, hatboy?


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 23, 2004)

See

Projects for Public Spaces - Great Public Spaces

for one view on what makes a successful park or plaza

and their

Hall of Shame

for more examples of dysfunctional architect designed spaces.


----------



## clandestino (Aug 23, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Hall of Shame
> 
> for more examples of dysfunctional architect designed spaces.




one of which is the museu d'art contemporani in barcelona just because the plaza has been taken over by skaters. imo it's a vibrant and lively square, made all the better by the presence of the skaters. that's exactly the kind of snobbery that isn't going to help create a successful square here.


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 23, 2004)

ianw said:
			
		

> one of which is the museu d'art contemporani in barcelona just because the plaza has been taken over by skaters. imo it's a vibrant and lively square, made all the better by the presence of the skaters. that's exactly the kind of snobbery that isn't going to help create a successful square here.



No, it's not saying that.   PPS are saying that its because the square fails to work at most levels other than as a narrow bit of minimalist architecture (true of several other spaces in Barcelona of 1992 Olympics vintage), and doesn't attract pedestrians to linger, that it is now only used by skaters who have brought their own subculture to the area, and therefore has some liveliness from people who come to watch the skaters! (see also South Bank Centre undercroft)


----------



## hatboy (Aug 23, 2004)

"How would you change what's on offer, hatboy?"

I don't think what's shown above in that model is what is on offer. I think it's just some random example. I'm expecting to see alternative designs at the meeting. I think this thread has jumped the gun a bit. Please god that can't be it!!!

I'd like to see a permanent stage or concert bowl, top quality bench seating, some grassed areas so it's not all cold granite, a cafe with seating and outside tables and toilets and kids area, Raleigh Hall as the black culture/Brixton history museum, some really stunning art and scupture, lots of colour/murals on the end of Rushcroft,  amazing variable coloured lighting, some water thing that actually works (not the current crap fountain or anything by the Diana memorial designer),  and all of it top quality and made so well that it cannot fall apart or be pulled apart.

What I fear is that it will be like the private, patrolled space around City Hall by Tower Bridge - very high quality grey paving, but almost featureless apart from a few very crap "sculptures", corporate-looking water features and signs up saying "no this, no that, no nothing" but pretending it's a great place to be.

It will probably be officey, colourless and perfect for a young professional to eat an over priced sandwich in while police patrols prevent improperly dressed, over-friendly Brixton types "intimidating" them by trying to say "hello" and/or being a bit pissed.

I want this "Central Square" but I'm worried that it will both let Brixton down in creative terms and be oppressive if you don't fit in.


----------



## pooka (Aug 23, 2004)

I understand what you're saying hatboy and have a lot of sympathy with it but I think the "Panel" chose the firm of architects from a short list of six on the basis of their presentations. If the idea is they'll now produce something totally different, how's that fair on the others? 

Nonetheless, I hope you're right and the thing can be revamped along some quality, engaging lines.


----------



## Robin (Aug 23, 2004)

Hi guys

Sorry I haven't posted again before now. lang rabbie covered off who I am quite effectively (thank you!), but to recap:

1. I run perfect.co.uk, a political blog with quite a few contributors aside from myself - check it out if you haven't already
2. My personal blog is perfect.co.uk/robin, where I posted about the Brixton Central square (and linked to from the start of this thread)
3. I happen to work at Tribal, which in this context is not relevant

and

4. I got the images by emailing Isolda McNeill who's named on the Lambeth Council press release and asking for them - she also gave me a contact name and number at Gross Max if anyone wants to ask them more questions

To add my opinion - I really like the idea (possibly influenced by the fact that I own a flat on Saltoun Rd), but think the current plans as visualised leave a lot to be desired - some sort of central cafe, some great pieces of public art perhaps

I think I'll be going to that meeting on the 6th Oct...



Robin


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 24, 2004)

To be honest, from looking at the picture/model that someone posted up, the plan doesn't look particularly different to what's there now - it appears to just join the three spaces up, add a covered walkway and randomly arrange bits of crap (polo mints or whatever they are) on the street. It's shit. 

I think what Hatboy posted here is my perfect idea of what could be achieved:






			
				hatboy said:
			
		

> I'd like to see a permanent stage or concert bowl, top quality bench seating, some grassed areas so it's not all cold granite, a cafe with seating and outside tables and toilets and kids area, Raleigh Hall as the black culture/Brixton history museum, some really stunning art and scupture, lots of colour/murals on the end of Rushcroft,  amazing variable coloured lighting, some water thing that actually works (not the current crap fountain or anything by the Diana memorial designer),  and all of it top quality and made so well that it cannot fall apart or be pulled apart."


How could anyone argue with that?

To be honest, I find a lot of the negativity on this thread a bit depressing. How often does a shit load of cash get spent on improving things for the people of Brixton? I think people should get along to the public meeting and make their views heard, rather than moaning about the drug dealers ruining the plan. The dealers are gonna be here, square or no square, so why let them ruin what could be a really positive project? I'd rather support the project and help mould it to something that could be useful, positive and exciting, than knock it. 

I couldn't care less about the potential traffic problems caused by the closure of Effra Road - if you choose to drive in London, you choose to put up with traffic. A majority of people driving through central Brixton don't live in the area anyway. Once people start seeing the light and using public transport, perhaps it won't be such a problem (yes, I am an idealist/optimist!) As long as the buses are sorted in this plan then I'm happy. 

I agree with those that have talked about preserving some of the identity of the three spaces - certainly the Peace Garden is unique and I'd like to see it largely untouched. The railings round the garden might actually be listed (??) so that might help prevent too many wholesale changes. Windrush Sq is totally underused and pretty useless. Anything they do to this area is great (and it's funny/ironic that the decision not to install benches [presumably to prevent it being a magnet for drinkers] has led to the square being underused.) The Tate Square could do with some work, as long as they don't get rid of the trees and retain some green space. I intend to make these points at the meeting and I hope others will too. 

On the toilet question: IIRC, Lambeth are planning to trial portable urinals (with a view to installing pop-up toilets) in the next few months. This will be in the little road (Tunstall Rd?) opposite the tube. One would hope that by the time the new square is built (more than a few years I guess), the toilet question would have been resolved for some time. But they should still refurbish the Victorian toilets in Tate Square and reopen them, whilst providing a disabled facility elsewhere.


----------



## newbie (Aug 24, 2004)

Is the Sharpeville monument to be incorporated in the scheme?  It should be.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 24, 2004)

The sculpture on the corner of Max Roach Park? Why can't it stay where it is?


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2004)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> The sculpture on the corner of Max Roach Park? Why can't it stay where it is?


It's not exactly a cheery number though, is it?!


----------



## newbie (Aug 24, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> I think what Hatboy posted here is my perfect idea of what could be achieved:
> How could anyone argue with that?



I can , although I can also see that his vision is far more likely to engage people than an empty square. I might be more receptive to the idea if hatboys scheme was on offer, but it's not. Albeit with huge reservations, because ultimately this is a grand vision, big project for which theres no obvious groundswell of demand. It's coming from outside, from people whose careers depend on large amounts of public money being spent on interfering with historic townscapes and who market themselves with drivel like 'the ordinary into the extraordinary'. 

This isn't a product of campaigning and debate within the Brixton community- or if it is, I've missed it completely.... I knew nothing of a consultation a couple of years ago- did anyone else? I can't recall discussion on here about it.

The central questions remain unanswered.  What's it for?  How will it improve the lives of the current population of Brixton?  

I really can't see it.  I can see house prices in the new cul-de-sacs (Rushcroft & Saltoun) rocketing, and an influx of tourist industry types opening retail/coffee outlets for the visitors it _might[/] attract, though quite why many people would want to come to look at our world class open space is a bit beyond me.  If visitors don't come, we're left with a world scale central void for a town scale community unable to support the retail outlets (which is what I presume the matchboxes on the model are).

There are opportunity costs here too: what else could be done with the WS space; what else could be done with the money.  And what is more likely to actually improve quality of life?  eg, Wyke Gardens (off Barrington Rd) is 'underused', Loughborough Park (is that what it's called) has problems reported here, why not spend the money there, where it might do some good for the immediate locals.

Limited improvement are required for the Oval- toilets, yes and replanting the Magnolias and it could probably do with a bit of a clean, but it's fundamentally a great meeting tree, and should remain as such. At different times all of the space is used.  It works.

Windrush Square doesn't, but the model shows it with trees.  So why not plant some trees there then?  Three separate spaces, three different places to be.




			
				Brixton Hatter said:
			
		


			To be honest, I find a lot of the negativity on this thread a bit depressing. How often does a shit load of cash get spent on improving things for the people of Brixton?
		
Click to expand...


Sorry   If it's any help I agree with you about traffic.  I'm sure their scheme can be made to work, and it's not the important issue..  

But I'm not convinced that any money is good money- most of it will go outside the area to consultants, planners and contractors anyway, and it will act to increase the <Gword> pressure locally._


----------



## newbie (Aug 24, 2004)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> The sculpture on the corner of Max Roach Park? Why can't it stay where it is?




   I'm thinking of the block of granite on Tate Gardens?  What is it if it's not Sharpeville?


----------



## hatboy (Aug 24, 2004)

Friends of Tate Library want temporary improvement to rid Tate Gardens of drug dealers before the grand scheme. In my opinion this is unnecesary and a waste of money. They have I understand been awarded 50 000 to do this temporary clean up. The Victorian toilets WILL BE BULLDOZED unless people protest this.

Some of the other things mentioned above, like Loughborough Park, have been awarded money from Lambeth Opportunites Fund I think so we should see other improvements too.

There was lots of consultation on Central Square a couple of years ago I remember. In fact the same process repeated more than once. I don't think it's worth repeating all that yet again. But my fear is that now, when it really matters as the final design is created, that consultation, where people put forward ideas as I have above (and then), is being steamrollered by this grand design. Whereas the consultation should be informing the grand design.


----------



## hatboy (Aug 24, 2004)

Newbie - Central Square is going ahead. Put your energy into lobbying to make it good.


----------



## hatboy (Aug 24, 2004)

FYI the intention is not to alter the Peace Gardens except possilby along the boundary with the section of Effra Rd that may be removed.  TFL have concluded that Effra Rd closure is feasible AFAIK.


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 24, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> TFL have concluded that Effra Rd closure is feasible AFAIK.



I think there's no question that there is sufficient roadspace in Brixton Hill to take two way traffic from Effra Road.   The outstanding issue is where will all of the buses that currently get parked along Brixton Hill go?


----------



## newbie (Aug 24, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> There was lots of consultation on Central Square a couple of years ago I remember. In fact the same process repeated more than once.



Fair enough... I'm afraid i missed it completely


----------



## hatboy (Aug 24, 2004)

It's very important not to miss public consultations on things. The authorities like to gather together opiniions so they can ignore then all at once.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 25, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> It's very important not to miss public consultations on things. The authorities like to gather together opiniions so they can ignore then all at once.


 That would be hilarious if it were not so true.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2004)

The Brixton Society have created a section on the proposals  authored in their, err, inimitable clunky, colourful style.


----------



## miss minnie (Aug 27, 2004)

ouch.  that hurt my eyes.

edit:  warning - the 'phase one proposals' opens a pdf.  always damn well crashes firefox when it closes and is one of the most painful file formats to have ever been invented.  imo.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2004)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> edit:  warning - the 'phase one proposals' opens a pdf.  always damn well crashes firefox when it closes and is one of the most painful file formats to have ever been invented.  imo.


Indeed it does (although for me it freezes Firefox before it opens the PDF)

What's more Acrobat just loves to sit in the background once you've viewed and then closed a PDF file, busily hogging resources for no good reason.


----------



## pooka (Aug 27, 2004)

Goodness, Brixton Society is getting all consultative! What with Brixton Forum's Chair championing the bigger scheme and Brixton Society chanpioning the quick and dirty, it'll be questionaires at dawn!

I like their lighting ideas, but "Seating - encourages loitering" is a bit of an odd sentiment.


----------



## newbie (Aug 27, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Goodness, Brixton Society is getting all consultative! What with Brixton Forum's Chair championing the bigger scheme and Brixton Society chanpioning the quick and dirty, it'll be questionaires at dawn!
> 
> I like their lighting ideas, but "Seating - encourages loitering" is a bit of an odd sentiment.




Who are Scott Wilson and what is their involvement?

Looking at Opportunites & Constraints it seems that having benches face inwards so that people can- gasp- sit and talk to each other, is wrong.  They are striving to give the area 'open views' with no 'visual barriers', ie to make it as barren and sterile as possible.

As pointed out by someone above, this appears to be driven more to discourage drinkers and dealers than by any thought to the longterm interests of local people.  The existing square has been there a century or so, and this new scheme must be expected to last for a similar period.  Basing it solely on current issues is just wrong.  Brixton deserves better.


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 27, 2004)

As someone who originally supported a do minimum approach to increase feelings of security for library users (in particular parents of kids) who felt hassled by the dealers, I think that these proposals go completely over the top.

This design process seems to have been dominated by some jumped-up crime prevention officer, with a doctrinaire approach not just to designing-out crime, but also designing-out all forms of basic social interaction, such as sitting on a bench chatting.   It would be as bleak as the plaza in the Gross Max proposals.

Yes, take out the raised planters.   Improve sight lines by taking out some of the trees planted in the mid-80s.   And on balance, I would put a temporary cap over the victorian loos until a longer term plan for a possible underground space can be funded.   But there is no need to cart away the fountain if it is no longer obscured by the planters.   It would provide an obvious focal point for some benches

Newbie

Scott Wilson are a multi-disciplinary consultancy firm (think their original background was largely highways/civil engineering but they now do a lot more general planning stuff)   Not sure what tender process was gone through for their appointment to this project...
www.scottwilson.com


> Planning areas include: Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Masterplanning, Residential Development, Town Planning, Transportation, Urban Design


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 27, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> The existing square has been there a century or so, and this new scheme must be expected to last for a similar period.  Basing it solely on current issues is just wrong.  Brixton deserves better.



But the current layout has been there for less than twenty years.   It has common problems with many open spaces that were given a makeover in the 80s with Urban Programme money.    They typically included raised planters (were they all meant to generate employment for brickies being trained by other regeneration schemes?)  with little thought on choice of planting that wouldn't block sightlines, not to mention more recent use for stashing drugs.

And the Brixton Soc proposals are supposed to just be a first element of any wider makeover, and should not conflict with any longer term vision for the Central Square.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 27, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> To be honest, I find a lot of the negativity on this thread a bit depressing. How often does a shit load of cash get spent on improving things for the people of Brixton? I think people should get along to the public meeting and make their views heard, rather than moaning about the drug dealers ruining the plan. The dealers are gonna be here, square or no square, so why let them ruin what could be a really positive project? I'd rather support the project and help mould it to something that could be useful, positive and exciting, than knock it.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Sorry Hatters but Im not having this.I went to the early consultations on this scheme.If I sound negative its because of the crap treatment I got.Not because Im just a whinger.I been to public meetings on this subject.Ive seen peoples views ignored and consultation ditched when it did not fit what the Council/Brxton Town Centre mg wanted.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 27, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> As I understand it, the line is that all the consultation that's going to happen, happened two years ago. This is just going to be an information giving meeting. But it would be good if there was such a stregnth of feeling shown that they couldn't help but be affected.
> 
> I guess people need to be clearly sorted beforehand - otherwise it all comes across as being incoherent and they'll just do what they want anyway.



   Yes the consultation was done and the Town Centre Manager of that time(now promoted up the greasy pole of Lambeth) ignored it.Their was supposed to be further consultation.The preliminary consultation outlined several proposals.The kind of concerns raised here by Newbie/HB were raised then and not addressed.

 It does not matter whether ur coherent or not they will try and do what they want.Also the careers of Council Officers play a role.If they can be seen to  bulldoze a scheme through whilst appearing to be good at dealing with the "community" they get promoted.

   However given the coherence and quality of the posts on this thread it would be interesting to turn up and see how they deal with it.

   If this is going to be an information meeting it may be "managed".The meeting on the Secondary School for Brixton was an "information meeting".Their was no time set aside for questions.

   If I was a senior Council Officer organising this meeting I would start it by saying that the meeting was for information about this "exciting"  project.And not to go over old ground when the scheme has already been "consulted" on.That the meeting is to inform and "move on".


----------



## hatboy (Aug 27, 2004)

As I said, while I feel the temporary changes to Tate Gardens will be an over-reaction and a waste of money, I am for Central Square. I've talked to the architects and various people in the council about this and I agree with "Brixton Hatter" that this thread is too negative.

Why not list the positive features you'd all like to see incorporated in the square and the fears you have (as I do, on exclusion for instance) and take them to the forthcoimng meetings.


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 27, 2004)

We (Landscape Review) are going to try to get a response from gross max to the many compelling concerns that have been raised. Cat, pigeons, pigeons, cat. 

I shall keep you posted. While I wouldn't dream of using u75 for 'journalistic research purposes', this is an important issue and I might at some point PM some of you to ask if you would mind being quoted (as disgruntled Brixton residents) if we do cover this. It's interesting because we usually only get the architects' side of things and all the award-swapping/backslapping. We have just had a change of editor and the new ed is a lot less luvvy-darling about it all. It makes one wonder just how many of these much vaunted award winning schemes are loathed by the people who have to live with them. 

Above all I get the feeling from many posters here that this scheme is an insulting, inadequate sop to Brixton  and its residents.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Why not list the positive features you'd all like to see incorporated in the square and the fears you have (as I do, on exclusion for instance) and take them to the forthcoimng meetings


A good place to start would be to compile a list of successful new/regenerated town squares and examine what elements contributed to their success.


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 27, 2004)

Some successful public spaces off the top of my head;

Grainger Town, Newcastle
Parc Diagonal Mar, Barcelona
Royal Victoria Square, Canary Wharf
The Triangle, Manchester
Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester

I will try to find links to pics or post some up if I can find them. 

Needless to say, not only intelligent design but high quality materials and excellent workmanship are key to the success of a lot of these.


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 27, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Some successful public spaces off the top of my head;
> 
> Grainger Town, Newcastle
> Parc Diagonal Mar, Barcelona
> ...



As I mentioned on the earlier central square thread , I think the jury's still out on Piccadilly Gardens - nice fountains for kids to play in, but the architect designed 4metre high curved concrete wall is not universally popular with Mancunians of my aquaintaince


----------



## hatboy (Aug 27, 2004)

"Above all I get the feeling from many posters here that this scheme is an insulting, inadequate sop to Brixton and its residents."

I think everyone should remember also that the design linked on this thread is not the final one. Hopefully no where even near the final design. And the temporary changes to Tate Gardens are ultimately irrelevant.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Some successful public spaces off the top of my head;


They're slowly building a fairly lively public arts/events space in Cardiff Bay (nee Docks, nee Tiger Bay). The construction of a large theatre/arts space will no doubt help promote the place.

In some respects, I'd prefer to see a well built, stylish, top quality theatre/arts space in a corner of Windrush Gardens rather than a big windswept open space.

That way, it would guarantee a flow of people in and out of the square and, after all, that's how it was originally with the Brixton Theatre and Cinema.


----------



## newbie (Aug 27, 2004)

Editor, theatre space, yes.  much better location than Bradys, an earlier suggestion. If the road is closed off, and Rahleigh Hall /BCA incorporated it could make a very fine enhancement of the local area.

I2S whatever else you've been accused of I doubt anyone would think of you as being here just to trawl for journalistic opportunities.  Go for it. 

LR
Agreed the current design isn't a cenury old, though I think it predates the huge planters they put around and about Brixton to stop crowds gathering post 1981.  But it works, pretty nearly every inch is used, and that's the point.

and finally

Mrs M, I stopped there today to check, and it is indeed a Sharpeville monument.  Now I'm trying to recall what the thingie on Max Roache Park is...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 29, 2004)

The Max Roach sculpture is based on that really famous photograph where a schoolchild is lying shot dead in the arms of a friend who is running and crying with a girl running alongside......I'll google and come back with the image when I find it


----------



## pooka (Aug 29, 2004)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> The Max Roach sculpture is based on that really famous photograph where a schoolchild is lying shot dead in the arms of a friend who is running and crying with a girl running alongside......I'll google and come back with the image when I find it



Isn't it in his/her father's arms? I think the person who was the little girl in that picture was in the news recently - well, in the last year.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 29, 2004)

....that didn't take too long...I suddenly remembered the dead child was called Hector...I got it wrong though....it was Soweto, not Sharpeville.......


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 29, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Isn't it in his/her father's arms?



No, a fellow student. 





> "I saw a child fall down. Under a shower of bullets I rushed forward and went for the picture. It had been a peaceful march, the children were told to disperse, they started singing Nkosi Sikelele. The police were ordered to shoot."
> 
> These are the words of Sam Nzima, recalling the events of 16 June 1976, when over 500 people were killed as they protested over the imposition of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction in township schools.
> 
> Nzima's photograph of the dying Hector Pieterson being carried by a fellow student was published around the world, and came to represent the anger and tragedy of a day that changed the course of South African history, sparking months of clashes between police, schoolchildren and protesters.


From www.safrica.info/ess_info/sa_glance/history/hector-pieterson.htm


----------



## pooka (Aug 29, 2004)

You're right - the family relationship was with the girl, who was his sister, Antionette.


----------



## newbie (Aug 29, 2004)

I wonder how many times I've been past and not known that.  tvm.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> As I said, while I feel the temporary changes to Tate Gardens will be an over-reaction and a waste of money, I am for Central Square. I've talked to the architects and various people in the council about this and I agree with "Brixton Hatter" that this thread is too negative.
> 
> Why not list the positive features you'd all like to see incorporated in the square and the fears you have (as I do, on exclusion for instance) and take them to the forthcoimng meetings.



  Because HB some of these points have been made at previous consultation meetings and ignored.I agree with a lot of what Newbie has said on this matter.Im not negative but Im not interested in bullshit either.I still stand by my previous posts.Its not my fault they seem negative-thats the Councils fault.

  When Pookas said he had heard that the meeting in October is going to be an "information meeting" I think on past experience it will be a stitch up.

  Ive already said what I want.I want the squares to stay separate and be maintained properly.Windrush sq does need landscape designing.

  By the way as far as I can see their is no definite money for this project.Given that land and housing in Central Brixton is still under threat of being sold off this project is a distraction.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> As someone who originally supported a do minimum approach to increase feelings of security for library users (in particular parents of kids) who felt hassled by the dealers, I think that these proposals go completely over the top.
> 
> This design process seems to have been dominated by some jumped-up crime prevention officer, with a doctrinaire approach not just to designing-out crime, but also designing-out all forms of basic social interaction, such as sitting on a bench chatting.   It would be as bleak as the plaza in the Gross Max proposals.
> 
> ...



   I agree LR but the thing is this seems to be the bottom line of a lot of regeneration schemes now.The dealers have been got rid of by more policing.The dealers have got the message for a while and moved on.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> We (Landscape Review) are going to try to get a response from gross max to the many compelling concerns that have been raised. Cat, pigeons, pigeons, cat.
> 
> Above all I get the feeling from many posters here that this scheme is an insulting, inadequate sop to Brixton  and its residents.



 Nice one IntoStella


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 31, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> Brixton Hatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 27, 2005)

Some news has emerged following the appointment of Gross Max as the design team...

Brixton Central Squares Project – Update Report to Brixton Area Committee



> *Short-term environmental improvements to Tate Gardens will be undertaken between 15 February and 15 March 2005. These are separate to the larger scheme and not the start of work on the longer term project.*



At last they have realised they need to do something now rather than waiting for the grand plan   



> *Public consultation*
> A series of four public consultation events has been planned between February and April 2005, combining the consultation on the TfL highways proposals and on the final design of the space. These events are:
> 
> *Event 1 – Exhibition of Transport Proposals
> ...





> Officers in Transport for London (TfL) are currently preparing the business case for the majority of the funding required to deliver the project through the London Bus Initiative (LBI) scheme.  However, the exact implementation costs will not be known until the final design is agreed.



I remain sceptical whether Ken will cough up all the cash!


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 28, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Some news has emerged following the appointment of Gross Max as the design team...
> 
> Brixton Central Squares Project – Update Report to Brixton Area Committee
> 
> ...


I am very sceptical that any of the above will actually constitute consultation. Consultation means listening to people and taking on what they have to say. What usually happens round here is that people are simply told what they are going to get. 

After  initial protests, the Brixton Area Forum (BArF)  backpedalled furiously and claimed that Gross MAx were not definitely on the case and that it was all still up in the air. Typical BArf bullshit, of course.


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2005)

I've got a leaflet for the proposed new 'design' of the square and it looks even worse on paper: a barren, windswept space with stupid lights.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 28, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I've got a leaflet for the proposed new 'design' of the square and it looks even worse on paper: a barren, windswept space with stupid lights.


I can hardly imagine it looking worse than the original graphics, which looked as though they had been knocked up by a trainee landscape architect on the bus into work. Very poor indeed.


----------



## hayduke (Jan 28, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I've got a leaflet for the proposed new 'design' of the square and it looks even worse on paper: a barren, windswept space with stupid lights.



Can you post it up?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 28, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I am very sceptical that any of the above will actually constitute consultation. Consultation means listening to people and taking on what they have to say. What usually happens round here is that people are simply told what they are going to get.


 I got the leaflet and letter too and I agree - from the way it's worded, it sounds like they are going to _show us _ the plans for cyclists, cars, pedestrians etc, rather than _ask us _ what we want. IIRC the letter says something about all the consultation already having been done back in 2002!!

To be fair though, it does sound like the "Access..." workshop on 17 Feb might actually be a real attempt to see what issues there are for disabled people etc. 

I'll be going along to the exhibition on Feb 9 if anyone wants to meet up and have a moan!


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 28, 2005)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> I got the leaflet and letter too and I agree - from the way it's worded, it sounds like they are going to _show us _ the plans for cyclists, cars, pedestrians etc, rather than _ask us _ what we want. IIRC the letter says something about all the consultation already having been done back in 2002!!


 Last year, when it was pointed out at the Brixton Area Forum  (BArF) that the purported 2002 'consultation' was a travesty,  posh, pouting chair Rachel Heywood tossed her hair and said no, no, no -- the proper consultation will happen NEXT year (ie 2005). So they are absolutely  lying through their teeth.

I look forward to the Feb 9 meeting.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 28, 2005)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> To be fair though, it does sound like the "Access..." workshop on 17 Feb might actually be a real attempt to see what issues there are for disabled people etc.


They have to go by the book on that one owing to the DDA.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 29, 2005)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> IIRC the letter says something about all the consultation already having been done back in 2002!!
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Which I attended.This was also done using consultants and planning exercises.A report was produced.Seems like the same process is being done all over again.This really is wasting peoples time and the Councils money.Its in effect saying that the last consultation process has been binned.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Feb 10, 2005)

*Last Night's consultation meeting*

I went to the BCS consultation meeting last night and was surprised at the large turnout of residents from the neighbourhood that is likely to be particularly affected by the changes to traffic circulation, that is the currently quiet residential area bounded by Effra Road, Saltoun Road, Railton Road, Effra Parade and Brixton Water Lane. While the people who live in this neighbourhood have a specific interest, there are broader implications too.

Sentiment was mostly against the scheme, but the massed ranks of Lambeth Council, the Mayor's office, TFL and the BAF seemed determined to do this improvement to us for our own good. A group of residents is organising at the moment - contact me if you want to join the mailing list.

For anyone who is interested, below are some notes from the meeting:

I thought that the format chosen by the organisers was quite clever: the normal "formal speech followed by question and answer session" approach would have allowed the whole audience to inform itself en-masse about the the various objections. But breaking us up into little groups resulted in the flow of information among us being fragmented. And, with the meeting being a "consultation" session, with no notes/minutes being taken of the proceedings, and no formal position within the planning process, it became merely an exercise in catharsis.

Observations on the meeting:

1) The W S Atkins traffic engineer told me that modelling of the minor roads - the streets where people live - had not been done as it would have been too expensive, and there were no plans to do it in the future

2) I noticed that each of the stakeholders had a different - and often contradictory story to tell:
Atkins - modelling of minor roads won't be done
A Lambeth councillor (didn't get his name) - modelling of minor roads will be done
TFL - will improve the traffic flow, particularly of buses
Lambeth planning person - the only consideration is improving local people's amenity, traffic flow will not be affected
Mayor's office: an apparatchik was quite clear that the scheme is a part of Livingstone's "100 public spaces" campaign, and was a Mayoral political priority; its usefulness to the people of Brixton did not seem to interest him

3) I asked the Lambeth Communications Officer whether she would have the questionnaire circulated to the affected roads, but she felt that this would represent an unnecessarily high level of communication, as a leaflet had been distributed, and the project would be mentioned in the upcoming issue of the Lambeth Council freesheet.

I would classify the problems with this scheme as follows:

a) PUBLIC SAFETY: i) crime: the safe and busy Effra Road pedestrian route will be lost, and ii) fire/ambulance: has consideration been given to access for Emergency Services ?

b) TRAFFIC: i) regional effects: one of the busiest and most important junctions in South London will be restricted by this scheme, with knock-on effects for commerce and transport reaching into Streatham, Tulse Hill, Clapham and beyond; and ii) local effects: the grid of roads with a bounded by Saltoun/Effra/Railton/Brixton Water Lane will be affected by traffic trying to find alternative routes

c) EXECUTION: Lambeth has completed two public space projects in the recent past - Tate Gardens and Windrush Park. Both have been unmitigated disasters. The problems of indigents/drinkers/pushers/junkies are well-known, along with the by-products (public urination, aggressive begging, discarded needles, litter, drug solicitation, loitering). Lambeth has had an ample number of years to deal with these problems, but has not. Setting aside generic comments (actual quote: "aware of issues around"..."develop strategy") is there any specific basis for believing the new space will be any better ? In this context it is also worth noting that Raleigh Hall been derelict for 20 years, due to the Lambeth's dilatoriness.

d) LOCATION: After the Mayor's aide cited the pedestrianisation of the National Gallery/Trafalgar Square as a model for Brixton, I realised that there is a misapprehension about the likelihood of the BCS becoming a "lively public space". The proposed park/space lies on the Southern edge of  Brixton's commercial centre (the heart of which is the Tube station), and people will not naturally venture so far south. Most of the transport nodes, shops and entertainment venues lie on or to the north of Coldharbour/Acre Lane. Most of the people who pass through Windrush Park are in fact residents of the same SERBWL neighbourhood mentioned above. There are no commercial outlets to attract people to the park, so why would they go there ? Has any market research/"footfall" modelling been done on this subject ?

A lot of people seemed to support the idea of a cheaper, quicker, lower risk project that would join together Tate Gardens and Windrush Park, and make them attractive and safe; including the possible closure of Rushcroft Road. I also heard suggestions that there should be some commercial activity (shops, cafes, etc.) to improve safety and attract people to BCS.


----------



## lang rabbie (Feb 11, 2005)

[Apologies for late posting of this]

I was there too.   Given that the only publicity so far has gone to the Brixton Forum's membership, I was surprised by the disproportionate turnout of residents of the local streets.   Unfortunately, in the scrum of people concerned about traffic on the neighbouring side streets, some bigger strategic issues were probably missed.

The main presentations were from Transport for London, and their consultant engineers at Atkins, who have modelled the impact of the square proposals on traffic in the area.  

Gross Max, the designers of the proposed square, were also there with their outline plans ("polo mints" now less conspicuous!)

From what detailed scrutiny I could manage of the plans* and questioning of the various people there, I found that:

1:  To create enough road space for two way working on Brixton Hill, they will have to knock down and relocate the listed railings and gate piers in front of  St Matthews (The Brix)

2:  The road would be widened at the corner nearest to the Ritzy - I'd be worried about the impact on the roots of the big tree.

3:  The computer modelling has shown that the plans for the area south of Coldharbour Lane, including the closure of Effra Road, are only "bus neutral" i.e. benefits for some routes are offset by delays for others.   There is therefore no longer any business case for using bus improvement money to pay for them.  [My concern is that they could actually reduce the capacity for medium term increases to bus services until we get any tram scheme.]   The square would have to be funded by some mix of "accident prevention", designing out crime and town centre improvements pots of TfL and the Mayor's budgets. 

4:   All the bus stops outside the Town Hall/Fridge would move to south of St Matthews Road.   Not sure how many people this disconveniences?

5:  The buses that currently park on Brixton Hill between services would move to Buckner Road behind the Town Hall - are residents of Porden Road aware of this?

6:  In the busiest "High Street" part of Brixton Road north of Coldharbour Lane, there are some sensible ideas.   TfL propose  getting rid of the central reservation, widening the pavement at the bus stops in front of Morleys, and straightening out the kink in the pavement by the phone boxes outside Brixton tube station.   These can probably go ahead much more quickly if there are no objections, as they would demonstrably ease bus movements in the town centre.   They could therefore be funded as part of the "133 bus route priority measures", regardless of the fate of rest of the Brixton Central Square scheme. 

(* Public consultation wasn't helped by the very out of date underlying digital mapping which still showed Brixton Fashion in place, and various typos in the captions!)


----------



## Boom Sounds (Feb 11, 2005)

*Consultation*

I was also at the public consultation. It was reasonably well attended. I didn't get the feeling that most people were against the scheme. In fact, I reckon there was a fairly broad cross section of local residents, some of them had obvious concerns e.g. residents of Saltoun Road  but others were strongly in favour of the initial ideas. There were the few usual arch-sceptics but it it was a pretty good start to the consultation. Hats off to Jo Negrini and Lambeth for making the effort. if you want to get a balanced perspective on thsi make sure you get along to the exhibition at the Library or other consultations.


----------



## newbie (Feb 13, 2005)

Funny isn't it how different people get different impressions of the same event.  I gained the impression that there was a strong feeling against the project.  Once ciouncil chap said that he'd had 50 objections that evening.   Having said that, I arrived late and so couldn't really claim a rounded impression of the evening.

Lambeth people really didn't like being asked about the lack of joined up thinking behind this proposal and the 'revitalise' ideas for the area around the Rec and Popes Road.  

But they did say that no firm decision has been taken on the Central Square, so if this consultation is strongly against there is some possibility of stopping it.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Feb 17, 2005)

*Tonight: Workshop on Accessibility and Inclusive Design*

Just a reminder that tonight Lambeth is holding its second consultation session concerning Brixton Central Square, a "Workshop on Accessibility and Inclusive Design".

"Topics for discussion will include: safety and security issues, how to design a place for all ages, movement across the square at different times of the day and key issues for people with disabilities"

Time: 7pm to 9pm
Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall


Lambeth press release on consultation process for Brixton Central Square:
www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/pressrelease/030214.pdf

Downloadable BCS questionnaire, to print, complete and freepost back to Lambeth. (Note: during the last consultation meeting a Lambeth person told me that you must put your name and address on the questionnaire if you want Lambeth to consider your comments, which I assume is an anti-abuse measure. But the questionnaire form doesn't say this, so I don't know if she was correct or not):
www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/form/030358.pdf

Lambeth BCS webpage:
www.lambeth.gov.uk/services/environment/regeneration/brixton-central-square/index.shtml

General leaflet on Lambeth's Revitalise project:
www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/a-default/030240.pdf


----------



## urbanspaceman (Feb 19, 2005)

*Notes on BCS Consultation Meeting on 17 Feb 2005 part 1*

I'm passing on some notes that taken by a friend of mine at this meeting:

Notes of BCS consultation meeting held in Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall on 17 February 2005; [with author’s asides in square brackets]

Rachel Heywood (chair Brixton Area Forum): process started in 1999 with proposed finish of 2008 – concedes that not everyone agrees with plans. Aims to consolidate Brixton as an international destination, make it a healthier place… but “no decisions have been made…no designs have been finalised”. Talked of stringent consultation [what is definition of ‘stringent’]…crime has dropped by 48% [but that includes crimes not relevant to central urban spaces]. Aims to find a spatial expression for the vibrant urban culture [or something like that]

Architect from Gross Max gave a speech, talked about their previous projects [very impressive] and consultation process with residents. Said this was only the second time he’d been to Brixton after dark/at night – Sarah Slater got him to repeat this a few times. This went down very badly with the audience. Talked about plans for square, maybe a fairground once a year [but this goes on in Brockwell park], market stalls along Effra Road. Pattern on ground to represent sugar canes….list of names of those who sailed on Empire Windrush… 

Paul Bakalite then stood up and spoke as an individual (also is member of Coldharbour Lane Working Group?). Wants a proper café not a kiosk, public stage, input from local artists, murals [yuk yuk hate murals]. Worried about whether consultation earlier is just being put aside.

Architect: would love to work with local artists

Then argument about whether this should be a public meeting or go into 3 groups as planned by BAF (with top 6 concerns/ideas from each group being discussed). Nick said that aim was to make the space better but could also make it worse. Maybe we should have a vote on whether to continue plenary or go into groups. Vote for continuation of concerns/thoughts from residents passed. Rachel H tried to over-rule this, but talks continued. Paul Reed, Town Centre Manager for Brixton also spoke.

Next speaker: 54 years resident in Mervan Road. Complained about people leaving the clubs at 3 or 4 in the morning [this was common theme among a lot of the local resident speakers]. Wanted lighting, cameras, safety measures

Kellett resident: talked about problems in Kellett road due to traffic, clubs etc.

Max: there’s been a history of a lack on maintenance in the borough. Nothing dates worse than murals – civic centred practice has to have a degree of neutrality (otherwise becomes hippy mishmash and dates badly). Brockwell Park already holds many events – don’t want to move these events to the town centre

Paul B: conceded some of the events were more suited to Brockwell but others could be suitable for new square.

Can’t remember who said this: have to remember the reason why come to Brixton: it’s an interesting place, not gentrified [another theme of the meeting – gentrification=boring, elitist]. Electric Avenue has been sorely neglected, likewise Brixton Station Road (used to have lots of stalls, but run down by the council)

Need public conveniences – one lady said the council had tried to make her buy them in at a public event held last year – why are these available?

Someone else: this is an opportunity for checks and balances

Jo Negrini (Lambeth council): original consultation about an opportunity to do something about Windrush Square, Tate Gardens, traffic. Had 3000 responses, and this was developed out of that process. Don’t want to make the issues in that square worse. Will be presented to some council body I couldn’t catch and then the council executive to decide whether they’d progress it. She doesn’t like pergola (at some point earlier someone had said the glasshouse wouldn’t last any time in Brixton)

Patrick: said he may be considered a turncoat as originally very vociferous in previous week’s meeting, but thought maybe with some alterations there could be a good/workable plan. Up at 3am one morning trying to resolve this. Asked for 6 more meetings – wants ‘specific’ meetings

Woman: children can’t congregate in the square – her son (teenage) needs to have a dog as he’s scared. Lots of teenagers are scared. Had asked children to come along to this meeting to have their voices heard. [another theme: who are the users of this square?]

Either Jo Negrini or Architect: going to consult children/teenagers as part of process

Man: there are some Excel spreadsheets on the table which suggest how the process is working – we need to have all this properly laid out to get a clear overview of the process

Architects: reminded this is only first stage of design

Lady from Lambeth Cyclists: opportunity for cyclists as dangerous to cycle round St Matthews’s triangle – would like access through the area for cyclists (safe for pedestrians). Also accessible toilets (requested by disabled friend)

Lady: Communication is a real problem. nothing in library about tonight’s meeting. Librarian rang town hall for her – said at 5pm. Man at town hall looked up and found wrong room and then finally found right details.

Patrick: current plan has too large an area to cross – have to think positively though [some of his comments earlier may have come here instead]

Nick: could merge Tate Gardens and Windrush Square – historically there is no link to St Matthew’s Church. By not closing Effra Road avoid the ‘crime gauntlet’ [term used earlier]. Asked (but not answered) if condition of receiving the money is that we have central square or can we just do Tate Gardens and Windrush Square? If can demonstrate that can manage smaller project then could maybe consider the larger project


----------



## urbanspaceman (Feb 19, 2005)

*Notes on BCS Consultation Meeting on 17 Feb 2005 part 2*

Man from Friends of Tate Gardens: short term work in Tate Gardens due to start in next few weeks – feels isolated from bigger project. His group have put 2,850 fliers through doors (Jo Negrini added that she/council have done leafleting about that too)

Someone: plan is visionary – but need to know the area

Man: Can ideas be tried out beforehand in Windrush Square; e.g. deckchairs (once it’s warmer), dominoes tables, speakers corner

Author: everyone talks as if Windrush Square is empty, but has the dealers. My boyfriend was mugged in the square. My flatmate and his boyfriend were threatened with a knife by a dealer. I’m scared of that space after dark

Mervan Lady: Just before the meeting at 7pm there were 2 dealers in the space and some of the lights weren’t working. Will have to stop any music planned in the square at 11pm due to noise. Doesn’t want to feel prisoner in own place after dark. Was mugged at 3am. Police talk about policing area 17 hours of the day, but there are 24 hours in a day. 3am is a crime hotspot due to clubs. Lambeth will not provide the police with more money

At some point was pointed out (maybe by Rachel H, maybe by Jo N) that now only had x minutes left to discuss safety, so I said we’d have to have another meeting on safety, as this wouldn’t be enough.

Policeman: perception of crime still high. Although lots of crime reduced (burglary, mugging) Still have a long way to go on drug dealers. Get rid of some but more come like flies to carcass (Paul B: they’re not flies, they’re people). Offered to take the architects on night patrol (Paul B offered I think to take architects with other people at night). 5,000 people go through Brixton (at night? Can’t remember)

Jonathon Toy (Head of Community Safety): The current space doesn’t work for me [Again, everyone agrees with this]. 50% of people arrested fro drug related crime don’t live in the borough

Kellett Road Lady: what will happen to those living at top if cut off (Effra) road? Real concern re becoming a rat run [either she or another lady complained how house shakes due to traffic and always woken at 3am due to clubbers]

Kellett Road Man: children play on the street – where are they going to play (someone suggested new square, but others that it won’t be zone for children, just the ‘elite’). The junction of Rattray and Kellett is an accident blackspot – 4 accidents a year.

Kellett (?) Lady: moved to Brixton last summer (?) but fed up of negative feelings against new residents, being called elite. Got very upset and started crying.

Paul B: how can she have formed an opinion already – has lived here for 20 years but didn’t form an opinion for 5 years [ho hum, let’s not go there]

Author asked if some people mattered more than others – if middle class are a ‘minority group’ (Paul B’s term) then surely Brixton is just composed of lots of minority groups

Nick: the point is that all groups are concerned about community safety

Donatus (councillor for Coldharbour Ward): people who started this were BAF, composed of Brixton residents. BAF said wanted to make change. All opinions whether old or new were welcomed. (also including those who come/pass through Brixton). Will take ALL views. Was surprised and concerned that not everyone has received information. Need to make improvements. Need for accountability

Another speaker: people are frustrated about not being informed re process

Rachel: please everyone leave details and you will be kept in touch

Jo N: another meeting (workshop) will be arranged. Word of mouth is best way of passing this on

Nick: will this next (new) meeting be readvertised – letters through letterbox?

Jo N: no, sent to all on databases. Lambeth life coming out on Friday (but will include just the original four meetings)

Man: people are cynical and don’t trust they’ll be heard

And we have café and toilet in Raleigh hall to make more of the centre

Architect: had had meeting with consultants behind development of Raleigh Hall earlier that day. Will be building new extension up to the square.

Paul B: apologised for what said to lady who cried but there was a ‘conservative type of young professional’. Was told that now he was stereotyping.

Architect: bottom line is how can we change situation – from his experience looking over maps can really help. Will start in small groups at Saturday (5 March) meeting and round off in group discussion.

Speaker: couldn’t they instead project onto a screen and have a group discussion?

Architect: would prefer to have dialogue with people

Lady from Community Safety Team: has taken lots of notes – egg ideas for fountains, speakers corner, dominoes

Lady: went to the Bullring (one of the architects projects): is really nice now

Summary: everyone wants something to be done – current layout not acceptable. Many residents concerned about losing Effra Road. Do gentrified folk matter – will this square just be full of rich folk drinking expensive coffee (nobody said that café must be cheap)? Who are those gentrifiers? Who are the people with characters? Community Safety folk didn’t get time to say their (important) stuff, but assumption that residents would happily fit into planned layout of meeting/workshop was misconceived. Not sure that how meeting progressed fits in with that defined under the disability discrimination act, so may have to have new one

Then everyone filled in comments forms. Jo N is trying to arrange a meeting very soon – she was very conciliatory. Donatus was also very nice (talked to me about challenging muggers in Brixton). Architects seem very interesting.


----------



## rivereffra (Feb 19, 2005)

It's a tricky thing, trying to improve our public spaces. I have been involved with the consultation around getting the design brief agreed since 2000 and joined BAF then, very impressed that there was an open-access, robust structure for Joe-public like me to take part. By the way, if anyone thinks there is anything dubious or exclusive about BAF, so long as you behave responsibly, it is refreshingly easy to join, get your views across and become chairs of working groups and onto the board. If I'm not mistaken, one or two posts are vacant.

I think a constant challenge is that however much the process has been as open un-dictatorial as possible, for anyone who hears of the business for the first time, they understandably feel threatened that the bulldozers are coming before they have their say too. There is also amazement that this thing has been going on for half a decade without their knowing. Much as the council has tried, communication about the project has not been anywhere near adequate. I am also very disappointed with what I see as the council's rapidly declining of support of BAF. At both these meetings there was no information on how to join the mailing list or BAF membership forms. It is almost as if the council does not want people to know that there is such an easily available and relaiable structure for being involved. It's the same old story, Lambeth: if you build something, then please maintain it properly or you'll leave a long line of disappointed poeple moaning endlessly!

People at the meeting desperately wanted to be involved and a council person assured the room that people who had signed in would be kept informed. This was not clear on the attendance book in the first place, where many people gave incomplete contact imformation. It's amazing at how the basics are not in place.

I also notice that people are deeply mistrustful of the process of inviting tenders and having a limited number of people from TfL, GLA, BAF, Area Committee & Council chosing the designers rather than a public vote. As a designer myself, I do understand the view that a key part of the selection was the interview proceess to make sure that, visual material apart, the designers had a record of working with community groups and would be the sort of people who are able to take on board our diverse views. Much as I would have like to have been part of the selection process, I just think it can't be done in big meetings.  The visual material to date is merely 'this is the first sort of thing that immediately comes to mind'. They will have taken a lot of valuable information on board during the 2 meetings so far and they know that there will be trouble if they ignore us. I also agree with an earlier writer on this thread that the Gross.Max website is uncommunicative and disappointing. I have seen a case in Southwark where designers for a regeneration scheme came in on the back of a 'signature architecture' reputation and got ejected when the process didn't work.

I hope that on the Saturday 5 March event (Town Hall, Room 8, 2-5pm) we can get beyond the 'public meeting' phase and get down to the nitty-gritty of the workshops and take responsiblity for making sure we get what we want rather than concentrating on what we don't want. 

Thursday's meeting brought the diversity of who lives here to the fore which I thought was great- it's why I continue to live here- but designing stuff also takes concentration and discipline- so let's please also do the workshops. If we can't move it forward now, then I bet that either 1) nothing more will happen for a very long time or 2) something will get done but with a much 'streamlined' public participatory element.


----------



## Boom Sounds (Feb 19, 2005)

*Central Sq meeting*

Urbanspaceman - thanks to you friend for the useful summary. I attended the latter part of the meeting. Hatboy actually called them 'young Conservatives'....it wasn't very nice. I always thought that everyone in life was equal. Sometimes, long term Brixton residents act like they are more equal than others e.g. those who have lived here a couple of years. I'm speaking as someone who has lived round here for a long time/my children were born here. I reckon that every resident should have an equal voice on this consultation and we should be working together to end up with something that improves life for all in Brixton
.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 19, 2005)

urbanspaceman said:
			
		

> Rachel Heywood (chair Brixton Area Forum): process started in 1999 with proposed finish of 2008



Was that the process of Rachel starting talking and the date she proposed to finish?




			
				urbanspaceman said:
			
		

> Aims to consolidate Brixton as an international destination,....aims to find a spatial expression for the vibrant urban culture



Heh.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 20, 2005)

urbanspaceman said:
			
		

> Rachel: please everyone leave details and you will be kept in touch
> 
> Jo N: another meeting (workshop) will be arranged. Word of mouth is best way of passing this on
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 20, 2005)

Also notice that their were people not happy with the idea of closing Effra Road.Be interesting to see how much notice they are taken of by the Council(officers).I agree that the the 3 parts (Tate Gadns,Windrush,St Matthews)should be kept separate.

  Joining them up could make the crime situation worse not better.

   Interesting to hear people from Poets corner arent that happy with aspects of it.I remember the original consultation a few years back where people from Saltoun Rd were not at all happy wiht the proposals.They were completly dismissed by the relevant Council officers(who appear to be the same ones now involved).

  One thing about consultation I dont like is that its so time consuming.Their are basic issues like:

  Do you support the closure of Effra Road?
  Do you agree to the jioning up of the three spaces?

  These issues ,whilst voices raise concerns, are not answered clearly by the Council.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 20, 2005)

Good to see Paul Bakelite was on top form at the meeting


----------



## Wednesdayite (Feb 24, 2005)

Everyone who's worried about traffic is not looking at the bigger picture.  There simply cannot BE that much traffic in the future - it's unsustainable, we all choke on the Brix as it is.  Look at GREEN Brixton.  Reduced traffic, non-polluting vehicles, nice happy cyclists of all races?  Deep breath.  Isn't that better?


----------



## suzee blue cheese (Feb 27, 2005)

> Everyone who's worried about traffic is not looking at the bigger picture. There simply cannot BE that much traffic in the future - it's unsustainable, we all choke on the Brix as it is. Look at GREEN Brixton. Reduced traffic, non-polluting vehicles, nice happy cyclists of all races? Deep breath. Isn't that better?



Err - no.  It'll probably get a fair bit worse before any action is taken to reduce traffic.  I pity the folk who live in the roads where the traffic is going to re-route.  

Regarding letters through the door about these meetings:  We live in Shannon Grove, at the end of Tunstall Rd opposite the Tube and have never had a letter through the door informing us of these meetings.  

A design of sugar canes for the new square? That's going to invoke a positive image...  Who thought that one up?

Better attend some meetings, hey..


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 28, 2005)

Could it be renamed _The Rachel Heywood Forum_?


----------



## Boom Sounds (Mar 5, 2005)

*Closing Effra Road - is it a good move or a bad move?*

I went to another of the consulations on the Central Sq this afternoon. It was a pretty ineffective event with a few of the usual suspects taking the Lions share of the time and insisting on getting their views across. The vast majority of attendees were from Kellett/Mervan Rds i.e. very dissapointing turnout from Coldharbour/Ferndale/Brixton Hill. Unfortunately, these people appear to be 
de-railing the whole concept of joining up St Matthews with Tate Gardens/Windrush on the basis that the Central Square would be unsafe compared to their current route home from the tube. They think walking through an open square would be more dangerous than walking bewteen Windrush and St Matthews. It seems to me that the real reason for their rejection of joining the three spaces is  traffic. I think that some of the Kellett/Mervan residents have formed an action group becuase they are (rightly) concerned about traffic flows on their streets. They don't think that Gross Max/the Council have modelled the traffic impact and suspect they will suffer. Obviously, they aren't being too transparent about their real motives. However, you don't have to be a genius (I was listening to their discussions with the Transport people afterwards) to clock their agenda. They are raising safety concerns becuase they see this as an easier way to deliver their objectives i.e. keep Effra Rd open and avoid the risk of more traffic on their streets. Some of these individuals wanted a vote on whether to join the three areas and asked that the decision be 'put on the record'. Luckily, we didn't have the vote, it would have been rather pointless given the make-up of the group - bit like asking my 5 year old whether she would like a bag of sweets. 
Brixton residents are in danger of not debating the full closure option in an objective way. Obviously, we need to consider the traffic issues for those roads but we should also conisider the potential benefits of a large part of Brixton being pedestrianised. Personally, I'm in favour of clsoing the lot because it will be more better for my children - less roads to cross and cars and much better/safer access from Brixton Hill to the Library/Raleigh Hall/Ritzy. Plus, Tate Library/Raleigh Hall were talking about open-air activities. Obviously, story time for under 5s in Windrush Gardens wouldn't be the same if cars are still doing 40mph down Effra Rd. 
The concerned residents from Kellett etc then requested a two stage process i.e. do Windrush Sq first and joing St Matthews later. The reality is that we've probably got one shot at getting this funding from Ken Livingstone and any later attempt to joing St Matthews would probably be expensive/unsuccessful. I fully support a proper analysis of traffic impact on these roads but I feel a minority of residents are in danger of de-railing a massive benefit to the local community.
There were a few good ideas e.g. open air cinema, cafe, lots of talk about how to keep the space workable/safe, using wardens etc. Someone suggested training facilities, a nice cheap cafe, proper facilities for kids, open air theatre, art market, farmers market etc. Lots of interesting talk about Raleigh Hall and the Black cultural archives.

The key debate is round whether to close Effra Road - so what do you reckon? Is it a good move or a bad move? What do you want from the Central Sq?


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 8, 2005)

Boom Sounds said:
			
		

> The key debate is round whether to close Effra Road - so what do you reckon? Is it a good move or a bad move? What do you want from the Central Sq?


I can't see what I get out of having Effra Road closed. It'll be a pain for no benefit.

I live in central Brixton but not round that way. I don't see how the new square can end up anything other than a festering crime hole the same as any other open space in Brixton after dark. I'd love a nice square there, but I can't see what you can do short of opening another nick in the middle of it. Why should the people living there want that? Central Brixton by too many people is seen as a just playround for visitors. It's easy for the clubbers, piss-artists and drug-users to forget anyone actually lives there, raising their family an all just like everywhere else.


----------



## Boom Sounds (Mar 9, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> I can't see what I get out of having Effra Road closed. It'll be a pain for no benefit.
> 
> I live in central Brixton but not round that way. I don't see how the new square can end up anything other than a festering crime hole the same as any other open space in Brixton after dark. I'd love a nice square there, but I can't see what you can do short of opening another nick in the middle of it. Why should the people living there want that? Central Brixton by too many people is seen as a just playround for visitors. It's easy for the clubbers, piss-artists and drug-users to forget anyone actually lives there, raising their family an all just like everywhere else.




In which case, why bother with any improvements to Central Brixton? Why not stop policing Coldharbour Lane because there dealers still operate? In fact, why don't I move my family out of Central Brixton because it is a lost cause? You talk like it's a foregone conclusion that a large pedestrianised area must be worse than a fucking major road junction? We've got a chance to make serious improvements to our local environment for the benefit of local residents. We have a chance to work with Architects and try and design something which helps reduce crime
and delivers benefits to local residents. Plus, believe it or not, we stand a reasonbale chance of getting the funding to deliever it. The police seem to think it would make things easier for them; perhaps we shouldn't believe them? There are almost no facilities for families in Central Brixton (bar the Rec and Library which get rather familar week after week). Why the fuck shouldn't we take a leap of faith and aim for someting exciting, visionary and turn a large part of our town centre into a car free zone where parents and children can actually meet, relax and get a different perspective from life by the A23?
You say how it's easy for the 'clubbers, piss-artists and drug-users to forget anyone actually lives there, raising their family an all just like everywhere else'. I am raising my family here and I want people like the lady from the Tate Library to deliver exciting new things for my family
 e.g. children's activities outside in Windrush Sq. 
The last time I was at the bus stop on Effra Rd opposite St Matthews a dealer was operating and one of his punters jacked up in front of anyone who cared to notice. A new pedestriansed area in Brixton would be no more dangerous than the current set-up. The reality is that most muggings happen on the side roads.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 10, 2005)

Boom Sounds said:
			
		

> The key debate is round whether to close Effra Road - so what do you reckon? Is it a good move or a bad move? What do you want from the Central Sq?


As I've said before, I'm quite up for closing Effra Road. It might cause a hassle for people driving through Brixton, but who cares? Most of the people driving through brixton are commuters from the suburbs - the only way they contribute to Brixton is by pumping their exhaust fumes into the atmosphere. Don't let the motorist ruin something that could actually be quite good for Brixton and the people that live here. I'm sure the concerns of residents can be dealt with if the council listen *properly. * 

The plans are quite radical and people always oppose change - I know the plans aint perfect yet but let's try and mould them to what we want. The idea is in the right direction. Once it has been done, I doubt many people would want to go back. Who would now have traffic back at the top of Trafalgar Square for example?


----------



## clandestino (Mar 10, 2005)

we have enough congestion problems in brixton at the moment without shutting effra road. whoever made the decision to allow buses to turn right off brixton road at the police station rather than go around the academy as before was a fool. it's created a bottleneck that's had a terrible effect on brixton in my opinion. if planners can't even get something as simple as this right, how can we believe them when they assure us that the rerouting won't be harmful to brixton.

if this has to go ahead, i suggest a compromise. join windrush and tate, leave effra road open and st matthews as it is.


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 10, 2005)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> Most of the people driving through brixton are commuters from the suburbs - the only way they contribute to Brixton is by pumping their exhaust fumes into the atmosphere. [/B]



IMO There are actually very few private motorist commuters in central Brixton's rush hour traffic.   A lot of the traffic other than buses is "white vans" and other service industries.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Mar 10, 2005)

"Relatively" few.


----------



## rivereffra (Mar 14, 2005)

Anyway, about closing Effra Raod and the worries about rat running, my usual experience of Saltoun/Kellet/Mervin Road is nearly being mown down by cars speeding along too fast having turned off from Effra Road. If Effra Road were closed, this wouldn't happen any more.

On one hand I'm surprised TfL haven't tried to 'model' the back streets but on the other, I haven't yet heard any convincing evidence that it would be worse than it is at the moment. I have a theory that any rat runners coming out of Kellet or Mervin Road would have to wait so long at the lights on the 3-way corner of Effra and St. Matthew's Road (favouring the main road) that they'd get fed up and go around Town Hall Parade next time. Maybe the lights could be phased with just that in mind.

It all seems a far cry from 2000/2001 when there were enthusiastic public meetings about rolling back the tedious wall-to-wall traffic and creating some precious traffic-free oasis in Brixton where the kids could play, birds could twitter and people could relax/gather/whatever. This was close to the time of that famous Reclaim the Streets incident on the A23. BAF were involved in Car Free days in Colharbour Lane and Effra Road, and TfL were willing to give it a serious look. I was quite excited that people were up for doing it in a legal and lasting (and therefore meaningful) manner. I thought Brixton was going to keep its radical reputation be a place where interesting things happen.

I also agree that security is the biggest issue, but what does it say about us if the removal of 3 lanes of non-stop traffic has to mean crime and muggings? Where is the imagination? I must admit, I'm hard pushed to think of great pedestrianised spaces in London (Fitzroy Square & new Trafalgar Sq work well...plenty in other cities, too), but what's so bad about searching for new solutions and coming up with interesting ideas?

Don't forget the 'extra' meeting on 2nd April at the Town Hall


----------



## clandestino (Mar 15, 2005)

where exactly is this rerouted traffic meant to go if effra road is closed? i'd be grateful if someone involved would give me a working example. 

i can't see it working. look at the mess that brixton got itself into when the water main burst on brixton hill - back roads jammed, tempers flaring, all documented on these boards if you want to take a look. won't we have a similar mess once effra road is closed, only with different back streets being affected. 

eventually the solution was for drivers to take matters into their own hands and move the barriers and drive through. speaks volumes about what the local residents want surely.


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 16, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> where exactly is this rerouted traffic meant to go if effra road is closed? i'd be grateful if someone involved would give me a working example.



The scheme plans are now on TfL Street Management's website 

This links to some very big pdfs - the detailed plan of the southern part of the scheme probably provides the most readable plan of the proposals for two-way working on Brixton Hill and the St Matthew's Road link. 

Note that blue shaded "open space lost to road widening" - there are a lot of trade-offs in this scheme.


----------



## clandestino (Mar 16, 2005)

um...

first, some positive points. glad to see that they're going to widen the road slightly (cutting into st matthews square) to accommodate soundbound traffic. i'm not sure it'll be wide enough, even so, but that answers one of my questions.

however, there seems to be no provision in this plan for where southbound traffic goes once it hits the junction with st matthews road. brixton hill is a major artery, running through to streatham and beyond. where does the soundbound traffic that wants to get to croydon, streatham, etc, go once it hits the st matthews junction? there's no provision for carrying straight on up brixton hill (there's those pedestrian islands in the way for a start), so it has to turn right. so then what? where does it go then? up effra road and then cuts across using brixton water lane? given the sheer volume of traffic, is that going to work?

more importantly, what happens to northbound traffic coming down effra road? it comes down effra road, turns left onto st matthews road and then in the current system would shift into the right lane to then turn right and go up brixton road. but in this system it can't shift into the right lane on st matthews road because of oncoming traffic in the left lane. so that leaves southbound traffic from tulse hill with nowhere to go. it'll have to switch onto brixton hill as well, using (presumably)...brixton water lane. that's a lot of pressure to put on quite a small street. the junction by khans is going to be a nightmare. 

could someone connected with the scheme address these points please? maybe i've missed something. i'm not used to reading these kind of plans so that may well be the case. it seems to me that the traffic flow model doesn't take in a wide enough area.


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 16, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> there's no provision for carrying straight on up brixton hill (there's those pedestrian islands in the way for a start), so it has to turn right. so then what? where does it go then? up effra road and then cuts across using brixton water lane? given the sheer volume of traffic, is that going to work?



You'll only hit the pedestrian island if you're trying to go straight ahead in the proposed left hand filter lane.     

I think ianw has taken Minnie the Minx's crown as the Brixtonite least able to read maps


----------



## clandestino (Mar 16, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> I think Ian W has taken Minnie the Minx's crown as the Brixtonite least able to read maps



what? why?!?!

   

explain please!


----------



## clandestino (Mar 16, 2005)

(just noticed i'd put turns right onto st matthews rd, instead of left. but apart from that my points stand..!
 )

don't they?


----------



## clandestino (Mar 16, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> You'll only hit the pedestrian island if you're trying to go straight ahead in the proposed left hand filter lane.



exactly! that's my point!


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 16, 2005)

Brixton Hill remains open to traffic.   

Any grey lines within the area shown white as roadspace are the current kerbs and traffic islands that will get removed.   The red lines are the new kerb lines and only the brown shaded areas will be traffic islands.


----------



## clandestino (Mar 16, 2005)

ah, i know what i've done wrong. it's not poor mapreading...it's putting in rights and lefts from my point of view of reading the map as opposed to the pov of a driver. 

let me rephrase my post.


----------



## clandestino (Mar 16, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Brixton Hill remains open to traffic.
> 
> Any grey lines within the area shown white as roadspace are the current kerbs and traffic islands that will get removed.   The red lines are the new kerb lines and only the brown shaded areas will be traffic islands.



ah, really? ok, well that's not clear. as there are arrows indicating traffic flow elsewhere on the map but not in the segement where the pedestrian islands are/were, it's isn't immediately apparent that that's what's going to happen. i assumed the islands would still be there.

right, let me look at this all again...


----------



## clandestino (Mar 16, 2005)

thanks for clearing that up by the way


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2005)

Boom Sounds said:
			
		

> I went to another of the consulations on the Central Sq this afternoon. It was a pretty ineffective event with a few of the usual suspects taking the Lions share of the time and insisting on getting their views across. The vast majority of attendees were from Kellett/Mervan Rds i.e. very dissapointing turnout from Coldharbour/Ferndale/Brixton Hill. Unfortunately, these people appear to be
> de-railing the whole concept of joining up St Matthews with Tate Gardens/Windrush on the basis that the Central Square would be unsafe compared to their current route home from the tube. activities.



  I dont live in those roads but i say good for them for turning up and standing up to the Council officers.I thought in the first consultations about the squares they were treated badly by the Council officers responsible.In my  view some officers use these "consultation" processes as a way of getting promotion.Which means they have to be seen to "deliver" ie get thing through including steamrolling objections/concerns.If the concerns of those in Kellet/Mervan road had been taken seriously in the first place I dont think they would try and "derail" it.Its the officers fault for attempting to steamroll proposals through.Those of us who were sceptical/raised issues about the scheme previously were regarded as being "against change" etc.Thats probably why the turn out was low.If people are consulted and ignored then they dont turn up again.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> I can't see what I get out of having Effra Road closed. It'll be a pain for no benefit.
> 
> I live in central Brixton but not round that way. I don't see how the new square can end up anything other than a festering crime hole the same as any other open space in Brixton after dark. I'd love a nice square there, but I can't see what you can do short of opening another nick in the middle of it. Why should the people living there want that? Central Brixton by too many people is seen as a just playround for visitors. It's easy for the clubbers, piss-artists and drug-users to forget anyone actually lives there, raising their family an all just like everywhere else.



   Your concerns are correct a previous meeting (i forget which one their are so many)implied that if their was one big square a 24 hour patrol would be needed for it.


----------



## clandestino (Mar 16, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> I dont live in those roads but i say good for them for turning up and standing up to the Council officers.



i agree. i thought the poster was very dismissive of what is surely the most important issue to brixton residents - personal safety.

having had a look at the plans (now that I see them clearly....  ), the scheme isn't as bad, in terms of traffic, as i first feared. but the bit at the top of st matthews opposite what was rushcroft road looks like a terrible bottleneck waiting to happen. i think they should cut further into central square there to ease congestion. 

the next question is...what will be on the square. really? in practical terms? what do the planners forsee happening on the square at, say, a Tuesday afternoon six months after it's been open. Or a Thursday night six months after the opening.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> 1:  To create enough road space for two way working on Brixton Hill, they will have to knock down and relocate the listed railings and gate piers in front of  St Matthews (The Brix)
> 
> 2:  The road would be widened at the corner nearest to the Ritzy - I'd be worried about the impact on the roots of the big tree.
> 
> ...



  Your usual expert planning knowledge LR  .

  The improvements for Brixton Road are a good idea.Pity TfL cant "regenerate" Brixton as they want to do sensible little improvements that actually make a difference.Rather than Stalinist style plans for Brixton that the Council come up with like Central sq.Do all Councils do this?Does it make them feel important?

 I am concerned about the plans to knock down and alter St Matthews.The original design of St Matthews situates the church off the road.Doent seem to me this is an improvement.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> The scheme plans are now on TfL Street Management's website
> 
> This links to some very big pdfs - the detailed plan of the southern part of the scheme probably provides the most readable plan of the proposals for two-way working on Brixton Hill and the St Matthew's Road link.
> 
> Note that blue shaded "open space lost to road widening" - there are a lot of trade-offs in this scheme.



   Also includes questionairre you can print off so you can send your views(in by 22nd April).


----------



## newbie (Mar 17, 2005)

rivereffra said:
			
		

> I must admit, I'm hard pushed to think of great pedestrianised spaces in London (Fitzroy Square & new Trafalgar Sq work well...plenty in other cities, too), but what's so bad about searching for new solutions and coming up with interesting ideas?
> 
> Don't forget the 'extra' meeting on 2nd April at the Town Hall



Doesn't Fitzroy Square have the centre closed off, presumably private for some local residents, and the roads pedestrianised so the posh people that live & work there aren't troubled by riffraff taking a short cut.  Is that successful town planning?  tbh it strikes me as a completely sterile area, devoid of life (though the Bolivar plaque hints at a dashing past).

Trafalgar Sq, on the other hand, really is a world class square.  It has the National Gallery, St Martins, flagship embassies, is a short walk from both Parliament and Buck House and deserves its iconic importance.  To build a square in Brixton that aspires to compare with Trafalgar Sq needs more of a backdrop than a slightly run down library, a flicks and a nightclub or two.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 19, 2005)

I agree Newbie.Fitsroy sq -like a lot of squares with gardens in central London-is private.Though sometimes in Summer they allow the hoi polloi in.

 The Bolivar plaque is rather good  .

  Im afraid that the Brixton one will be like the new square next to Euston Tower north of Fitsroy Sq.Large open space with security gaurds wandering around checking up on what your up to.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2005)

Well, the fountain is no more and it looks like the expanse of concrete is now under way..


----------



## proeuro (Mar 21, 2005)

I think I'm about 6 months behind everyone else again so apologies for seeming to post for postings sake but this whole plan looks fucking cool!

_Anything_ to reduce congestion and prettify Brixton is appreciated and I just hope that the plan spreads a bit of colour and loveliness around what is a dull and litter-strewn area.

Two cents offered, time to get back to work...


----------



## eme (Mar 21, 2005)

sorry if this has been asked before - I have taken a look at the plans.... it's a lot to do! if it works then good, but are there any plans to see of the new 'sq'? is it really just going to be paved over, or will there be more flower beds / green like where the big tree is?

took a look at the revitalise website but no pics...

thanks

_ok found some on the lambeth website  - not any great detail though, when you zoom in it is all pixelly... there will be some kind of overhead trellis thing with climbing plants on it and on the end a big TV screen?! [feels cross I missed the open day thing at the town hall] Will do the questionnaire now_


----------



## urbanspaceman (Mar 22, 2005)

*Brixton Area Committee meeting on Wed 23rd March*

I thought people might be interested to know that The Brixton Area Committee is meeting on Wednesday. Details are:
Wednesday 23 March, 7.30pm at Brixton Hill Methodist Church, Elm Park, SW2 2TX

“The Brixton Area Committee is made up of the
15 local councillors representing Coldharbour,
Ferndale, Brixton Hill, Herne Hill and Tulse Hill
wards. It is chaired by Councillor Donatus
Anyanwu, and meetings are open, giving you the
chance to question the councillors and council
officers about local issues” Source: Lambeth

The BAC is a key cog in Lambeth's political decision-making process, and will pass its comments up the chain-of-control to the full Council. 

The Effra Residents Group has put forward a "Public Notice Question" concerning the Central Square, to which Lambeth has a statutory duty to respond. Associated with this PNQ, ERG will be allowed to make a five minute presentation. Concerns include:

* public safety, and plans to address drug dealing and its penumbra 
* traffic being displaced into residential streets
* the fact the that Square is not really "central", but lies at the southern periphery of Brixton Town Centre - and so people have no particular reason to traverse it
* the disconnect between capital and maintenance budgets - i.e. being involved in building a new BCS looks good on a bureaucrat's cv, but maintenance is unglamorous and uninteresting (albeit critical)

To find out more about ERG: effraresidentsgroup@london.com





?


----------



## Ultramarine (Mar 22, 2005)

*Safety and quality of life*

_Unfortunately, these people appear to be 
de-railing the whole concept of joining up St Matthews with Tate Gardens/Windrush on the basis that the Central Square would be unsafe compared to their current route home from the tube. They think walking through an open square would be more dangerous than walking bewteen Windrush and St Matthews. It seems to me that the real reason for their rejection of joining the three spaces is traffic. _ 

That is a very dismissive attitude to take about many people's genuine concerns about safety. Not everyone has a car - myself included. People who must walk home at night are justified in worrying about their safety. I work nights and walk home from the Tube along Effra Road. Currently it's okay for me to do that - I feel safe because there's activity on the road and people walking along the main pavement way. I never walk across the open spaces to get home at night because they aren't safe. Many of my friends have been mugged there, and one raped. Old people and women will be particularly vulnerable.

Having spoken to people who live in Peckham, which has a similar pedestrianised space, I can only feel that a large space will be unsafe at night. In Peckham the space is just a big concrete wasteland - far too scary at night for women to venture out in. There have been a lot of muggings there and because there is no street access, people get away with it and feel free to rob etc - police can't get there quickly, and there are no passing cars to act as deterrent. Attackers basically operate with impunity. If you doubt this why not go and have a look and talk to some of the Peckham residents about it?

As for traffic - there's a lot of talk about 'improving Brixton' - of course we all want that. But an ill-thought-out traffic scheme, which this one certainly is at the moment - will NOT improve our lives. Closure of Effra Road and creation of a one-way system on Atlantic Road will force traffic down the residential streets - so you get a big space in the middle where you can play with your kids etc, but your actual street will be full of vans, buses, cars etc clogging your air with fumes, making it noisy, and creating danger for your kids. There is already a beautiful space with many familiy activities - Brockwell Park.  

There is nothing dishonest about wanting to protect quality of life from the effects of traffic. Many urban planning schemes go ahead without proper consultation or modelling of the effects - and residents have to live for years afterwards with the mistakes. Local people have a right to have their concerns taken seriously - and the roads that will be affected are many - not just one or two. The whole grid from Coldharbour right up to Poet's corner will feel the effects. There are many families in these streets - why shouldn't they fight for the quality of their lives?

If Effra Road were to be left open there could still be a large open space joining up and re-designing Windrush and Tate Gardens, and this would be flanked by a new Black cultural centre, offering activities and bringing life to the space.


----------



## Boom Sounds (Mar 23, 2005)

'That is a very dismissive attitude to take about many people's genuine concerns about safety.'

Sorry, I think you've mis-understood my position on this. 
Of course, it's perfectly reasonable for local residents to be concerned about safety and traffic. It's also perfectly reasonable to have an open and honest discussion about different options without the consultations being dominated by three or four individuals. My point is that  safety is being used to reject any notion of joing these three spaces when the key concern appears to be about traffic - so why can't we be open about this and try and explore the issue? I fully support an objective analysis of the traffic impact on Kellett/Saltoun etc and fully understand the residents concerns. I'm also well aware of the Council's failure to address your concerns. However, that doesn't mean we can't debate the options and try and work through different scenarios before the interested parties come to a final decision. Why don't we ask the Police on their view on crime - do they think it be better or worse and (importantly) what can the Architects do to make things better? Isn't this a more balanced approach? My key concern is that we are unable to reach that point because a relatively small number of individuals seem unprepared to openly explore the options. 
I'm in favour of joinging the three areas but I would be prepared to change my mind if the Police were saying the area would be more unsafe and traffic modelling supported your concerns - but we haven't actually got answers to these questions.  Local residents have an opportunity to work with the Architects, Police and Council to try and design out crime and the area can hardly be described as safe at the moment. My experience of living in Brixton is that most muggings happen off the side roads and this won't change whatever happens.
Also, I don't see how you can draw paralells with Peckham. Arguably, Brixton has one of the finest town centres in London. Look at the layout and architecture - Town Hall, St Matthews, Ritzy, Tate Library, Tate Memorial, Raleigh Hall, Prince of Wales building. We can't fully appreciate this because of the existing layout and lack of any space to meet, relax, socialise etc.
Brockwell Park is a great resource for families but it is a long way from most Brixton residents; although not so far if you live off Railton Rd! Try walking with several young  children from Acre Lane to Brockwell Pk.
Leaving Effra Rd open will render most of the potential opportunities redundant i.e. no open air cinema, cafe will not be the same, no open air activities for children, limited options for theatre, temporary markets, exhibitions. Many Brixton community spaces e.g. traditional pubs/churchs have been turned into trendy bars/clubs which do not cater for older residents or those with children. This scheme is an opportunity to redress the balance.
Your argument is quite convincing but it isn't based on any kind of factual analysis and you don't seem prepared to explore the various options in an objective fashion before drawing conclusions.


----------



## Slurp (Mar 23, 2005)

The Effra Residents Group has shoved out quite a good circular today, distributed in central Brixton, opposing the development and complaining quite vigorously about the lack of consultation.

It includes the statements:

"A group called Brixton Area Forum claims to represent us. Yet most residents have not received any information and the meetings organised by the forum have been inadequate."

Is the ERG just a bunch of whinging car owners (to be ignored) or is there merit in the argument (from the leaflet):

"Peckham residents, subject to a similar pedestrianisation, say it has created no-go areas, where gangs roam and mug freely. Research suggests community safety at night and pedestrianised areas are incompatible."

I've lived in a town with a pedestrianised centre and it was a scary place at night. No coppers in sight while gangs of youths hung around in darkened shop doorways.

Does Lambeth Council really intend doing this to central Brixton or is ERG putting the frighteners on so they can keep wizzing around in their cars?


----------



## Boom Sounds (Mar 23, 2005)

*Effra Residents Group*




			
				Slurp said:
			
		

> The Effra Residents Group has shoved out quite a good circular today, distributed in central Brixton, opposing the development and complaining quite vigorously about the lack of consultation. Does Lambeth Council really intend doing this to central Brixton or is ERG putting the frighteners on so they can keep wizzing around in their cars?



The reality is that there are very good and very bad examples of town centre re-design. 
The Effra Residents Group have concerns about traffic flow on their streets which need to be addressed by Lambeth Council. This is a totally seperate issue to whether the Architects (Gross Max), Lambeth Council, the Police and residents can work together to design something which is better from a crime and community perspective. Experience tells us that a reduction in crime can be achieved if it is fully considered at the design stage. We need to recognise that each situation is unique and has different requriements. It is not as simple as saying 'Peckham pedestriansied area is shit' or 'I was mugged in Brimingham bullring' or 'Slough town centre is dangerous after dark'....and Brixton will be the same. It is just not that simple. There is a wealth of experience/best practice in town centre design and this is available to Gross Max, Lambeth Council, the Police and local residents.
in my opinion, we should be able to get to the stage where there are a range of carefully considered options some which leave Effra Rd open and some which close the road. Only then, after taking advice from crime professionals i.e. the Police on the relative merits of each option will we be in a position to take a considered view on crime.
In addition, only then will we be able to take a sensible view on whether the benefits of a pedestrianised space
e.g. open air theatre/cinema, children's activties, cafes are outweighed by concerns over crime and traffic. 
The problem we have at the moment is that a small number of residents seem intent on stopping us getting to the stage where we can review or even work up the options. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that they are scaremongering over crime and traffic when no detailed options have been drawn up and no traffic modelling has been undertaken. Unfortuntely, if we carry on like this, we'll never get to the options stage where we can make a sensible balanced judgement on whether this project has the potential to make the centre of Brixton a better place to live.


----------



## clandestino (Mar 23, 2005)

Boom Sounds said:
			
		

> the Architects (Gross Max), Lambeth Council



just out of interest boom sounds, are you affiiated with any of the above, or anyone else involved in the central square project?


----------



## Boom Sounds (Mar 23, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> just out of interest boom sounds, are you affiiated with any of the above, or anyone else involved in the central square project?



Ian,

I can 100% assure that I have nothing to do with the Council, Architects, Project or any other interested parties. I am a local resident of 15 years who wants to ensure we have a reasonable, fair and transparent process with regard to this project. I've been to a few of the consultations and observed proceedings. It seems to me that Lambeth Council need to raise their game and present some well thought through options and the Effra residents need to be a bit less emotive and work with the Architects/Council not against them.


----------



## clandestino (Mar 23, 2005)

fair enough, thanks for the reply.

i was just wondering as i hadn't seen you taking part in other discussions on the boards. 

i wish i could share your optimism/idealism about the central square. my feelings are that it would be an uncomfortable place to walk through at night. i don't see what's wrong with going for the compromise option - joining windrush and tate and leaving st matthews as it is. just because this is our only chance, as was argued before, doesn't mean that we should take it. it could actually be our only chance to make a huge, huge mistake.

i'll be at the meeting on april 2nd.


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 23, 2005)

Boom Sounds said:
			
		

> The reality is that there are very good and very bad examples of town centre re-design.
> The Effra Residents Group have concerns about traffic flow on their streets which need to be addressed by Lambeth Council. This is a totally seperate issue to whether the Architects (Gross Max), Lambeth Council, the Police and residents can work together to design something which is better from a crime and community perspective. Experience tells us that a reduction in crime can be achieved if it is fully considered at the design stage. We need to recognise that each situation is unique and has different requriements. It is not as simple as saying 'Peckham pedestriansied area is shit' or 'I was mugged in Brimingham bullring' or 'Slough town centre is dangerous after dark'....and Brixton will be the same. It is just not that simple. There is a wealth of experience/best practice in town centre design and this is available to Gross Max, Lambeth Council, the Police and local residents.
> in my opinion, we should be able to get to the stage where there are a range of carefully considered options some which leave Effra Rd open and some which close the road. Only then, after taking advice from crime professionals i.e. the Police on the relative merits of each option will we be in a position to take a considered view on crime.
> In addition, only then will we be able to take a sensible view on whether the benefits of a pedestrianised space
> ...



But that is the problem - there is no suggestion that other options are on the table e.g. bus only working on Effra Road/contraflow bus lanes etc.   Full pedestrianisation of Effra Road and absorbtion into the adjacent spaces to create a "central square" has been repeated presented as the solution to some undefined problem, adopted  as a visionary project by the Mayor as part of his "100 new open spaces for London", and included in the design brief for the competition.




			
				Boom Sounds said:
			
		

> Frankly, I find it unbelievable that they are scaremongering over crime and traffic *when no detailed options have been drawn up and no traffic modelling has been undertaken*.



I rather think that some modelling must have been done, for TfL and their consultants to have come to the conclusion that the scheme is "bus neutral".  Indeed, among my concerns are:
(i) the road widening required to deliver a scheme that can cope with the traffic on Brixton Hill/St Matthews Road without gridlock, and 
(ii) the complicated i.e slow-to-cross pedestrian crossings needed to keep the traffic moving).


----------



## clandestino (Mar 23, 2005)

the irony of course is what we've been talking about on these boards on and off for a while is the pedestrianisation of cold harbour lane. 

probably isn't going to win anyone any awards though that one is it?


----------



## Ultramarine (Mar 23, 2005)

_a small number of residents seem intent on stopping us getting to the stage where we can review or even work up the options. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that they are scaremongering over crime and traffic when no detailed options have been drawn up and no traffic modelling has been undertaken_

Residents are simply participating in the consultation - as is their right. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean they should stop voicing their opinions.

Your emotive term 'scaremongering' is arrogant and dismissive. There is no 'hidden agenda' as you seem to be implying. People raise concerns because they are genuinely worried - as I said in my previous post, for example, I am female and walk home late at night from work. I am worried about the effect of creating a large pedestrianised space based on experience of crime and harassment during my 16 years of living in this area. I will fight for my freedom to walk home in safety at night, rather than having to depend on taxis, which I can ill-afford.

People who are voicing opinions have every right to do so. This is exactly what the consultation process has been set up for. They are not stopping the process going forward or stopping the creation of 'options' as you put it. Gross Max has drawn up a design for the area already and this design is what will go forward to the planning authorities - feedback taken during the consultation may influence the design - or may not.

And the fact that no traffic modelling has been undertaken, which you site as a reason why people are wrong to protest, is a cause for serious concern. At a council meeting I attended, Jo Negrini confirmed that traffic impact assessment will take place only after the plans are finalised - which seems foolhardy to say the least. 

Surely proper modelling should take place before plans are finalised and consulted upon? How can anyone participate in meaningful consultation otherwise? Of course people are worried - serious alterations to local traffic will take place without anyone having worked out what the effect will be on residential streets. The best guess we have been given (by WS Atkins) is an increase of up to 80 cars per hour in some residential roads. 

I am not a car owner. One previous post asked whether the people who are worried are just 'whinging car owners'. I'd like to make clear that increases in residential traffic, including heavy vehicles, vans etc, is likely to affect quality of life for everyone. Whether you own a car or not is irrelevant to that. Among the people who may be worst affected are some of the most vulnerable - families with children.


----------



## Boom Sounds (Mar 23, 2005)

Ultramarine said:
			
		

> _a small number of residents seem intent on stopping us getting to the stage where we can review or even work up the options. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that they are scaremongering over crime and traffic when no detailed options have been drawn up and no traffic modelling has been undertaken_
> 
> Residents are simply participating in the consultation - as is their right. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean they should stop voicing their opinions.
> 
> ...




Obviously, I totally agree that it is your right to voice your opinion.  I firmly believe that everyone should get an equal say on this proposal. I am referring to a very small number of people who are getting more of say than others. The reality is that the consultations have been dominated by a small number of individuals (less than 5) who have left many others feeling unable to contribute to the process. For example, the last two hour session went totally off the agenda and we didn't have a meaningful discussion about possible activities. 
I fully support the idea that further  traffic modelling should take place immediately and this work needs to be reviewed before any decisions are made. Likewise, we need a similarly rigorous approach to crime prevention. 
I do not believe that the EffraResidentsGroup are in a position to say the square will be more dangerous than the current route until we work up and analyse several options and take advice from professionals rather than concerned residents on the likely impact. I think this is scaremongering because you do not truly know whether it will be better or worse.
I have a preference to have a bigger open space but I am not wedded to this idea. I would change my mind if I saw some factual evidence which supported your concerns around crime and traffic. It seems that you are not prepared to adopt this more open considered approach.
At the moment, both scenarios are likely to be 
sub-optimal because there has not been adeqaute input from a broad range of all local residents and specialists. This has led to a failure to work up any options from which, after reviewing all the relevant information, we can make a sensible decision.


----------



## Boom Sounds (Mar 23, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> fair enough, thanks for the reply.
> 
> i was just wondering as i hadn't seen you taking part in other discussions on the boards.
> 
> ...



Ian,

It isn't optimism or idealism - I'm on the fence until I see some more detail. I think you're 100% right that it may not be a nice place to be at night - it is entirely dependent on the design and on-going management. However, we will not be able to take a balanced view on this until we see a number of realistic options and get some sensible professional advice. Sadly, these options are not on the table due (in my view) to Lambeth facilitating some particularly poor consultations where a very small number of people got 80% of the airtime.


----------



## Ultramarine (Mar 24, 2005)

_For example, the last two hour session went totally off the agenda and we didn't have a meaningful discussion about possible activities. _ 

I was at that session - the workshop at the Town Hall on Saturday March 5. It is not true that we had no meaningful discussion - for about two hours everyone in the room was able to contribute and talk about ideas for activities that might happen in the space. 

Among other things, we discussed how quality design might affect who uses the square; listened to how the new Black cultural centre might run activities in the space; took ideas for other options including open-air cinema, poetry readings and an amphitheatre. A member of the local community who used to deal drugs and do crime to fund his habit, now recovered, was given time to talk about how drugs / crime inhabits public space, and to suggest some ways around the problems. People on Brixton Hill talked about their concerns about being cut off from central Brixton by the main road - and one woman suggested including Rush Common in the plan. 

At the start of the session several people began voicing concerns about traffic and it was agreed that this be put back to general discussion at the end of the session to give a chance for the meeting to talk about activities in the space.

_The reality is that the consultations have been dominated by a small number of individuals (less than 5) who have left many others feeling unable to contribute to the process. _ 

Last night I attended the Brixton Area Committee meeting where BCS was one item on the agenda. There were about 100 local people present. The BAC chair took questions from several who voiced their concerns about safety and traffic. Many of these I had not seen at any previous meetings. There was unanimous anxiety voiced about the proprosals. 

Far from a small number 'dominating' the proceedings, there was in fact an orderly input, regulated by the chair of the meeting. No one spoke out of turn and everyone who wanted to speak was listened to. There was not one person who spoke in favour of the scheme as it currently stands - although many people, myself included, would like to see an improved central space.

_I fully support the idea that further traffic modelling should take place immediately and this work needs to be reviewed before any decisions are made. _ 

This is not going to happen. At the BAC meeting last night, it was again confirmed by WS Atkins that there has been no traffic impact assessment on side-roads as they do not 'feel' this to be necessary. The scheme must be decided upon without this. Their own guestimates show an increase of 80 cars per hour in some residential streets yet they state that this does not constitute 'traffic displacement' and so no further modelling is needed.

_I do not believe that the EffraResidentsGroup are in a position to say the square will be more dangerous than the current route until we work up and analyse several options and take advice from professionals rather than concerned residents on the likely impact. _ 

Again, this is not going to happen. There is going to be no advice taken, no research done. The plans will go ahead simply on the basis of guesswork on the part of all concerned. There will be one more consultation event on April 2, then a display of the final plans on April 16. No one is offering any professional analysis or advice - the only thing we have to go on is our own experience and common sense. Unless, of course, any resident takes it upon him or herself to commission reports or advice - the council is certainly not offering us that.

_I would change my mind if I saw some factual evidence which supported your concerns around crime and traffic. _ 

I am not sure what kind of factual evidence you expect in relation to a proposal that is not yet realised. The evidence that local people are going on is what they already know of the area - about the open spaces that already exist, that they must already deal with; and by looking at how Lambeth manages and maintains what is already there. 

Several people mentioned at last night's BAC meeting the concerns about maintainance - how Windrush square, which was set up to be a beautiful monument to those of the local community who arrived here on the Windrush, has become a dark, delapidated and useless space, not to be crossed at night and flanked by aggressive drug-dealing. This space began with the usual fanfare, yet a combination of poor design and maintenance has made it a dead zone.

Concerns were also expressed over Lambeth's history of creating and failing to maintain spaces, and over the fact that the activities planned for the new space - which are being trumpeted as a way to keep it safe - will depend on the budget available to fund them. One resident pointed out that this budget is likely to fluctuate - and there may be activities for a month or two, making us all feel great, which could easily stop when budget-cutting or re-allocation is put in place. There are no guarantees - again, we have only the evidence of Lambeth's record to go on. 

Another example: Lambeth has cut funding for youth services in the borough to pathetic levels. If they cut budgets for essential services such as these, can we really believe they will continue funding poetry readings and theatre performances, or even basic maintenance, in this newly created space?

You ask for evidence about traffic. WS Atkins own guestimates are putting big increases in traffic through residential roads. It is, surely, for the proposers of this scheme to provide the evidence to show how they will avoid this traffic displacement, and the consequent threat to safety and quality of life of the people who live in Brixton. However, as already stated, Lambeth is not offering us any more evidence. You can not blame people who are worried about the scheme for Lambeth's failure to offer any expert input.

_At the moment, both scenarios are likely to be sub-optimal because there has not been adeqaute input from a broad range of all local residents and specialists. _ 

Every local resident who want to, can give their input. As I already said in this post, the last consultation workshop did result in input from a broad range of residents - who offered varying views about the plans.

Lambeth is simply not offering any more specialist input that is already on the table. These plans will go forward on that basis - and we have to make up our minds on the basis of what is in front of us, and what we, as non-specialist local residents, can work out for ourselves.

Everyone wants a better Brixton. However, we also want to protect what we already have from what might be a massive mistake, commissioned and realised on the basis of half-baked ideas and poor expert advice. There are simply too many key players in the equation - and the danger is that local needs will be overlooked.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 24, 2005)

That's all good.

My gut feeling is however "so what if more cars go up side roads" if it means a good thing for Brixton as a whole. I don't care. And I live in Railton so it would affect me.

Also:

"how Windrush square, which was set up to be a beautiful monument to those of the local community who arrived here on the Windrush, has become a dark, delapidated and useless space, not to be crossed at night and flanked by aggressive drug-dealing".

Yes....... Windrush Square is an pathetic insult. But "aggressive drug dealing" -  it ain't that bad. You just don't know how to talk to people. (I mean you didn't know how to take me to start with! - I know it's you *****).

<identifying first letter of name removed by request: editor>

Honesty, honestly - this "aggressive" thing that everyone moans about on the internet and at council meetings. Course there's aggression and violence in south London, I'm not denying that.  But my experience of Windrush crappy Square is  I just say "no I don't smoke any more, it was turning me abit mental dear" and we have a laugh and a chat. Sometimes there's some old Rasta I talk about life with and it's all cool.

Get over yourselves Effra Residents!


----------



## editor (Mar 24, 2005)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Honesty, honestly - this "aggressive" thing that everyone moans about on the internet and at council meetings. Course there's aggression and violence in south London, I'm not denying that.  But my experience of Windrush crappy Square is  I just say "no I don't smoke any more, it was turning me abit mental dear" and we have a laugh and a chat. Sometimes there's some old Rasta I talk about life with and it's all cool.


Yes, but you're lucky enough to be comfortable and confident enough to deal with that kind of behaviour. Good for you!

But not everyone likes to be hassled and shouted at, and there's no reason why they should be expected to put up with it.

Why should it be OK to hassle, intimidate and frighten anyone minding their own business?

(Obviously not all dealers are aggressive YO!-ers, but there are certainly a few who are very persistent and, I imagine, quite intimidating to some people)


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 28, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Well, the fountain is no more and it looks like the expanse of concrete is now under way..



   Today it looks like their are no longer going to be any seats in the square.I hope im wrong.Does at the moment look like a boring expanse of concrete.Could be wrong but getting rid of the fountain is a cost cutting measure.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 28, 2005)

Boom Sounds said:
			
		

> 'That is a very dismissive attitude to take about many people's genuine concerns about safety.'
> 
> Sorry, I think you've mis-understood my position on this.
> My point is that  safety is being used to reject any notion of joing these three spaces when the key concern appears to be about traffic -  Why don't we ask the Police on their view on crime - do they think it be better or worse and (importantly) what can the Architects do to make things better? Isn't this a more balanced approach? My key concern is that we are unable to reach that point because a relatively small number of individuals seem unprepared to openly explore the options.
> ...



1)Your still accussing a small number of individuals of "derailing the scheme".The Effra reisdents group I assume.
2)I think joining up all three squares will design in crime.I agree with the Effra group that Tate and Windrush sq could be joined up.
3)Your not taking those critical seriously as you say you will only change your mind if Police and transport "modeling" oppose the scheme.How about modelling to support the scheme?So far you come up with no evidence that the scheme wont affect side roads or reduce crime.
4)I agree that many traditional Brixton spaces or being lost.This is an argument for better planning rules and retention of Council owned land and buildings.What is happening at the moment is a new round of sell offs by th Council.
5)I would also like to point out that at present their is a blanket curfew on under 16s in the area(unless accompanied by an adult).I hardly see this a good sign of how the new space will cater for the people of Brixton.Its already excluded on sector of it.

  I dont belong to Effra residents group.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 28, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> But that is the problem - there is no suggestion that other options are on the table e.g. bus only working on Effra Road/contraflow bus lanes etc.   Full pedestrianisation of Effra Road and absorbtion into the adjacent spaces to create a "central square" has been repeated presented as the solution to some undefined problem, adopted  as a visionary project by the Mayor as part of his "100 new open spaces for London", and included in the design brief for the competition.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I agree.Its something I noticed on the TFL link you put up.The TFL plans only show one option-that of closing Effra Rd.Makes me suspicious that in reality the decision has been assumed to be have taken at Council/GLA level.I think whats happened is that this has become an Officer led scheme.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 28, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> I rather think that some modelling must have been done, for TfL and their consultants to have come to the conclusion that the scheme is "bus neutral".  Indeed, among my concerns are:
> (i) the road widening required to deliver a scheme that can cope with the traffic on Brixton Hill/St Matthews Road without gridlock, and
> (ii) the complicated i.e slow-to-cross pedestrian crossings needed to keep the traffic moving).



  Depends what you mean by Gridlock.Im no transport/planning expert but i cycle around the West End a lot.Seems to me TFL/GLA are making the West End easier for buses but not for cars.Depends where you stand on this issue.Take Trafalgar sq.Now its finished its definitely slower to get around for cars.Could be this is to discourage or alter car driving in favour of pedestrians and buses.This may be a strategy of TFL.

  If Im correct in my observations then the TFL proposals/modeling are based on the assumption that buses come first.


----------



## rivereffra (Mar 29, 2005)

Good to see all the debate, because it's badly needed. 

As many as possible should come to at the extra meeting on Saturday 2nd, 12-4pm - I've been told it's at St. Matthew's Tenants Hall, 150 yards or so up St. Matthew's Road. I got the venue info via BAF last week but I'm bothered that information about this does not appear to have been circulated yet from the council, so who else is going to know?

PS the fountain has gone into storage for now, so we could have it back, if we really want (minus the surrounding walls where people peed and the litter gathered into a mush).


----------



## Boom Sounds (Mar 29, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> 1)Your still accussing a small number of individuals of "derailing the scheme".The Effra reisdents group I assume.
> 
> <almighty snip: editor>
> 
> I dont belong to Effra residents group.


 and nor do i.


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 30, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> Take Trafalgar sq.Now its finished its definitely slower to get around for cars.Could be this is to discourage or alter car driving in favour of pedestrians and buses.


It takes just as long to crawl through it on the bus, though.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Apr 1, 2005)

*Consultation Meeting on Saturday*

A note for people interested in the Brixton Central Square project.

Lambeth is holding an extra Consultation Meeting on Saturday 2 April from 1-4pm. The venue is St Matthew's Tenants' Hall on St Matthew's Road.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 2, 2005)

thanks for the reminder.

i'll be there.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 4, 2005)

i'll post about his tomorrow (monday).

very interested to hear hatboy's account. he gave an excellent short speech at the end that rightly elicited a round of applause.

i would have come and said hello hb, but i was busy questioning the two tfl representatives, and by the time we'd finished you'd gone.

i'll wait to hear hb's account. i was only there from half two onwards and i think he'll provide a much fuller account.

all i'll say now is...i felt quite positive at one point...and then really pessimistic/awful/helpless about the whole thing...


----------



## Pieface (Apr 5, 2005)

So no news???


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2005)

Boom Sounds said:
			
		

> and nor do i.



  And your point is?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2005)

I looked at the minutes of the Brixton Area Forum for 23/3/2005 where Effra Residents Group raised the issue of the Central Sq.

  I noticed the Assistant Director of Develpment(who appears to be in charge of this scheme)stated that in the earlier consultation in 2000:

 "That feedback had been invited on options."

  However in her reply to ERG she didnt say how this had been narrowed down to one option.The consultants report put forward several options.(The Council hired consultants who produced a lengthy report which must be somewhere in the Council files)This IMO was narrowed down to one without any further consultation with the "community".Thier had been talk of putting the options to a vote of Brixton Area Forum members.This never happened.

  It would be interesting to ask the Assistant Director of Development the methodology used to narrow down the option to the one that Council Officers and TfL seem to support.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2005)

Also of interest in the minutes of the BAF 23/3/2005 is the comments of Councillors.Cllr Malley said she attended a "badly organised consultation meeting" and that large pedestrianised areas are not appropriate near residential areas but are more suitable for nightime entertainmnent areas.

 Cllr Dickson said any work on improving the area should be done incrementally and carefully.

  I agree with the above comments from the Councillors.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 5, 2005)

Would the Assistant Director of Development be the same officer who was Brixton Town Centre Manager when the idea was first promoted?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2005)

Yes


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 6, 2005)

-edit-


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 8, 2005)

*Letter to SLP Friday April 8, 2005*

As well as three letters expressing concern about safety in the square (including the Letter of the week "_My despair over square_" from Juliette Enser), this morning's SLP contains this very interesting epistle...



> I write to thank everyone who attended Saturday's consultation event on the square proposal.
> 
> Lambeth council, along with its partners Transport for London, will now be looking closely at the responses given by members of the public.   Designer Gross Max will then feed these responses into the production of *several design options around full or partial closures of Effra Road*, available for viewing at an *open day in Windrush Square on Saturday, April 16 between noon and 4pm.*
> 
> ...


----------



## clandestino (Apr 8, 2005)

i missed the first hour or so of the meeting on saturday but here's my account of what i saw.

there were four tables, with a discussion group on each, "workshopping" the proposal. i picked a table which had tfl and gross max reps on it and sat down to find debate was getting quite heated already. the obvious points were tackled - safety, a bit of traffic flow (although we were told that they weren't discussing traffic that day, which was frustrating).

a few things became clearer to me during this process - apols if i'm repeating the obvious to some.

* this has come out of a proposal to turn brixton hill into a through two way road. that is going to happen, no matter what. once that had been decided, brixton central square was an afterthought - albeit one that tied in neatly to the mayor's open spaces plan. 
* the issue with closing effra road is, obviously, to do with safety on the square. people feel safer walking to kellet road etc if they're going past bus stops where people are waiting. one proposal was to move the bus stops from outside woolworths onto the square. this would turn the square into an extended waiting area around the bus stops and free up the pavements directly outside the tube. 
* there was another proposal to make effra road open to some traffic but not all - ie buses and bicycles only. this would make the square feel safer as there'd be some life running through it. this seemed to make some sense, but i spoke to the tfl guy afterwards and he shrugged the idea off. he said he thought it should be one thing or the other - either totally open or totally closed. 
* hatboy said that he thought there should be some sort of destination architecture on the square. somewhere you'd arrange to meet people - by a clock tower, something like that. there had been talk of there being a cafe on the square and he said that the cafe could become that destination. again, that would put people on the square and give it some day to day activity. all sounds promising - but then one woman on our table said that someone had said they weren't allowed to build on the square. spoke to the tfl people again and they said that wasn't true. although one guy did say, rather worryingly, "well there's building and there's building", whatever that means. 
* each table gave a summing up at the end of the session. our table went first and provided, i thought, a positive response geared towards a staggered approach. joining windrush and tate first, then looking at effra being a 'community road', only open to certain traffic. the second said much the same. but the third and fourth, where most of the council big wigs were sitting it seemed, were much more rigid. they were in favour. they didn't approve of a phased approach. it was good. this will happen.

hmm.

the shorter tfl guy said afterwards that he thought the scheme would be brought in in phases, no matter what anyone says. the taller of the two said that if we didn't do it all now, there might not be the funding in four years time. i said that was a chance i was willing to take. i really hope we can go forward with the phased approach. joining windrush and tate seems like a good idea. but it appears it's not enough of a grand idea/big splash to satisfy some of the people involved. that idea of ego being part of the equation makes me very uncomfortable. there also seems to be a lot of enthusiasm from all concerned - tfl, lambeth, etc - to be part of ken's grand scheme of open spaces. as if that's justification enough.

the point was made agan and again that not enough consultation has taken place with people who actually live in brixton. jo negrini said that the event in windrush square on the 16th - for which there are banners up on the square now - will make sure a lot more people know about the scheme. but, frustratingly, that's the end of the process. we said that should be the start. the first step. jo argued that even though that would be the last step of consultation, we'd still be able to get involved - ie complain, i assume - in the many stages of planning etc to come. 

next stop windrush on the 16th then. when we'll be able to view the options open to us. and go "err, hang on a second..."


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 8, 2005)

If they really wanted normal people to turn up and give a real idea of what they thought, they should put on some food, drink, music - even get a celebrity to make an apperance - and then get everyone to look at large posters and displays and answer a few questions from teams of lambeth people with clipboards. You should do this at the actual location itself, at a busy time of day when a lot of people who use the space are there. You could also have a permanent display of the options for people to look at inside the library or inside the Ritzy. Expecting the average person to a) hear about and b) turn up to evening meetings is unrealistic.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 9, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> the point was made agan and again that not enough consultation has taken place with people who actually live in brixton. jo negrini said that the event in windrush square on the 16th - for which there are banners up on the square now - will make sure a lot more people know about the scheme. but, frustratingly, that's the end of the process. we said that should be the start. the first step. jo argued that even though that would be the last step of consultation, we'd still be able to get involved - ie complain, i assume - in the many stages of planning etc to come.
> 
> next stop windrush on the 16th then. when we'll be able to view the options open to us. and go "err, hang on a second..."



  Not quite the "last step" as the Consultation Questionairres dont need to be in until 22nd April.I dont understand quite what Negrini is saying is the end of the consultation.THe questionairre asks such questions as do you want Effra closed.Do you want only Windrush and Tate Gdns joined up.From your report of the meeting this is already basically decided by the Bigwigs.

  Ive also got a copy of "Lambeth Life" April issue11(A council publication from the library or here:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/lambethlife/

  Page 5 contains an article on Square.Says the proposal links the 3 squares(called "The Zip").Basically the official Council mag says the plan is a good thing.No alternatives are shown.Supports what ianw says he felt about the consultation meeting.

  Also says a section of the railings around St Matthews will be removed.I would have thought this is against the spirit of conserving old buildings in the area.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Apr 11, 2005)

I would urge everybody who is interested in the BCS scheme to go along on 16th April and make their voices heard. 

In the next few days we should have an effraresidentsgroup website working, and we plan to put all the information we've been able to assemble from Lambeth, TfL, the GLA and other parties on it. I'll post again when the website is populated.

As a previously relatively apolitical civilian, I have found it fascinating how middle-ranking civil servants and unelected bureaucrats can take a major scheme and run with it, without the knowledge or participation of our elected representatives. Now that they are aware, Keith Hill MP, Councillor Sharon Malley and other Councillors are all voicing quite unambigous on-the-record objections.

I am bemused that it is quite impossible to get a straight answer from Lambeth/TfL bureaucrats on various pivotal issues, e.g.:

Can you build on a cafe on Rush Common (includes Windrush Sq.) land so people have a reason to vist BCS ? Yes - building allowed if it's for the benefit of the Community. No - absolutely not

Will TfL privide funding if Effra Road is kept open ? Yes - the money's already earmarked and Ken is keen to have some sort of new BCS, whatever its final form. No - TfL will only provide funding if buses can flow more freely through Brixton. Maybe - TfL will have to do a new "business case"

Can you significantly alter the Peace Gardens ? Yes - not a problem. No - the railings are listed, the trees are listed, ground is hallowed and no reduction of ground level allowed as bodies lie beneath.

Is a phased approach viable ? Architects Gross Max - Yes, challenging but do-able and quite intriguing. Lambeth civil servants - ... well, you get the idea


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 13, 2005)

I live on a street nearby so this project could effect me a lot. I’m not a car owner and don’t care about a few extra cars passing along side streets so long as a good project is delivered for central Brixton.

I say “could effect me a lot” but, in fact, it already has. Since the Council, without any consultation that I’ve heard about, did this:







the area is almost deserted at night. This gives a foretaste of what will happen, on a larger and permanent scale, if a badly designed and poorly managed scheme is imposed.

I’d also lay money on none of the local councillors, the council officers, the Brixton Area Forum officers, the TFL people or the Gross Max designers living anywhere near the local area.

In other words, none of those pushing the scheme would be forced to live with the consequences of their actions. Which is worrying: it’s exactly the type of urban design colonisation which occurred, with such disastrous results, in the 1960s.

Thirdly, I’ve seen little discussion around how the space would be sustained. Typically, what would happen is a vast amount of PR puff at the launch, with Ken Livingstone grinning on a platform and the architects’ careers boosted with design awards. And then everyone would disappear leaving locals to pick up the pieces.

There would then follow a slow, or not so slow, decline as local politicians transferred their attention, and our resources – council tax revenue and other public funds – elsewhere.

So, for me, the project boils down to two questions:

(a) what is being proposed and how can local people best influence the proposal so it suits our long-term interests; and

(b) how would the project be sustained, in terms of money and management control?

As stated (eloquently) by urbanspaceman above (post 183) council officers and others are all over the shop on (a) and seem to be judiciously ignoring (b). In other words, local residents are facing a potential disaster.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 13, 2005)

Jay001 said:
			
		

> Since the Council, without any consultation that I’ve heard about, did this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For crying out loud, it's been a construction site.   People haven't stopped visiting the Ritzy.

My sources close to the Friends of Brixton Library (who led the project) tell me that the turf will be going down within the next fortnight.    The "opening" is scheduled for Saturday 23rd April (Shakespeare's Birthday).

They seem to have made a conscious decision to hold the opening on a separate date from any of the Central Square events.

Edited to add:

New microsite for Friends  on Brixton Society website (does not require sunglasses)


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 13, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> For crying out loud, it's been a construction site.   People haven't stopped visiting the Ritzy.
> 
> My sources close to the Friends of Brixton Library (who led the project) tell me that the turf will be going down within the next fortnight.    The "opening" is scheduled for Saturday 23rd April (Shakespeare's Birthday).
> 
> They seem to have made a conscious decision to hold the opening on a separate date from any of the Central Square events.


Not one bit of paper came through local letter boxes concerning the scheme. 

Not one meeting was called to discuss the proposal. 

Not one local councillor canvassed the neighbourhood. 

Not one party newsletter was issued telling locals what was going on and (god forbid!) seeking their views.

Brixton Oval was safer when the old guys were hanging out in it. They've now - after being harrassed with ASBOs - been turfed up the road to the Peace Garden and the square's deserted late at night. It's threatening to walk through by the library and a gang of dealers hang out by Windrush Square.

Given this microcosm of how _not_ to implement a local project perhaps Messrs Gross Max will learn from it and do better?


----------



## tarannau (Apr 13, 2005)

As many reservations as I have about the plans for a whopping pedestrianised space and the lack of consultation, the written efforts of the Effra Residents Group really fuck me off.

I've got their horrible leaflet in front of me again - shovelled through our (Saltoun Road) door a few weeks ago, it's a nasty, alarmist bit of snotty claptrap. It's full of exaggerations, ludicrous oversimplifications and the kind of emotive, leading 'statements' that even the Daily Mail would blush away from. Check out of some of these faves:


> 'pedestrianisation.... no-go areas where gangs mug and roam freely'





> (re. outside the Ritzy. Tate Gds etc) ''no go areas for most of us because of crime, crack dealers and drug users.... _- there is already a sharps box in the square!!_  ... some of us have been mugged!'


  

Now I may not agree with the consultation process, but I sure as hell don't want anything to do with this group. I can't think of one time in Brixton's history when people like this (nervous shitebags willing to hysterically overstate the risks imo) would have ever been happy living here. It's as though they want to create a climate of fear to suit their means - I don't recognise their portrayal of the average Brixton resident as some of kind of meek, cowed character scared of some of the main roads and public spaces in the centre of town.


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 13, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> As many reservations as I have about the plans for a whopping pedestrianised space and the lack of consultation, the written efforts of the Effra Residents Group really fuck me off.
> 
> I've got their horrible leaflet in front of me again - shovelled through our (Saltoun Road) door a few weeks ago, it's a nasty, alarmist bit of snotty claptrap. It's full of exaggerations, ludicrous oversimplifications and the kind of emotive, leading 'statements' that even the Daily Mail would blush away from. Check out of some of these faves:
> 
> ...


Anyone got a copy of the leaflet to post up?


----------



## tarannau (Apr 13, 2005)

Jay001 said:
			
		

> Anyone got a copy of the leaflet to post up?



No scanner I'm afraid, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time typing that manipulative shite up.

There's a phone number on the leaflet though and the email address effraresidentsgroup@london.com if anyone wants to request the bullshit copy.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 13, 2005)

so how do these people get into the ritzy if the space outside the ritzy is a no go area? 

i have to admit there was a touch of this attitude at the meeting. not so much people wanting to preserve the brixton we all know and love, but create a whole new one, free from many of the things that make the area what it is. 

makes you wonder why they're here in the first place. there are other parts of london to live in, surely. perhaps they're not as affordable.

anyway, it would be good to see the full text before fully clambering upon my trusty high horse.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 13, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> anyway, it would be good to see the full text before fully clambering upon my trusty high horse.



Fair enough, but I've been sitting on this thing for weeks now and I've not warmed to the nasty bit of work yet. 

If not linking the provision of sharps disposal box to a seemingly inevitable increased risk of mugging, there's much talk about how we'd lose the 'safe route home' down Effra Road and the safety of all that 'through traffic'. Which will be news to the many folks (particularly girls) that have been followed and hassled by men in cars in that very same area.

Take it from me, it's not the most savoury bit of writing...


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 13, 2005)

I am going to try and make this open day on Saturday.  I was discussing this last night with my boyfriend and we realised that we are completely confused about exactly what _is_ going on with this Brixton Central Square development.  So far it would seem that _everyone_ is confused about it... which is a little worrying... anything could happen really...

I hope as many people as possible will make it down there and have a say..


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 13, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but I've been sitting on this thing for weeks now and I've not warmed to the nasty bit of work yet.
> 
> If not linking the provision of sharps disposal box to a seemingly inevitable increased risk of mugging, there's much talk about how we'd lose the 'safe route home' down Effra Road and the safety of all that 'through traffic'. Which will be news to the many folks (particularly girls) that have been followed and hassled by men in cars in that very same area.
> 
> Take it from me, it's not the most savoury bit of writing...


What's ironic is that the area around Brixton Oval has become _more_ unsafe since it's been ring-fenced. I see, also, that it's now like Windrush Square.* They've taken away the benches.

Anyone know if they'll put the benches back?

* Windrush Square has never been permitted benches. Two rubbish bins but nowhere to park the bum (I'm getting too old to sit on the grass... with the dogshit).


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 13, 2005)

Jay001 said:
			
		

> Anyone know if they'll put the benches back?


AFAIK "a phased reinstatement" was the compromise agreed between the design-out-crime fanatics and the Friends group.

There's a strong possibility that furniture options will be discussed at the opening event.



> *Saturday 23 April 2005
> 11:00 - 5:00 pm
> 
> Garden Party in Tate Library Gardens*​
> ...


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 13, 2005)

Has anyone mentioned there's sheltered housing for pensioners bang next to Windrush Square (at the top of Saltoun Road)?

So if anyone thinks a re-vamped Central Square can be used for noisy late- night events they're mistaken. Licensing Committee either won't grant a licence or there'll be noise abatement notices scattered round like confetti.

Either that or boot out ("decant") the oldies. But maybe they won't want to move?

If I was a pensioner living anywhere near this proposed development I'd be ringing my local councillor PDQ.


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 13, 2005)

p.s. thanks for the info on benches. I still resent them removing them without asking.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 13, 2005)

Eh, what makes you think that Pensioners are necessarily opposed to some noise once in a while? You should hear the sounds of the Christmas party at the sheltered housing scheme at the end of the Dahlberg Road area for example - it's a virtual sound-rig soundclash for the elderly! Good for them...

I don't believe that the friendly-seeming folk in that housing scheme would have too many problems with the occasional public event. I suspect the terrorised letter-writing turnips of the Effra Residents Group would never stop writing outraged letters if there was the slightest disturbance though. But there again they would probably be too scared to go and check what the noise was about - virtually all that part of central Brixton would be a no-go area after all!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 13, 2005)

Yeah, sod those uncool old meany pensioners spoiling everybody else's fun. Don't they know this is Brixton?


----------



## hatboy (Apr 13, 2005)

From day one "Effra Residents" refused to engage with me, refusing to answer emails, wary of my at times bold manner.

These people are the oppressors and the prejudiced, dressed up as "nice".

They refused to engage with me because it was clear that I'm friendly with some of the people they see as low-life trash, junkies, muggers etc (see my post further up this thread on my experience of Windrush Square).

IS - on this subject Tarranau has hit the spot. 

F**K OFF EFFRA RESIDENTS


----------



## hatboy (Apr 13, 2005)

About Effra Residents and the conservatisim and lack of ACCEPTANCE and UNDERSTANDING of some:

Someone said on this this thread about a meeting on Central Square which I attended and spoke at -  "Hatboy actually called them 'young Conservatives'....it wasn't very nice".

I tend to use the words "conservative professionals" usually, but now do you see who's really "nice".

The Effra Residents so far in my experience are smile in your face/call their solicitor behind your back types.

If any are reading this and thinking "but I am nice" - then why did you put out that scaremongering, prejudiced, snobby leaflet then?


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 14, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> ...I can't think of one time in Brixton's history when people like this ... would have ever been happy living here.


Indeed. Look at all these hooligans loitering around the end of coldharbour lane, up to no good I wager...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

hatboy said:
			
		

> From day one "Effra Residents" refused to engage with me, refusing to answer emails, wary of my at times bold manner.
> 
> These people are the oppressors and the prejudiced, dressed up as "nice".
> 
> ...


 Maybe the residents' group are snobs -- I haven't met them -- but for tarannau to assume that elderly people living on the corner of the square won't mind noise from public events _because he once walked past a different old people's home were they were having a noisy Christmas party_ is the biggest piece of nonsense I have ever seen. If he wants to find out what they think about it, why doesn't he go and ask them?

Whatever the shortcomings of Effra RG, the fact remains that there are a number of very serious concerns about this development that need to be addressed. It would be very stupid to ignore this just because a small number of residents have used injudicious language in a leaflet. This is EXACTLY what the libs/tories want: divide and rule; get residents fighting among themselves and then push through a development people don't want while they're not paying attention. 

Don't take your eyes off the ball.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Indeed. Look at all these hooligans loitering around the end of coldharbour lane, up to no good I wager...



If you look really carefully in the background of that photo Teejay, you can see a representative of the Effra Residents group. Look for the one with the starchy collars, cowering solo in the background with a bonus bag of alarmist leaflets.

Unfortunately, minutes after that shot was taken, the member of the ERG was forced to beat a hasty retreat, running away from the scene in pure panic. Not enough through traffic to make them feel safe apparently. Those people loitering on the edge of Coldharbour Lane were too much for the early ERG - clearly they're drunkards lowering the tone of the neighbourhood and making it into a no-go zone.

Joshing aside, that quaint image of the Coldharbour Lane area actually feels more familiar to me than the crime-ridden apocalyptic vision of Brixton that the ERG seem to be pushing.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Maybe the residents' group are snobs -- I haven't met them -- but for tarannau to assume that elderly people living on the corner of the square won't mind noise from public events _because he once walked past a different old people's home were they were having a noisy Christmas party_ is the biggest piece of nonsense I have ever seen. .




For gawd's sake, I did wonder if your last comment was another snide swipe at me, but actually gave you the benefit of the doubt. More fool me - you couldn't resist any opportunity to misrepresent my words and launch into the cheap shots could you?

I think it's perfectly clear from my post that I'm having some fun with Jay001's seeming stereotype of elderly curmudgeons instantly complaining about noise - a view that doesn't tally with my experience of senior citizens in general, nor with my brief meetings with the seemingly friendly residents of that Saltoun Road housing scheme.  At no point have I assumed that the residents would welcome frequent public events - I've just said the residents would not 'necessarily be opposed to some noise once in a while' and that there were unlikely to be problems voiced if there was the 'occasional public event'. Seems perfectly reasonable to me - there are already a number of public events on at the same place, plus the constant noise of heavy traffic and buses from the nearby road. 

Divide and rule by the Council re this scheme Stella? Bit rich that. You can't even help yourself attacking posters who share some of the same reservations about the Brixton Square scheme as you...


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Whatever the shortcomings of Effra RG, the fact remains that there are a number of very serious concerns about this development that need to be addressed. It would be very stupid to ignore this just because a small number of residents have used injudicious language in a leaflet. *This is EXACTLY what the libs/tories want: divide and rule; get residents fighting among themselves and then push through a development people don't want while they're not paying attention. *
> Don't take your eyes off the ball.



IS, if you took your ideological blinkers off for one moment then you would realise that one of the major problems with this project is that there is *no* Councillor in the administration actively pressing for it.    

As I have stressed since I started the first thread on BCS last year, this scheme has been promoted by a small number of Lambeth officers, for whom delivery of high prestige projects would do no harm to their CV when they move on.   (The white collar officers have been described over the years as the "fourth party" in Lambeth politics by the more cynical backbenchers of all political colours).

IMVHO the executive member nominally responsible for "regeneration" issues, Cllr Andrew Sawdon, has allowed the officers to continue pursuing it:

(i)  because it was what the original (flawed???) consultation of a few years ago reported that Brixton wanted (obviously at that time people had only seen the benefits from a trial closure on a Sunday, and there had been no assessment of the real traffic impacts);

(ii)  because TfL/the Mayor is paying for it, rather than it coming out of Lambeth's Council tax;

(iii) because it will sort out some of the problems of Windrush Square, a project which he and former Labour Councillor Cathy Ashley were the main advocates some years ago;

(iv) because if he had killed the project off, the Labour Party, and others with "Brixton nationalist" sentiments would have claimed that the administration was being "anti-Brixton".


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> posters who share some of the same reservations about the Brixton Square scheme as you...


Really? That is not the impression your posts give at all. Or maybe you're just being 'fun and lighthearted'. 

Rabbie, do give over with this pretence that everyone except the saintly lib dems is 'ideologically blinkered'. Don't tell me coalition councillors and other local politicians, such as the lovely  Rachel Heywood, aren't dead keen to make stacks of political hay out of this for themselves. 

Unfortunately for them, it now looks as though it could now blow up in their faces.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Divide and rule by the Council re this scheme Stella? Bit rich that. You can't even help yourself attacking posters who share some of the same reservations about the Brixton Square scheme as you.


I'm talking about the real world. This is not the real world. 

I still fail to see what qualifies you to be official spokesperson for Brixton's elderly people.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I'm talking about the real world. This is not the real world.
> 
> I still fail to see what qualifies you to be official spokesperson for Brixton's elderly people.



You're bullshitting and misrepresenting my words again, with your usual tiresome regularity. I've  confronted the stereotype that Jay001 seemed to put up - take it up with him if you're genuinely outraged, as he's the one who seems to be making the blanket generalisations about the elderly.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Really? That is not the impression your posts give at all. Or maybe you're just being 'fun and lighthearted'.
> faces.



Strange that, you somehow seem to have missed the opening sentence of my first post on this thread:



> As many reservations as I have about the plans for a whopping pedestrianised space and the lack of consultation, the written efforts of the Effra Residents Group really fuck me off.



Seems fairly clear to me - I don't agree with some of the aspects of the scheme and how it's been foisted on us, but I strongly object to the actions and writings of the ERG. Do I need to qualify my words further before you start having another pop at me?

It's noticeable that we there was a constructive discussion on this thread until recently, complete with a good number of contributors speaking openly (nice to see HB back by the way)  kept on thread and in good spirit. And then you arrived...

I have my suspicions over Jay001 as well, but let's not open that can of worms. I'm disappointed enough that you've managed to drag yet another thread down with your bad tempered, manipulative witterings...


----------



## clandestino (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Whatever the shortcomings of Effra RG, the fact remains that there are a number of very serious concerns about this development that need to be addressed. It would be very stupid to ignore this just because a small number of residents have used injudicious language in a leaflet.



i have to say i agree with this. i don't see much point in scoffing at the effra rg for being concerned about through traffic. surely safety in the square is a primary concern and through traffic - ie people walking/driving - in the area is going to help with that. yes, you can cite girls being hassled by blokes in cars but that's going to happen anywhere in london where there are roads, blokes, cars, girls, surely? 

perhaps we need to take it back to basics for a moment. do people think that safety is an issue for the central square featuring all three bits joined together? if not, why not? if so, what can be done? what do you think about the idea of moving the bus stops onto the square?

fuck, i'll be thanking you all for your input next...!


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

I would be grateful if posters could keep the debate cordial and refrain from personal attacks and disruptive, wilful misrepresentations.

Ithankyou.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 14, 2005)

Actually.. I think having the bus stops around the square seems like quite a good idea.. it would clear up that massive bottle neck on Brixton Road for a start.... but then I wonder if it would just move the mess a little bit further down the road??

Personally I don't see any reason why I would feel threatened walking across the square... but mostly I'll be cycling around it myself.  I do wonder what will happen with that...

I really don't like those bike paths whereby the council just paints a green pathway onto an existing pathway as pedestrians take no notice anyway and it all gets a bit dangerous with bikes rocketing along and people stepping into the path, but tbh.. if they make the square a non-cycling place I think they'll end up having to get security in (as they do in Paternoster) to stop the cyclists/skateboarders etc from just going straight through it to reach Effra Road....

I do wonder what will happen with that.  I work near Paternoster Square and I hate the way it's largely devoid of any life... there are cameras everywhere and security all over the place to stop anyone from cycling/skateboarding etc... whilst I agree it makes it safer... it also seems to be a bit dead and dull...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> (nice to see HB back by the way)


How _do_ you sleep at night?  


> I have my suspicions over Jay001 as well


 Oh yes. You and your sussssspissssssscionnnsssssssssss. Again.   

Never mind. I will be going on Saturday to talk to residents who, unlike you, have a fucking clue.   

Don't bother leaping in to defend your ssssssslithery toady, Editor. I'm not contributing further to this dishonest pile of cack.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

Safety is an issue, but it's difficult to sort out the true implications of pedestianising the area . The ERG mentions on its leaflet that research  'suggests community safety at night and pedestianised areas are incompatible' but gives no link, credit or further details of this research. Outside of that and the only real 'proof' the ERG cite is they've talked to an unspecified number of 'Peckham Residents' about Peckham's pedestrianisation scheme and that it's apparently 'created no-go areas, where gangs roam and mug freely'

I've been through a fair few pedestrianised areas, including Peckham (but mainly suburban town centres) and IME it hasn't led to a barren gangland mugging-ground. The truth's somewhere in between I suspect, but I don't buy the argument that pedestrianisation necessarily leads to a lawless wasteland. Gawd knows, there are enough areas where muggers can congregate in Brixton already - a highly visible central square, with the latest in CCTV and heightened police awareness is unlikely to be any more dangerous than the current warren of streets around Brixton town centre/Coldharbour Lane. 

Like Gaijingirl though, I more worry that they'll somehow manage to make a lifeless, unappealing mess of the square. If the area is to feel safe for everyone it needs to encourage footfall and pedestrian through-traffic, not purge all life and interest out of the area.


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 14, 2005)

I don’t care about the alleged politics of ERG.

What I do care about is a good scheme being designed which benefits local people and is sustainable into the future.

Lambeth Council has a record of uselessness at delivering such schemes. Therefore, it’s reasonable for local people to be worried.

The only sure way to stop this scheme being messed up is for as many local people as possible to get involved in its design.

Concerning tarannau’s rock ‘n’ roll pensioners perhaps he’s right: that the old dears residing in sheltered accommodation bordering the square will welcome a late-night bass beat rattling their dentures.


----------



## dogmatique (Apr 14, 2005)

The irony I see with this project is that on the one-hand you have those wishing to create a "vibrant open-space", and on the other, you have the council removing things from the existing square to stop people from using it.

A kind of twisted logic there don't you think?  Well, we'd like a nice open space, but only if the right type of people use it.

So - they've taken out the fountain, removed all the benches, lowered the level of the planters to make them uncomfortable to sit on, and generally made the space inhospitable to those who up until recently have used it.

Surely this is a tacit admittal that the space hasn't worked.  How can it possibly be improved by making it bigger?


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> How _do_ you sleep at night?     Oh yes. You and your sussssspissssssscionnnsssssssssss. Again.
> 
> Never mind. I will be going on Saturday to talk to residents who, unlike you, have a fucking clue.
> 
> Don't bother leaping in to defend your ssssssslithery toady, Editor. I'm not contributing further to this dishonest pile of cack.



I sleep perfectly well thanks fine. HB probably does as well - he seemed in rude health the other night by all accounts.

Actually I sleep remarkably well in Saltoun Road - as I'm a resident of the very area they're seeking to pedestrianise. I may not 'have a clue' in your eyes, but I do live slap bang in the middle of this proposed scheme. I'm not sure if you live anywhere near, or whether it affects you so markedly but for someone who's so keen to encourage consultation, it's a remarkable double standard that you want to hear only views that conveniently tally with yours.

Dishonest pile of cack? The only one who's been caught misrepresenting views and trying to start a fight again has been you. I re-iterate: it was a constructive, good tempered thread until decided to sling insults and then flounce off in a hissy-fit voicing another barrage of bullshit and arse-licking accusations....


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 14, 2005)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> The irony I see with this project is that on the one-hand you have those wishing to create a "vibrant open-space", and on the other, you have the council removing things from the existing square to stop people from using it.
> 
> A kind of twisted logic there don't you think?  Well, we'd like a nice open space, but only if the right type of people use it.
> 
> ...


Nail on head. They've messed up in front of the library - without consulting locals - and the risk is they now intend messing up Windrush Square, St Matthews and Effra Road.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

Jay001 said:
			
		

> Concerning tarannau’s rock ‘n’ roll pensioners perhaps he’s right: that the old dears residing in sheltered accommodation bordering the square will welcome a late-night bass beat rattling their dentures.



I haven't implied that they were 'rock and roll pensioners' for one second, although you seem very keen to tag them as 'old dears.' Be as ridiculous as you like, but I'm not the one claiming to represent their best interests, nor the one who can't help himself reducing these residents into patronising stereotypes of the elderly.


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 14, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I haven't implied that they were 'rock and roll pensioners' for one second, although you seem very keen to tag them as 'old dears.' Be as ridiculous as you like, but I'm not the one claiming to represent their best interests, nor the one who can't help himself reducing these residents into patronising stereotypes of the elderly.


Calm down dear. It's only a bulletin board.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

Jay001 said:
			
		

> Calm down dear. It's only a bulletin board.


You sound awfully familiar!

Are you the (tragically obsessive) time-rich poster formerly known as Anna Key?


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

Jay001 said:
			
		

> Calm down dear. It's only a bulletin board.




You were the one who brought the example of this residents home into this thread - ostensibly to score some cheap political points and to voice your patronising stereotype of the residents as 'old dears' unable to put up with the slightest noise.

You're an unpleasant, inconsistent politico whoever you are. Sure you don't work for the council?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Are you the (tragically obsessive) time-rich poster formerly known as Anna Key?


  For fuck's sake.

Anyone who hasn't got their tongue rammed up your arse must be anna key. It certainly doesn't sound like anna key to me. Not a mention of DJs or wretched pop music in sight. It simply sounds like somebody with half a brain who is capable of independent thought. Fuck me, how subversive.

But then what would I know compared with your Arse Police?


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Are you the (tragically obsessive) time-rich poster formerly known as Anna Key?


What is this? You're an odd lot, you nerdy people. I just want to debate central square.


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 14, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> You were the one who brought the example of this residents home into this thread - ostensibly to score some cheap political points and to voice your patronising stereotype of the residents as 'old dears' unable to put up with the slightest noise.
> 
> You're an unpleasant, inconsistent politico whoever you are. Sure you don't work for the council?


More oddness. Most strange.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

Jay001 said:
			
		

> What is this? You're an odd lot, you nerdy people. I just want to debate central square.


Please answer: are you the poster previously known as Anna Key YES/NO?


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> For fuck's sake.
> 
> Anyone who hasn't got their tongue rammed up your arse must be anna key. It certainly doesn't sound like anna key to me. Not a mention of DJs or wretched pop music in sight. It simply sounds like somebody with half a brain who is capable of independent thought. Fuck me, how subversive.
> 
> But then what would I know compared with your Arse Police?


You've got me interested now. Who is this Anna Key?


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

I though you had flounced off this thread, or at least that was what you  promised IS. Honesty eh...

Independent thought my arse - Jay001's just inked to a picture of Michael Winner because someone confronted his ludicrous, manipulative steretype of the elderly residents. He must be a genius! (And not at all Anna Key by the way you're reacting)

How predictable. AK and IS fuck up another Brixton thread.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Don't bother leaping in to defend your ssssssslithery toady, Editor.


From the FAQ: 





> ...the admin team run this site in their own time and for no profit, so unprovoked or sustained personal attacks may result in a ban


 I've no idea why you saw fit to launch into such an unpleasant and unprovoked personal attack, but if - as it seems - you are unable to accept people holding an opinion contrary to yours,  you'd be better off shouting at people in a pub or something.






			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> I'm not contributing further to this dishonest pile of cack.


Shame you can't keep to your word too.


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Please answer: are you the poster previously known as Anna Key YES/NO?


No I won't answer. I'm damned if I'll be interrogated by you or anybody.

Is this how you welcome new posters to your site? Which I see from your puff you describe as a "vibrant online community."

Some community.


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> From the FAQ:  I've no idea why you saw fit to launch into such an unpleasant and unprovoked personal attack, but if - as it seems - you are unable to accept people holding an opinion contrary to yours,  you'd be better off shouting at people in a pub or something.Shame you can't keep to your word too.


Hahahaha. So you can ban people FOR DISAGREEING WITH YOU. hahahahaha


----------



## Jay001 (Apr 14, 2005)

Editor: you are an utter wanker. I hereby ban myself.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

Jay001 said:
			
		

> Editor: you are an utter wanker. I hereby ban myself.


...anything to admit being Anna Key again, eh wriggler?

You really should get over your unhealthy obsession.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> From the FAQ:


Are you suggesting that tarannau is on your mod/admin team? Since when?





> I've no idea why you saw fit to launch into such an unpleasant and unprovoked personal attack, but if - as it seems - you are unable to accept people holding an opinion contrary to yours,  you'd be better off shouting at people in a pub or something.Shame you can't keep to your word too.


 Have you no idea how MAD you look when you start accusing everyone in sight of being anna key? It's like reds under the bed. McCarthy and the House Committeee on Un-American Activities had nothing on you. And your sycophannts, it seems, are hell bent on stoking your already raging paranoia.

Whoever you are, Jay001, I am sorry that you've experienced this shameful, sorry show. Hopefully we'll will meet you at the thing on Saturday and you'll see that not everyone on urban75 is in a heightened state of paranoid delusion.    Oh, and I can introduce you to the infamous anna key.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Have you no idea how MAD you look when you start accusing everyone in sight of being anna key? Hopefully we'll will meet you at the thing on Saturday and you'll see that not everyone on urban75 is in a heightened state of paranoid delusion.


Nice try to slur me with unpleasant accusations of mental health, but guess what? the IP address *matches *EXACTLY -  as does his style of posting, his choice of topic and his stroppy refusal to answer a simple question - just like his previous alter ego!

If I was a 'new' poster on a board and was politely asked if if I was someone else, I'd simply answer, "no".






			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> Whoever you are, Jay001


Now that _is _priceless!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Nice try to slur me with unpleasant accusations of mental health, but guess what? the IP address *matches *EXACTLY


Matches what, exactly?


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Matches what, exactly?


It perfectly matches his previous multiple alter-ego registrations - and there were other aspects of his registration/conduct that were strikingly familiar too.

But let's put my "raging paranoia" to the test: hands up who thinks the poster wasn't Anna Key but was in fact a bona fide, _ne'er been here before_, cruelly-treated, brand new poster?! 

(no hands aloft amongst the mods yet!)


----------



## dogmatique (Apr 14, 2005)

*sigh*

Why does EVERY thread about Brixton have to end up like this?


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> Why does EVERY thread about Brixton have to end up like this?


I've got a pretty good idea and it pisses me off.

Take a look back through the thread and it's not hard to find the point where all hope of a decent debate got trashed.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2005)

Jay001 said:
			
		

> No I won't answer. I'm damned if I'll be interrogated by you or anybody.
> 
> Is this how you welcome new posters to your site? Which I see from your puff you describe as a "vibrant online community."
> 
> Some community.


Fuck's sake, do you honestly not see how obvious you are?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Fuck's sake, do you honestly not see how obvious you are?


 But it's not obvious when the editor radios for backup. Oh no. 

I presume the Editor means that somebody registered from the _public library._. As a lot of local residents worried about the central square plans would be likely to do. But then who cares about the views of povs who haven't even got their own computer?   

If this Jay person was AK then he certainly had_ me _fooled, and I'm very well acquainted with AK's style. 

Is it not the  case that anyone who is reasonably articulate who posts from the library and fails to toe the Arse Police line is in serious danger of being banned on suspicion of being anna key?  It's just ridiculous.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Is it not the  case that anyone who is reasonably articulate who posts from the library and fails to toe the Arse Police line is in serious danger of being banned on suspicion of being anna key?  It's just ridiculous.


Oh, and I think you find I don't "radio in backup" - I'm sure Fridgemagnet formed his own identity opinion about the true identity of Jay001, just like several others have probably done.



			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> If this Jay person was AK then he certainly had me fooled, and I'm very well acquainted with AK's style.


Are you going to apologise for accusing me of suffering serious mental illness,  now?

Oh, and now that you've mentioned these "Arse Police" twice, could you tell me who's in them and explain what do they do, please?


----------



## Pie 1 (Apr 14, 2005)

Just leave it. There's no point. Seriously.

<yes, I know IS, piggy piggy piggy, and all that  >


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Are you going to apologise for accusing me of suffering serious mental illness,  now?


Do give over. You've proven nothing -- except your own paranoia.  Do you look under your bed at night in case anna key is lurking there? 



> Oh, and now that you've mentioned these "Arse Police" twice, could you tell me who's in them and explain what do they do, please?


Self-appointed board police. Always an odious breed.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Do give over. You've proven nothing -- except your own paranoia.


And there you go again with your disgraceful accusations of serious mental illness. It really is wholly unacceptable abuse and if  you keep it up, you'll banned.

I've had enough of your lies and disruption here.






			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> Self-appointed board police. Always an odious breed.


Names, please.


----------



## dogmatique (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Self-appointed board police. Always an odious breed.



And what exactly would you categorise your efforts as then IS?  Self appointed thread wrecker?


----------



## lizardqueen (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Do give over. You've proven nothing -- except your own paranoia.  Do you look under your bed at night in case anna key is lurking there?
> 
> 
> Self-appointed board police. Always an odious breed.




As opposed to self-appointed board twat who interrupts every single thread with their own boring off-topic rants?  Get a life.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> And there you go again with your disgraceful accusations of serious mental illness. It really is wholly unacceptable abuse. Keep it up and you'll banned because I've had enough of your lies and disruption here.Names, please.


_DISGRACEFUL_


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

lizardqueen said:
			
		

> As opposed to self-appointed board twat who interrupts every single thread with their own boring off-topic rants?  Get a life.


Oh god, is that Toadynow posting under his girlfriend's username?  Come to think of it, the posting style -- "boring off-topic rants" -- is astonishinlgy like..._ the editor's._ 

Is there something we should know?    

Or maybe it's just an homage. Imitation is the sincerest form of arse licking, after all.


----------



## lizardqueen (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh god, is that Toadynow posting under his girlfriend's username?  Come to think of it, the posting style -- "boring off-topic rants" -- is astonishinlgy like..._ the editor's._
> 
> Is there something we should know?
> 
> Or maybe it's just an homage. Imitation is the sincerest form of arse licking, after all.



Oh dear.  Why don't you just go now and save yourself the humiliation.  You really are making a total fool of yourself.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 14, 2005)

is there any way we could get all this stuff cleared off this thread please? it's bad enough the likes of ernesto ruining the thread about the shooting in the academy without brixton residents doing it too. 

as i said before, i think IS has made some valid and useful points. so, please, any chance of clearing off all the bickering and returning to the subject in hand?


----------



## Pie 1 (Apr 14, 2005)




----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh god, is that Toadynow posting under his girlfriend's username?


Wrong. The two posters have _completely different_ IP addresses. Feel free to check with any mods and apologise.

Oh, and childishly changing user names into insults is not permitted.

Still waiting for an apology over your mental illness slur, by the way.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> is there any way we could get all this stuff cleared off this thread please? it's bad enough the likes of ernesto ruining the thread about the shooting in the academy without brixton residents doing it too.


I will be clearing out the shit shortly. 

I'm going to check with the mods first, but I suspect the banning stick is going to have to come out too because we're equally pissed off with certain individuals constantly trashing Brixton threads.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> And there you go again with your disgraceful accusations of serious mental illness. It really is wholly unacceptable abuse and if  you keep it up, you'll banned.
> 
> I've had enough of your lies and disruption here.Names, please.


 Banned for accusing you of paranoia? That would be beyond priceless. "Serious mental illness"? How _precious. _

Lies? You mean opinions you and your coterie don't like. But then of course you are_ as honest as the day is long. _

You know who your toadies are and so does everyone else. 

Disgraceful indeed. Don't forget _ghastly_.


----------



## Karamza (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Is it not the  case that anyone who is reasonably articulate who posts from the library and fails to toe the Arse Police line is in serious danger of being banned on suspicion of being anna key?  It's just ridiculous.


Well, I'm posting from a Lambeth library computer, I try to be articulate and, given half a chance, will fail to toe the Arse Police line (  ). I'm also not "Anna Key".

Editor: anyone posting from a Lambeth library, and others too if they share the same server, e.g. a Lambeth council employee posting from their desk, will share the same IP address.




			
				tarannau said:
			
		

> Sure you don't work for the council?



That's the answer. Poor old Jay001. You've just abused and banned a Lambeth council official.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm going to check with the mods first, but I suspect the banning stick is going to have to come out


Oooh kinky.


----------



## Karamza (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I will be clearing out the shit shortly.
> 
> I'm going to check with the mods first, but I suspect the banning stick is going to have to come out too because we're equally pissed off with certain individuals constantly trashing Brixton threads.


Mercy!


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

Karamza said:
			
		

> Well, I'm posting from a Lambeth library computer, I try to be articulate and, given half a chance, will fail to toe the Arse Police line


And, notably, you've never been accused of being Anna Key either, have you?!


----------



## Karamza (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> And, notably, you've never been accused of being Anna Key either, have you?!


Who *is* Anna Key?


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You know who your toadies are and so does everyone else. [/i].


I don't actually. Care to finally list them please?
And are they same as the Arse Police?


----------



## Karamza (Apr 14, 2005)

As far as I can see from this thread it's the Editor who's been trashing it. Everything was going along fine until he accused a probable council official of being "Anna Key."

But am I allowed to say this?


----------



## clandestino (Apr 14, 2005)

i'd just like to mention at this point that the consultation/open day thing is THIS SATURDAY in windrush square. maybe we can all meet there and recreate one of the punch ups from the asterix books. 

what are the times for the thing on saturday? it's afternoon, i assume.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

Karamza said:
			
		

> As far as I can see from this thread it's the Editor who's been trashing it. Everything was going along fine until he accused a probable council official of being "Anna Key."


I think I'll pop into the library now.


----------



## Karamza (Apr 14, 2005)

Seriously Editor, if you're banning people for using a Lambeth council computer that is slightly strange (but not necessarily a sign of mental illness.)


----------



## Karamza (Apr 14, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I think I'll pop into the library now.


Look forward to seeing you.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

Karamza said:
			
		

> Seriously Editor, if you're banning people for using a Lambeth council computer that is slightly strange


And where have I said or done that, smartarse?


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> as i said before, i think IS has made some valid and useful points. so, please, any chance of clearing off all the bickering and returning to the subject in hand?




There's some truth in that - IS did have some genuine points in there, but why she chose to bury them a load of unnecessary insults and score-settling nonsense is beyond me.

Let's recap, Stella's first recent intervention on this thread was to have a thinly-velied pop at me:



> Yeah, sod those uncool old meany pensioners spoiling everybody else's fun. Don't they know this is Brixton?



Quickly picked up Mr R and the editor. I didn't react or mention IS, just kept to the subject of the thread. Shouldn't have bothered really, because in the space of a few more posts IS was back, misrepresenting my words to make another snide attack on me.



> ...is the biggest piece of nonsense I have ever seen. If he (ie me) wants to find out what they think about it, why doesn't he go and ask them?



Follow that with the constant arse-licking accusations (erm how - I don't even believe the ed was on this thread and certainly wasn't arguing from the same viewpoint) and you have to wonder how it this could have been avoided. How many unprovoked, personal attacks and insults are you meant to take without reacting? It's not as though this is the first time...


----------



## clandestino (Apr 14, 2005)

so that's THIS SATURDAY, 16 April in Windrush Square from 12-4pm


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> so that's THIS SATURDAY, 16 April in Windrush Square from 12-4pm



Will try and pop down for a little while. I'll bring down that Effra Residents Group leaflet too - I'm still a little slack-jawed at the alarmist and manipulative tone used. Be interesting to meet its author...


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

Karamza said:
			
		

> Look forward to seeing you.


How strange! You _immediately_ logged off after this post!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> There's some truth in that - IS did have some genuine points in there, but why she chose to bury them a load of unnecessary insults and score-settling nonsense is beyond me.
> 
> Let's recap, Stella's first recent intervention on this thread was to have a thinly-velied pop at me:
> 
> ...


 Oh do stop whining.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 14, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> is there any way we could get all this stuff cleared off this thread please? it's bad enough the likes of ernesto ruining the thread about the shooting in the academy without brixton residents doing it too.
> 
> as i said before, i think IS has made some valid and useful points. so, please, any chance of clearing off all the bickering and returning to the subject in hand?



Seconded... 

....I usually stay well away from these kinds of arguments but I think this is actually something that is important to us all in Brixton.  It would be nice if the arguments could stop long enough for us to have a meaningful discussion.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Let's recap, Stella's first recent intervention on this thread was to have a thinly-velied pop at me:...
> Quickly picked up Mr R and the editor.


For the record, this is what is technically known as a lie. Show me this post of Mr Retro's. I cannot find any such post.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> For the record, this is what is technically known as a lie. Show me this post of Mr Retro's. I cannot find any such post.


Actually, it was deleted (by mutual agreement) last night in the desperate hope of keeping this thread on topic and free of personal attacks.

Sadly, my cunning plan clearly failed.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> ....I usually stay well away from these kinds of arguments but I think this is actually something that is important to us all in Brixton.  It would be nice if the arguments could stop long enough for us to have a meaningful discussion.


I'm going to have a conflab with the mods to see if we can find a way to resolve this tediously recurring problem.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> But it's not obvious when the editor radios for backup. Oh no.
> 
> I presume the Editor means that somebody registered from the _public library._. As a lot of local residents worried about the central square plans would be likely to do. But then who cares about the views of povs who haven't even got their own computer?
> 
> ...


I post when and where I like, ta.

If you really really can't see that Jay001 is clearly AK, and are not just being disingenuous, I don't know what to say. It's so astoundingly obvious, the language and behaviour, the pattern of posts, the responses given... always the same.


----------



## Pieface (Apr 14, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> so that's THIS SATURDAY, 16 April in Windrush Square from 12-4pm



I can't make it ianw and co but like gaijingirl, want to get a better idea of how the whole thing is going to look so if there are any user friendly leaflets with maps etc, grab one and I'll meet you in the pub next week for a simpleton's walk-through of the scheme.

The concerns that have arisen on this thread have struck a chord.  Mainly in terms of *use * of the space for me.  I cannot bear derelict spaces in busy urban areas - it is such a waste of what we don't have an abundance of.

Perhaps they need to have some faith that the residents of Brixton will use the area, instead of already concentrating on how to keep certain people out?  If they move their emphasis from _excluding _ people to _including _ them then they can avoid farces like the area in front of the Ritzy, which in the end was designed to keep people moving through it instead of stopping!  If you concentrate on making it unattractive to loiter for a drug dealer, then you probably make it unattractive for anyone to hang around!

Is the question of safety/crime one that can ever be satisfactorily solved by a bunch of architects?  Does it come back to the question of the policing of Lambeth?  It doesn't matter how many streetlights you put up and how far you move the bus stops, it isn't going to change that problem imo.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

Perhaps someone attending could write a report for uploading on to the 'Brixton' section of urban75 to give this important development further coverage?

IanW? I hear you're pretty good with a pen!


----------



## clandestino (Apr 14, 2005)

well, it's a shame people can't make an afternoon meeting in the open air on a saturday. makes you wonder what the point of all this debate has been. sorry to sound sour, but as far as i understand there isn't much use in  providing a detailed report AS THIS IS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY YOU HAVE TO VOICE A PROTEST. maybe that was missed in amongst all the pointless bickering. this is it. if you don't go along on saturday and voice any concerns you may have, you'll have missed your chance. 

we're at the end of the process, annoyingly, not the start. 

still, i'm sure a shoddy plan rushed through by council execs so they can earn a gold star from ken is going to be fine for the area, isn't it? not a disaster at all or have a huge impact on the lives of everyone living in brixton.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 14, 2005)

Well I'll be going... and I expect that some others will too...


----------



## Pieface (Apr 14, 2005)

I did miss that in all the pointless bickering....


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> maybe that was missed in amongst all the pointless bickering.


I'm afraid it was. 

Unfortunately,  I'm already pre-booked elsewhere this Saturday, but how about getting proactive and distributing some leaflets voicing your concerns to the crowd _before_ the meeting?

I'd be more than happy to help with layout etc


----------



## clandestino (Apr 14, 2005)

unfortunately i don't have time to print up leaflets. anyway, people who are there don't need me forcing my opinions on them. they'll be able to make up their own minds from looking at the plans that will be displayed and talking to the council people, tfl, gross max, etc. what we need is people there voicing whatever concerns they may have. 

perhaps we'll get there and discover that they've taken everything from the last meeting on board and what's on offer now is totally acceptable. great. but just in case it's still all half-baked, what we need is a good body of response. otherwise it's just going to be signed off and that's that. 

you don't have to write off four hours from your afternoon. just go along, have a look at the plans, and tell someone what you think. half an hour. that's all it'll take.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> you don't have to write off four hours from your afternoon. just go along, have a look at the plans, and tell someone what you think. half an hour. that's all it'll take.


Unfortunately, I'll be about 40 miles away otherwise I would have been there.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 14, 2005)

well, just by providing this forum it's given me an opportunity to bang on about saturday, so you've done your bit. the walk sounds like it'll be lovely. 

but everyone else...what's your excuse, eh??!?


(i don't know why i'm banging a pot about this one anyway. come the flood, it'll all be several fathoms under, just off the brixton hill island. )


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2005)

Incidentally, I've emailed Lambeth to see if there's any way those unable to attend the meeting can see more material and offer their opinions via email (fat chance, I know!)


----------



## Pieface (Apr 14, 2005)

I'm in Newcastle, which could be viewed as purgatory except it's me home town innit.

Bad planning on my own part I'm afraid.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 14, 2005)

I think there is reason for (very cautious) optimism, given that Jo Negrini's letter to the SLP advertising the event this Saturday (April 16th) actually said that options (plural) would be on view, rather than just the previous take it or leave it "solution".


----------



## hatboy (Apr 14, 2005)

Criticism has been listened to. Designs have been revised.

Not so much you Lang, at least your architectural and planning knowledge is good, but nearly all the rest.... what is the point?!!!

The ill-informed opinions go round and round - the same contributors, the same audience.

u75 Brixton board is its own end. Ever repeating.

Contributors feel they are doing something useful locally be giving their opinion - but that's all they do! 

Central Square - if anyone bothered to talk to Jo Negrini or the architect and others they'd know what was going on. I have personally forced change to the plans and some education about Brixton on the architect.

And look how everyone gossips but few can make it to the event on Saturday.

It's all bullshit - for out of touch people, new to Brixton or in their own cosy, internet-nerdy type clique.

No one is obliged to do anything, it's not a PC pissing contest "who is most community" - but for god's sake stop flapping around with all this bullshit, fling open your front doors and go talk to some people in Brixton other than in the fucking Albert! And if you do do something do it for truth, not for guilt. The reason to do things is for truth.

The most sickening thing recently was the gun crime thread - all right-on, PC, bollocks opinion..... but who actually went, and listened to grown men cry in the rain for the loss of their own children?

Fucking shit.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2005)

hatboy said:
			
		

> It's all bullshit - for out of touch people, new to Brixton or in their own cosy, internet-nerdy type clique.


I'd rather hoped you'd grown out of this tedious stereotyping.

Oh well...


----------



## clandestino (Apr 15, 2005)

hatboy said:
			
		

> The ill-informed opinions go round and round - the same contributors, the same audience.



you're probably right. i am too ill-informed about the scheme. i've been to half of one meeting. i'm still struggling to understand all of the arguments involved - as i hope my post reporting on the last meeting reflected. 

this is all another reason why i'll be going along on saturday. to find out more. to understand more. to see if criticisms voiced at the last meeting have been taken on board. i hope they have. 

but i don't think you need to have been involved from day one on this to have a valid opinion. people should go along for whatever reasons they like on saturday, as long as they go and give their feedback. 

turning up, taking a look, and getting involved, is what's important.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> turning up, taking a look, and getting involved, is what's important.


Got it in one!

Who cares how long you've lived here?

What matters is that you_ care_.

Oh, and although I can't make it on Saturday, I've been busy elsewhere...


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 15, 2005)

Well I don't even live in Brixton (anymore) but I am interested in this development. If it wasn't for this thread here I wouldn't have anything to read apart from the official materials.

I do remember "back in the day" (c. 1999?) telling everyone how much I'd love a pedestrianised Coldharbour Lane, with a line of trees down the middle and cafe tables all along it. We had the RTS, then a couple of car free days and now they are planning to pedestrianise the central square.

I hope that whatever design is chosen it isn't just a load of concrete - I'd like to see lots of trees and greeney, and lots of seating for people to chill out, relax, hang out and chat - without having to pay anything.

Maybe they could have a 5pmh speed limit and allow buses and bicycles to continue to travel through (and of course blue light vehicles) and have a well lit "corridor" so people could walk through safely. Having said that I don't really like the "tunnel" thing proposed - I would far prefer an avenue of trees.

It is almost inevitable that whatever the design, it will have unforeseen consequences - Brixton is/people are just like that. Given this fact it is maybe better that things take shape gradually or in a phased way, which will allow some "tuning". I'd think it better that the design doesn't try and 'dictate' how people use the space - for example you often see designers plan pathways, but in real life people cut the corners off and create their own worn down lines in the grass. Better to see how people choose to use a space first, and then adapt to that than try and force them through design 'fiat'.

It is also probably inevitable that there will be so-called "undesirables" using the space. It is a fantasy that you will be able to design anything that will make them disappear, short of making the whole space undesirable and uncomfortable for any human being whatsoever - eg Windrush Square. Windrush also currently has a dangerous design in that it has a fence all round it and funnels people walking through it through narrow gates: this makes it far harder to avoid or walk away from someone if necessary.

So putting these things together, I'd like to see a mainly pedestrianised, tree-filled, green area full of seating, tables, chairs and benches- maybe a cafe but not exclusively, with a central "low-speed" and well-lit 'corridor'. During the day it would be full of people - maybe with chairs and tables set out, or maybe stalls etc which could be cleared away at night. At night it would have a safe central 'corridor' and other stuff could be cleared away. You'd probably have people loitering at some point, probably determined by the location of cameras, lighting and any police patrols but hopefully any negative impact of this on people using the buses or walking up Effra Road could be avoided by allowing enough space for people to walk up the well-lit and busier 'corridor' at a safe distance from whatever was going on some distanec away - in the same way as there are safe routes to get to the tube avoiding Electric Avenue and the market area after dark - ie the aim of 'zoning' and separating users rather than hoping to get rid of people.

All this has probably been said before, and maybe posting it here is useless. I will be down in Plymouth this Saturday, and I am no longer a Lambeth resident anyway, but maybe if anyone agrees with any of this they could suggest it to the relevant parties.

Oh yeah - they could put in some palm trees as well.


----------



## pudding (Apr 15, 2005)

hatboy said:
			
		

> It's all bullshit - for out of touch people, new to Brixton or in their own cosy, internet-nerdy type clique.
> 
> No one is obliged to do anything, it's not a PC pissing contest "who is most community" - but for god's sake stop flapping around with all this bullshit, fling open your front doors and go talk to some people in Brixton other than in the fucking Albert! And if you do do something do it for truth, not for guilt. The reason to do things is for truth.
> 
> ...


There's a strong smell on the Brixton forum, and elsewhere on urban75, of the site consisting of a nasty exclusive little group of scared whitey nerds huddling together in the Albert (or Dogshit) in case they should meet a dangerwous black person.

I see from this thread, and elsewhere, that people are regularly being chased from the boards, or banned, for failing to agree with the C list editor, or for breaking his ridiculous posting rules (which apply to everyone except him and his Arse Police*).

I mean, just read editor's earlier posts about "getting his banning stick out!" What a tosser.

Fortunately no one in Lambeth council, Gross Max or wherever believes this site to be representative of Brixton people, thank God, or Brixton would be in trouble.

Get over yourselves.

* Copyright Intostella       - Hope to meet you Saturday


----------



## Karamza (Apr 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> How strange! You _immediately_ logged off after this post!


But I waited for you in Stockwell Library.     You are a black guy with dreadlocks aren't you?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 15, 2005)

ITMA ?????


(Pudding seems remarkably knowledgeable about Council Tax administration on another thread and IIRC a certain former poster once worked in a not-unadjacent field)


----------



## Karamza (Apr 15, 2005)

Ah! I see you're white.

(Editor, I mean, not Lang Rabbie.)


----------



## LDR (Apr 15, 2005)

pudding said:
			
		

> There's a strong smell on the Brixton forum, and elsewhere on urban75, of the site consisting of a nasty exclusive little group of scared whitey nerds huddling together in the Albert (or Dogshit) in case they should meet a dangerwous black person.


Bollocks.   

I know all the people on that thread you quoted and they are anything but nasty and how is inviting anyone to a Birthday drink on a public bulletin board being exclusive? 

I resent the implication that I'm a scared whitey nerd.  I'm assuming you haven't met me so do you care to justify how you worked that one out?  What makes you so different and superior anyway?

I appreciate you disagree with the Editor's banning rules but that's no reason to attack people who have no control over that.

Get over yourself.


----------



## Karamza (Apr 15, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> ITMA ?????
> 
> 
> (Pudding seems remarkably knowledgeable about Council Tax administration on another thread and IIRC a certain former poster once worked in a not-unadjacent field)


I think it's mean of pudding (and Hatboy) to attack poor editor. After all, this community is editor's property.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2005)

I'll let the other mods sort out this tedious double act. 

Needless to say, the IP addresses are as strikingly familiar as ever, as is the predictably sneery tone.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> (Pudding seems remarkably knowledgeable about Council Tax administration on another thread and IIRC a certain former poster once worked in a not-unadjacent field)


Indeed.

It's pathetic, it really is. 

May I suggest that  posters concerned about the Central Square developement ignore these pitiful, attention-desperate posters and try to keep this thread on topic?


----------



## Karamza (Apr 15, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'll let the other mods sort out this tedious double act.
> 
> Needless to say, the IP addresses are as strikingly familiar as ever, as is the predictably sneery tone.


We went through this earlier on the thread. 

I'm posting from Stockwell Library. Every lambeth computer goes through the same server. So thousands of people SHARE THE SAME IP ADDRESS.

Understand? It's not rocket science.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 15, 2005)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Bollocks.
> I resent the implication that I'm a scared whitey nerd.  I'm assuming you haven't met me so do you care to justify how you worked that one out?  What makes you so different and superior anyway?
> :



I suspect you have, as I'd wager that Pudding is in fact the desperate attention-seeking pillock known as Anna Key. Which makes all the white nerd insults all the more puzzling if you ask me.

Depressing...


----------



## LDR (Apr 15, 2005)

Well I know and like Anna Key and he knows me so I doubt it was him.


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 15, 2005)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Well I know and like Anna Key and he knows me so I doubt it was him.



People do seem to be obsessed with him. Poor guy, his ears must be on fire. 

Diclaimer: I am not accusing anybody of mental illness.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2005)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> People do seem to be obsessed with him. Poor guy, his ears must be on fire.


I think you'll find the 'obsession' is the other way around.

But thanks for another _valuable_ interjection to this thread.

Shame you've got nothing to say about the actual thread topic, though.


----------



## Pie 1 (Apr 15, 2005)

Karamza said:
			
		

> Understand? It's not rocket science.



I think that U75 admin  probably do understand - probably more than you  could hope to imagine - about the intricacies of the internet.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2005)

And getting back on topic here, I like the idea of returning Tate Gardens to how they looked in the 1900s, with a beautiful garden, peppered with benches and surrounded by gates and  attractive cast iron railings.

In the daytimes, old 'uns, families and shoppers (and anyone else so long as they respect the space)  could relax and unwind in the green surroundings with the space being locked up at night to stop it being trashed by nocturnal ne'er do wells.

The space would obviously need some kind of 'parkie' to look after the delicate greenery and boot out troublemakers, although I suspect that Lambeth wouldn't want to pay for that.







It would also be great to get some kind of theatre space back in Brixton, whether by doing up the knackered old building at the end of Windrush Gardens or some kind of sheltered open air space...


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 15, 2005)

It remained fairly verdant well into the 1960s






Lambeth Carnival 1961


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> It remained fairly verdant well into the 1960s


I was just looking at those photos too.

Who the fuck was the genius responsible for turning that lovely garden into a concrete wasteland?


----------



## rennie (Apr 15, 2005)

that picture's great LR!


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 15, 2005)

Yeah...it really is lovely... I'm going to be asking for more greenery on Saturday....


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 15, 2005)

*The bandwagon swings into action...*

This morning's SLP has a story: *"Beware square says Hill"*
[no link on SLP site yet]



> The creation of a large traffic-free square in Brixton would be "an open invitation to crime, Keith Hill believes.



The article is followed by the leading question...


> *Do you think the proposal will lead to crime and traffic chaos?*
> 
> Write to South London Press
> 2-4 Leigham Court Road
> ...


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> This morning's SLP has a story: *"Beware square says Hill"*


I must be missing something here, but what crime will be "invited" by the creation of a large traffic-free square in Brixton?


----------



## aurora green (Apr 15, 2005)

My twopence worth;
It's such a shame that a new car-free space is being equated with so much crime and danger.
I think if the scheme wasn't so half-hearted and included stuff like toilets, cafe, landscape-gardening, seating etc. it could be viewed as a real boon for Brixton. 
Of course if it's just turned into a vast expanse of empty concrete no good will come of it, it seems obvious to me.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 15, 2005)

aurora green said:
			
		

> My twopence worth;
> It's such a shame that a new car-free space is being equated with so much crime and danger.
> I think if the scheme wasn't so half-hearted and included stuff like toilets, cafe, landscape-gardening, seating etc. it could be viewed as a real boon for Brixton.
> Of course if it's just turned into a vast expanse of empty concrete no good will come of it, it seems obvious to me.


Exactly.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2005)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Of course if it's just turned into a vast expanse of empty concrete no good will come of it, it seems obvious to me.


Maybe they'll succeed in making the space so universally unattractive, even the ne'er do wells won't want to hang about there (in much the same way that Windrush Gardens was created so bland and featureless that there's absolutely nothing to do there).

Still, at least the late opening KFC will provide a nice late night focus for undesirables, who'll probably make use of the barren space opposite as a handy toilet.


----------



## lizardqueen (Apr 15, 2005)

aurora green said:
			
		

> My twopence worth;
> It's such a shame that a new car-free space is being equated with so much crime and danger.
> I think if the scheme wasn't so half-hearted and included stuff like toilets, cafe, landscape-gardening, seating etc. it could be viewed as a real boon for Brixton.
> Of course if it's just turned into a vast expanse of empty concrete no good will come of it, it seems obvious to me.



I agree Aurora - if they are going to do this, then they need to do it properly.  The picture of the square in 1961 look amazing - lets bring it back to its former glory!


----------



## clandestino (Apr 15, 2005)

aurora green said:
			
		

> My twopence worth;
> It's such a shame that a new car-free space is being equated with so much crime and danger.
> I think if the scheme wasn't so half-hearted and included stuff like toilets, cafe, landscape-gardening, seating etc. it could be viewed as a real boon for Brixton.
> Of course if it's just turned into a vast expanse of empty concrete no good will come of it, it seems obvious to me.



well said!


----------



## linerider (Apr 16, 2005)

aurora green said:
			
		

> My twopence worth;
> It's such a shame that a new car-free space is being equated with so much crime and danger.
> I think if the scheme wasn't so half-hearted and included stuff like toilets, cafe, landscape-gardening, seating etc. it could be viewed as a real boon for Brixton.
> Of course if it's just turned into a vast expanse of empty concrete no good will come of it, it seems obvious to me.



at last,after wading through the last few pages of boring bile(with a few notable exceptions)we get back to the real point.  
sorry i won't be at the meeting as i'm in india.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 16, 2005)

well, it's today. a lovely day for it after yesterday's downpour!


----------



## academia (Apr 16, 2005)

From the plans it looked like it's just going to be a huge paved area?
They even seemed to show Windrush Square as being paved too.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 16, 2005)

Which means an extra flooding risk for an area with a very overstretched drainage system already......


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2005)

I went to the Windrush sq open day yeserday (Sat 16th April).Heres my version of what happened.

  I must say I wasnt sure about going.Ive put in a written submission to TfL.When I got their I had a good time  .It was a good example of "active citizenship".Though not quite what the Officers may like  .Effra Residents Group were their in force-distributing leaflets(including a letter from Keith Hill opposing the closure of Effra Road).

  What has happened is that their are now revised plans(as LR said may happen).A Council questionairre at the event asked people to choose between two options:

 A)A phased development of long term vision.
 B)A full implementation of long term vision without phasing

  The phased development,
                                    "would consist of joining Tate Gardens and Windrush Square,introduction of two-way traffic on Brixton Hill and reduce width of Effra Road to accomodate local traffic.The implementation of phase two would depend on the success of phase one."

   So the new plans showed the that initially only Windrush sq and Tate Gdns would be joined up.Seems to me that the officers are assuming success means the full clusure of Effra Road.Others might argue that success means that phase one should be kept without going onto phase two.

  Sorry if this sounds like Council speak."Long Term Vision"-what bollox.Why cant they just say "plan"  

  To many I talked to it seemed like option A was a sop to get the ERG to shut up whilst in the end creating one large sq.So the Council questionairre didnt really give different options.

  It was also suggested that a "Brixton Centre Square Trust" should be set up to "ensure..issues..of safety are at the heart of any management regime".No thanks.Maintenance and safety are Council and police responsibilities.I dont see why local residents should spend their free time(unpaid) doing this.Also I have a suspicion this is yet another way on circumventing the "ackward squad". 

  I must say I rather enjoyed seeing Officers put on the back foot by local residents.They were all their GrossMax,LBL senior Officers with their glossy presentations.Opposed by local Brixtonites doing it without the resources the Officers have at their disposal.Its the first time ive met the ERG in person.They arent nimbies.Several I talked to were long term Brixton residents.In fact they were your average cross section of Brixton.I was impressed at how well organised they are.To join their mailing list go to:

www.brixtoncentralsquare.org

  I did meet one of my local Councillors their(one of the nice ones .The ward Councillors have taken the issue seriously and are listening to what ERG are saying.Im not saying that they are categorically against the BCS-its that they actually listen to what people say.Cant say that of the Officers  .For example overheard one of the GrossMax people tell a couple of the ERG that if they opposed this scheme then Brixton would get "nothing".This is the kind of attitude that really winds me up.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2005)

The ERG were distributing the letter from Keith Hill MP.Here are a few quotes from it;

  "I am opposed to this option for two reasons:

  I believe it is likely that large volumes of traffic will be displaced into residential roads..I am surprised to discover that no modelling of traffic displacement has been carried out.It would be unaccaeptable for the schemme to go forward without a proper analysis of traffic impacts,particularly on local roads."

  "All the research evidence demonstrates that maximising surveillance by residents and passers by is what deters crime,and in this context passers by includes the occupants of cars and buses.The creation of a traffic free zone in this part of Brixton would be an open invitation to more street crime."

  Fair enough comments.Funny really in the original consultation on the sq (a while ago now) these concerns were raised.The Officers just brushed them aside at the time.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> It remained fairly verdant well into the 1960s
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Looks so much better then.It obviously had a proper maintenance money/gardener.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> As well as three letters expressing concern about safety in the square (including the Letter of the week "_My despair over square_" from Juliette Enser), this morning's SLP contains this very interesting epistle...



   Several design options?Assistant director of "renewal" says in the SLP letter you quote that their would be "several design options around full or partial closure."Not quite what happened at the open day.There were two options the original full closure or clours "phased" in.What bollox.See my report above.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2005)

Jay001 said:
			
		

> I live on a street nearby so this project could effect me a lot. I’m not a car owner and don’t care about a few extra cars passing along side streets so long as a good project is delivered for central Brixton.



  Excellant post


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> As I have stressed since I started the first thread on BCS last year, this scheme has been promoted by a small number of Lambeth officers, for whom delivery of high prestige projects would do no harm to their CV when they move on.   (The white collar officers have been described over the years as the "fourth party" in Lambeth politics by the more cynical backbenchers of all political colours).



  This tallies with my experience of the early consultation on the BCS scheme.Its the first time Ive heard the term "fourth party" but IMO its an accurate description.The "Fourth Party" are ambitious and quite willing to push residents out the way to get their promotion up the greasy pole of local Councils.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I do wonder what will happen with that.  I work near Paternoster Square and I hate the way it's largely devoid of any life... there are cameras everywhere and security all over the place to stop anyone from cycling/skateboarding etc... whilst I agree it makes it safer... it also seems to be a bit dead and dull...



  Good point.I cycle round the West End/City all day.Paternoster sq is not the only example of this.Ive heard you can try and cycle across it without some Nazi chasing you  .Squares are considered a good idea and look good in a design.The modern sq is a place of surveillance not a civic spce in the real sense of the word.

  (sorry if im going through a lot of post.Im not on the site everyday and am trying to get some of these good comments.My report on the Saturday open Day is on post 325).


----------



## hatboy (Apr 17, 2005)

I still think some ERG people's attitudes and particulalry that leaflet are too cautious. Three young blokes and an old Rasta on the corner of Windrush aren't gangs of muggers, etc.

Central Square - well, if what is proposed now is carried out it could be very good. 

Acres of concrete - gone. Now we have trees, grass and paving will be red brick and Portland stone to echo the materials of the Town Hall and library.

Kiosk - gone. Now we have a proper cafe with seating. (It even says on the design - "not Starbucks" and is intended to be a local business). A stage and open air films are also proposed.

And the Black Cultural Archives are fully involved - their designers working with the architects.

Effra Road will remain open to local traffic (the main A whatever road will go round), there will be clearly lit pedestrian routes across the square. Closing a shorter section of Effra Road may be considered at a later date.

In my opinion, consultation has now been listened to. At least as reflected in designs at this stage.

However, what I would say is that you still don't know quite what you're getting until it's in place. Architectural impressions are always pretty, and often far too vague. Municipal attempts to key into "community" stuff often turn out disappointing. Overall though I'm optimistic.

What I do think is a shame is that the architects will probably never meet exactly the sort of people who should have a say, because, for various reasons, lots of Brixton people just don't or won't go to this sort of event. I reckon alot of people think that it's all gonna turn out just another part of the re-marketing of Brixton for more conventional, less ACCEPTING taste. I'd use the word "gentrification", others might use other words.

I've done my bit to speak up about this.

We will see.

PS - By the way Lambeth Council, we already have a fantastic, internationally famous destination - start promotiing the market properly, look after it and do up poor old Electric Avenue. And keep the existing mix of stalls. When I say do it up I don't mean more "bars and cafe society" - we have enough of that and often it caters for a fairly narrow, afluent taste.

The four-quid-cup-of-coffee/hard-wood-floors/we-own-everything mob..... they aren't the only people in the world. Take note "Effra Residents".


----------



## Ultramarine (Apr 17, 2005)

But any building on the site requires special permission - over and above normal planning consents - which may mean we can't have a cafe or theatre. Unfortunately, neither the plans, nor the council officers when you ask them, make this clear. It should be made clear that plans for any structures are not a given, but are conditional on overcoming restrictive covenants that apply to Rush Common land.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2005)

hatboy said:
			
		

> The four-quid-cup-of-coffee/hard-wood-floors/we-own-everything mob..... they aren't the only people in the world. Take note "Effra Residents".



   You have criticised people before for not listening to others.I have talked to several of the ERG,listened to what they have to say, and I dont see them as part of the the £4 coffee we own everting mob.As Ive said in my report.

   I also think all this money from GLA and Officer time would be better spent on helping the market.


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> I also think all this money from GLA and Officer time would be better spent on helping the market.



nail on head.  Part of the proposal appears to be to locate a farmers market on the new square.  Huh?  That's entirely detrimental to the real market. It comes over like an off the shelf answer to the wrong question.  They want to find uses for the square after its built, rather than deal with the issues that actually matter.
.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 17, 2005)

Unfortunately I couldn't go to the open day on Saturday, but I've read most of this thread so think I've got a reasonable idea about what is going on.

I lived on Kellett Road for many years, so used to walk across Windrush Square, and what went before it, all the time.  To be honest, there were times when I felt intimidated on Windrush Square, particularly at night, and I used to take the slightly longer route up Effra Road because it felt safer.  There was a persistent problem with street-lighting on Windrush Square as well.  I would be reluctant to get rid of the road altogether, because I do think there could be safety issues with a large, open space, especially if it turned out to be empty most of the time.  The issue of whether buildings will be allowed really needs to be resolved before the plans are put into operation, not afterwards.  A proper traffic assessment also needs to be done.  Kellett Road is a rat-run as it is, and I lost count of the number of accidents I witnessed on it, and the number of macho fuckwit drivers who would completely ignore the speed limit.  

I totally agree with gramsci about the market.  It's been in steady decline for a number of years now, and I don't see it improving unless a concerted effort is made.  A Sunday farmer's market would be great.  If Peckham can have one, I don't see why we can't as well.


----------



## editor (Apr 17, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> I totally agree with gramsci about the market.  It's been in steady decline for a number of years now, and I don't see it improving unless a concerted effort is made.  A Sunday farmer's market would be great.  If Peckham can have one, I don't see why we can't as well.


A farmer's market along Brixton Station Road may not have the same prestige and razzmatazz as one launched in a $$$ 'revitalised' Brixton Central Square, but it would breath life into a declining shopping area and cost almost zero to set up: the stall markings are already in place!

Moreover, having the farmer's market along Station Road could have a positive knock on for the nearby street markets.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 18, 2005)

www.brixtoncentralsquare.org
=
www.effraresidentsgroup.org/

Those naughty cyber-squatters!


----------



## Rushy (Apr 18, 2005)

Ultramarine said:
			
		

> But any building on the site requires special permission - over and above normal planning consents - which may mean we can't have a cafe or theatre. Unfortunately, neither the plans, nor the council officers when you ask them, make this clear. It should be made clear that plans for any structures are not a given, but are conditional on overcoming restrictive covenants that apply to Rush Common land.



The only way to get over covenants applying to Rush Common is to ignore them. There is absolutely no flexibility in the statute - you are not allowed to build above the level of the ground - no fences, no walls, etc... I spoke to one of the guys from Gross Max and they hadn't even looked at the legislation (George III 1806 Act). 

Part XVII reads "...No buildings or erections above the surface of the earth shall at any time hereafter be erected upon... the common called Rush Common..; nor shall any such erections or buildings be erected upon said common lands...within the distance of 100 feet in front of any messuage or dwelling house already errected upon any land adjoining thereto without the cponsent in writing of the owner or owners of such last mentioned [dwelling]..; and in case any such buildings or erections shall at any time be built it shall be lawful for any person or person who shall be injured or affected thereby to remove or abate the same or otherwise to proceed against the person or persons so offending in like manner as in cases of nuisance."

A further Act was written in 1821 which repealed the 1806 act only in relation to the plot of land on which St Matthew's Church was built. The Dioscese of Southwark tries from time to time to dredge this up as an excuse to develop other parts of Rush Common which it owns.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 18, 2005)

I agree with gramsci in that the ERG people I talked to on Saturday were not Tory arrivistes weeping over their property prices. They had generally lived in Brixton for many years and had a very open-minded, live-and-let-live attitude towards street drinkers, weed sellers etc. It's the crack/heroin dealers people are worried about. While I would not personally dehumanise such people and their clients as scum, etc, there is an undeniable correlation between hard drugs and street crime. 

ERG seems to be a large and loose group, and as such you can't really typify its members. It's also very easy to unwittingly give the wrong impression in a leaflet, especially if the person/people writing it haven't got a lot of experience in political campaigning. You can't please everyone at the best of times. 

As for the exhibition, I thought it was deliberately  confusing and nonsensically postmodern. There was no need for the proposed options A and B to be mutually exclusive. 

The original, now scrapped plans were also on show and it was not clear to the uninitiated which proposals were actually being put forward. 

At least they seem to have scrapped the sugar-cane-design paving.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 18, 2005)

I just tried to e-mail the Effra Resident's Group to get some more info from them, but the mail was returned.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 18, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> www.brixtoncentralsquare.org
> =
> www.effraresidentsgroup.org/
> 
> Those naughty cyber-squatters!


Why is that cyber squatting? They have simply registered  www.brixtoncentralsquare.org -- good for them.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 18, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> The only way to get over covenants applying to Rush Common is to ignore them. There is absolutely no flexibility in the statute - you are not allowed to build above the level of the ground - no fences, no walls, etc... I spoke to one of the guys from Gross Max and they hadn't even looked at the legislation (George III 1806 Act).
> 
> Part XVII reads "...No buildings or erections above the surface of the earth shall at any time hereafter be erected upon... the common called Rush Common..; nor shall any such erections or buildings be erected upon said common lands...within the distance of 100 feet in front of any messuage or dwelling house already errected upon any land adjoining thereto without the cponsent in writing of the owner or owners of such last mentioned [dwelling]..; and in case any such buildings or erections shall at any time be built it shall be lawful for any person or person who shall be injured or affected thereby to remove or abate the same or otherwise to proceed against the person or persons so offending in like manner as in cases of nuisance."
> 
> A further Act was written in 1821 which repealed the 1806 act only in relation to the plot of land on which St Matthew's Church was built. The Dioscese of Southwark tries from time to time to dredge this up as an excuse to develop other parts of Rush Common which it owns.



What exactly is Rush Common?  And didn't there use to be buildings on what is now Windrush Square.  Brixton Fashions and a used car lot spring to mind.


----------



## eme (Apr 18, 2005)

Rush common is the green park / trees that goes along (on your left if you're walking up) the side of Brixton hill  - runs a long way up, almost to streatham iirc


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 18, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> And didn't there use to be buildings on what is now Windrush Square. Brixton Fashions and a used car lot spring to mind.


That's right.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 18, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> What exactly is Rush Common?  And didn't there use to be buildings on what is now Windrush Square.  Brixton Fashions and a used car lot spring to mind.



When the enclosures acts came into force in the 1800's to allow people to own and build on what was up until then common land in this area parts were proscribed from being buit upon and much of this is Rush Common. It's not all common land in the strictest sense - much of it is privately owned. The front gardens of the houses on both sides of Effra Road, for example, are part of this and it is also why Josephine Avenue is so wide with such large front gardens to the houses. Rush Common on Brixton Hill used to be gardens for enourmous houses on St Matthew's Road until they were purchased and knocked down by the council.

The Act was ignored when building was allowed on Windrush Square but that was also the justification behind it eventually being pulled down. There was also a military building on the plot behind Baltic House at the junction of St Matthew's Road and Brixton Hill (where the emergency helicopter lands) - same deal.

To the Rush Common north it actually extends onto Brixton Road and loads of illegal building was overlooked - for example Iceland and it's neighbours - the high street used to be much wider and was supposed to be maintained as such, but at the time no body kicked up a fuss and the buildings were tollerated. 

Sorry - not the most in depth answer but hope you get the gist of it.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 18, 2005)

So basically you can ignore it if it suits you?


----------



## urbanspaceman (Apr 18, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> I just tried to e-mail the Effra Resident's Group to get some more info from them, but the mail was returned.



We're having some problems getting the new email address to work properly. Until this is fixed (I'll post when it is) please use the older address:

effraresidentsgroup@london.com


----------



## Rushy (Apr 18, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> So basically you can ignore it if it suits you?



I guess you can ignore it if no one seeks to prosecute you under the act - like almost anything. There is a group called the Rush Common Society which generally tries to ensure the act is upheld and anyone 'injured' by the act would also be entitled to seek to have it upheld. I think they tried to make a bit of a fuss when the railings went up on Windrush Square because these effectively breached the rules - but they didn't fully pursue it. The Rush Common Act is strongly supported by Lambeth Planning guidelines (it is referred to in their strategy documents) and recently the planners have enforced it very strictly turning down almost anything that breaches the act. Planners are allowed to ignore their own planning guidelines if they deem it is justified but that does not mean that the act cannot still be enforced seperately from planning permission.

Oh dear, I'm really rambling here - still not in gear this morning.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 18, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> So basically you can ignore it if it suits you?



Probably no.   If I understand the situation rightly, since the 1948 Town Planning Act, the local authorities have been able to incorporate the Rush Common designation into successive local plans and UDPs.   They can take enforcement action against those developments.   

Previously, it was down to private prosecutions.

The buildings north of Coldharbour Lane including the Prince of Wales and Woolworths were allowed under a bit of legislation promoted by the London County Council in the 1920s for the widening of Brixton Road, which IIRC 
amends bits of the Rush Common Act.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 18, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> There is a group called the Rush Common Society which generally tries to ensure the act is upheld and anyone 'injured' by the act would also be entitled to seek to have it upheld.



How do you join the Rush Common Society?   

Is it like the Freemasons that you have to wait to asked?    Or are they more like the Illuminati, with a direct line of succession from those who met a thousand years ago at Brixge's Stane at the top of the hill?    

There is a similarly shadowy group that allegedly exists to protect the "Queens Walk" along the South Bank.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 18, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Probably no.   If I understand the situation rightly, since the 1948 Town Planning Act, the local authorities have been able to incorporate the Rush Common designation into successive local plans and UDPs.   They can take enforcement action against those developments.
> 
> Previously, it was down to private prosecutions.
> 
> ...



That is true, but I'm pretty sure that they were built illegally and then permitted retrospectively (under the LCC General Powers Act 1938).


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 18, 2005)

I also went to the presentation on Saturday.  Basically there are TWO issues in which residents are being given choices:

*Issue no. 1*

either (as Gramsci said)

 A)A phased development of long term vision.
 B)A full implementation of long term vision without phasing

The phased development,

"would consist of joining Tate Gardens and Windrush Square,introduction of two-way traffic on Brixton Hill and reduce width of Effra Road to accomodate local traffic.The implementation of phase two would depend on the success of phase one."

*Choice 2*

A: Civic square with cafe, platform etc (option A)
(civic square with cafe, platform that can act as a stage, light, informal children's play and trees)

B: Civic square with area of grass (option B)
(reflects the view expressed by some people that they would like to see more grass)

option A had a small grass circle and a cafe which is placed very close to the entrance to the library.  Option B had a much larger oval grass section, the cafe was placed in the very centre of the square.  

Both options had lots of lighting, trees etc...

Also mentioned is exploring the "possibility for creating a Brixton Centre Square Trust that has resident and business representation.  This will again ensure tha issues of safety are at the heart of any management regime."

As far as ERG... they seemed ok to me... the lady who spoke to me bascially said that whilst there are options on how the square should be developed, no one was giving the option for leaving it as it is.... However, Bridget Baines who is an architect for Gross Max claims that there is an alternative questionnaire on the Lambeth website aimed at finding out whether or not residents want a redeveloped square at all.  I'm guessing she was referring to this questionnaire, as it's the only one I can find...although it doesn't exactly match her description.

The TFL guy appeared to believe that option 1 was most likely and that it would be about 10 years before the full implementation (ie closing off Effra Road to traffic completely) would be seen.  He also said that whilst traffic would remain two way for the moment, there would be the option of closing the road to traffic for special events.

At the presentation were lots of big displays of how these two options would look as well as a very amusing map of the area at the moment with highlighted problem areas... the key included "drug dealing", "urinating spots" and "muggings".... it is clear that the architects' brief is not only to create a new square for Brixton but also to address these issues.  

I picked up forms handed out at the event detailing the proposed council decision timetable.  The letter from Keith Hill MP to Lambeth Council, the ERG flyer, and most importantly the questionnaire where you have the opportunity to chose between the above options, make extra comments and send it to the architects.  If anyone would like to see copies do pm me with an email address and I'll send them to you...  

The person I spoke to who was inviting residents etc to fill in this questionnaire and send comments was:

Bridget Baines
Gross Max
6 Waterloo Place
Edinburgh
EH1 3BG

Hope this helps.


I would also like to add that I was down there from about 12pm to 4pm... I personally only visited the presentation from about 3:20pm, but it was very busy with many Brixton residents actively asking questions and voicing their opinions and that seemed to be the case earlier on in the day too.  I felt quite positive about that...


----------



## Rushy (Apr 18, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> How do you join the Rush Common Society?
> 
> Is it like the Freemasons that you have to wait to asked?    Or are they more like the Illuminati, with a direct line of succession from those who met a thousand years ago at Brixge's Stane at the top of the hill?
> 
> There is a similarly shadowy group that allegedly exists to protect the "Queens Walk" along the South Bank.



Good question - though sadly nothing quite so exciting. As I recall it was being run by a local architect called Seamus. I met him at a public consultation for Raleigh Hall a few years ago. I think the planning department still have to consult the group on any application that affects the common so they should have contact details if you are interested.


----------



## OpalFruit (Apr 18, 2005)

I had planned to go to the consultation on Saturday, but family circumstances intervened. 
It does seem v odd to plan a square 'for the sake of it' without having a driving purpose.
Having said that, I think that Brixton would benefit from a real public forum - a place to act as a kind of speakers corner, a platform for all the active communities and groups we have in Brixton. All the religious choirs...It could become quite an attraction! (and make the pavement outside the tube, kfc and Body Shop more navigable)
Any use such as an outdoor theatre requires significant ongoing funding etc, but a mini-amhitheatre space with steps for seating, or a raised platform could be used regularly by youth or other community groups, or artists raising project funds from the Arts council etc. Rather like a 'Fourth plinth' space but used for different types of public and community expression.

Can't for the life of me think why traffic is our first tactic in the war against crime - sounds more like the first thing that people cry in order to win people to their side of the argument.
Although I can't quite see how the traffic would flow along one single route without creating a perpetual and almighty jam.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 18, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I also went to the presentation on Saturday.  Basically there are TWO issues in which residents are being given choices:
> 
> *Issue no. 1*
> 
> ...


From the questionnaire





> Q3. Would you support the closure to traffic of Effra Road between Rushcroft Road and Kellett Road to create a pedestrian only public open space?
> Q4. Are you in favour of the following parts of the proposals?
> A. The one-way service road between Rushcroft and Saltoun Roads?
> B. The banned left turn from Brixton Road into Coldharbour Lane and the new green man crossing across Coldharbour Lane?
> ...


 The thing is, they keep changing the proposals every five minutes and I'm not sure if these questions are even still relevant. It's like nailing jelly to a tree. You comment on one set of proposals and the next minute they have been thrown in the bin. It's enough to bewilder and dishearten anybody. The whole consultation process is still, in my view, a shambles.

I was looking out for Bridget Baines -- we did a feature on her and Gross Max in Landscape Review last year -- but I didn't see her.  BCS is her 'baby', AFAIK. 

As I said, I see no reason why the proposed options A and B need to be mutually exclusive.  The whole thing strikes me as lazy and slapdash.

But we shall see. Every little detail will be thrashed out in planning committee, no doubt. This is going to run and run. So anyone who didn't make the Saturday open day need not despair. When the final proposals are put forward you will have plenty of opportunity to have your say.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 18, 2005)

I got the impression (and this is just my impression), that the redevelopment of the square _will_ go ahead.  I will list here the proposed council decision timetable so that anyone who doesn't want to make a comment at this point can chose when they wish to do so.  I think it would be wise, however, to make comments asap as it would seem that those comments are now being used by Gross Max to incorporate into their "final design proposal"... 

16 April 05      Open day - to gather public comment on the design outcome of the public consultation events.

April - June      Copies of the Options and Questionnaires on the Council's website and within the Revitalise consultation document *to be distributed throughout the borough*..

April - June      Gross Max to incorporate comments into final design proposal.

July/August     Final Design Proposal to be presented to Brixton Area Committee (date for this meeting to be set at the Council general meeting in May)

April-August    Brixton Area Forum meetings: Update on Central Square

August/September     Council Executive for Decision on final proposals.

(If there is a decision take by the Council's Exeuctive to proceed with the scheme, there will be a need to secure the relevant permissions prior to implementation, eg. planning, English Heritage, Church Commissioners, etc..)


----------



## townhallclock (Apr 18, 2005)

<removed>


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 18, 2005)

townhallclock said:
			
		

> I overheard one councillor chatting to a group about the nuclear bunker under Windrush Square, to which an old bloke piped up "Yes, I squatted that in the 1980s."



  

I don't think the former loos would have offered much protection against fallout.    And Windrush Square proper at that time comprised the concrete floor of former coach station (later Brixton Fashion) and the fuel tanks of the former garage.

Lambeth's official bunker was under a housing block in Norwood.
However, there was a conspiracy theory that the now demolished "temporary" building at the bottom of Rush Common contained the secret access to a bunker.

And the only person who has ever mentioned a nuclear bunker under Windrush Gardens on this forum was Anna Key


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> And the only person who has ever mentioned a nuclear bunker under Windrush Gardens on this forum was Anna Key


*What *a remarkable coincidence, eh?!


----------



## tarannau (Apr 18, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> :
> 
> And the only person who has ever mentioned a nuclear bunker under Windrush Gardens on this forum was Anna Key



Ah, don't say that Lang. Someone will start calling you paranoid and pretending that townhallclock is a new poster (honest guv, it's not obviously AK really...) sometime very soon...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 18, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Ah, don't say that Lang. Someone will start calling you paranoid and pretending that townhallclock is a new poster (honest guv, it's not obviously AK really...) sometime very soon...


 It's so cute how you take snide little potshots at people before scurrying back to the safety of the editor's rectum.

If you weren't a complete dolt it would occur to you that this ongoing situation puts me in a very awkward position. 

In fact I phoned AK about an hour ago to say it was so obviously him and that it was a shame as it was a waste of a good username. 

Incidentally, I genuinely thought jay001 was an ERG member and if you don't believe me, you know what,  _ I could not care less_. 

If you think I know everything he does and even that I can control what he does then you are fuckng weird.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> In fact I phoned AK about an hour ago to say it was so obviously him and that it was a shame as it was a waste of a good username.


It would be rather nice if you would have the grace to now  apologise for accusing me of suffering from mental illness when I correctly identified yet another of his alter egos recently.

After all, I fail to see why I should take random abuse from you because of your own inability to recognise one of his obvious (to just about everyone else) alter egos.



			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> Have you no idea how MAD you look when you start accusing everyone in sight of being anna key? It's like reds under the bed. McCarthy and the House Committeee on Un-American Activities had nothing on you. And your sycophannts, it seems, are hell bent on stoking your already raging paranoia.
> 
> Whoever you are, Jay001, I am sorry that you've experienced this shameful, sorry show. Hopefully we'll will meet you at the thing on Saturday and you'll see that not everyone on urban75 is in a heightened state of paranoid delusion


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> If you weren't a complete dolt it would occur to you that this ongoing situation puts me in a very awkward position. .


Why?

AK obsessively crawls back in. AK gets banned.

What's it got to do with you?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 18, 2005)

One point to consider about the independent "trust" option to manage the square/any facilities in it ...

There were quite a few dollops of regeneration/Neighbourhood Renewal money that local authorities can't apply for themselves - they have to come from partnerships with local business of the "Third Sector" (formerly know as as voluntary and community groups).    There may still be some that funds that (despite the Treasury's reservations) will give a "dowry" to a project to be invested towards future maintenance.     

If there could be a community cafe in the square, providing training/employment for Coldharbour residents, it might have a chance of attracting some such funding.

Anyone more closely involved with Brixton Area Forum have any idea of what money is still available?


----------



## Ms T (Apr 18, 2005)

Please can we not have another row.  This thread is important.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> Please can we not have another row.  This thread is important.


Indeed.   

gaijingirl has sent me some docs from Saturday's meeting - I'll see if I can post them up later.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2005)

Here's a letter from Keith Hill MP (apols for the size)


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2005)

And the leaflet for the "re-opening celebrations"
 (be still my beating heart)


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2005)

I note that the picture behind the flyer shows the long-demolished Brixton Theatre and part of the  original, verdant Tate Gardens!

Could we have those back please?!


----------



## Ultramarine (Apr 18, 2005)

> If there could be a community cafe in the square, providing training/employment for Coldharbour residents, it might have a chance of attracting some such funding.



... sorry to come back to this again - but according to what Rushy said earlier in the thread about the difficulty of getting permission to build on the land, doesn't it mean we may never be able to get our cafe, much as I think a community cafe would be a brilliant use of the square?   



> The Rush Common Act is strongly supported by Lambeth Planning guidelines (it is referred to in their strategy documents) and recently the planners have enforced it very strictly turning down almost anything that breaches the act. Planners are allowed to ignore their own planning guidelines if they deem it is justified but that does not mean that the act cannot still be enforced seperately from planning permission.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 18, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> AK obsessively crawls back in. AK gets banned.
> 
> What's it got to do with you?


What are you? Some sort of alien?


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> What are you? Some sort of alien?


(ignores tedious, off topic weirdness)

Here's another leaflet from Saturday (thanks again, gaijingirl!)


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 18, 2005)

Ultramarine said:
			
		

> ... sorry to come back to this again - but according to what Rushy said earlier in the thread about the difficulty of getting permission to build on the land, doesn't it mean we may never be able to get our cafe, much as I think a community cafe would be a brilliant use of the square?




I think it would be a question of whether there were large numbers of objections to a final design for a cafe etc. pavilion building.    

If Lambeth could prove: 
(i) that the building was to increase and enhance public use of the adjacent bits of Rush Common dedicated as public open space
(ii) that it had gone through full public consultation, and 
(iii) that there were no objectors who could show any harm to their interests,

then I think a legal challenge would be very unlikely to succeed.   

As a belt and braces protection, Lambeth might be able to get a clause included in a Private Act of Parliament (there is a London Local Authorities Act promoted jointly by the London Boroughs every couple of years)


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2005)

an aside...albeit relevant...

Did you know there were were riots in the 1920s when developers attempted to build on Rush Common?...Alfie Howard (Town Crier) told me.....


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> There were quite a few dollops of regeneration/Neighbourhood Renewal money that local authorities can't apply for themselves - they have to come from partnerships with local business of the "Third Sector" (formerly know as as voluntary and community groups).    There may still be some that funds that (despite the Treasury's reservations) will give a "dowry" to a project to be invested towards future maintenance.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Fair point.but I still think putting everything onto the Third Sector asking to much.Im already active in a Third Sector organisation for example.How many meetings is one supposed to go to?Their is something to be said for the Council employing people to manage its gardens as it did in the old days of Municipal socialism.Their have been so many cuts since the Thatcher period that IMO to much is expected of unpaid voluntary effort to fill the gap.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> As far as ERG... they seemed ok to me... the lady who spoke to me bascially said that whilst there are options on how the square should be developed, no one was giving the option for leaving it as it is.... However, Bridget Baines who is an architect for Gross Max claims that there is an alternative questionnaire on the Lambeth website aimed at finding out whether or not residents want a redeveloped square at all.  I'm guessing she was referring to this questionnaire, as it's the only one I can find...although it doesn't exactly match her description.
> 
> The TFL guy appeared to believe that option 1 was most likely and that it would be about 10 years before the full implementation (ie closing off Effra Road to traffic completely) would be seen.  He also said that whilst traffic would remain two way for the moment, there would be the option of closing the road to traffic for special events.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I was looking out for Bridget Baines -- we did a feature on her and Gross Max in Landscape Review last year -- but I didn't see her.  BCS is her 'baby', AFAIK.
> 
> But we shall see. Every little detail will be thrashed out in planning committee, no doubt. This is going to run and run. So anyone who didn't make the Saturday open day need not despair. When the final proposals are put forward you will have plenty of opportunity to have your say.



   I agree about the planning committee.Potentially could open a can of worms.For example objectors could insist that a traffic assessment is down before planning consent is given.Im not an expert but my experience of some of the Planning Committtee Councillors is that they might think that is a reasonable request.This could hold up the scheme.

   Got any links for Baines feature IS?

   She wasnt the one I overheard telling one of the ERG "that if you oppose this scheme you will get nothing."


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2005)

For future referance heres the relevant web page on the Lambeth site;

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/services/environment/regeneration/brixton-central-square/index.shtml

  cant get the questionairre to work.Am I paranoid or does it only download for those with positive opinions?


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 18, 2005)

Yes I would agree with the "goalposts being moved" comments too... but I'm not sure if it's intentional or just bad organisation/communication - I imagine the latter.  This is why I suggested it might be wise for people to send any objections/comments to the Max Gross address I quoted in a previous post asap.  The reason for the urgency is that according to the schedule I posted earlier, comments received on Saturday's presentation would be incorporated into final design proposal between April (now) - June.

I also agree that having it as a phased option could prolong ERG's agony... but on the other hand it might also give them ammunition to stop the 2nd phase of the development if their suspicions _do_ prove to be correct.

I can't help feeling that it's maybe too late to oppose the regeneration but not too late to try and influence what eventually happens.  I could be wrong about this, but if people do want to continue to oppose the regeneration completely, it might be wise to also (as a kind of insurance policy) give comments on the proposed choices above or ask for alternative choices at the same time.

Personally I am quite excited about the idea of a new central square but I definitely have some ideas about what I would like to see included in the square and I'm making sure I get those ideas in now.

I'm also a bit worried by the caveat "(If there is a decision take by the Council's Exeuctive to proceed with the scheme, there will be a need to secure the relevant permissions prior to implementation, eg. planning, English Heritage, Church Commissioners, etc..)" .  If I understand them correctly, Ultramarine and Rushy are saying that this means the cafe may never happen.  

Given that both of the options we are being presented with currently feature a cafe I wonder if this is a serious proposal or a sweetener to keep those who want a cafe happy.  Certainly this will be a question I will be posing to Max Gross et al...


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 18, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> For future referance heres the relevant web page on the Lambeth site;
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/services/environment/regeneration/brixton-central-square/index.shtml
> 
> cant get the questionairre to work.Am I paranoid or does it only download for those with positive opinions?



It's a pdf (do you have adobe)?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2005)

I dont believe those against the closure of Effra Road are against the regeneration of that bit of Brixton.After all Im not opposing the joining of Tate and Windrush or the redevelopment of Raleigh Hall.

  The problem is that the architects-under the direction of the Officers-had only produced one plan for the site.It was only the ERG lobbying who made them relook at the plans.

  Ive been involved in "consultation" before so im a bit of a cynic.Its relatively easy to be be put into the "Refusenik" corner if your told its either this or nothing.I know the kinds of tricks they get up to.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> It's a pdf (do you have adobe)?



  Yes it could be the LBL sites playing up.Ill try later.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 19, 2005)

i actually felt quite positive after saturday. cautious but positive.

i was glad to see that things had moved on from the last consultation meeting. i was under the impression that lambeth, etc were flat against a phased approach. the fact that it's now coming up as an option is a good thing i think. it means they've listened to what was said during the previous meetings.

gaijingirl gave an excellent report of the day. as she said, we're being asked to consider two options. one that's mostly concrete, one with an oval of grass. having decided on which option we like most, we're then asked how we'd like it to be implemented. straight away or in a phased approach - ie joining tate and windrush first and leaving effra open.

i voted for option b with the oval of grass and the phased approach. but i spent quite a long time talking to the gross max representative asking why we couldn't have more grass. after all, in order to implement either vision they'd have to get rid of the grass area we have already in windrush, which seems ridiculous to me.

she said that it was all about through traffic. a lot of people will be using the joined phase one area as a through route and they'd walk over (and ruin) a big grassed area. i said it was a shame to lose the grass we have in windrush. she said that the new oval would be the equivalent space to all of the triangles joined together. i said why not have it as it is now - with lots of triangles with paths in between that give a wider sense of a grassed area - over both windrush and tate. she said that they wouldn't be workable for people walking through. i said that brixton residents would respect the grassed area and not just walk over it. she wasn't convinced. we argued back and forth. 

one thing that came out of the discussion was that they planned an oval of grass because it's called the brixton oval. i said 'isn't that a bit trite?' she looked a bit embarrassed. 

if you look at the difference between the plans and options at the last consultation meeting and what was proposed on saturday, then i think we can be forgiven for being optimistic about what could come out of saturday. they are taking things on board. so hopefully with the volume of response on saturday (they ran out of questionairres at one point and we got them to photocopy up a new load - "we did 200!" they said. they clearly didn't expect such a response), things will continue to shift in a positive direction.

maybe i'm being naive. but i said to the gross max rep that the phase one was a square that i might not like but i might learn to live with, whereas the joined up option to me was a potential disaster for brixton and could potentially ruin the heart of where we live. she seemed quite taken aback by that. 

we'll see what happens.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 19, 2005)

I feel so relieved to read IanW's report.  I am quite excited about the new square and also feel quite optimistic.     I too wonder whether I am just being naive...   

Either way, I'm very happy to see so much debate and people getting involved.


----------



## linerider (Apr 19, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Lambeth's official bunker was under a housing block in Norwood.
> However, there was a conspiracy theory that the now demolished "temporary" building at the bottom of Rush Common contained the secret access to a bunker.
> 
> And the only person who has ever mentioned a nuclear bunker under Windrush Gardens on this forum was Anna Key


right lets get this straight,I AM NOT anna key,but i worked as the doorman at the squat parties in the bunker on the corner of brixton hill under the prefabs.
don't quite know why people are trying to say that the place doesn't exist.
i understand that some people have a problem with anna key but that doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 19, 2005)

linerider said:
			
		

> right lets get this straight,I AM NOT anna key


Fuck me, that's the understatement of the century.


----------



## linerider (Apr 19, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Fuck me, that's the understatement of the century.


i've never made an understatement in my whole life


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 19, 2005)

linerider said:
			
		

> i've never made an understatement in my whole life


----------



## OpalFruit (Apr 19, 2005)

linerider said:
			
		

> i worked as the doorman at the squat parties in the bunker on the corner of brixton hill under the prefabs.



Is that the patch of grass on the corner of the one-way system that used to have a black wooden building on it? Always wonder what that little green sq i 'for' and who maintains it, and why, given it's location, it hasn't been snapped up for development? or is it part of Rush Common?


----------



## hatboy (Apr 19, 2005)

I can help you. I know where you mean. There was a WW2 bunker on the corner of Brixton Hill where the one-way and Town Hall Parade meet.

It was squatted for awhile. There were afew parties, then it was bulldozed.

Others on this site never knew about this place because above ground was only a small hut with a door, the squat was short-lived or before some of their times here, or people on u75 just weren't a part of that sub-culture.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 19, 2005)

OpalFruit said:
			
		

> Is that the patch of grass on the corner of the one-way system that used to have a black wooden building on it? Always wonder what that little green sq i 'for' and who maintains it, and why, given it's location, it hasn't been snapped up for development? or is it part of Rush Common?



It is part of Rush Common - it's still separated from the rest because the owner of no 3(?) St Matthew's Road wouldn't sell up their abandoned garden.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 19, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> It is part of Rush Common - it's still separated from the rest because the owner of no 3(?) St Matthew's Road wouldn't sell up their abandoned garden.


 Seeing as you are such a fount of all wisdom, how come YOU didn't know about the bunker then?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 19, 2005)

linerider said:
			
		

> right lets get this straight,I AM NOT anna key,but i worked as the doorman at the squat parties in the bunker on the corner of brixton hill under the prefabs.
> don't quite know why people are trying to say that the place doesn't exist.
> i understand that some people have a problem with anna key but that doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong.



I knew it was the location of a small bunker (although various conspiracy theories subsequently added a network of tunnels from the basement spaces in the Town Hall once occupied by Ted Knight's social club. )  

Anna Key (in this post on 14 May 2004) was the only person ever to claim that there was a nuclear bunker under Windrush Square! Hence the rapid 'outing' of his latest guise.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 19, 2005)

Certain sites in Brixton are kept clear for helicopter landing.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 19, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> I knew perfectly well that that was the location of a small bunker (although various conspiracy theories subsequently added a network of tunnels from the basement spaces in the Town Hall once occupied by Ted Knight's social club. )
> 
> Anna Key (in this post on 14 May 2004) was the only person ever to claim that there was a nuclear bunker under Windrush Square! Hence the rapid 'outing' of his latest guise.


I expect your Snitch badge is in the post.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 19, 2005)

I Feel No Affinity With Any Of You...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 19, 2005)

hatboy said:
			
		

> I Feel No Affinity With Any Of You...


Maybe your chakras are out of alignment.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 19, 2005)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Certain sites in Brixton are kept clear for helicopter landing.


----------



## newbie (Apr 19, 2005)

Ultramarine said:
			
		

> ... sorry to come back to this again - but according to what Rushy said earlier in the thread about the difficulty of getting permission to build on the land, doesn't it mean we may never be able to get our cafe, much as I think a community cafe would be a brilliant use of the square?



why would it be brilliant?  What is a 'community cafe'?

Are the people that currently use the Phoenix, that use Pushkar when it's open, that use Satay or the Ritzy or the Portugese cafe on Brixton Hill, that uses KFC or the new place Harlem,  etc etc not 'community' enough?  Those places are all within a hundred yards or so of Windrush Square.  Extend that very little further and you have even more choice.  

Why does the vision depend on putting public money into a new facility which will damage places we've all be using for years?  Just like the farmers market proposal it's a stock answer to a question that has nothing at all to do with Brixton.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2005)

hatboy said:
			
		

> I Feel No Affinity With Any Of You...


Then Why Not Go Elsewhere...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> why would it be brilliant?  What is a 'community cafe'?
> 
> Are the people that currently use the Phoenix, that use Pushkar when it's open, that use Satay or the Ritzy or the Portugese cafe on Brixton Hill, that uses KFC or the new place Harlem,  etc etc not 'community' enough?  Those places are all within a hundred yards or so of Windrush Square.  Extend that very little further and you have even more choice.
> 
> Why does the vision depend on putting public money into a new facility which will damage places we've all be using for years?  Just like the farmers market proposal it's a stock answer to a question that has nothing at all to do with Brixton.



  Fair point Newbie.I think Ultramarine is trying to see positive apsects of the scheme.Those who have been opposing the closure of Effra Road have been portrayed as negative-"against change in Brixton".

   Given that I think your correct.Also as posters have pointed out the Officers have hardly been forthcoming on whether its possible to build on the square.

   I surmise that their might not be the money to build a Cafe-unless a private "partner" was brought in to do it.I doubt if their are funds to make it a "community" cafe.The one built in Trafalgar sq is run by Costa Coffee-a commercial concern.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Yes I would agree with the "goalposts being moved" comments too... but I'm not sure if it's intentional or just bad organisation/communication - I imagine the latter.



    Its intentional.ERG meant that the "fait accompli" of Officers was not possible.The phased scheme was dreamed up by officers (moving goalposts) as a reargaurd action to get their preffered scheme through.

   The TfL questionairre gave one a straight choice between closure or not-with a question on joining up Windrush and Tate.So the goalposts were moved before the results of the TfL survey were finished.I object to this kind of consultation.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 20, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> I surmise that their might not be the money to build a Cafe-unless a private "partner" was brought in to do it.I doubt if their are funds to make it a "community" cafe.The one built in Trafalgar sq is run by Costa Coffee-a commercial concern.




Oh no..that'd be really shit - not a Costa type place.   ... maybe we should start up a company and put a bid in for the cafe!!!  I can think of tons of things that would be brilliant to do from that kind of space, bang smack in the middle of Brixton...


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 20, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> The TfL questionairre gave one a straight choice between closure or not-with a question on joining up Windrush and Tate.So the goalposts were moved before the results of the TfL survey were finished.I object to this kind of consultation.



So what were the results of the TFL survey?  (Which is still on the Lambeth site).. do we know what choice was made between closure or not??  (I'm guessing not from what ERG were saying on Saturday).... has anyone demanded the results of this questionnaire or has it been stated that that first questionnaire is now redundant??


----------



## aurora green (Apr 20, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> I surmise that their might not be the money to build a Cafe-unless a private "partner" was brought in to do it.I doubt if their are funds to make it a "community" cafe.The one built in Trafalgar sq is run by Costa Coffee-a commercial concern.



I'm proberbly going to regret saying this,   but if its a choice between a costa coffee cafe and no cafe at all, I'd go for the costa option, because I think the space needs a focal point.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2005)

aurora green said:
			
		

> I'm proberbly going to regret saying this,   but if its a choice between a costa coffee cafe and no cafe at all, I'd go for the costa option, because I think the space needs a focal point.


Surely there's ample, experienced locals capable of running an independent café in the square?


----------



## aurora green (Apr 20, 2005)

Yeah well definately, personally, I'd far prefer any cafe not to be run by some corporate multi-national whatever, and actually thinking about it, why cant the council fund the building themselves and then let it out? Seems like a much better plan to me.


----------



## newbie (Apr 20, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Oh no..that'd be really shit - not a Costa type place.   ... maybe we should start up a company and put a bid in for the cafe!!!  I can think of tons of things that would be brilliant to do from that kind of space, bang smack in the middle of Brixton...



It's not bang smack in the middle of Brixton.... it's not far off, I agree, but it isn't truly central.  

Granville Arcade has plenty of empty units, there are empty shops, there are plenty of market pitches.  What's stopping you?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 20, 2005)

Should have said that the reason for suggesting a "community cafe" is because experience everywhere else suggests that succesful open spaces (at least as measured by peoples feeling of security and willingness to use them) are those with "active frontages" i.e. something going on that allows overlooking of what is happening.

To get over the Rush Common problems, this could be an integral part of the Raleigh Hall redevelopment for the Black Cultural Archives.   (NB The back strip of Windrush Square is not Rush Common land so there is nothing to stop building there other than the impact on the listed building.

Perhaps a giant winter garden containing the cafe set front of Raleigh Hall (a bit like the new foyer of the National Gallery in Dublin?)

Alternative suggestions welcome.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 20, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> It's not bang smack in the middle of Brixton.... it's not far off, I agree, but it isn't truly central.
> 
> Granville Arcade has plenty of empty units, there are empty shops, there are plenty of market pitches.  What's stopping you?




Well it _is_ going to be named Brixton Central Square... 

...but if my inaccuracy is troubling you, then I am willing to change my statement to "I can think of tons of things that would be brilliant to do from that kind of space which is not far off being bang, smack in the middle of Brixton, but not truely central either despite the name of the square it is slated to be located in"..   

Yes you're right, there is nothing stopping me apart from lack of funds, experience etc... it was a semi-serious suggestion really that "we" as in the U75 community could do something better than have a Costa coffee... would you like to help??


----------



## ChrisFilter (Apr 20, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I can think of tons of things that would be brilliant to do from that kind of space, bang smack in the middle of Brixton...



I think there's quite enough smack in the middle of Brixton thanks gaijingirl


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 20, 2005)

ChrisFilter said:
			
		

> I think there's quite enough smack in the middle of Brixton thanks gaijingirl



I walked into that one didn't I.....   

How about "crack bang in the middle of Brixton"...

oh no...that's not gonna work either...


----------



## newbie (Apr 20, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Should have said that the reason for suggesting a "community cafe" is because experience everywhere else suggests that succesful open spaces (at least as measured by peoples feeling of security and willingness to use them) are those with "active frontages" i.e. something going on that allows overlooking of what is happening.



Exactly so.  A cafe, like a farmers market, is one of the stock answers planners use when asked what their grand vision open space is for.  Trouble is, Brixton isn't like other places and it already has a huge variety of both market and cafes.  If the new proposals are sucessful they will harm the existing provision; if they fail, which I think more likely, they'll leave a windswept and empty space entirely without purpose.

I do agree, however, that the Cultural Archives project would probably benefit from having a cafe incorporated.  But that's to enhance the experience of visiting something (hopefully) worthwhile and unique.  That's not on the agenda (at least, not according to the bloke from BCA I spoke to on Saturday) and in any event should be suited to their requirements, not tacked on to sell this square on the basis that a few cultural visitors will generate active frontage.


----------



## newbie (Apr 20, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Well it _is_ going to be named Brixton Central Square...
> 
> ...but if my inaccuracy is troubling you, then I am willing to change my statement to "I can think of tons of things that would be brilliant to do from that kind of space which is not far off being bang, smack in the middle of Brixton, but not truely central either despite the name of the square it is slated to be located in"..
> 
> Yes you're right, there is nothing stopping me apart from lack of funds, experience etc... it was a semi-serious suggestion really that "we" as in the U75 community could do something better than have a Costa coffee... would you like to help??



I wasn't trying to be snide, my point is absolutely serious.  Simply calling this thing Central doesn't make it so.  Stand in the middle of Electric Avenue or Station Road or Atlantic Road or... and the most noticeable characteristic is the sheer quantity of people, and the range of what they're doing.  Now stand and watch any of the three spaces (even before Tate Gardens was closed off) and it's clear there's nothing going on because there's virtually no reason for anyone to be there.  A few people walk past on their way home, a tiny number sit and booze and chatter and er, that's it.

You're proposing that a cafe will change that.

So have a squint at the bottom end of Tunstall Road, the pedestrianised bit opposite the tube.  That's much closer, both geographically and functionally, to being bang in the heart.  Yet the cafe that was there for a year or two has closed and is boarded up, despite being both convenient and pleasant to sit outside of an evening, watching the world go by.

The mere existence of a pedestrianised space and a cafe does not automatically attract people... if the ideas which can transform BCS are so brilliant, why is no-one doing them already, in any of the parts of Brixton where there are already lots of people and empty properties?


----------



## clandestino (Apr 20, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> So have a squint at the bottom end of Tunstall Road, the pedestrianised bit opposite the tube.  That's much closer, both geographically and functionally, to being bang in the heart.  Yet the cafe that was there for a year or two has closed and is boarded up, despite being both convenient and pleasant to sit outside of an evening, watching the world go by.



i don't think that was convenient and pleasant to sit outside of an evening at all. a narrow street outside morleys is hardly comparible to a larger square. i take your point that the square is merely on the way home for most folk now, but that's because there's nothing to make them want to linger. a cafe will help with that. a wider space with grass and good seating will help even more. 

i also think splitting hairs about the centrality of bcs is pretty pointless. talking from the perspective of someone who lives at the top of brixton hill, bcs will be in the centre of brixton.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> So have a squint at the bottom end of Tunstall Road, the pedestrianised bit opposite the tube.  That's much closer, both geographically and functionally, to being bang in the heart.  Yet the cafe that was there for a year or two has closed and is boarded up, despite being both convenient and pleasant to sit outside of an evening, watching the world go by.


Yes, but that narrow and none-too-pleasant shaded space directly faces onto a very busy, noisy main road and has no history of being a public space. 

And there was barely a blade of grass to be seen there!


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 20, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> why would it be brilliant?  What is a 'community cafe'?
> 
> Are the people that currently use the Phoenix, that use Pushkar when it's open, that use Satay or the Ritzy or the Portugese cafe on Brixton Hill, that uses KFC or the new place Harlem,  etc etc not 'community' enough?  Those places are all within a hundred yards or so of Windrush Square.  Extend that very little further and you have even more choice.
> 
> Why does the vision depend on putting public money into a new facility which will damage places we've all be using for years?  Just like the farmers market proposal it's a stock answer to a question that has nothing at all to do with Brixton.


I wouldn't care massively if a cafe was 'community-run' or private*. The attraction for me would be being able to sit down and watch the world go by - people watching - and having somewhere to hang out and wait for/meet someone... it would be even better if there was seating that was free for anyone to use, customers or non-customers alike. 

You don't have to build a permanent building for a cafe or food stall: you could have a mobile cafe or a 'wooden shack/lock-up/kiosk' style one.

*although I wouldn't like a large chain/plc - I would far prefer something owned by whoever was working there and preferably someone local.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 20, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> The mere existence of a pedestrianised space and a cafe does not automatically attract people... if the ideas which can transform BCS are so brilliant, why is no-one doing them already, in any of the parts of Brixton where there are already lots of people and empty properties?



I think that it would be great if we could see some of those empty properties used to good purpose.  I also think that the reason that Atlantic Road etc seem so busy a) because there's something happening there (during the day time at least.. not so much at night) and also because it's a very narrow road.  However, I don't think that the Tunstall Road area/Atlantic Road are in any way comparable to a large open square - both are quite different types of space which will lend themselves to different uses entirely.

I don't think that _just_ a cafe will attract people (although a decent pizzeria?????), but certainly if there were events happening that were accessible to a wide range of people, I think it would be busy.  The only time I do hang out opposite the tube is when the little crafts market is there, I sometimes go and have a look and a chat to the stallholders.  Personally, I don't go to cafes in the arcades very much because I find them too "closed in" and busy with passers by (at least at the weekends).  And any cafe in the arcades can only open during the daytime (I believe this is why the former Cafe Pushkar moved out of the arcades onto Coldharbour Lane).

What concerns me more than the cafe itself is what kind of access we will be given to run events in the square.  For example, if the craft club want to have a craft exhibition and or a stitch and bitch meeting... would that be allowed??  If the library wants to run summer time storytelling for kids.. will that be allowed?  What if someone wants to put on music during the day time?  I think that having a large space which is freely accessible to the community to put on it's own events would be great.  It would be nice, therefore, if any cafeteria could also be community managed/owned to fit in with this as opposed to a corporate property.

TBH Newbie, I'm not really too concerned about the exact pinpoint of the "centre of Brixton" and I although I do take your point, I'm not sure it's really worth discussing too much.  Doubtless if we get a map and really, truely look for the "centre of Brixton"..we'll all be surprised to find it's on some back street a long way from the hustle and bustle of the high road.. so it's just semantics really.

Lastly, I think that we're actually fighting on the same side here... I'm sure we all are, we just want to see the best usage of the space possible and so all this debate is really healthy, especially if we can keep it reasonably "argument free"... (I don't mean you in particular, but in general).


----------



## hayduke (Apr 20, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Simply calling this thing Central doesn't make it so.



So the centre of anywhere is where all the shoppers are? 
So the centre of London is Oxford Circus not Trafalgar Square? *

Surely the centre of Brixton is right outside the town hall? 

*actually I believe it's officially Charing X


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I don't think that _just_ a cafe will attract people (although a decent pizzeria?????), but certainly if there were events happening that were accessible to a wide range of people, I think it would be busy.


Some concrete tables with surfaces suitable for dominoes/chess would be a start and maybe a 'busking' area, with a wide range of music on offer







They could maybe also try and revitalise the arts and crafts market that never really took off in Tunstall Rd


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 20, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Some concrete tables with surfaces suitable for dominoes/chess would be a start and maybe a 'busking' area, with a wide range of music on offer
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ooh yes, I always think that those guys on Clapham Common playing chess seem to be enjoying themselves.  And when I lived off Rush Common there was always big groups of guys playing board games on the common during the summer!!

And a busking area would also be great... I could bring my spoons   

I would like to find out how Lambeth will be managing the square and find out if these kind of things will be possible.


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 20, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Some concrete tables with surfaces suitable for dominoes/chess would be a start...


or RISK


----------



## rennie (Apr 20, 2005)

hayduke said:
			
		

> *actually I believe it's officially Charing X




that's what postcodes are based on.


----------



## newbie (Apr 20, 2005)

hayduke said:
			
		

> So the centre of anywhere is where all the shoppers are?
> So the centre of London is Oxford Circus not Trafalgar Square? *
> 
> Surely the centre of Brixton is right outside the town hall?
> ...



London has lots of centres- commercial, shopping, transport, administrative, sport, leisure and so on.  Brixton is a centre in its own right, with all sorts of activities rolled together.  The centre is where the people are.


----------



## linerider (Apr 21, 2005)

gaijingirl
How about "crack bang in the middle of Brixton"...
[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> no,that up the top of brixton hill


----------



## Ultramarine (Apr 21, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *newbie*
> _why would it be brilliant? What is a 'community cafe'?_



I was responding to Lang Rabbie's suggestion - a community cafe could provide training/employment for Coldharbour residents. Why would this be brilliant? Because it would be giving something back to our community, rather than simply using the residents as a source of profit.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> So what were the results of the TFL survey?  (Which is still on the Lambeth site).. do we know what choice was made between closure or not??  (I'm guessing not from what ERG were saying on Saturday).... has anyone demanded the results of this questionnaire or has it been stated that that first questionnaire is now redundant??



  I have supplied my address to TfL requesting the results of their Questionairre.As far as I now it hasnt been officially stated that the first questionairre is redundant.Though some of the comments I heard on the Open Day from Officers make me think that unofficially they think it has.Thats what Im concerned about.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Should have said that the reason for suggesting a "community cafe" is because experience everywhere else suggests that succesful open spaces (at least as measured by peoples feeling of security and willingness to use them) are those with "active frontages" i.e. something going on that allows overlooking of what is happening.
> 
> 
> Alternative suggestions welcome.



  The thing is LR calling it a "community" cafe on the plans makes it seem like its going to be some kind of social service provided to the community.I agree with you on active frontages but it seems to me the planners/officers are trying to get people to sign up to a scheme by using cuddly words like community which in the context have little meaning.

  Starbucks have "community" notice boards in the coffee bars.This could make them a "community" cafe for all I know of what officers think.

  Alternative idea:Brixtons first Cannabis Cafe  .Perhaps opening the BCS with a Cannabis Rally.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2005)

Got an email back from Jo Negrini, Assistant Director - Development Community Renewal Division, London Borough of Lambeth (some title, eh?!)

Dear ++++++

We're in the process of loading all the current proposals that were on
display on Saturday and questionnaire onto the Council's website.  Once this
is done I'll send you a copy of the link.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2005)

aurora green said:
			
		

> I'm proberbly going to regret saying this,   but if its a choice between a costa coffee cafe and no cafe at all, I'd go for the costa option, because I think the space needs a focal point.



   Thats Ok.Im complaining about the use of meaningless jargon.Using words like "Vision" and "Community" as though that makes something one should support.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> London has lots of centres- commercial, shopping, transport, administrative, sport, leisure and so on.  Brixton is a centre in its own right, with all sorts of activities rolled together.  The centre is where the people are.



  I find Im agreeing with all your posts so far on this thread  .Shurely some mistake?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2005)

One thing that springs to mind is something Intostella told me.Somewhere in North London a section of an open space was set aside as a drinking area.A bit like the "wet" houses were the street drinkers are allowed to drink and socialise.I dont see why a section of shouldnt be designed in for them.

  Except I forgot the area has already been designated as a Red Card Zone by the Council  .


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> As for the exhibition, I thought it was deliberately  confusing and nonsensically postmodern.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> And whats wrong with Postmodernism IS?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 22, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> IntoStella said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 22, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> I find Im agreeing with all your posts so far on this thread  .Shurely some mistake?


He only does that to confuse us.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Gramsci said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 22, 2005)

In all these discussions, have any real life examples been used - ie other places in the UK (or maybe even elsewhere) which are similar to what is being proposed?

I am trying to think of places in London that would be a good 'equivalent' of either what I envisage or maybe what could be expected.


----------



## newbie (Apr 22, 2005)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> The thing is LR calling it a "community" cafe on the plans makes it seem like its going to be some kind of social service provided to the community.




but that's precisely what Ultramarine appears to want.  Some sort of scheme with worthy objectives, a management committee and a dollop of public money.  That's fine in its way, I've got nothing against properly set up training initiatives (though I'm not sure training for minimum wage catering is necessarily what the area needs), but I'd suggest it's even less appropriate for this site than a big chain.  

At least the latter will pay to be there, and will operate with the intention of providing a service to the public- they make no profits if they serve no-one.  

A scheme operates on almost the opposite principle: its clients are the trainees, with funding dependent on how successfully their needs are met.  Service to the public is only a peripheral factor, as is profitability.  That's only an issue in as much as the cafe is being used to bolster the case for the square... a cafe that relies on injections of public money could be axed during some cuts in the future (even if it doesn't get mired in corruption).  At which point one of the arguments for the square, the active frontage, collapses.

If there's got to be a square, and there's got to be a cafe because all squares have to have cafes, then I guess I'd prefer neither a chain nor a scheme, but an independent outfit trying to make a living and paying rent- similar deal to the people who run the cafe in Brockwell Park. Except that seems so unfair! I don't think it will be used much except on occasional saturdays during the summer, and will go bust within a year, and enthusiastic people don't need to be set up to fail.  I vote for Starbucks to get the contract  


ps Gramsci.  Sorry.  It must be very disheartening to agree with me


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2005)

Slightly off subject but does anyone else have problems with Lambeths website?Often it comes "page cannot be displayed" downloads dont work etc


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2005)

Veering further off topic, I was in the Square today but was a bit baffled by the one-eyed bloke with the nasty facial scar walking about with a large placard showing a rather gruesome picture of his face not long after it had been damaged.

I tried to make sense of the placard - there was something about Barclays Bank on there amongst other things - but we had to bugger off elsewhere sharpish  so never worked out what it was all about.

 Any ideas, anyone?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> I vote for Starbucks to get the contract



  At last something I can disagree with.I was beginning to get worried.


----------



## charcol (May 9, 2005)

A new Brixton Central Square page has been posted on the Council's website:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/services/environment/regeneration/brixton-central-square/

Following the workshop last month there are now two proposals up for consultation. They are:

Option A - Keeping Effra Road open (as part of a phased development) with:
  -  Larger amount of green space
  -  Larger paved area

Option B - Closing Effra Road with:
  -  Larger amount of green space
  -  Larger paved area

There's a weblink to a questionnaire and contact details at the bottom of the page.


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2005)

Thanks for putting that up Charcoal.The problem is that it contradicts the TfL questionairre thats already gone out.That Questionairee asked a straight question-do you want Effra raod closed or not.This new questionairre does not give one that choice.As TfL are obliged to consult on road closures etc I wonder what the results of their questionairre will be-Ive asked tham to get back to me.

  Looks to me that the Council Officers are manipulating people to sign up to a "phased" development.


----------



## newbie (May 11, 2005)

Looks to me like they underestimated the scale of opposition to their plans and rather than scrap the lot they're trying to salvage something.  Their grand vision is gradually shrinking back to a few paving slabs and maybe a bit of grass ( and a red, circular thing because planners like red, circular things).

The tfl proposal with Effra road kept open is a bit strange.  Southbound traffic can pass either side of St Matthews, depending on the whim of the driver.  I give that no more than 5 years before some bright spark looks at it afresh and concludes that making the traffic one way around the church would be more efficient.


----------



## Pieface (May 12, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> The tfl proposal with Effra road kept open is a bit strange.  Southbound traffic can pass either side of St Matthews, depending on the whim of the driver.  I give that no more than 5 years before some bright spark looks at it afresh and concludes that making the traffic one way around the church would be more efficient.



They are reducing it to a minor road though - perhaps to encourage people to use it only if they are headed Effra Road and beyond?  Although it would probably become a rat run if the junction at Arcre Lane/Brixton Road bottlenecks, which is what everyone is worried about iirc?

The "large" amount of green isn't all that large really when you compare it to St Matthews peace gardens.  I'm asking them why there is so much concrete in the proposal - that patch of grass is crappy!  Families would be more inclined to stop by if there is somwhere for the kids to play a bit.


----------



## newbie (May 12, 2005)

PieEye said:
			
		

> They are reducing it to a minor road though - perhaps to encourage people to use it only if they are headed Effra Road and beyond?  Although it would probably become a rat run if the junction at Arcre Lane/Brixton Road bottlenecks, which is what everyone is worried about iirc?



Minor road aye, but still providing a siphon for the Tulse Hill traffic, with a set of lights at the south end which will interrupt the main flow round the church.  Traffic planning isn't my game, but the original proposal to close off the whole of that stretch at least had advantages for improving the free flow of the traffic.  The more that concept gets diluted, the less advantageous the scheme looks, particularly for the busses.

While we're on the subject, I've always thought the whole St Matthews gyratory works at least as well, if not better, when the traffic lights fail.  It's basically a giant roundabout with obvious rules we're all clear about, and the only part of the junction where traffic crosses the main flow is that heading south or east from Acre Lane.  Whether or not Effra is left open, the new arrangement absolutely depends on working traffic lights.  If, when, they fail the whole thing will gridlock almost immediately because of the different flows necessarily crossing each other. 




> The "large" amount of green isn't all that large really when you compare it to St Matthews peace gardens.  I'm asking them why there is so much concrete in the proposal - that patch of grass is crappy!  Families would be more inclined to stop by if there is somwhere for the kids to play a bit.



Well we'll have to disagree about that.  To my mind the chances of families stopping beside one of the busiest road junctions in S London for their kids to play (on what?) are even more remote than them having picnics on the road end of Max Roach Park.


----------



## Pieface (May 12, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> .
> Well we'll have to disagree about that.  To my mind the chances of families stopping beside one of the busiest road junctions in S London for their kids to play (on what?) are even more remote than them having picnics on the road end of Max Roach Park.



That's fair enough - I was thinking it is more likely if they close Effra rd tbh! They have to try and persuade people to use it somehow though - even if it's not families, I do think grass is more appealing to have than more bloody concrete.


----------



## newbie (May 12, 2005)

PieEye said:
			
		

> That's fair enough - I was thinking it is more likely if they close Effra rd tbh! They have to try and persuade people to use it somehow though - even if it's not families, I do think grass is more appealing to have than more bloody concrete.



I'd agree, but useless space is still useless whether it's grass or concrete.  I've walked both my kids into and back from Brixton centre past that area countless times.  Maybe we paused in Tate Gardens for a rest once or twice, but I have no memory of doing so, nor of having the slightest desire to prolong the experience by being deafened watching sprog breathe in fumes whilst playing.  A trip to actually play would be to the park or to the Windmill, places that are actually pleasant to be in.... except for those who live immediately local I really can't see it as a kids area.

You're right though, they "have to try and persuade people to use it somehow" because like Windrush Square and Max Roach Park, their Grand Vision will be exposed as vacuous when no-one shows any interest.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 12, 2005)

From the flooding POV useless space is better if it's grass rather than concrete.


----------



## newbie (May 12, 2005)

a water meadow!  Now you're talking


----------



## OpalFruit (May 12, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> , nor of having the slightest desire to prolong the experience by being deafened watching sprog breathe in fumes whilst playing.  A trip to actually play would be to the park or to the Windmill, places that are actually pleasant to be in.... except for those who live immediately local I really can't see it as a kids area.
> 
> .



In over 10 years I have never, ever seen a child using the mini-playground which is at the back of the St Matthews site.


----------



## gaijingirl (May 12, 2005)

OpalFruit said:
			
		

> In over 10 years I have never, ever seen a child using the mini-playground which is at the back of the St Matthews site.



I've seen some on the swings there... but not often...


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Looks to me like they underestimated the scale of opposition to their plans and rather than scrap the lot they're trying to salvage something.
> The tfl proposal with Effra road kept open is a bit strange.  Southbound traffic can pass either side of St Matthews, depending on the whim of the driver.



  The interesting question to ask them is what do they mean by "phased".What is the timescale?When will a final decision be taken and how will it be consulted on?

  It also seems a bit strange to me unless its kept open as a bus lane only.

  I think the officers involved are doing this to try and save face.The consultation has been a botch up.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 14, 2005)

Yesterday I saw roughly 60 individuals using Windrush Square...they were all Feral Pigeons. Today I saw no pigeons and three people in Windrush Square...two police officers radioing for assistance and one unconscious man...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2005)

Ive just received a new email from Effra Residents Group re the consultation on BCS.Now the consultation period has officially ended the officers will produce a report for the Brixton Area Commitee(comprised of local Councillors).There will be a meeting on July 13th(open to the public)were the BAC will decide what it will recommend to the Council Executive-who will make the final decision on the BCS project.

  The Officers report should be on the Lambeth website from July 5th.It looks like the BAC will recommend the "phased option" to the Executive.From the email,

 "Council staff are being deliberately vague about what will trigger the move to Phase 2.In particular,we believe the Council may try to apply for planning permission for both stages at the same time-making the move to Phase 2 a foregone conclusion."

  Sounds like the way some Officers go on to me.

   Anyone who is concerned can go to the meeting on the 13th.Ill put up more details when i get them.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Jul 13, 2005)

*Brixton Area Committee meeting today Wed 13th July*

The BAC is holding a public meeting at 7pm at the St. Matthew's Tenants Hall on St. Matthew's Road. Brixton Central Square is the "Key Item".

The agenda and a map showing the venue can be found here:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/41E245EC-87C8-4728-8D13-4512C33DB4ED/0/agendafp.pdf

And a Council report summarising the story so far is here:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2BBCACBE-B606-46CB-A5B6-EDF8BA1D2644/0/Item6brixcentsq.pdf


----------



## urbanspaceman (Jul 13, 2005)

*BAC meeting tonight - starts at 7.30pm*

Although the Lambeth Events Diary says 7pm:

http://213.130.50.58/clients/lbl/cediary/cgi-bin/cediaryeve.exe?EventsDiary

this is contradicted by the Agenda for tonight, which says 7.30pm. I called Lambeth, and after a bit of asking around the office, they told me the correct time is 7.30pm


----------



## hendo (Jul 13, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Yesterday I saw roughly 60 individuals using Windrush Square...they were all Feral Pigeons. Today I saw no pigeons and three people in Windrush Square...two police officers radioing for assistance and one unconscious man...




Which presumably led to this.......the whole place sealed off by half eight.

Whatever they're doing there it isn't working.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 14, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Yesterday I saw roughly 60 individuals using Windrush Square...they were all Feral Pigeons.


And the day before yesterday I saw about 60 kids sitting in the square   - unprecedented!


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 21, 2005)

A dinky wooden model of Gross Max's latest(?) more modest plans for the Square is on display as part of an exhibition of all the projects being promoted by Mayor Ken Livingstone's "Architecture and Urbanism Unit"

It seems to have got rid of the arbitrary oval in the previous plans, and proposes some sort of pavilion where the loos are.

_Civilising Spaces - Improving London's Public Realm_ runs until 8 October at 

New London Architecture
The Building Centre
26 Store Street
London WC1E 7BT

www.newlondonarchitecture.org

- Mon to Fri 9am to 6pm
- Sat 10am to 4pm
- Closed Sun
- Free Admission

Nearest tube stations:
Goodge St / Tottenham Court Rd / Russell Square

Facilities:
Wheelchair Access / Cafe / Book Shop


----------



## clandestino (Sep 21, 2005)

so is there any greenery at all there now?

the woman from gross maxx's face was a picture when i said to her "so you've just put in an oval of grass because it's called the brixton oval. don't you think that's a bit trite?" glad they've ditched it, but not at the expense of any grass at all. i argued for keeping the anarchy sign grass bit we have at the moment and just adding to that.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> It seems to have got rid of the arbitrary oval in the previous plans, and proposes some sort of pavilion where the loos are.


Bleak, Windswept and Soulless are the words that spring to mind.


----------



## clandestino (Sep 21, 2005)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> A dinky wooden model of Gross Max's latest(?) more modest plans for the Square is on display as part of an exhibition of all the projects being promoted by Mayor Ken Livingstone's "Architecture and Urbanism Unit"



is there a link to the new plans or to a picture of the model? i had a look at the nla site but couldn't see anything. does anyone have an email address for anyone at gross max? might be worth emailing them and asking if we can see something - that is, without having to trek into town individually to do so.


----------



## lang rabbie (Sep 21, 2005)

ianw said:
			
		

> so is there any greenery at all there now?



Couldn't tell what surfaces might be from the dinky wooden model, although it seemed to have quite a lot of trees in the southern bit of what is currently Windrush Square.   

However, some of the graphics show suspiciously-grass-like green surfaces.


----------



## rennie (Sep 21, 2005)

what's happening to the Tate Gardens now?


----------



## IntoStella (Sep 21, 2005)

reNnIe said:
			
		

> what's happening to the Tate Gardens now?


I was wondering that this morning. I think they are pruning the trees, judging by the cherry picker. If so, the place would be cordoned off as a health and safety requirement.


----------



## rennie (Sep 21, 2005)

but someone was also digging around the elevated grass!


----------



## BrixiSteve (Sep 21, 2005)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> it looks like a bit of effra road will be closed off and incorporated into the scheme.




A few months ago there was a display (think it was a planning permission sort of thing) in the Tate library in which they were suggesting that part of Effra Road would become another market space with stalls n stuff.  I don't know if they were going to somehow join the markets up (can't really see how they could) or if it was just going to be a new isolated one.  .....?? But, who knows?


----------



## Rushy (Sep 22, 2005)

reNnIe said:
			
		

> but someone was also digging around the elevated grass!



From what I could see they were removing or replacing the big spotlights in the grassy bit. They also took down the old lights in the tree and appear seem to have replaced them with more but smaller lights wrapped around the branches.


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2005)

snipped from a mailing list

_Lambeth Council Executive Committee is meeting on Monday 10 October at 7p 
m. A large part of the agenda is devoted to plans for Brixton Central Square.  The meeting is open to the public and will be held in Room 8 of Lambeth Town Hall.
  At the bottom of this message is a story by Greg Truscott of the South London Press which summarises the issues. While we have managed to ensure that our views will be heard by the Executive Committee, there remain elements within Lambeth Council, TfL and the Mayor B9s Office who will continue promote the original plan for their own reasons, so please find time to attend this meeting on Monday. More details, including the full text of the WS Atkins public opinions survey, at:
http://213.130.50.58/clients/lbl/cediary/cgi-bin/cediaryeve.exe?EventDetail&ERef=2573
_


---8<---

Will they pave way for square revamp?
SOUTH LONDON PRESS Oct 7 2005

By Greg Truscott, South London Press  

A CRUCIAL stage in proposals to transform a public square will be decided upon by councillors next week. 
Lambeth's executive committee will meet to discuss the Brixton Central Square plan put forward by London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Transport for London (TfL). 
Mr Livingstone wants to join Tate Gardens, Windrush Square and St Matthew's Peace Gardens. 
The Mayor's office, TfL and Lambeth council have worked in partnership on the initial stages of the multi-million pound project. 
But the original plan met with widespread opposition from residents because of a proposal to close part of Effra Road to traffic. 
They feared the closure would create a large, pedestrianized no man's land where drug dealing and street robberies would increase. 
The area is already known as having a crime problem. 
TfL revised its plan after hearing residents' concerns during a series of public consultations this year. 
It now proposes phasing the Brixton Central Square scheme over two stages. 
The first stage would not see Effra Road closed, but TfL has not ruled closing the road during the second stage. 
The amended TfL proposal was put to Brixton Area Committee - chaired by ward councillors - who backed plans to close Rushcroft Road to traffic but opposed the closure of Effra Road without additional consultation. 
Town hall officers have recommended Lambeth's executive committee press on with the new square development. 
They say the executive should support the &quot;unification&quot; of Brixton Oval and Windrush Square and the closure of Rushcroft Road. 
Officers have also sought permission to invite TfL to enter into discussions with the borough's planning department ahead of submitting an application to create the new public space. 
The executive will also be asked to consider the recommendations from the Brixton Area Committee. 
The committee has recommended &quot;the council should make it clear that any future proposal to close Effra Road should not be taken forward unless there is a clear and demonstrable public support&quot;. 
It also recommended any future proposal to close Effra Road should not be included in TfL's Brixton Central Square planning application. 
Should the executive accept the recommendation it would mean TfL would then have to seek planning permission for each stage of its Brixton Central Square Project. 
The council report shows that TfL intends to spend &pound;6million on improvements to Brixton town centre between now and 2009. 
It reveals the council would require a further &pound;2million from other funding, such as government grants, should it continue to work with TfL and the Mayor's office to advance the square project. 
Lambeth's executive will meet on Monday at Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton. 
The meeting, which begins at 7pm, is open to the public.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 15, 2005)

Apparently the revised Central Square Project was rejected at the meeting and the offer of funding refused by Lambeth. Does anyone know what happens next? Or is that it?

http://www.valshawcross.com/newslambethslammedonbrixton.htm


----------



## lang rabbie (Nov 15, 2005)

It seems Lambeth's Executive turned down the idea of closing Effra Road.
From a quick reading, I think there were also some concerns about the value for money of the whole project, which TFL/GLA had not fully agreed to fund, leaving several million for Lambeth to raise.

Minutes of 10 October executive meeting

This decision was "called in" by Councillor Toren Smith and referred to Lambeth's Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee 

Various detailed Reports here
(some may slip to page 2 as page is updated)

Minutes of scrutiny meeting

The scrutiny committee have recommended that the Executive look again at the decision.


----------



## rennie (Nov 15, 2005)

so it ain't happening then?


----------



## lang rabbie (Nov 15, 2005)

On my reading, it's a political spat with the Labour Party claiming that the Tory/Lib Dem council is trying to kill the project, while the Council is looking to see the colour of Ken Livingstone's money given his (apparent) previous commitment to fully fund the project as part of the 100 spaces programme.

I also think there's more cock-up than conspiracy in the way that the Executive's amended resolution appears to have been put together on the night of the meeting.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Nov 23, 2005)

Considering the £7M that the new BCS is forecast to cost, and the ongoing maintenance that will be needed, I thought it was worrying that Lambeth allows years to go by between tidyings up even of the modest frontage of the Tate Library. Below is an exchange of messages with Lesley Ray, who is head of Libraries,
concerning problems with the Tate Library. I am encouraged by her responsiveness and awareness of the problem.

========================================================================

On 23 November 2005 urbanspaceman wrote:

Dear Ms Ray

Thank you for your rapid and complete reply to my message of yesterday. I am 
heartened to hear of the plans you have for the Tate Library, and am sure 
that the measures you have in mind will constitute a great improvement. I 
look forward to seeing the works you describe commence in the New Year

Regards

urbanspaceman 
========================================================================

On 23/11/05 10:22, "Ray,Lesley" wrote:

Dear urbanspaceman

Thank you for your email and for bringing your concerns about the appearance 
of Brixton library to my attention. I am very much aware that the current 
condition is far from satisfactory and am trying to address it. We are due 
to have some exterior works to the building in the early new year which will 
improve its appearance and involve the erection of full scaffolding for a 
brief period. I intend that a new arrangement for removal of the vegetation 
will be in place to coincide with the completion of the works and removal of 
the scaffolding. This was previously carried out by another Council 
department and has discontinued. I will also arrange for the rubbish to be 
cleared away. Due to the nature of the debris this requires specialist 
cleaning with the use of protective equipment. Unfortunately, despite 
extensive renovation to Tate Gardens this area still attracts an undesirable 
element and extends to include the immediate boundary of the library.

I have major concerns about the safety and security of library staff, 
particularly at night when exiting the building, and am pleased to inform 
you that, with the help of colleagues from Community Safety, exterior 
lighting is soon to be fitted to the building. It is currently being 
surveyed to decide the number of lights and most appropriate positioning. 
Hopefully it will be in place before Christmas. A member of staff was 
recently assaulted on the steps while attempting to go to work so I am 
hoping that this, and the installation of gates (pending a successful 
planning application) at the base of the steps, will alleviate the problem. 
Thank you once again for writing to me and I hope you will continue to use 
Brixton Library.

Regards

Lesley Ray Head of Libraries, Archives and Arts Cultural Services 
Environment and Culture Directorate London Borough of Lambeth 
========================================================================

From: urbanspaceman
Sent: 22 November 2005  17:29
To: Lesley Ray
Cc: D Lawrence
Subject: Frontage of Tate Library

Dear Ms. Ray I understand that you are  responsible for libraries in 
Lambeth, and that Mr Lawrence is head of Leisure  and Culture. I am writing 
to bring the state of the frontage of the Tate  Library to your attention. 
When I visited the Library today, I was asked to  complete a customer 
survey, which I duly did. I am encouraged that you are  interested in the 
views of library users and would like to offer some  observations.

I have attached some photographs of the curtilage of the  Tate Library, 
namely the space between the iron railings and the building  itself. You 
will see that this area is neglected and squalid, a mixture of 
long-established vegetation rooted in and growing out of the fabric of the 
building, and general garbage - including broken bottles and used syringes.

I  am somewhat surprised that you have not yet noticed this situation 
yourselves  - the thriving plants in particular have taken several years to 
establish themselves. You may also know that the front steps and doorway of 
the Tate Library, being in shadow and sheltered, are colonised by aggressive  
beggars and drug dealers when the Library is closed. Might I suggest that 
you install a bright overhead light to mitigate this problem ?

In summary,  the Tate Library offers a convenient haunt for antisocial 
elements outside  opening hours, and presents a shabby and decaying 
appearance all the time.

I look forward to your response

Regards

urbanspaceman


----------



## Bob (Dec 12, 2005)

Worth being aware that any organisation has the obligation to keep this sort of front area clean - and the council can hassle them under some obscure law to clean it up. If you email the council on streetcarecallcentre@lambeth.gov.uk  they'll sort it for you. Doesn't happen quickly because they have to find the owner and threaten them rather than just sending round the Lambeth rubbish people - but it does work - i've successfully got rubbish removed from in front of advertising hoardings a few times this way.


----------

