# Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)



## ringo (Apr 4, 2018)

Is this the same lot who had the French restaurant on Acre Lane of the same name? 

I emailed them the other week and they told me they weren't giving out memberships any more. Just called the number on their website for guest reservations to try and book an anniversary dinner and was told they don't take bookings from non-members.

Bit snobby innit? It's not like there aren't hundreds of decent restaurants in London cooking good food. I'd rather go somewhere that gives me a warm welcome and makes me feel like they deserve the price of a good plate of food than deal with stuck up attitudes like this. It's hardly Claridges.

Or is there some kind of legal restriction suggested by this that I'm not aware of?

"*Our rooftop location means guests must be registered with us before we can take reservations. To make a guest reservation for dining or drinks please email
bookings@thedepartmentstore.com or call 020 3598 6970"*

*Home*


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

ringo said:


> Is this the same lot who had the French restaurant on Acre Lane of the same name?
> 
> I emailed them the other week and they told me they weren't giving out memberships any more. Just called the number on their website for guest reservations to try and book an anniversary dinner and was told they don't take bookings from non-members.
> 
> ...


It's just elitist shit. Fuck the Department store and their filthy rich luxury clients.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 4, 2018)

Upstairs along Acre Lane was the most overrated and overpriced place to eat in town.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 4, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Upstairs along Acre Lane was the most overrated and overpriced place to eat in town.


Only in the latter part of its existence. The first few years, while they still had the downstairs bar, it was pretty damned good ime.


----------



## Twattor (Apr 4, 2018)

Wasn't upstairs on Acre Lane something to do with Philippe Castaing?


----------



## ringo (Apr 4, 2018)

editor said:


> It's just elitist shit. Fuck the Department store and their filthy rich clients.


If they're turning away bookings on a Thursday night when they have free tables out some kind of desire for exclusivity then balls to them. The woman I spoke to told me she'd only call back if they could find 
my email address in their directory. That's a pretty poor level of service from someone that wants my money.

Not a great business model in a competitive food market like Brixton is these days either.

The old Upstairs was alright, had good food but it felt a bit like eating in someone's front room and I didn't think it good enough value to go back.


----------



## Twattor (Apr 4, 2018)

ringo said:


> Is this the same lot who had the French restaurant on Acre Lane of the same name?
> 
> I emailed them the other week and they told me they weren't giving out memberships any more. Just called the number on their website for guest reservations to try and book an anniversary dinner and was told they don't take bookings from non-members.
> 
> ...


A bit of googling would seem to indicate that they don't have a licence, so are operating for "guests" only as a way of getting around that in the short term.


----------



## ringo (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> A bit of googling would seem to indicate that they don't have a licence, so are operating for "guests" only as a way of getting around that in the short term.


I wondered that, but it doesn't excuse not giving out memberships. Twats. I don't want to feel exclusive. I want to feel welcomed and comfortable so that I can enjoy good food and company. 

The menu doesn't really look that special either, it's gastropub level at best and I can do that at home.

The only good thing about these "exclusive" places is that the kind of people who want to feel exclusive will be there and not be where I am.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Wasn't upstairs on Acre Lane something to do with Philippe Castaing?


Brixton Green & Pop Brixton's finest. What great he does for the Brixton community.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Wasn't upstairs on Acre Lane something to do with Philippe Castaing?


Him and his wife ran both Upstairs and Opus iirc.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Apr 4, 2018)

TruXta said:


> Only in the latter part of its existence. The first few years, while they still had the downstairs bar, it was pretty damned good ime.



When it first opened it was really good food and was great at accommodating Mr Shakes veganness. It was definitely in the special occasion price bracket though. The last couple of times we went there it wasn't anywhere near as good and it felt like being a vegan was being difficult.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 4, 2018)

shakespearegirl said:


> When it first opened it was really good food and was great at accommodating Mr Shakes veganness. It was definitely in the special occasion price bracket though. The last couple of times we went there it wasn't anywhere near as good and it felt like being a vegan was being difficult.


Definitely never a cheap eat.


----------



## sw16er (Apr 4, 2018)

ringo said:


> Is this the same lot who had the French restaurant on Acre Lane of the same name?
> 
> I emailed them the other week and they told me they weren't giving out memberships any more. Just called the number on their website for guest reservations to try and book an anniversary dinner and was told they don't take bookings from non-members.
> 
> ...



I personally would not have anything to do with an establishment like this given your experience with them.

They are too busy to take custom?  Wow...just wow....

Regardless of whether they have legal restrictions, at the very least they should give everybody a warm welcome, how difficult can it really be to respond to enquiries in a warm manner?

I can't comment on the quality of the restaurant as I have not been here and did not frequent their space on Acre Lane due to the Membership malarkey which I find plain ridiculous TBH.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Apr 4, 2018)

You didn't have to be a member to go to Upstairs


----------



## sw16er (Apr 4, 2018)

shakespearegirl said:


> You didn't have to be a member to go to Upstairs



My bad. For some reason I thought you had to be a member at the old place too?

I never actively attempted to go to there old place as I was put off by something...I cannot for the live of me remember what it was now...I thought it was membership...maybe it was something else.


----------



## ricbake (Apr 4, 2018)

Squires Architects at the Department Store have Downstairs event space and Upstairs which is their own restaurant which to generate extra income is now also a members only semi public arrangement when available - if you have got your name on the list....


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

Some twat has piped up


----------



## ringo (Apr 4, 2018)

If that's a response to this thread then there's a lesson in spectacularly missing the point and proving the premise of the thread. Imagine being stuck on a table next to that monumental bell end.


----------



## Twattor (Apr 4, 2018)

To be fair he has a point. I don't know anything about licensing law but there may well be a limit imposed if they are to exploit that loophole to operate before their licence is sorted. 

People have been quick to jump to conclusions with no evidence to support them.


----------



## alcopop (Apr 4, 2018)

It’s really easy to get membership


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> People have been quick to jump to conclusions with no evidence to support them.


Is the restaurant exclusive? Why, yes it most certainly is.
Have they made efforts to invite the wider community? None that I can see.
Are 'normal' non well-off Brixton folk likely to get in or even know it exists? Unlikely, I'd say.
Is it owned by loaded architects who create luxury palaces., lavish hotels and mega-houses for the super rich? Why, yes it is.

To argue that it's only those pesky licensing restrictions that's preventing the restaurant from flinging its doors wide open to all of Brixton is a bit lalaland.


----------



## Twattor (Apr 4, 2018)

editor said:


> Is the restaurant exclusive? Why, yes it most certainly is.
> Have they made efforts to invite the wider community? None that I can see.
> Are 'normal' non well-off Brixton folk likely to get in or even know it exists? Unlikely, I'd say.
> Is it owned by loaded architects who create luxury palaces., lavish hotels and mega-houses for the super rich? Why, yes it is.
> ...



Loaded architects who also design a load of social housing. They are a company. They do stuff for money. Get over it.

I like what they've done with the building. It had been under-utilised for a while and Lambeth have been complaining that office use was shrinking in the area so that's a win.

I also like that they have made access available to their private space rather than us having to wait until open house London. Like you I'd have liked to have seen it more widely advertised as, like the OP I've found out about it too late to have a look.


----------



## ringo (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> To be fair he has a point. I don't know anything about licensing law but there may well be a limit imposed if they are to exploit that loophole to operate before their licence is sorted.
> 
> People have been quick to jump to conclusions with no evidence to support them.


Do you mean our lovely Kevin here or the staff member? 

Our Kevin doesn't have a point regarding the membership. He's suggesting that the membership has merit because it's keeping people like me out, which is funny, but bollocks. The membership was not selective, members are in no way better or more suitable than non-members. He's using the illusion of exclusivity to claim superiority. Hardly a new trick, but one most of us would like to see the back of, along with the self-entitled pricks who use it to climb on the backs of others. 

The place might be subject to membership restrictions but I judged them not on that, but their poor customer service, their website, their menu and their reputation.

The staff member didn't explain the reason and told me she would only call me back if they could book us in. I expect better customer care than that, who's going to wait around for a call that will probably never come?

I might make some sort of effort for a Michelin starred restaurant, but not a place serving ten pound pub food with dismissive staff, a sense of worth far beyond their position and the elitist reputation they've already earned on these boards.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Loaded architects who also design a load of social housing.


How much 'social housing' exactly? 

Most of their portfolio seems to be about catering to the important whims of the super-super rich. You know the kind of people who are busy stuffing their faces with luxury while the vast majority struggle to get a decent meal on their plate everyt day.


----------



## Twattor (Apr 4, 2018)

ringo said:


> Do you mean our lovely Kevin here or the staff member?
> 
> Our Kevin doesn't have a point regarding the membership. He's suggesting that the membership has merit because it's keeping people like me out, which is funny, but bollocks. The membership was not selective, members are in no way better or more suitable than non-members. He's using the illusion of exclusivity to claim superiority. Hardly a new trick, but one most of us would like to see the back of, along with the self-entitled pricks who use it to climb on the backs of others.
> 
> ...


No. My post was in relation purely to his comment on the reaction here. Clearly, if there were factors outside their control then the people you dealt with should have explained the situation.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> No. My post was in relation purely to his comment on the reaction here. Clearly, if there were factors outside their control then the people you dealt with should have explained the situation.


I've taken a look but been unable to locate their many '_social housing_' designs as you claimed. 

You said there was "loads" of them, so perhaps you could list some of them here? Thanks.


----------



## Twattor (Apr 4, 2018)

editor said:


> How much 'social housing' exactly?
> 
> Most of their portfolio seems to be about catering to the important whims of the super-super rich. You know the kind of people who are busy stuffing their faces with luxury while the vast majority struggle to get a decent meal on their plate everyt day.


Would you prefer that they didn't design any? Would it make it easier to vilify them?


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Would you prefer that they didn't design any? Would it make it easier to vilify them?


I couldn't find ANY of their social housing designs, let alone the "loads" you claimed. Where are they please?


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 4, 2018)

In all fairness, it's difficult to expect any level of customer service if you're not actually a customer


----------



## Twattor (Apr 4, 2018)

editor said:


> I couldn't find ANY of their social housing designs, let alone the "loads" you claimed. Where are they please?


Affordable Housing • Architecture • Squire and Partners


----------



## ringo (Apr 4, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> In all fairness, it's difficult to expect any level of customer service if you're not actually a customer


Obviously taking requests for a table at a restaurant requires customer service.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Affordable Housing • Architecture • Squire and Partners


No, you can't be that stupid as to think 'affordable homes' are the same as social housing, can you?

There is no fucking comparison and to bring them up to suggest the architects have some sort of deep rooted social concerns is beyond laughable.


----------



## Twattor (Apr 4, 2018)

editor said:


> No, you can't be that stupid as to think 'affordable homes' are the same as social housing, can you?
> 
> There is no fucking comparison and to bring them up to suggest the architects have some sort of deep rooted social concerns is beyond laughable.


No, you can't be as stupid as to think it doesn't, can you?

"Affordable" covers shared ownership, affordable rent and social rent. Usually as a rule of thumb these would be somewhere around the 40%:30%:30% ratio across a development. So yes, they will undoubtably be designing social housing. I'd imagine that the examples on the website are a fraction of their jobs, but the others may not be that photogenic.

If you don't belive me then you can get on the planning portal and pull the s106 agreements for some of those schemes - they will stipulate the social provision.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> No, you can't be as stupid as to think it doesn't, can you?
> 
> "Affordable" covers shared ownership, affordable rent and social rent. Usually as a rule of thumb these would be somewhere around the 40%:30%:30% ratio across a development. So yes, they will undoubtably be designing social housing. I'd imagine that the examples on the website are a fraction of their jobs, but the others may not be that photogenic.
> 
> If you don't belive me then you can get on the planning portal and pull the s106 agreements for some of those schemes - they will stipulate the social provision.


You claimed that they designed 'loads' of social housing but are unable to provide a single actual example anywhere. 

LOL.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

And: Social housing v affordable housing - Designing Buildings Wiki


----------



## Twattor (Apr 4, 2018)

editor said:


> You claimed that they designed 'loads' of social housing but are unable to provide a single actual example anywhere.
> 
> LOL.


Please refer to previous post


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Please refer to previous post


Just admit you don't have a single piece of proof to back up your assertion that the company has designed any social housing - let alone loads of it -  and we can move on.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 4, 2018)

They did work pro bono for Brixton Windmill (the one with sails)


----------



## Twattor (Apr 4, 2018)

editor said:


> Just admit you don't have a single piece of proof to back up your assertion that the company has designed any social housing - let alone loads of it -  and we can move on.


One of the examples cited on their website was a new head office for UNISON with 17 units of affordable within it. Do you think that would have been social, or affordable?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Loaded architects who also design a load of social housing..



Really?



> Sadiq Khan has continued his tough stance on ‘unacceptable’ affordable housing levels by refusing amended plans by Squire & Partners for a former Metropolitan Police HQ




London mayor refuses Squire towers change as affordable housing stance toughens

Mayor Khan says of Squires plans:



> The scheme put forward for this site is simply unacceptable: it fails to provide the maximum amount of affordable housing that could be delivered on this landmark site, and follows a previous application in which the affordable housing provision agreed by the previous mayor was already appallingly low.’


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 4, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> In all fairness, it's difficult to expect any level of customer service if you're not actually a customer



As usual you aren't getting the point.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 4, 2018)

On the thread in politics about Corbyn Jewdas has come up. The Jewish Socialist group Corbyn met this week. And got stick for. The posts here on the virtues of Squires reminded me of the recent post on Jewdas website. Whilst critical of Corbyn on anti semitism they support what he stands for on the left.

Enough is enough.


> This is not even just about Israel.
> 
> This is about people of a certain age, class and political persuasion who have no idea how to function in a system where every political party isn’t pandering to their views exactly. It is about the threat that the possibility of nationalisation, rent caps and redistribution of wealth poses to *the people whose ‘philanthropy’ funds our community. We have allowed our community to be dominated by middle- and upper- class people who are actively opposed to our material interests for way too long.*
> 
> Enough is more than fucking enough.




Enough is Enough! – Jewdas

Couldn't agree more. Nothing to add to this.

Except that I'm really glad Corbyn went ahead and attended this group function rather than excusing himself due to possible bad publicity.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 4, 2018)

Twattor said:


> No, you can't be as stupid as to think it doesn't, can you?
> 
> "Affordable" covers shared ownership, affordable rent and social rent. Usually as a rule of thumb these would be somewhere around the 40%:30%:30% ratio across a development. So yes, they will undoubtably be designing social housing. I'd imagine that the examples on the website are a fraction of their jobs, but the others may not be that photogenic.
> 
> If you don't belive me then you can get on the planning portal and pull the s106 agreements for some of those schemes - they will stipulate the social provision.



Quite. So it's got nothing to do with Squires. It's down to CIL and section 106 agreements.


----------



## Harbourite (Apr 4, 2018)

ringo said:


> I'd rather go somewhere that gives me a warm welcome and makes me feel like they deserve the price of a good plate of food than deal with stuck up attitudes like this.



maybe try salon - i got a warm welcome for an anniversary dinner and the food was fantastic


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2018)

sparkybird said:


> They did work pro bono for Brixton Windmill (the one with sails)


That's nice but it's got nothing to do with social housing and they've made sure that their work for the Windmill is nicely featured in their portfolio.


----------



## ringo (Apr 5, 2018)

Harbourite said:


> maybe try salon - i got a warm welcome for an anniversary dinner and the food was fantastic


Thanks, we're going to Courtesan now, but that looks worth a try.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

Twattor said:


> One of the examples cited on their website was a new head office for UNISON with 17 units of affordable within it. Do you think that would have been social, or affordable?


You really don't understand what social housing is, do you?

Here. let me help you.


> Social housing is let at low rents on a secure basis to those who are most in need or struggling with their housing costs. Normally councils and not-for-profit organisations (such as housing associations) are the ones to provide social housing.
> 
> *Social housing is affordable housing*
> A key function of social housing is to provide accommodation that is affordable to people on low incomes. Limits to rent increases set by law mean that rents are kept affordable.
> ...


Now either show me a sizeable selection of the "loads" of social housing projects that Squire have supposedly designed, or you could just admit that you made that bit up and made yourself look a bit silly.

Oh and if you think any mega-rich luxury architect firm designing affordable homes deserves some sort of round of applause for their social minded concerns, you got that wrong too. And that is why you brought it up in the first place, no?

Affordable housing does not mean what you think it means


----------



## Harbourite (Apr 5, 2018)

ringo said:


> Thanks, we're going to Courtesan now, but that looks worth a try.


have a nice time and happy anniversary


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And for all their widely broadcast attempts to ingratiate themselves with the community, this is where their true colours lie: collaborating with the Abu Dhabi Financial Group to deprive Londoners of even the bare minimum of (guffaw) "affordable" homes, just so they can rake in more cash for themselves:


> Mayor Sadiq Khan has continued his tough stance on “unacceptable” affordable housing levels by refusing amended plans by Squire & Partners for a former Metropolitan Police HQ
> 
> An initial application for a 268-home, 20-story scheme at 8-10 Broadway, New Scotland Yard, was approved by Westminster Council last year, even though it included just 10 affordable flats and breached the authority’s own planning guidance on tall buildings.
> 
> ...


285 luxury homes and just ten 'affordable' ones. Pathetic.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Apr 5, 2018)

Their 'Current' plans include a 'Zubabox ' with Aid Agencies, providing internet access in a range of African countries, and a design for a children's hospice that they are supporting.
I was given membership when they first opened their Upstairs because I attended various community meetings that they gave space to in the basement. They have been keen to employ and train local young people, and approached me to recruit amongst our young trainees and participants. As I understood it the club / guest / invite status was while they get a licence. It's a nice place to have a drink, the views are fab, they stock Brixton Beer and other local suppliers (I only ever drink Reliance Pale Ale) and the staff are friendly. I haven't eaten there.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Their 'Current' plans include a 'Zubabox ' with Aid Agencies, providing internet access in a range of African countries, and a design for a children's hospice that they are supporting.


Given their vast wealth and sumptuous head offices, of course they should be giving something back - and I'm sure they'll let everyone know all about it - but that doesn't let them off the hook for collaborating with dodgy developers to deprive Londoners of affordable homes.

When this lot charged into town, gentrification took another huge leap forward, so they're partly responsible for the displacement taking place.

And I can't say I find much cheer in their client list either: they're mainly about servicing the precious needs of the super rich and the privileged.


OvalhouseDB said:


> It's a nice place to have a drink, the views are fab, they stock Brixton Beer and other local suppliers (I only ever drink Reliance Pale Ale) and the staff are friendly. I haven't eaten there.


I'm sure it's lovely and swishy, but I don't think they've particularly reached out to the existing community.

It's just another divisive layer to a Brixton that is rapidly turning into a two tier town.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Apr 5, 2018)

How do you get a membership for this? Looks excellent.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Apr 5, 2018)

I was given membership when they first opened their Upstairs because I attended various community meetings that they gave space to in the basement. They have been keen to employ and train local young people, and approached me to recruit amongst our young trainees and participants. As I understood it the club / guest / invite status was while they get a licence.

This sounds to me like they are engaging with the community. Giving space to community meetings and proactively trying to employ and train local young people. 

I think Squires have done an excellent job of renovating the building and I'm not sure who apart from an architects would have put such effort in. 

From personal experience I know there is a lack of office space in Brixton, when looking for an office last year Brixton was one of our options. There was literally one office available at the size a small to medium business could move into. Lack of office space means less employment options for locals in the area outside or retail and hospitality.


----------



## alcopop (Apr 5, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> How do you get a membership for this? Looks excellent.


Yeah, it’s really cool


----------



## alcopop (Apr 5, 2018)

editor said:


> And for all their widely broadcast attempts to ingratiate themselves with the community, this is where their true colours lie: collaborating with the Abu Dhabi Financial Group to deprive Londoners of even the bare minimum of (guffaw) "affordable" homes, just so they can rake in more cash for themselves:
> 285 luxury homes and just ten 'affordable' ones. Pathetic.


You do realise that architects are given a brief which they then design to don’t you?


----------



## Reiabuzz (Apr 5, 2018)

shakespearegirl said:


> I think Squires have done an excellent job of renovating the building and I'm not sure who apart from an architects would have put such effort in.



Yeh, from some of the posts on this thread you’d they think it was conservative central office that had opened up there. They seem alright to me. They can't help that they are operating in an industry that is by nature stylish so their premises will reflect that. The usual hidebound nonsense.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 5, 2018)

I've always just preferred good quality grub at reasonable prices and not pretentious - whether it be the local pub, Indian, Chinese or Persian restaurant, etc. Where you can pretty much just ring up to book (or even just walk in off the street) and be made welcome. 'Stylish premises' has never really been something I've been bothered about, Brick Lane went up its own arse after a while chasing that...


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

alcopop said:


> You do realise that architects are given a brief which they then design to don’t you?


You do realise that architects can chose which projects they work on - especially ones as successful and as wealthy as this lot - so when a morally dodgy Middle East developer asks them, "Hey, be sure to get the affordable housing commitment down to the absolute bare minimum" they don't have to say yes.

But this is what they do. Their business is catering to the needs of the super rich, while throwing a few crumbs to the community to make them look good. 

I won't be doffing my cap to them. I see them as part of the problem, not the solution.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Apr 5, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> Yeh, from some of the posts on this thread you’d they think it was conservative central office that had opened up there. They seem alright to me. They can't help that they are operating in an industry that is by nature stylish so their premises will reflect that. The usual hidebound nonsense.



And that the industry they operate in will have a range of clients, of course the ones with more money will be doing the more lavish developments.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

shakespearegirl said:


> And that the industry they operate in will have a range of clients, of course the ones with more money will be doing the more lavish developments.


And this lot specialise in catering to the super rich.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 5, 2018)

Anyway, it seems not a day doesn't go by where I'm not gobsmacked by something (but at the same time not particularly in this increasingly bizarre neoliberal world) in that here we have a restaurant, except its not really that in any usual meaning of the word...




			
				Upstairsbrixton said:
			
		

> The name of the premises is Upstairs at The Department Store (“Upstairs”) which is operated by
> The Department Store Brixton Ltd (“DSB”)
> 
> Upstairs is a proprietary private guest restaurant and bar, on premises owned by Squire and Partners,
> ...


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Anyway, it seems not a day doesn't go by where I'm not gobsmacked by something (but at the same time not particularly in this increasingly bizarre neoliberal world) in that here we have a restaurant, except its not really that in any usual meaning of the word...


The very definition of exclusivity. But at least they admit it's only there to promote themselves rather to be something the whole community can enjoy.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Apr 5, 2018)

editor said:


> And this lot specialise in catering to the super rich.



That is true, the super rich are the clients who are going to have the budget and ambition to do more challenging and unique work, which would likely appeal to an architects firm. 

They can only work on pro bono projects due to the profits they make working for wealthier clients.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 5, 2018)

editor said:


> The very definition of exclusivity. But at least they admit it's only there to promote themselves rather to be something the whole community can enjoy.



The website's not particularly honest though about it.

It does just say... '_Upstairs is a new restaurant and bar in Brixton serving fine food and drinks on the top floor of The Department Store.
Our rooftop location means guests must be registered with us before we can take reservations. To make a guest reservation for dining or drinks please email or call..._'

So, I'd look at that and think I'll ring then and book (even 'register' - whatever that entails). Then you read the T&Cs and its basically a private function space for a fucking architect to entertain/feed clients/associates in. Oh, but they'll let you in as a 'guest'. I mean, its certainly exclusive, but all the bullshittery that goes with it too. Just say 'we're part of Squires Architects and primarily a function space really but the public re able to eat here if they want to register/book'.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

shakespearegirl said:


> That is true, the super rich are the clients who are going to have the budget and ambition to do more challenging and unique work, which would likely appeal to an architects firm.
> 
> They can only work on pro bono projects due to the profits they make working for wealthier clients.


If they're happy dealing with those kind of people, that's their choice. But I won't be cheering on a firm that works hand in hand with Middle Eastern property developers on projects that involve stripping out as much affordable housing as possible.

Fuck them. And whether they buy beer from the Brixton Brewery (now part owned by Heineken) or drop a few crumbs into worthy projects won't erase the fact that they're part of the profiteering cancer that is killing London.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Apr 5, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> The website's not particularly honest though about it.
> 
> It does just say... '_Upstairs is a new restaurant and bar in Brixton serving fine food and drinks on the top floor of The Department Store.
> Our rooftop location means guests must be registered with us before we can take reservations. To make a guest reservation for dining or drinks please email or call..._'
> ...



That’s a temporary licensing issue or something according to their website.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 5, 2018)

I can't see anything on the website about this at all, and all their T&Cs say...




			
				UpstairsatBrickers said:
			
		

> CODE OF CONDUCT AND LICENSING CONDITIONS
> 
> The sale or supply of alcohol and other licensable activities in the premises is permitted within the
> hours and conditions permitted under the Premises License in respect of Upstairs. Guests and friends
> must not engage in any behaviour or activity that breaches or imperils the DSB Premises License.



Also, does anyone know if they do charge for a joining fee/subscription? Or is this just their T&Cs covering the option?




			
				UpstairsatBrickers said:
			
		

> RULES OF OBTAINING AND MAINTAINING A GUEST CARD
> 
> The name of the premises is Upstairs at The Department Store (“Upstairs”) which is operated by
> The
> ...



And the possibility of guest 'tiers' too


----------



## Reiabuzz (Apr 5, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> I can't see anything on the website about this at all, and all their T&Cs say...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It’s at the top of the page 

Upstairs at The Department Store


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 5, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> It’s at the top of the page
> 
> Upstairs at The Department Store



Ah, its on the DSB site, not the restaurant one.


----------



## artyfarty (Apr 5, 2018)

Ok I’ll come clean. I went a while ago with a friend who invited us. The view is good the space is pretty huge. The staff were charming the food was middling. You can watch people doing drug deals in the back street below. The clientele didn’t look rich just gentrified new Brixton. Beats me why it’s booked solid days in advance though.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

artyfarty said:


> Ok I’ll come clean. I went a while ago with a friend who invited us. The view is good the space is pretty huge. The staff were charming the food was middling. You can watch people doing drug deals in the back street below. The clientele didn’t look rich just gentrified new Brixton. Beats me why it’s booked solid days in advance though.


The place is huge. Someone was saying earlier that office space was urgently needed in Brixton but this lot are hogging loads of it for themselves. 

The downstairs/entrance area is massive and it's been left more or less empty because it makes a big design statement or something. Imagine how many offices you could fit into that empty space alone!


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

artyfarty said:


> Ok I’ll come clean. I went a while ago with a friend who invited us. The view is good the space is pretty huge. The staff were charming the food was middling. You can watch people doing drug deals in the back street below.


Edgy!


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 5, 2018)

shakespearegirl said:


> That is true, the super rich are the clients who are going to have the budget and ambition to do more challenging and unique work, which would likely appeal to an architects firm.
> 
> They can only work on pro bono projects due to the profits they make working for wealthier clients.



Exactly. I do this myself. I take on complex and expensive projects from people who have the money to afford them. This pays my bills. Then I can do work at low or no cost for those who can't.
What does that make me??


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 5, 2018)

Almost wish it was still derelict, then we wouldn't be arguing over such a trivial thing. It's their offices, they can do with it as they please.

But seeing as we are discussing it, how long do license applications normally take?

The photos make it look great


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 5, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> Almost wish it was still derelict, then we wouldn't be arguing over such a trivial thing. It's their offices, they can do with it as they please.
> 
> But seeing as we are discussing it, how long do license applications normally take?
> 
> The photos make it look great



Anyway, I don't think anyone has said they can't do what they like with it, because they clearly they can and are - the benefits of capital eh?! People are just as entitled to criticise it though for what it represents in a wider context of rapid social and economic change in an area and its affect. 

And its just not a restaurant really is it, not in anyone I know sense of word?! It looks very swish, but its basically a huge loft apartment with fuck all tables, some sofa's and four designer deck chairs.


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 5, 2018)

Those four tables in the back of the image seat 48 people. That's more than many restaurants. Now you're gonna tell me you want your own table. Next it'll be proper cutlery.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Anyway, I don't think anyone has said they can't do what they like with it, because they clearly they can and are - the benefits of capital eh?! People are just as entitled to criticise it though for what it represents in a wider context of rapid social and economic change in an area and its affect.
> 
> And its just not a restaurant really is it, not in anyone I know sense of word?! It looks very swish, but its basically a huge loft apartment with fuck all tables, some sofa's and four designer deck chairs.


Imagine what that space alone must be worth! And that's only a tiny part of their premises. 

They must have made a fortune for themselves with all their dealings with ultra-rich investors and dodgy offshore developers trying to avoid any kind of affordable housing obligations.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 5, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> Those four tables in the back of the image seat 48 people. That's more than many restaurants. Now you're gonna tell me you want your own table. Next it'll be proper cutlery.



There's nothing appealing for me in that setting at all. It looks really uninviting to me as somewhere to eat. Better possibly as a busy bar (which it might be if it was properly public).


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> There's nothing appealing for me in that setting at all. It looks really uninviting to me as somewhere to eat. Better possibly as a busy bar (which it might be if it was properly public).


Ah yes, but perhaps you're forgetting you can soak in a real urban Brixton vibe and watch the drug dealers from the safety of your exclusive rooftop while grazing on nibbles and supping cocktails!


----------



## Harbourite (Apr 5, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Anyway, I don't think anyone has said they can't do what they like with it, because they clearly they can and are - the benefits of capital eh?! People are just as entitled to criticise it though for what it represents in a wider context of rapid social and economic change in an area and its affect.
> 
> And its just not a restaurant really is it, not in anyone I know sense of word?! It looks very swish, but its basically a huge loft apartment with fuck all tables, some sofa's and four designer deck chairs.



i expect the terrace gets a bit windy which must play havoc with the ping pong table. unless they've architected (?) a cunning way of preventing gusts redirecting the ball.


----------



## Harbourite (Apr 5, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> Almost wish it was still derelict, then we wouldn't be arguing over such a trivial thing. It's their offices, they can do with it as they please.
> 
> But seeing as we are discussing it, how long do license applications normally take?
> 
> The photos make it look great



looks like some definite spinning going on at the fuss ball table. fuckers.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 5, 2018)

Harbourite said:


> i expect the terrace gets a bit windy which must play havoc with the ping pong table. unless they've architected (?) a cunning way of preventing gusts redirecting the ball.



I didn't even see that  Or particularly notice the table footy. Such as I was blinded by the shinyness. They all seem to be youthful, trendy, and er white.


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 5, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> The usual hidebound nonsense.


They could stand outside the KFC doling out tenners 24 hours a day until Christmas and it wouldn’t be good enough for some posters on here. They have been pigeon holed as A Bad Thing and on Urban 75 it is easier to escape from a black hole than a pigeon hole.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> They could stand outside the KFC doling out tenners 24 hours a day until Christmas and it wouldn’t be good enough for some posters on here. They have been pigeon holed as A Bad Thing and on Urban 75 it is easier to escape from a black hole than a pigeon hole.


Ah, the old Urban Monothought Collective bullshit. How predictable. How dull.

How do you feel about super rich architects colluding with greedy offshore property developers to deprive Londoners of desperately needed affordable homes? All OK in your book?


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2018)

Harbourite said:


> i expect the terrace gets a bit windy which must play havoc with the ping pong table. unless they've architected (?) a cunning way of preventing gusts redirecting the ball.


They hire a few locals to form a human barrier to prevent the wind reaching their table. All helps the local employment you see!


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 5, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> There's nothing appealing for me in that setting at all. It looks really uninviting to me as somewhere to eat. Better possibly as a busy bar (which it might be if it was properly public).



To each their own. I like it, but I agree it looks more like a bar. Except the long tables, which look like Yo Sushi.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2018)

shakespearegirl said:


> That is true, the super rich are the clients who are going to have the budget and ambition to do more challenging and unique work, which would likely appeal to an architects firm.
> 
> They can only work on pro bono projects due to the profits they make working for wealthier clients.



Several issues here.

Not having a go at you personally but this post demonstrates how Neo Liberalism has entrenched itself as the "common sense" of society. ( As stethoscope has suggested. Also my namesake).

The super rich don't have more ambition than anyone else. A local example is the Brixton Rec. This now has Grade two listed status. One reason is that it's good example of post war socialist architecture. After WW2 there was general feeling that ordinary people should have good architecture and facilities. The Rec is an example of that. Post war the normal career move for architecture student was to work for a local Council.

Thatcher tore up the post war consensus.

Now this society went backward. It's back to depending on philanthropy of the wealthy. Squires are like the Tate family who built the library. All very well but is this really the kind of society people want to live in?

One based around class?

I come from a cross class background. Father working class and mother upper middle class. I remember my grandmother. She could not get over the decline in deference and loss of prestige she felt her class suffered post war.( To add this was real. Ordinary people fought and defeated Hitler. No way we're they going to put up with a society run by my grandmother's lot post war) She had a real resentment. Understandable in a way when one loses all that.

What I've seen in my adult life is gradual change over 30 years to point where individuals like Squires are seen as a good thing. My grandmother would have approved. A change for the better. At last a return to a society based on philanthropy by those who have good taste.

In hard headed reality , whilst as individual social actors, I have nothing against Squires personally the Department building imo isn't socially progressive.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Anyway, I don't think anyone has said they can't do what they like with it, because they clearly they can and are - the benefits of capital eh?! People are just as entitled to criticise it though for what it represents in a wider context of rapid social and economic change in an area and its affect.
> 
> And its just not a restaurant really is it, not in anyone I know sense of word?! It looks very swish, but its basically a huge loft apartment with fuck all tables, some sofa's and four designer deck chairs.



Word of advice Spam is right wing troll on Brixton forum. Spam is wind up merchant. Check Spams profile.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 5, 2018)

editor said:


> Some twat has piped up



TBH, if I were a Machiavellian evil bastard who'd been pissed off by the place, that's _exactly_ the kind of tweet I'd have posted


----------



## existentialist (Apr 5, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> In all fairness, it's difficult to expect any level of customer service if you're not actually a customer


Ah, but you might be an _incipient _customer...


----------



## existentialist (Apr 5, 2018)

Twattor said:


> No, you can't be as stupid as to think it doesn't, can you?
> 
> "Affordable" covers shared ownership, affordable rent and social rent. Usually as a rule of thumb these would be somewhere around the 40%:30%:30% ratio across a development. So yes, they will undoubtably be designing social housing. I'd imagine that the examples on the website are a fraction of their jobs, but the others may not be that photogenic.
> 
> If you don't belive me then you can get on the planning portal and pull the s106 agreements for some of those schemes - they will stipulate the social provision.


Is there any kind of interest you'd like to declare at this point, to pre-empt the Big Reveal from someone, on about Page 10 of the thread...?


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 5, 2018)

existentialist said:


> Ah, but you might be an _incipient _customer...



Very clever. I'll concede the point 

Although I might call a technicality


----------



## existentialist (Apr 5, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> Very clever. I'll concede the point
> 
> Although I might call a technicality


Nothing wrong with a finely-crafted technicality...


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

So has anyone found a single shred of evidence to support the assertion that Squire & Partners have designed any actual _social housing _projects anywhere?

Because, in the real world, this is what's happening while people like Squire get richer and richer while they're servicing their offshore chums who try and cheat London out of affordable homes : Number of social housing properties in England drops 11% in one year


----------



## shakespearegirl (Apr 6, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Several issues here.
> 
> Not having a go at you personally but this post demonstrates how Neo Liberalism has entrenched itself as the "common sense" of society. ( As stethoscope has suggested. Also my namesake).
> 
> ...




The Department building isn't meant to be socially progressive, I don't think anyone has claimed it is. It is a private building developed by an architect. 

Would I love to see them open it up to community/educational groups to use the space, yes! Would I encourage all businesses to work to help improve communities around them, yes! 

Has anyone asked them directly about any opportunities for community use of the space? From earlier posts it seems they did open the space in the early days. 

Ultimately, the government/council should be ensuring there is adequate housing and social housing rules are implemented and if they aren't refusing planning. And not allowing retrospective reduction of social housing as schemes are 'no longer affordable'..


----------



## Twattor (Apr 6, 2018)

editor said:


> So has anyone found a single shred of evidence to support the assertion that Squire & Partners have designed any actual _social housing _projects anywhere?
> 
> Because, in the real world, this is what's happening while people like Squire get richer and richer while they're servicing their offshore chums who try and cheat London out of affordable homes : Number of social housing properties in England drops 11% in one year


OK i'll play your game.

UNISON head office, commissioned by UNISON. Comprises head office, 30 units for private sale, 14 for social rent, 3 for shared ownership.

see building here: AJBL - Squire and Partners 
case officer's report here: http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/Record/3389957/file/document?inline
section 106 here: http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/Record/3363345/file/document?inline

Now please stop with the pre-conceptions and narrow minded prejudice.  They are effing architects - they design loads of stuff.


----------



## alcopop (Apr 6, 2018)

This thread could get as ridiculous as the pop thread.

Fingers crossed


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 6, 2018)

Seems daft blaming the architects for not designing social housing when the real problem is that the government/councils should be commissioning them, and they're not.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

RoyReed said:


> Seems daft blaming the architects for not designing social housing when the real problem is that the government/councils should be commissioning them, and they're not.


Seems even dafter to claim that they've been busy designing '*loads*' of social housing when they clearly haven't.

Twattor brought up the notion as some sort of strange defence for the company, as if to  suggest that they're beyond criticism for working with offshore developers who want to cheat Londoners out of much needed affordable housing because they were involved in non existent large scale social housing projects .

As I said earlier, people like Squires are part of the problem, not the solution, and whether they drop a few 'community' crumbs off their lavishly stocked table or not won't change that.


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 6, 2018)

RoyReed said:


> Seems daft blaming the architects for not designing social housing when the real problem is that the government/councils should be commissioning them, and they're not.


Agree. It’s a neat trick the government have pulled. Fooling some people into believing that firms that build houses for people who can afford them are to blame for not building houses for people who can’t. The government should be building these houses.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Agree. It’s a neat trick the government have pulled. Fooling some people into believing that firms that build houses for people who can afford them are to blame for not building houses for people who can’t. The government should be building these houses.


Who the hell has made that claim here?

But I do get fucked off when some shiny new luxury block looms up in Brixton and the developer triumphantly points out the fact that there is (the bare minimum) of affordable homes on site, safe in the knowledge that 'affordable' means that there's precious little chance any actual poor local people taking up residence.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Apr 6, 2018)

editor said:


> Seems even dafter to claim that they've been busy designing '*loads*' of social housing when they clearly haven't.
> 
> Twattor brought up the notion as some sort of strange defence for the company, as if to  suggest that they're beyond criticism for working with offshore developers who want to cheat Londoners out of much needed affordable housing because they were involved in non existent large scale social housing projects .
> 
> As I said earlier, people like Squires are part of the problem, not the solution, and whether they drop a few 'community' crumbs off their lavishly stocked table or not won't change that.



I applaud your motives. What's the solution then?


----------



## tripadvisah (Apr 6, 2018)

editor said:


> Twattor brought up the notion as some sort of strange defence for the company, as if to  suggest that they're beyond criticism for working with offshore developers who want to cheat Londoners out of much needed affordable housing because they were involved in non existent large scale social housing projects.



wow. Think you’re extrapalating a bit much out of that and exaggerating far beyond what is known. or are you saying there should be no developments in Brixton unless they’re social ones?


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

tripadvisah said:


> wow. Think you’re extrapalating a bit much out of that and exaggerating far beyond what is known. or are you saying there should be no developments in Brixton unless they’re social ones?


I've never made any such claim, as well you know. 
And you're criticising me for "extrapalating a bit much out of that and exaggerating far beyond what is known"? LOL. 

What's your opinion on architects who work with greedy offshore developers to minimise their affordable housing commitments? All OK with you?


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> I applaud your motives. What's the solution then?


It's quite obvious that I believe that new social housing should be built, greedy parasitic landlords brought into check and controls introduced on offshore developers who are happy to leave properties vacant while they accrue value.

Of course this isn't the the thread for such a discussion, but it should be pointed out that Twattor was the one who brought social housing into the debate, insisting that Squire & Partners had been responsible for designing 'loads' of social housing projects, which  they quite clearly haven't.  I've no idea why he made that up, or why he thought it was appropriate to bring it up in the discussion. You'll have to ask him.

And I will repeat that I'm not going to cheer on - or feel grateful for - people like Squire who work with offshore developers on luxury residential projects with "appallingly low” levels of affordable homes.



> *Khan rejects plans for luxury residential scheme over affordable housing quote*
> Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has rejected a planning amendment that would have lowered the proportion of affordable homes as part of the £1bn New Scotland Yard mixed-use scheme in London.
> 
> The Squire & Partners-designed development, Ten Broadway, will see six new buildings providing residential, office and retail uses replace the existing 1960s Metropolitan Police HQ. It was granted permission by outgoing mayor Boris Johnson in 2016 despite offering just 10 affordable homes (four per cent of the 268 units in total).
> ...


----------



## Rushy (Apr 6, 2018)

Twattor said:


> OK i'll play your game.
> 
> UNISON head office, commissioned by UNISON. Comprises head office, 30 units for private sale, 14 for social rent, 3 for shared ownership.
> 
> ...


Interesting that on the officers report it emerges UNISON did not meet affordable targets on their swish flagship office; and argued that whilst it was physically possible it was not economically viable.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

Oh and first against the wall when I take over: those loathsome scum who have made profitable  businesses out of advising developers on ways to squirm out of their affordable housing commitments.


----------



## tripadvisah (Apr 6, 2018)

editor said:


> I've never made any such claim, as well you know.
> And you're criticising me for "extrapalating a bit much out of that and exaggerating far beyond what is known"? LOL.
> 
> What's your opinion on architects who work with greedy offshore developers to minimise their affordable housing commitments? All OK with you?



actually I wasn’t suggesting you made that claim, it was a question (it even looks like a question if you reread my post). 

What, specifically are the architects doing to minimise the greedy offshore developers housing commitments?

Just tyring to get some nuance out of all this spittle flecked zero sum nonsense that belittles any point that is being made


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

tripadvisah said:


> Just tyring to get some nuance out of all this spittle flecked zero sum nonsense that belittles any point that is being made


To state the obvious: Architects - especially super rich, super successful ones with palatial London showcase offices aren't compelled to take on every job offered.  But if they do take on jobs like this one, then they are _complici_t in the process that is starving Londoners of affordable homes. 

I do hope that's not too 'spittle flecked' for you.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2018)

They might not be compelled, but they'd probably find themselves out of business if they didn't.


----------



## alcopop (Apr 6, 2018)

TruXta said:


> They might not be compelled, but they'd probably find themselves out of business if they didn't.


This is not the time or the place for making reasonable points.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

TruXta said:


> They might not be compelled, but they'd probably find themselves out of business if they didn't.


Pretty sure loads of architects manage to get by just fine without having to work and assist offshore clients keen to wriggle out of their affordable housing commitments. Squire do it - presumably - because they want the big fat dosh and prestige contacts and showcase offices that come with it.

And if that's the case, I'm at liberty to judge them accordingly.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2018)

alcopop said:


> This is not the time or the place for making reasonable points.


I'm not in the least interested in defending them, just pointing out that this is how the sector works.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2018)

editor said:


> Pretty sure loads of architects manage to get by just fine without having to work with offshore clients keen to wriggle out of their affordable housing commitments. Squire do it - presumably - because they want the big fat dosh and prestige contacts and showcase offices that come with it.
> 
> And if that's the case, I'm at liberty to judge them accordingly,


Name a few of these socially responsible firms then.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

TruXta said:


> Name a few of these socially responsible firms then.


I really have better things to do, thanks.

Can you find many others who have recently been personally namechecked by Sadiq Khan for their "_appallingly low_" provision of affordable homes?


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2018)

editor said:


> I really have better things to do, thanks.
> 
> Can you find many others who have recently been personally namechecked by Sadiq Khan for their "_appallingly low_" provision of affordable homes?


Not right now, but it stands to reason that given almost all new builds contain very few affordable units, that most architectural firms that design such buildings are similar. They all compete for the same business after all, and it's the client that specifies the mix in the last instance.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

TruXta said:


> Not right now, but it stands to reason that given almost all new builds contain very few affordable units, that most architectural firms that design such buildings are similar. They all compete for the same business after all, and it's the client that specifies the mix in the last instance.


Which brings me to Gramsci's excellent post. 
Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2018)

editor said:


> Which brings me to Gramsci's excellent post.
> Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)


Which agrees entirely with my point.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

TruXta said:


> Which agrees entirely with my point.


And mine too in that there is no reason why we should laud Squire and Partners for gracing Brixton with their presence, or feel grateful for them for opening up a swishy and highly exclusive restaurant to promote their own business with, or for hogging so much space for themselves.

They're part of the problem and them throwing a few community baubles our way won't change that. As Gramsci says: they're not socially progressive,.


----------



## Twattor (Apr 6, 2018)

editor said:


> I really have better things to do, thanks.
> 
> Can you find many others who have recently been personally namechecked by Sadiq Khan for their "_appallingly low_" provision of affordable homes?


Could you please show exactly where Sadiq Khan laid the blame for the low provision at Squire's door. Reading the article it looks like he referred to the developer as being responsible.

Do I need to find dictionary definitions of "developer" and "architect" for you as well?


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

Twattor said:


> Could you please show exactly where Sadiq Khan laid the blame for the low provision at Squire's door. Reading the article it looks like he referred to the developer as being responsible.
> 
> Do I need to find dictionary definitions of "developer" and "architect" for you as well?


So, these "loads" of social housing projects that you claimed Squire were involved with. Got that list for me yet? I've lost count of the amount of times I've asked now.

 

PS Try reading what I wrote. I said Sadiq NAMECHECKED them, not "blamed" them.

It's almost like you're high on bullshit and fantasy facts today.


----------



## SpamMisery (Apr 6, 2018)

Twattor said:


> OK i'll play your game.
> 
> UNISON head office, commissioned by UNISON. Comprises head office, 30 units for private sale, 14 for social rent, 3 for shared ownership.
> 
> ...



Good effort but it seems a simple response to say you _really have better things to do_ is acceptable


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2018)

editor said:


> And mine too in that there is no reason why we should laud Squire and Partners for gracing Brixton with their presence, or feel grateful for them for opening up a swishy and highly exclusive restaurant to promote their own business with, or for hogging so much space for themselves.
> 
> They're part of the problem and them throwing a few community baubles our way won't change that. As Gramsci says: they're not socially progressive,.


Nor are the vast majority of their competitors. This is the point I'm making, they're shit, but there's no reason to believe they're especially shit. The only reason you care is because they have offices in Brixton.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

TruXta said:


> Nor are the vast majority of their competitors. This is the point I'm making, they're shit, but there's no reason to believe they're especially shit. The only reason you care is because they have offices in Brixton.


They're as shit as the rest of the fuckers who are helping facilitate London's housing crisis while raking fat millions into their already overstuffed bank accounts. They're possibly up there with the shittiest given some of the people they work for and their focus on catering to the whims and fancies of the super rich and the extra-privileged.

Seeing as this is a forum about Brixton and they've rocked into town with their private roof terraces, exclusive restaurant and lavish prestige offices, I see no reason why I shouldn't comment on them.

And yes, seeing this kind of wealth and ostentation being flaunted in Brixton does get a negative reaction from me.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

In a town where office space and workspaces are desperately needed for start ups and small independent businesses, just look how much this lot are keeping empty just for themselves. Just because it looks good. 

But then that's what shitloads of money buys you.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

This is how they make their money:

Every Flat in a New South London Development Has Been Sold to Foreign Investors

One The Elephant • Architecture • Squire and Partners

https://www.cityscapedigital.co.uk/project/one-the-elephant-penthouses-skyscrape-collection/







Yuk.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 6, 2018)

editor I'm posting this Art Deco wonder to ease your evident distress. Monetised vandalism of course, but not by Squires.
 
Ivor House was locally listed in 2010 as an attractive heritage asset in Brixton. Having explored different options for Ivor House, it was determined that residential would be the most appropriate use for this building. Works have started on a sensitive refurbishment of the building with an additional storey taking the building from four to five storeys.

26 high quality, one and two bedroom flats will be provided in the newly refurbished Ivor House with retail or restaurant uses at the ground and basement level.

New contemporary and art deco inspired apartments are now being marketed. Further information can be found at www.brixtoncentric.com.

Soon to be released.......................


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

CH1 said:


> editor I'm posting this Art Deco wonder to ease your evident distress. Monetised vandalism of course, but not by Squires.
> View attachment 132124
> Ivor House was locally listed in 2010 as an attractive heritage asset in Brixton. Having explored different options for Ivor House, it was determined that residential would be the most appropriate use for this building. Works have started on a sensitive refurbishment of the building with an additional storey taking the building from four to five storeys.
> 
> ...


That roof looks well weird!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 6, 2018)

shakespearegirl said:


> The Department building isn't meant to be socially progressive, I don't think anyone has claimed it is. It is a private building developed by an architect.
> 
> Would I love to see them open it up to community/educational groups to use the space, yes! Would I encourage all businesses to work to help improve communities around them, yes!
> 
> ...



Your missing my point. I was trying to get away from arguments about Squires on an individual level.

My question is why as a society have things moved from the government/ councils providing affordable social space. Such as the Brixton Rec. To one where we are dependent on the philanthropy of the well off.

I also said thats not a society I like living in. It's a retrograde step back to pre war society where the wealthy, like the Tate family, provided libraries.

Yes ultimately the government should ensure adequate truly affordable housing and social space. It's all very well for posters here to say this but it would require a massive shift in power and resources. If government/ councils really took action it to do this Im not sure some posters here would like it.

Take Corbyn. What he represents is a politics that might redistribute power and wealth. All he has had is opposition and smears against him from the establishment.

For example. As you say Council/ government should ensure affordable housing and social space. You wouldn't be against Government giving Councils powers to requisition housing and building for the good of the community? Like after WW2 when private business was nationalised? Because that is what it would take in London.

I have nothing against Squires on a personal level. They are social actors in a larger Capitalist process. However if any left wing government actually took on the rich and powerful to redistribute wealth I wonder how happy Squires would be at losing there lucrative commissions? Or the status they are trying to develop in Brixton? If a government really took on the rich to ensure affordable housing then companies like Squires wouldn't be able to finance projects like the Department store. They would be able to earn a modest living  designing housing for the people and be housed but would lose a lot of there social capital if the economy, in particular housing, came under popular democratic control.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 6, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Agree. It’s a neat trick the government have pulled. Fooling some people into believing that firms that build houses for people who can afford them are to blame for not building houses for people who can’t. The government should be building these houses.



I take it in that case you would support the nationalisation of the building industry to ensure this? The land banks that property developers keep to be brought into government ownership?


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 6, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I take it in that case you would support the nationalisation of the building industry to ensure this? The land banks that property developers keep to be brought into government ownership?


Why would you make that assumption?


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2018)

Here we go again.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 6, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Why would you make that assumption?



As usual you make a sweeping statement that sounds good.



> Agree. It’s a neat trick the government have pulled. Fooling some people into believing that firms that build houses for people who can afford them are to blame for not building houses for people who can’t. The government should be building these houses



So I ask again would you agree to nationalisation of building industry? Housing like health is something that the private sector has been shown to fail in delivering good social outcomes. This country has had thirty p!us years of neo liberalism. The "free market" has failed. Your the one saying the government should be building houses. So I thought you would not have problem with nationalisation of building industry to ensure supply of affordable housing. Private sector have failed wouldn't you agree? As you imply private developers don't give a shit. So why allow them to exist?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 6, 2018)

Getting away from Squires. In Loughborough Junction two developers have built flats. These were finished some time ago. They lay empty. Whilst people in LJ live in overcrowded accommodation. Whilst London has a housing crisis.

If the argument is that Squires aren't the real issue I'm assuming that posters here would support government requisitioning these empty flats?

That appears to me something that posters here could all agree on if one is to say it's the Governments fault that it doesn't take action to solve the housing crisis.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 7, 2018)

Ideally locally organised community groups would seize and occupy the flats, but in lieu of that....


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 7, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> As usual you make a sweeping statement that sounds good.
> 
> 
> 
> So I ask again would you agree to nationalisation of building industry? Housing like health is something that the private sector has been shown to fail in delivering good social outcomes. This country has had thirty p!us years of neo liberalism. The "free market" has failed. Your the one saying the government should be building houses. So I thought you would not have problem with nationalisation of building industry to ensure supply of affordable housing. Private sector have failed wouldn't you agree? As you imply private developers don't give a shit. So why allow them to exist?


I think the government should embark on a massive social house building program. I think they should get the very best value for the significant cost of this program. This sure as fuck doesn’t mean nationalisation of the building industry. This article, though about utilities, mainly reflects my views of why nationalisation gives me hives (you don’t need to subscribe, you just need to answer 2 questions):
Subscribe to read


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 7, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Getting away from Squires. In Loughborough Junction two developers have built flats. These were finished some time ago. They lay empty. Whilst people in LJ live in overcrowded accommodation. Whilst London has a housing crisis.
> 
> If the argument is that Squires aren't the real issue I'm assuming that posters here would support government requisitioning these empty flats?
> 
> That appears to me something that posters here could all agree on if one is to say it's the Governments fault that it doesn't take action to solve the housing crisis.


I would support the government taking control of these flats


----------



## tripadvisah (Apr 7, 2018)

editor said:


> To state the obvious: Architects - especially super rich, super successful ones with palatial London showcase offices aren't compelled to take on every job offered.  But if they do take on jobs like this one, then they are _complici_t in the process that is starving Londoners of affordable homes.
> 
> I do hope that's not too 'spittle flecked' for you.



oh ok. We’ve moved on from being responsible for th crisis, to helping the developers to avoid creating social housing to now just being complicit in it. 

Your all over the place mate, and you keep changing your point. which when you look at how you manipulate words to ‘win’arguments on here is pretty funny. 

And when you consider the fact that there’s probably a decent point your making somewhere in there, you lose any suport for it because you’re too concerned about shouting the extreme  and belittling any possible concession other’s might make.


----------



## tripadvisah (Apr 7, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> I think the government should embark on a massive social house building program. I think they should get the very best value for the significant cost of this program. This sure as fuck doesn’t mean nationalisation of the building industry. This article, though about utilities, mainly reflects my views of why nationalisation gives me hives (you don’t need to subscribe, you just need to answer 2 questions):
> Subscribe to read



SPOT ON. i would endorse that too. 

something worth discussing unlike the shouty ‘I hate super rich cunts’.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Apr 7, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Getting away from Squires. In Loughborough Junction two developers have built flats. These were finished some time ago. They lay empty. Whilst people in LJ live in overcrowded accommodation. Whilst London has a housing crisis.
> 
> If the argument is that Squires aren't the real issue I'm assuming that posters here would support government requisitioning these empty flats?
> 
> That appears to me something that posters here could all agree on if one is to say it's the Governments fault that it doesn't take action to solve the housing crisis.



I would support a huge tax on properties that are left empty after a certain amount of time. Not only residential but commercial. And a tax on the massive block of land on the corner of the South Circular that has been empty since (I think) WW2 that is being landbanked due to greedy landowner wanting huge amounts for it (again I think).

Build a massive supply of council houses, absolutely. 

Not allow foreign investors to buy property and leave it empty, absolutely. 

Make councils fully implement social housing quotas in new developments and apply huge fines/revoke planning if not met, absolutely.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2018)

tripadvisah said:


> SPOT ON. i would endorse that too.
> 
> something worth discussing unlike the shouty ‘I hate super rich cunts’.


And there you go again with the hysterical hyperbole. 

Strange how you ignored my exact same point re: building social housing. Oh well, I guess there's no showboating for you in that.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2018)

tripadvisah said:


> oh ok. We’ve moved on from being responsible for th crisis, to helping the developers to avoid creating social housing to now just being complicit in it.


I wish you'd stop making stuff up. My point hasn't changed at all.

At no point have I claimed that architects are solely responsible for the lack of affordable homes, but ones who fil their pockets by working with dodgy offshore developers certainly play a part. 

And that's what I've said all along. I could even provide you with quotes if it'll stop your tedious attempts at misrepresentation.


----------



## alcopop (Apr 7, 2018)

editor said:


> It's just elitist shit. Fuck the Department store and their filthy rich luxury clients.



I bring your attention to exhibit A


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2018)

alcopop said:


> I bring your attention to exhibit A


And what does this prove? Are you a fan of offshore property developers then? You know, the type that try to wriggle out of building affordable homes?

I see nothing wrong with hating developers like this, so what is your point?


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> I think the government should embark on a massive social house building program. I think they should get the very best value for the significant cost of this program. This sure as fuck doesn’t mean nationalisation of the building industry. This article, though about utilities, mainly reflects my views of why nationalisation gives me hives (you don’t need to subscribe, you just need to answer 2 questions):
> Subscribe to read


Having read "your" FT article, I have come to the conclusion that you have missed  the point (or maybe you are choosing to set up a straw man to demolish).

I don't think anyone suggested nationalising the building industry. Even the Atlee government and the Labour LCC and various Labour (and Conservative) metropolitan councils did not seek to do that. Even if they did set up Direct Works departments to do council repairs for example (not in itself a sin, surely?).

All these big council estates were build by large British construction companies and the structural faults - spalling concrete for example were the result of architectural fads spurred on by govermnent desire to cut costs - rather like the inflammable thermal cladding problem of today.

As regards general privatisation/renationalisation you could argue till the cows come home, but what does command a lot of support is that there is a need to create government financed low cost rented housing.

"We" do not like the idea of wasting government money subsidising private landlords, "we" think social housing should be publicly owned and greatly increased. I think such a proposition would command support from supporters of all parties (except the Mogg/Redwood Nazi tendency)


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 7, 2018)

CH1 said:


> I don't think anyone suggested nationalising the building industry


Gramsci asked me if I supported this and I was answering. 

I’m not sure why you are addressing me with the rest of your post


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Gramsci asked me if I supported this and I was answering.
> I’m not sure why you are addressing me with the rest of your post


I hadn't followed the intricacies of the thread, but your posting of Martin Wolf's article led me to suppose you thought his general opposition to nationalisation was something you agree with. 

If Gramsci favours or speculates on the desirability of nationalising the building industry that is a new step at least for Western Europe.

The problem with the building industry as I see it is it has become hitched to the marketing of property to both first time buyers and buy to let investors and speculators. And to giving overseas buys first refusal.

It would be good have a Glass-Steagall type law separating out the utility function of building from the marketing function. It seems to me that the marketing function has dominated the industry for at least the last 10 years, leading to total financialisation, whereby people go into debt bondage to buy a concrete box to live in.

Not only that there is the MAPIC property circus in Cannes where the Labour councillors and their officers and paramours go for jollies. There is a strong whiff of corruption in south London.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Apr 7, 2018)

Is it the developers or the architects who are to blame here for the lack of affordable housing? I assume the architects are given a brief and then design around it. 

Not much they can do about that and I assume even the developers would plead the google defence of ‘we only pay as much tax as we have to under the current laws, as set by your government’.


----------



## alcopop (Apr 7, 2018)

editor said:


> And there you go again with the hysterical hyperbole.





editor said:


> It's just elitist shit. Fuck the Department store and their filthy rich luxury clients.





editor said:


> And what does this prove? Are you a fan of offshore property developers then? You know, the type that try to wriggle out of building affordable homes?
> 
> I see nothing wrong with hating developers like this, so what is your point?


my point is your hysterical hyperbole.

& spittle flecked invective.

Which you denied...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 7, 2018)

CH1 said:


> I hadn't followed the intricacies of the thread, but your posting of Martin Wolf's article led me to suppose you thought his general opposition to nationalisation was something you agree with.
> 
> If Gramsci favours or speculates on the desirability of nationalising the building industry that is a new step at least for Western Europe.
> 
> ...



I havent been able to read Martin Wolff article. Stuck behind the FT paywall. Which seems to work sometimes. If Wolf is criticising nationalisation in general I would disagree.

I agree with you. Part of my reason for calling for nationalisation is that the utility function and marketing function is now ingrained into building industry. This has led to perverse social consequences. Lack of affordable housing in London to rent or buy. Doesn't stop profit making. Why I call for government intervention. Which will be resisted. I don't think it's in the interests of Barratts or Wimpey to have a future Labour government doing a mass public housing building programme. See what has happened at Elephant and Castle. Council estates demolished. Years of wrangling and the private sector have won. Area is know socially cleansed. 

If as you say a clear wall could be put between the utility and marketing I could live with that. That in practice building companies  that  build  only. The Government/ council could contract them to build social housing for example.

Plus Councils could imo reintroduce direct labour and own architecture sections to build Council housing again. Or contract building companies who build only.( The "right to buy" would need to be removed. )As you point out this was quite normal practice in previous years.

So what I would say, in line I think with Corbyn/ McDonnell , is a mixed economy. The democratically elected representatives of the people , government/ Councils, directing the economy with small scale capitalist business allowed ( building companies). The whip hand being held by the representatives of the people not dictated by property developers as now happens.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2018)

alcopop said:


> my point is your hysterical hyperbole.
> 
> & spittle flecked invective.
> 
> Which you denied...


It's not "spittle flecked invective" - grow up, for fuck's sake - but I make no apology at being angry with greedy developers and their partners who are raking in fat profits while destroying communities and creating a housing crisis in London.

It's notable that you haven't a harsh word to say about them is this thread, but plenty of time for childish personal attacks on me. And that would appear to sum up your attitude, like the topic isn't important and it's all a bit of a laugh.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 7, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> Is it the developers or the architects who are to blame here for the lack of affordable housing? I assume the architects are given a brief and then design around it.
> 
> Not much they can do about that and I assume even the developers would plead the google defence of ‘we only pay as much tax as we have to under the current laws, as set by your government’.



This is my problem with posts here.

Told not to criticize Squires as they are just hired hands. The system isn't there fault. And they are doing charitable works.

Then the discussion possibly slips into can't blame property developers either.

I have real problem with this line of argument.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> This is my problem with posts here.
> 
> Told not to criticize Squires as they are just hired hands. The system isn't there fault. And they are doing charitable works.
> 
> ...


The same handful of people seem to think having a pop at me is the main priority here, rather than criticising the profiteering firms who are causing real misery to poorer communities and depriving Londoners of affordable homes.

I fancy that rather speaks volumes about the kind of people they are.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 7, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> Is it the developers or the architects who are to blame here for the lack of affordable housing? I assume the architects are given a brief and then design around it.
> 
> Not much they can do about that and I assume even the developers would plead the google defence of ‘we only pay as much tax as we have to under the current laws, as set by your government’.



Looks like some posters here agree that property developers who leave property empty , as at LJ, should have it confiscated by the government.

If you are saying that it's not property developers fault, but they work within limits set by government, would you support this measure?

Myself I can't see any property developers support this if a government brought it in as a law. They are likely to heavily lobby government to stop this being brought in.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I havent been able to read Martin Wolff article. Stuck behind the FT paywall. Which seems to work sometimes. If Wolf is criticising nationalisation in general I would disagree.
> 
> I agree with you. Part of my reason for calling for nationalisation is that the utility function and marketing function is now ingrained into building industry. This has led to perverse social consequences. Lack of affordable housing in London to rent or buy. Doesn't stop profit making. Why I call for government intervention. Which will be resisted. I don't think it's in the interests of Barratts or Wimpey to have a future Labour government doing a mass public housing building programme. See what has happened at Elephant and Castle. Council estates demolished. Years of wrangling and the private sector have won. Area is know socially cleansed.
> 
> ...


Martin Wolf does not believe in nationalisation.
He believe it leads to inefficiency and poor service.
I don't necessarily agree - French Railways SNCF always seemed pretty good to me - and cheaper than here lately.

The nationalisation issue and the public housing issue seems to be similar to me. Under post-Thatcher economics (including Blair/Brown) it is taken as an article of faith that public sector debt has to be reduced - and private sector debt is irrelevant.

Funnily enough I am old enough to remember that the LCC and Liverpool Council both had large bonds on the stock market originally issued in the 1920s to finance the building of municipal housing. Why can't we do this now?


----------



## tripadvisah (Apr 8, 2018)

editor said:


> The same handful of people seem to think having a pop at me is the main priority here, rather than criticising the profiteering firms who are causing real misery to poorer communities and depriving Londoners of affordable homes.
> 
> I fancy that rather speaks volumes about the kind of people they are.



no. thats not the issue. You’re telling me what my priorities should be? And then saying that this says a lot about the kind of people we are?


What people are having a pop at is all the overblown (and misdirected) dialog that these people are to blame for depriving lower income families out their homes in london.


You are very selective in what you read and replay from peoples posts. And then follow up with veiled and sometimes not so veiled insults about ‘the people’ rather than the arguments.


If we are to have a discusion, then my view as stated above and also what may or may not be the view of some others is that it is the government’s role to provide social housing for the people who need them. Because labour AND conservative governments have failed to do so they put in place vague policies around developers having to provide a proportion of affordable housing. Which clearly doesn’t work. And that is not the fault of squire etc, they are running their business, doing some of that and also taking on contracts that they need to do to survive. I very much doubt there are meetings in boardrooms where they are saying ‘who gives a fuck about poor Londoners’. It is not their role to ensure this stuff happens. If the current system is attempting to put some of the onus on developers then I think we all agree it isn’t working. and that has fuck all to do with a restaurant. the patrons of whom are very unlikely to be ‘super rich’ (another misdirection, suspect most just have ‘some disposable income’)

I cannot easily influence current policy, but I would pay an extra penny a pound in income tax if the government ACTUALLY ringfenced it for social provision and made a real difference. but I don’t trust the fuckers. And I wouldn’t trust labour eiher. 

And saying, as was said above, if they’re not part of the solution theyre part of the problem does not hold that well. Just because a phrase is catchy doesn’t mean it is true. I believe it was a phrase coined to get people thinking about sustainability in the 90s. If you don’t work in or donate to a food bank, are you an intrinsic part of the problem that means people can’t afford to eat? No. not imo anyway, you may disagree. That’s ok.

Saying ‘these people consort with greedy offshore developers who are only interested in lining their pockets are you ok with that?’ is not an argument it’s a linguistic fallacy, it’s utterly deceptive and it shuts down sensible and reasoned debate. It’s also inflammatory.

here is an exceptionally good way of having reasoned debate which we might all learn something from.


----------



## alcopop (Apr 8, 2018)

editor said:


> It's not "spittle flecked invective" - grow up, for fuck's sake - but I make no apology at being angry with greedy developers and their partners who are raking in fat profits while destroying communities and creating a housing crisis in London.
> 
> It's notable that you haven't a harsh word to say about them is this thread, but plenty of time for childish personal attacks on me. And that would appear to sum up your attitude, like the topic isn't important and it's all a bit of a laugh.


I don’t have a problem with Squires at all.
Why would I?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 8, 2018)

tripadvisah said:


> If we are to have a discusion, then my view as stated above and also what may or may not be the view of some others is that it is the government’s role to provide social housing for the people who need them. Because labour AND conservative governments have failed to do so they put in place vague policies around developers having to provide a proportion of affordable housing. Which clearly doesn’t work. And that is not the fault of squire etc, they are running their business, doing some of that and also taking on contracts that they need to do to survive. I very much doubt there are meetings in boardrooms where they are saying ‘who gives a fuck about poor Londoners’. It is not their role to ensure this stuff happens. If the current system is attempting to put some of the onus on developers then I think we all agree it isn’t working. and that has fuck all to do with a restaurant. the patrons of whom are very unlikely to be ‘super rich’ (another misdirection, suspect most just have ‘some disposable income’)
> 
> I cannot easily influence current policy, but I would pay an extra penny a pound in income tax if the government ACTUALLY ringfenced it for social provision and made a real difference. but I don’t trust the fuckers. And I wouldn’t trust labour eiher.
> 
> ]



In boardrooms these things are said. Not in public. It slips out occasionally.

Architect blasts 'free-riding' central London council tenants saying they should be moved

I don't think extra money is needed. Millions were spent on the banks to prop them up with quantitative easing. John McDonnell has previously called for a People's Quantitative easing instead. Which can be used to build housing.

I think I have made my position clear previously. To reiterate. I don't like living in a society that has turned the clock back to the days of when the Tate family were building libraries. Back to the days philanthropy. 

I also think that just blaming government for not building affordable housing isn't enough. Developers and big architectural firms have done quite nicely with how the housing and regeneration sector works. I really don't think they would be happy at the thought of a government interfering in the housing market. Like I said this wouldn't put architects like Squires out if business. It may mean they might have to live more modestly. 

Take affordable housing on large developments. These policies are in place. Developers argue tooth and nail against them. The Mayor Khan has only got 35% affordable in practice. That is if his new system works.

What is needed is more economic interference in the "free market". It's imo naive to think that government could just build mass social housing without this really annoying the private sector. It's direct competition. It's also breaking the neo liberal consensus. It's why Thatcher was right , in terms of her own class, to start to get rid of social housing. This has led to the situation today where property developers call the shots. It would not have turned out like this if social housing hadn't been attacked and marginalised over the years. In late 70s 40% of population lived in social housing. What I'm saying is that in housing one cannot draw strict distinction between private and public housing.


----------



## ringo (Sep 19, 2018)

I never went. Just got this email. I'm sure it's well worth £240 just walk in the door  

*UPSTAIRS MEMBERSHIP FEE*

Thank you for supporting Upstairs during our first year, 
we hope you have enjoyed your time on the roof thus far!

As founder members you are important to us, and we want to ensure we always provide you with the best service possible. Due to increased demand on the space and the subsequent expansion to service and amenities, we will be introducing a yearly membership fee.

The membership fee is £240 a year and must be paid by Direct Debit before 1st November 2018. We also have a monthly installment option of £23 available if you wish.

Our current free Guest Cards will be expiring 1st November 2018, after which you will not be able to gain access unless you decide to obtain a membership card.

For this fee you will see an increase in our events programme and membership offerings, a continuation of our sophisticated service and an assurance that we are always able to provide the relaxed and uncrowded atmosphere you are accustomed to Upstairs.

As our founding members you are first to have this opportunity and are guaranteed a card providing your payment is received prior to 1st November. Obtaining a membership card is simple, just choose one of the following options below.


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2018)

ringo said:


> I never went. Just got this email. I'm sure it's well worth £240 just walk in the door
> 
> *UPSTAIRS MEMBERSHIP FEE*
> 
> ...


£240 a year just to enter the fucking place? At least we can see their true, elitist, gentrifying colours here as they ensure their private members club keeps poor people away.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 19, 2018)

FUCK THE RICH.  I LOVE THE POOR.  BALCONIES ARE FASCIST.

I've been to Upstairs a fair few times.  It's fine.  It's a really nice space, drinks are priced sensibly considering what you tend to spend for somewhere with design aesthetic at its heart, the staff are incredibly sweet and kind, and the food is totally delicious and varied, and today include a good few vegan choices.  It is a members space for an architecural firm that decided to move to Brixton instead of King's Cross, and boy, are we fuming about that on here!  I got membership this past year by virtue of knowing someone that works there, but it's never seemed to me to be difficult in this period to gain membership.  In terms of the future (read "£240 a year just to enter the fucking place") I earn under £30,000 per year so a private members bar isn't really my thing no matter what, but £23 per month for access to a really nice space that serves great cocktails and food doesn't seem absurd - it's going to be a matter of personal preference.  If you go twice a week, that's £2.88 per visit for access to an open space, staffed by good people, with activities and entertainment laid on.   By way of reference, my drinking preferences in Brixton are the Marquis of Lorne and the Effra Tavern - both places where a pint costs as much as it does Upstairs.

I think it's bizarre the extent to which there is SUCH a degree of anger and resentment directed towards The Department Store.  There is so much to be said for the manner in which big capital can subvert communities, but I feel like most of the vitriol against Squires and the Department Store is just that, vitriol.  Where's the nuance and the reasoned discussion?  Have the people who have serious concerns about "true, elitist, gentrifying colours" of the Department Store ever actually been?  Would they like an invitation?  I'd be only too happy to oblige.


----------



## klang (Sep 19, 2018)

no, I haven't been in and wouldn't enter even if I could afford the mere 2.88 twice a week. hth


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 19, 2018)

That's fine, you don't have to.  Thanks for the help.


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> FUCK THE RICH.  I LOVE THE POOR.  BALCONIES ARE FASCIST.
> 
> I've been to Upstairs a fair few times.  It's fine.  It's a really nice space, drinks are priced sensibly considering what you tend to spend for somewhere with design aesthetic at its heart, the staff are incredibly sweet and kind, and the food is totally delicious and varied, and today include a good few vegan choices.  It is a members space for an architecural firm that decided to move to Brixton instead of King's Cross, and boy, are we fuming about that on here!  I got membership this past year by virtue of knowing someone that works there, but it's never seemed to me to be difficult in this period to gain membership.  In terms of the future (read "£240 a year just to enter the fucking place") I earn under £30,000 per year so a private members bar isn't really my thing no matter what, but £23 per month for access to a really nice space that serves great cocktails and food doesn't seem absurd - it's going to be a matter of personal preference.  If you go twice a week, that's £2.88 per visit for access to an open space, staffed by good people, with activities and entertainment laid on.   By way of reference, my drinking preferences in Brixton are the Marquis of Lorne and the Effra Tavern - both places where a pint costs as much as it does Upstairs.
> 
> I think it's bizarre the extent to which there is SUCH a degree of anger and resentment directed towards The Department Store.  There is so much to be said for the manner in which big capital can subvert communities, but I feel like most of the vitriol against Squires and the Department Store is just that, vitriol.  Where's the nuance and the reasoned discussion?  Have the people who have serious concerns about "true, elitist, gentrifying colours" of the Department Store ever actually been?  Would they like an invitation?  I'd be only too happy to oblige.


What activities and entertainment are laid on and why is it any better than the free entertainment found all over Brixton?
Do you think demanding £240 just to enter the bar will exclude people or not?
Do you think an expensive private members bar opening in a predominately poor area is a good thing or a bad thing for community cohesion?
You say its 'staffed by good people' as if that's some kind of unexpected bonus.  So what bars in Brixton are staffed by bad people?

And yes, this bar is all about exclusively, division and the exclusion of poor people. Feel free to defend that.


----------



## klang (Sep 19, 2018)

editor said:


> Feel free to defend that


I'd rather they wouldn't tbh.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 19, 2018)

editor said:


> What activities and entertainment are laid on and why is it any better than the free entertainment found all over Brixton?
> Do you think demanding £240 just to enter the bar will exclude people or not?
> Do you think an expensive private members bar opening in a predominately poor area is a good thing or a bad thing for community cohesion?
> You say its 'staffed by good people' as if that's some kind of unexpected bonus.  So what bars in Brixton are staffed by bad people?
> ...



1) They have table football, table tennis, live music and quite a few events in the space downstairs (although membership Upstairs isn't required for access to the events downstairs - that depends on the event organisers).  Pool in the Marquis of Lorne is a £1 a go.  Music in the Effra Tavern is free (and outstanding).  I never said it was better than any free entertainment found all over Brixton.  I said it was a matter of personal preference.
2) I think asking for £240 for membership will exlude people who don't want to or can't spend £240 - myself included.  But that's their perogative, what with them managing a private members restaurant, and all.  Most members bars charge significantly more than £240, so to some, depending on their frame of reference, it's actually fairly inclusive as far as a PRIVATE MEMBERS space is concerned.  I said it was a matter of personal preference.
3) I think it depends on what the private members bar does in the predominantly poor area to try to improve community cohesion.  If Squires and Upstairs do nothing (bear in mind they haven't charged a penny for membership yet), then I will feel very comfortable criticising them for that.  Will you feel comfortable praising their actions if they do some good in the local area, I wonder?  Or will it just be crumbs off the table, again?
4) You've inferred that me saying it was staffed by good people meant something other than precisely what I said.  Why are you trying to coax me into telling you what bars I think are staffed by bad people in Brixton?  What the actual fuck is that?

Finally, yeah, it kind of is about exclusivity.   It's a PRIVATE MEMBERS restaurant/bar, which is available to the public at a fee.  The public can determine in their own good ways, whether or not they think it represents value for money, or whether they want to be a part of it.  I wish that the space had been turned into affordable housing and community projects for the people that need it the most in Brixton.  But it wasn't.  And it was lying empty for a very long time.  There are now, as a result of Squires, a few more hundred people working in Brixton, spending their money.  I don't believe in trickle down economics, and so I accept that the poor won't directly benefit from that, but I am 100% sure that a space occupied by a profitable business that attracts money is a better thing for a community than having a massive building with nothing in it but potential.


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> 1) They have table football, table tennis, live music and quite a few events in the space downstairs (although membership Upstairs isn't required for access to the events downstairs - that depends on the event organisers).  Pool in the Marquis of Lorne is a £1 a go.  Music in the Effra Tavern is free (and outstanding).  I never said it was better than any free entertainment found all over Brixton.  I said it was a matter of personal preference.
> 2) I think asking for £240 for membership will exlude people who don't want to or can't spend £240 - myself included.  But that's their perogative, what with them managing a private members restaurant, and all.  Most members bars charge significantly more than £240, so to some, depending on their frame of reference, it's actually fairly inclusive as far as a PRIVATE MEMBERS space is concerned.  I said it was a matter of personal preference.
> 3) I think it depends on what the private members bar does in the predominantly poor area to try to improve community cohesion.  If Squires and Upstairs do nothing (bear in mind they haven't charged a penny for membership yet), then I will feel very comfortable criticising them for that.  Will you feel comfortable praising their actions if they do some good in the local area, I wonder?  Or will it just be crumbs off the table, again?
> 4) You've inferred that me saying it was staffed by good people meant something other than precisely what I said.  Why are you trying to coax me into telling you what bars I think are staffed by bad people in Brixton?  What the actual fuck is that?
> ...


1. So the private club offers nothing that isn't available for free elsewhere apart from exclusivity, luxury surroundings and a removal of the riff raff. You specifically mentioned the entertainment in the members-only private bar as some sort of justification for the hefty joining fee, so I'll ask again: what entertainment?
2. if you knew anything about the demographics of the area, you'd know that a £240 entrance free will directly exclude the majority of existing residents. Don't they matter to you?
3. Tell me how an exclusive and elitist private club does anything for the vast majority of locals who are automatically excluded from entering?
4. You brought up the 'good people' line like it was especially noteworthy. It's not. There's plenty of good people working all around Brixton.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 19, 2018)

editor said:


> 1. So the private club offers nothing that isn't available for free elsewhere apart from exclusivity, luxury surroundings and a removal of the riff raff. You specifically mentioned the entertainment in the members-only private bar as some sort of justification for the hefty joining fee, so I'll ask again: what entertainment?
> 2. if you knew anything about the demographics of the area, you'd know that a £240 entrance free will directly exclude the majority of existing residents. Don't they matter to you?
> 3. Tell me how an exclusive and elitist private club does anything for the vast majority of locals who are automatically excluded from entering?
> 4. You brought up the 'good people' line like it was especially noteworthy. It's not. There's plenty of good people working all around Brixton.



All I've said, and said multiple times and I think quite clearly is that it's up to individuals to determine whether or not they want to take part in a private members club.  My belief is that in the context of a private members club, a £240 members fee isn't that much - I accept that it is TOO MUCH for many residents, but then as far as I'm aware, this is the only private members bar/restaurant available in Brixton for all of its roughly 78,000 inhabitants.  Assuming £23 is too much money for 99.5% of the population (which is a massive assumption), do we begrudge 400 people for spending their money on a swanky venue if they want to?  I have also said that I wished the space had been used for more community focussed activities, but it hasn't, and I've also expressed the point that if Squires and Upstairs never do anything for the betterment of their locality, then I will carry criticism against them.

I appreciate that I'm repeating myself, but it seems that I need to.  

You ask me to tell you "how an exclusive and elitist private club does anything for the vast majority of locals who are automatically excluded from entering" - why do I need to tell you that?  What part of my original post suggested that I would have any interest in telling you that?  My point was, and again, I'm aware that I'm repeating myself, that a private members club on top of Squire and Cos building has every legal right to exist and the moral or ethical arguments against it from existing that have been elicited in this thread are paper-thin at best.  We live in a world of inequality which favours the wealthy over the poor, and that is painful.  No doubt.  But why the fresh fuck your ire is so vehemently expressed against an establishment like this, at such an early stage of its lifecycle, rather than, oh, I don't know, the betting shops and fast food chains that deliberately target the vulnerable to keep them poor and unhealthy is beyond me.  It's wasted breath.  

But given that your account (and I accept there may be multiple people using your account) is responsible for 190,000 posts since the year 2000, which, assuming you spend around a minute per post means you've been fighting the good fight from behind your keyboard for a solid 1340 days, or THREE AND A HALF YEARS, I accept that I have insufficient capital with you to have a reasoned debate.  I get the impression that you're very used to changing the goal-posts during a discussion, and fair play - get your kicks where you can.

My offer still stands to go for a drink at Upstairs to check it out for yourself, to meet me and have what I hope would be a really good discussion about what we might practically be able to do to help people that need help in Brixton.  I'd also be really interested to learn from you about your sources regarding the demographics of the area - you're right, I don't know much about the demography of Brixton, and I'd like to learn.  Maybe we could move this away from the keyboard and do something worthwhile?  Or that might not be your bag.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Sep 19, 2018)

CH1 said:


> editor I'm posting this Art Deco wonder to ease your evident distress. Monetised vandalism of course, but not by Squires.
> View attachment 132124
> Ivor House was locally listed in 2010 as an attractive heritage asset in Brixton. Having explored different options for Ivor House, it was determined that residential would be the most appropriate use for this building. Works have started on a sensitive refurbishment of the building with an additional storey taking the building from four to five storeys.
> 
> ...


I went for a nose at these apartments on 17th sept They are high end Art Deco apartments absolutely beautiful, and a two bed is £720,000 and service is £3600


----------



## CH1 (Sep 19, 2018)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> I went for a nose at these apartments on 17th sept They are high end Art Deco apartments absolutely beautiful, and a two bed is £720,000 and service is £3600


Service charge is a bit steep. Do they starch your sheets for that?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> FUCK THE RICH.  I LOVE THE POOR.  BALCONIES ARE FASCIST.
> 
> I've been to Upstairs a fair few times.  It's fine.  It's a really nice space, drinks are priced sensibly considering what you tend to spend for somewhere with design aesthetic at its heart, the staff are incredibly sweet and kind, and the food is totally delicious and varied, and today include a good few vegan choices.  It is a members space for an architecural firm that decided to move to Brixton instead of King's Cross, and boy, are we fuming about that on here!  I got membership this past year by virtue of knowing someone that works there, but it's never seemed to me to be difficult in this period to gain membership.  In terms of the future (read "£240 a year just to enter the fucking place") I earn under £30,000 per year so a private members bar isn't really my thing no matter what, but £23 per month for access to a really nice space that serves great cocktails and food doesn't seem absurd - it's going to be a matter of personal preference.  If you go twice a week, that's £2.88 per visit for access to an open space, staffed by good people, with activities and entertainment laid on.   By way of reference, my drinking preferences in Brixton are the Marquis of Lorne and the Effra Tavern - both places where a pint costs as much as it does Upstairs.
> 
> I think it's bizarre the extent to which there is SUCH a degree of anger and resentment directed towards The Department Store.  There is so much to be said for the manner in which big capital can subvert communities, but I feel like most of the vitriol against Squires and the Department Store is just that, vitriol.  Where's the nuance and the reasoned discussion?  Have the people who have serious concerns about "true, elitist, gentrifying colours" of the Department Store ever actually been?  Would they like an invitation?  I'd be only too happy to oblige.



As someone who earns much less than thirty grand I do think £240 pound a year just to go on the roof is elitist.

Squires are a business that moved to Brixton. Fair enough. They didn't do it quietly. They made big thing about it.

I did hear guest memberships for roof terrace were given out to some local people. Not sure if this is correct.

Seems to me Squires did a good PR campaign when they came to Brixton. They aren't stupid. They know from long involvement with high end projects in London that gentrification is an issue. So when they came to Brixton they have been quite clever.

I was at Department store when it opened as it had Brixton Neighborhood forum meeting there.

At that Squires junior gave talk of how community minded Squires are.

As you say guest memberships were at start fairly easy to come by. This was imo no accident. Squires did this at beginning to get good community PR.

I ve heard using the basement space is now pricey for community groups. Vida Walsh is cheaper. So that's gone.

Imo what Squires have done is clever. Making all right noises and then gradually bringing in extra costs. Which will make the space exclusive.

Squires are private business so its up to them what they do with the property they own. That is how Capitalism works.

They aren't doing local community a favour by coming here. It was them bigging up arrival to Brixton.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Sep 19, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Service charge is a bit steep. Do they starch your sheets for that?


Lol the building and interior is stunning and only four apartments available now


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> But given that your account (and I accept there may be multiple people using your account) is responsible for 190,000 posts since the year 2000, which, assuming you spend around a minute per post means you've been fighting the good fight from behind your keyboard for a solid 1340 days, or THREE AND A HALF YEARS, I accept that I have insufficient capital with you to have a reasoned debate.  I get the impression that you're very used to changing the goal-posts during a discussion, and fair play - get your kicks where you can.


And this is what's known as an ad hominem. How many posts I've made here - or when I started posting - is utterly irrelevant to the point under discussion.


whatwilldid said:


> Assuming £23 is too much money for 99.5% of the population (which is a massive assumption)


It's also a ludicrous assumption. To enjoy the facilities of the new elitist bar, people have to find at least £240 a year just to _get through the door_. You do understand that large parts of Brixton are some of the most deprived in London? £240 is a fortune to those people.


whatwilldid said:


> do we begrudge 400 people for spending their money on a swanky venue if they want to?


I don't begrudge people spending money on whatever they like, but to pretend that opening a swishy, exclusive private members bar for the elite isn't going to have the slightest impact on gentrifying the area would be very naive indeed. Here, have a read: Gentrification isn't a benign process: it forces people from their homes 

I don't view gentrification as a good thing. Nor do I applaud businesses that accelerate that process. Do you?


whatwilldid said:


> Maybe we could move this away from the keyboard and do something worthwhile? Or that might not be your bag.


And another ad hominem. Actually I do shitloads for Brixton. Businesses, bars, restaurants and individuals have all expressed their gratitude, as do the local charities and campaigns I've raised thousands of pounds for. How about you?

Oh and you never explained what this entertainment is that's supposedly on offer in the bar...


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2018)

Deleted as difficult to use quotes didn't work.


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> As someone who earns much less than thirty grand I do think £240 pound a year just to go on the roof is elitist.
> 
> Squires are a business that moved to Brixton. Fair enough. They didn't do it quietly. They made big thing about it.
> 
> ...


Their PR campaign was perfectly planned and executed, just as you might expect from a modern, social media savvy multi-million company. Essentially bribing the reggae store into their building was fantastic PR.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> 1)
> 
> Finally, yeah, it kind of is about exclusivity.   It's a PRIVATE MEMBERS restaurant/bar, which is available to the public at a fee.  The public can determine in their own good ways, whether or not they think it represents value for money, or whether they want to be a part of it. * I wish that the space had been turned into affordable housing and community projects for the people that need it the most in Brixton.  But it wasn't.  *And it was lying empty for a very long time.  There are now, as a result of Squires, a few more hundred people working in Brixton, spending their money.  I don't believe in trickle down economics, and so I accept that the poor won't directly benefit from that, but I am 100% sure that a space occupied by a profitable business that attracts money is a better thing for a community than having a massive building with nothing in it but potential.




You have made comments about big capital.


If a left wing government came to power and decided to expropriate Squires family of the department store, to turn it into community space for people that need it, you would not have a problem with Squires family losing it?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2018)

editor said:


> Their PR campaign was perfectly planned and executed, just as you might expect from a modern, social media savvy multi-million company. Essentially bribing the reggae store into their building was fantastic PR.



Ive seen Squires in action. Very suave and clever.


----------



## 3Zeros (Sep 19, 2018)

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend that something like the opening of a private members club might attract opposition not only because it's a prime example of gentrification, but also because it's happening in the context of a wider gentrification process. And that the wider gentrification process is happening in the wider context of austerity.

Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2018)

3Zeros said:


> I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend that something like the opening of a private members club might attract opposition not only because it's a prime example of gentrification, but also because it's happening in the context of a wider gentrification process. And that the wider gentrification process is happening in the wider context of austerity.
> 
> Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?


You've absolutely nailed it there.


----------



## alcopop (Sep 19, 2018)

3Zeros said:


> I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend that something like the opening of a private members club might attract opposition not only because it's a prime example of gentrification, but also because it's happening in the context of a wider gentrification process. And that the wider gentrification process is happening in the wider context of austerity.
> 
> Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?


It attracts minimal opposition tbh.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2018)

alcopop said:


> It attracts minimal opposition tbh.



On what do you base this?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2018)

alcopop said:


> It attracts minimal opposition tbh.



When I talk to people in Loughborough Junction they really resent whats happening to Brixton. When I talk to people at work they say same thing about what's happening to London.

This isn't just about a few posters on Urban.

I've said this before.

Some posters here like you just don't get it.

The resentment is out there amongst a large amount of Londoners.

Fortunately it's expressed as resentment against the well off. Its not about immigration or race.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 19, 2018)

I'm delighted to learn that activities and entertainment equivalent to those laid on by this elitist and exclusive venue are widely available for free all over Brixton.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2018)

Rushy said:


> I'm delighted to learn that activities and entertainment equivalent to those laid on by this elitist and exclusive venue are widely available for free all over Brixton.



I'm so pleased for you. Made your day I assume.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2018)

Rushy said:


> I'm delighted to learn that activities and entertainment equivalent to those laid on by this elitist and exclusive venue are widely available for free all over Brixton.



Now you know this you won't have to spend all that money on membership. Good thing it been pointed out to you. Forum has saved you money.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> As someone who earns much less than thirty grand I do think £240 pound a year just to go on the roof is elitist.
> 
> Squires are a business that moved to Brixton. Fair enough. They didn't do it quietly. They made big thing about it.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with you about Squires possibly being clever in terms of PR when they moved here.  It would have been pretty strange for them to have behaved any other way once they decided they were going to come here instead of King's Cross.

Where "elitist" means something along the lines of "the belief that certain persons deserve favoured treatment by virtue of their superiority, as in intelligence, social standing or wealth", then yeah, any members club is elitist.  Any institution that charges entry and doesn't factor in the economic means of its locality is elitist.  Is that the issue here?  If so, I think there are a few places in Brixton that charge entry, Cafe Cairo being one example from the other night just as an example, but I don't see substantial posts decrying them as "greedy", "elitist" and "trying to keep the poor people away".


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 20, 2018)

3Zeros said:


> I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend that something like the opening of a private members club might attract opposition not only because it's a prime example of gentrification, but also because it's happening in the context of a wider gentrification process. And that the wider gentrification process is happening in the wider context of austerity.
> 
> Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?


Got it, consider me out of here.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> I don't disagree with you about Squires possibly being clever in terms of PR when they moved here.  It would have been pretty strange for them to have behaved any other way once they decided they were going to come here instead of King's Cross.
> 
> Where "elitist" means something along the lines of "the belief that certain persons deserve favoured treatment by virtue of their superiority, as in intelligence, social standing or wealth", then yeah, any members club is elitist.  Any institution that charges entry and doesn't factor in the economic means of its locality is elitist.  Is that the issue here?  If so, I think there are a few places in Brixton that charge entry, Cafe Cairo being one example from the other night just as an example, but I don't see substantial posts decrying them as "greedy", "elitist" and "trying to keep the poor people away".


FFS. This is a really stupid and incoherent argument. *Anyone *can get into Cafe Cairo. It's free on their club nights if you get there early, and it's free throughout the week. It's a normal bar. Open to all.

If you have to pay £240 just for the right to set foot in a bar, then it is totally elitist, even more so if it's located in a poor area.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Got it, consider me out of here.


So you really don't have an answer?


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> So you really don't have an answer?



Hasn't got a chance really.  Attacked, cornered, shut down.  Nowhere to have a reasoned debate. Accusations of 'ad hominem' when you're one of the greatest practitioners of that yourself.   

Business as usual.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> So you really don't have an answer?


To what?  There's no way of making headway here, I'm perfectly happy leaving you to your domaine to reign and dish out justice to all who pass.  I asked if we could meet up so you could educate me.  I literally asked if that could happen, and you seem to have no interest in that, and so I'm fairly happy to call this my last post on this forum.  I don't think it's for me.  For the record, I help out at Brixton £ occasionally, I treat people with respect and I believe that gentrification can have an immensely negative effect on communities - I just don't believe that Upstairs at the Department Store merits this kind of vitriol, and I don't believe that you are capable of fostering a welcoming community on this forum.  Perhaps if we bump into each other in town we'll have a nicer time than we have in the few hours that we've encountered one another on here.  Let's leave it at that.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Hasn't got a chance really.  Attacked, cornered, shut down.  Nowhere to have a reasoned debate. Accusations of 'ad hominem' when you're one of the greatest practitioners of that yourself.
> 
> Business as usual.


Try reading the fucking thread before trying to stir up shit as usual. He started up with the off-topic personal stuff as well you know.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> To what?  There's no way of making headway here, I'm perfectly happy leaving you to your domaine to reign and dish out justice to all who pass.  I asked if we could meet up so you could educate me.  I literally asked if that could happen, and you seem to have no interest in that, and so I'm fairly happy to call this my last post on this forum.  I don't think it's for me.  For the record, I help out at Brixton £ occasionally, I treat people with respect and I believe that gentrification can have an immensely negative effect on communities - I just don't believe that Upstairs at the Department Store merits this kind of vitriol, and I don't believe that you are capable of fostering a welcoming community on this forum.  Perhaps if we bump into each other in town we'll have a nicer time than we have in the few hours that we've encountered one another on here.  Let's leave it at that.


I really haven't got the time to 'educate' people who I don't believe are being sincere. 

But I'm sure Squire & Partners are glad you're here to defend them - they've certainly never taken the time or the interest to interact here (probably because they can't control it), although I'm not quite seeing the 'vitriol' you're claiming. I just see people at the end of their tether seeing their community being ripped apart and turned into a two tier state, with all the nice stuff for the well off and privileged and those struggling on limited finances being pushed out of the picture. And Squire & Partners are _absolutel_y part of that process of dividing the community, even if you can't see it.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> Try reading the fucking thread before trying to stir up shit as usual. He started up with the off-topic personal stuff as well you know.


I *have* read the thread.  I thought he or she put up some very well reasoned posts and stated their position very clearly.  I don't see off-topic personal stuff at all.  Do you want to clarify that?  

Every time you tell me I'm stirring up shit, you must know really that I have an argument, mustn't you?  I don't have the time or inclination to stir stuff up for the sake of it.  You really should try and understand that.  I have nothing personal, I just think it's fair to point out alternative points of view and the diversions and distractions that present themselves as rational arguments.  See the recent Picturehouse thread as an example.  No reasoned response, just insults, abuse and an unwillingness to engage.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> I really haven't got the time to 'educate' people who I don't believe are being sincere.
> 
> But I'm sure Squire & Partners are glad you're here to defend them - they've certainly never taken the time or the interest to interact here (probably because they can't control it), although I'm not quite seeing the 'vitriol' you're claiming. I just see people at the end of their tether seeing their community being ripped apart and turned into a two tier state, with all the nice stuff for the well off and privileged and those struggling on limited finances being pushed out of the picture. And Squire & Partners are _absolutel_y part of that process of dividing the community, even if you can't see it.



Here we go:

_'I haven't got the time to educate people who aren't being sincere'_ - a very blunt and unconsidered rebuttal of somebody who opened up and is willing to listen, with a very poor excuse - it actually sounds like whatwilldid is being *very* sincere, as they have stated their position very clearly indeed, and they are involved in community activities.  That just makes it sound like you don't want to engage with something where you might need to concede in any way

_'I'm sure Squire & Partners are glad you're here to defend them'_ - a massive oversimplification and *huge* fallacy, which is also a colossal ad hominem (you don't like them, right?)  There's a big difference between putting forward an argument that S&P exists and does not mean the whole of the community is excluded from Brixton and 'defending' them.  The poster quite clearly stated that they would prefer the space was given over to social housing (as would I), but that given they are here, they bring at least some jobs to Brixton.

As I said before, fighting excessive gentrification is a good thing, but there's such a thing as weather versus climate.  You spend all your time fighting individuals or businesses, then you neglect the bigger picture which is how the council and the Government get away with allowing this stuff to happen. And spending all your time hating on those that are prepared to discuss the idea of balance.  So even if you put forward a remotely reasoned argument and are community minded, you're still wrong.  Things change, good or bad, but insisting that it shouldn't have changed is a hiding to nothing, because it has.

Somebody even offered to meet and discuss it with you, but you basically told them to fuck off.  

That's why people don't post here anymore, *not* because the place is full of right wingers, as you like to point out.  But it's a great excuse.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> I *have* read the thread.  I thought he or she put up some very well reasoned posts and stated their position very clearly.  I don't see off-topic personal stuff at all.  Do you want to clarify that?
> 
> Every time you tell me I'm stirring up shit, you must know really that I have an argument, mustn't you?  I don't have the time or inclination to stir stuff up for the sake of it.  You really should try and understand that.  I have nothing personal, I just think it's fair to point out alternative points of view and the diversions and distractions that present themselves as rational arguments.  See the recent Picturehouse thread as an example.  No reasoned response, just insults, abuse and an unwillingness to engage.


So you think the amount of time I've been posting on this site, and the amount of posts I've made over the years has any direct relevance to the topic under discussion?

And then there was the suggestion that I'm not interested in doing "something worthwhile". The poster has no fucking idea what I do around Brixton . But then I don't know why I'm even bothering talking to you. You always steam in when there's points to be made. Are you talking about Squire and gentrification? Nope, It's the same old personal shit.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Somebody even offered to meet and discuss it with you, but you basically told them to fuck off.  That's not a good look.


And here you go again, continuing your personal crusade to score points. It's way too predictable and disruptive, so unless you stop immediately I'm putting us both on mutual ignore. The topic here is gentrification and  I really don't care what you think of me. I doubt many other posters do, either.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> So you think the amount of time I've been posting on this site, and the amount of posts I've made over the years has any direct relevance to the topic under discussion?
> 
> And then there was the suggestion that I'm not interested in doing "something worthwhile". The poster has no fucking idea what I do around Brixton . But then I don't know why I'm even bothering talking to you. You always steam in when there's points to be made. Are you talking about Squire and gentrification? Nope, It's the same old personal shit.



I have no opinion on how long you've been posting on this site.  I know you started it, and you have my total respect for that.  Really.  The poster was clearly not attacking an individual, rather the power that individual has over the general tone, content and response they got on the board.  So not an ad hominem, it was a reasoned response to the response they got to their post.  You can;t just pull that out every time.  You've 'ad hominem-ed' me enough times and apparently its perfectly acceptable as long as it goes the other way.

Meeting and talking is most certainly something worthwhile.  And I know that you have done many worthwhile things around Brixton, every time I mention my respect for you, you ignore it.  But that's your problem not mine.  

And it's not personal shit, it's about the hijacking and shutting down of a discussion about S&P.  But the poster that started that conversation that could have been interesting is a fucking dick, right?


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Meeting and talking is most certainly something worthwhile?


How many new posters have you met off this site for a political chat? Why on earth do you think I'd have the time or inclination to meet someone to talk about Squire and Partners? Of course, I may hear something wonderfully insightful, but given I've been studying, talking, lecturing and arguing about gentrification for bloody years - and his contributions to this thread thus far - I'm pretty sure I'm not going to hear anything new.  But you can go meet him if you like and report back.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> And here you go again, continuing your personal crusade to score points. It's way too predictable and disruptive, so unless you stop immediately I'm putting us both on mutual ignore. The topic here is gentrification and  I really don't care what you think of me. I doubt many other posters do, either.


I have no interest in scoring points, just reasoned debates which aren't  pile on which ignore 80% of what a poster puts forward.

If you want to censor me or reject any kind of intelligent debate with those who might have a slightly different POV to yours, please feel free to put us on mutual ignore.  You're in charge and I don't have that option. 

But still, respect to you for the good stuff you've done.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> How many new posters have you met off this site for a political chat? Why on earth do you think I'd have the time or inclination to meet someone to talk about Squire and Partners? Of course, I may hear something wonderfully insightful, but given I've been studying, talking, lecturing and arguing about gentrification for bloody years - and his contributions to this thread thus far - I'm pretty sure I'm not going to hear anything new.  But you can go meet him if you like and report back.


I've met some truly great people from this site.  And you're perfectly entitled to that view.  

And of course, I never suggested I would go and meet him or her, but your sarcasm is noted and dismissed.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> I have no interest in scoring points, just reasoned debates which aren't  pile on which ignore 80% of what a poster puts forward.
> 
> If you want to censor me or reject any kind of intelligent debate with those who might have a slightly different POV to yours, please feel free to put us on mutual ignore.  You're in charge and I don't have that option.
> 
> But still, respect to you for the good stuff you've done.


Why do you feel the need to constantly steam in whenever I'm involved? And if you are here simply in your role as the self-elected role as defender of free speech (or how ever you frame it), please explain why you have not u_ttered a single word _to 3Zeros  who is actually the poster who prompted whatwilldid 's flounce?

Strange that, isn't it. And just look what you've done to this fucking thread since you arrived. All debate has ended and it's all got personal, FFS.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> Why do you feel the need to constantly steam in whenever I'm involved? And if you are here simply in your role as the self-elected role as defender of free speech (or how ever you frame it), please explain why you have not u_ttered a single word _to 3Zeros  who is actually the poster who prompted whatwilldid 's flounce?
> 
> Strange that, isn't it. And just look what you've done to this fucking thread since you arrived. All debate has ended and it's all got personal, FFS.



There was never any debate in the first place, that's the problem.  Well spotted.


----------



## sealion (Sep 20, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Cafe Cairo being one example from the other night just as an example, but I don't see substantial posts decrying them as "greedy", "elitist" and "trying to keep the poor people away".


It's open five nights a week and free to enter for at least three of those nights. If there's live acts and cabaret as there was last weekend they usually charge between £3 -£5 depending on what the acts want paying and the amount of extra bar/security staff required. They don't always charge an entrance fee and do provide a free toast bar and welcome people from all backrounds. There's free art and craft classes, live model painting (free) and the use of rooms for events and community meetings, also free. I know the people there very well and they are far from elitest or greedy ( this is a laughable suggestion) hence the lack of posts decrying them, nor do they keep poor people out.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 20, 2018)

Does anybody know is there a work space that you can access during the day as part of the membership or is it just entrance to the bar/ roof terrace/ restaurant? 

They refer to a “social space” on their website. Not really sure what that means.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 20, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> 1) They have table football, table tennis, live music and quite a few events in the space downstairs (although membership Upstairs isn't required for access to the events downstairs - that depends on the event organisers).  Pool in the Marquis of Lorne is a £1 a go.  Music in the Effra Tavern is free (and outstanding).  I never said it was better than any free entertainment found all over Brixton.  I said it was a matter of personal preference.
> 2) I think asking for £240 for membership will exlude people who don't want to or can't spend £240 - myself included.  But that's their perogative, what with them managing a private members restaurant, and all.  Most members bars charge significantly more than £240, so to some, depending on their frame of reference, it's actually fairly inclusive as far as a PRIVATE MEMBERS space is concerned.  I said it was a matter of personal preference.
> 3) I think it depends on what the private members bar does in the predominantly poor area to try to improve community cohesion.  If Squires and Upstairs do nothing (bear in mind they haven't charged a penny for membership yet), then I will feel very comfortable criticising them for that.  Will you feel comfortable praising their actions if they do some good in the local area, I wonder?  Or will it just be crumbs off the table, again?
> 4) You've inferred that me saying it was staffed by good people meant something other than precisely what I said.  Why are you trying to coax me into telling you what bars I think are staffed by bad people in Brixton?  What the actual fuck is that?
> ...


I love the smell of rat in the morning.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

sealion said:


> It's open five nights a week and free to enter for at least three of those nights. If there's live acts and cabaret as there was last weekend they usually charge between £3 -£5 depending on what the acts want paying and the amount of extra bar/security staff required. They don't always charge an entrance fee and do provide a free toast bar and welcome people from all backrounds. There's free art and craft classes, live model painting (free) and the use of rooms for events and community meetings, also free. I know the people there very well and they are far from elitest or greedy ( this is a laughable suggestion) hence the lack of posts decrying them, nor do they keep poor people out.


It was quite the most ridiculous comparison.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Does anybody know is there a work space that you can access during the day as part of the membership or is it just entrance to the bar/ roof terrace/ restaurant?
> 
> They refer to a “social space” on their website. Not really sure what that means.


It's a buzzword that suggests it's for everyone but it really means that's is just a space that people can hang out in. Well those people who've got a quarter of a grand to spare, that is. How do you feel about such an expensive and exclusive private bar opening up in Brixton?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 20, 2018)

I had an idea that POW did something similar to the Squires place. Can't outright confirm this, but from my perspective living on just over £5,000 pa of which 25% goes on Council Tax this little private offering seems extravagant: The Blue Room – POW / The Prince Of Wales

Maybe I'm moving in a parallel universe - but is it OK to charge £240 or even £480 to hire a room with cocktails and spirits in it - but not OK to charge an annual fee for membership of a venue - a measure clearly designed to keep out the hoi polloi?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 20, 2018)

I used to frequent a well known private members club in soho at one time
The sole purpose being to drink after pub closing time
No membership fee was paid, the method of entry was to involve a club member in conversation At the pub early doors
And trick them into revealing the membership number
Then a quick phone call was made to the club to blag a guestie using their details
This was before soho had been homogenised so not too painful a night out.
It had to stop when my partner in crime "tattooed" some glamourous gals ( with their consent) using an indelible marker....tributes to Leeds Uniteds Billy bremner IIRC causing the cancellation of an expensive fashion week event.
The only direct benefit I can see to this venture is that whatwilldids hypothetical 400 will hopefully be indulging in loud chat and chasing networking opportunities Upstairs and not taking up space in less pretentious venues few as they are in the present time.....


----------



## klang (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> There was never any debate in the first place, that's the problem.


whatwilldid's first ever sentence:


whatwilldid said:


> FUCK THE RICH. I LOVE THE POOR. BALCONIES ARE FASCIST.


makes me questions how genuine their demands for a reasonable debate were.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> It's a buzzword that suggests it's for everyone but it really means that's is just a space that people can hang out in. Well those people who've got a quarter of a grand to spare, that is. How do you feel about such an expensive and exclusive private bar opening up in Brixton?


For me the question is does the existence of Upstairs at Squire and Partners as private members club actually make life in Brixton worse for those who can’t afford to pay the membership fee?

I don’t really know the answer to that question. My instinct is it does not. So while I doubt I would join if I still lived in Brixton right now I have no problem with it’s exisrence in and of itself.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> For me the question is does the existence of Upstairs at Squire and Partners as private members club actually make life in Brixton worse for those who can’t afford to pay the membership fee?
> 
> I don’t really know the answer to that question. My instinct is it does not. So while I doubt I would join if I still lived in Brixton right now I have no problem with it’s exisrence in and of itself.


So you don't think that the impact and the allure of a private club will have no knock on effect in terms of gentrifying the area? OK. I disagree completely and would suggest the impact of such exclusive and elitist bars has a definite knock-on effect, as well as a detrimental social aspect to those who suddenly find themselves being priced put of some parts of their own town.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

littleseb said:


> whatwilldid's first ever sentence:
> 
> makes me questions how genuine their demands for a reasonable debate were.


Exactly. He started being controversial so he can hardly complain about the subsequent debate following his tone.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> So you don't think that the impact and the allure of a private club will have no knock on effect in terms of gentrifying the area.


No that’s not what I said. Try reading what I did say again.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> No that’s not what I said. Try reading what I did say again.


You said that your 'instinct' is that it wouldn't make life worse for those who can't afford the membership fee. I think it does, via the knock on effect I've described.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> You said that your 'instinct' is that it wouldn't make life worse for those who can't afford the membership fee. I think it does, via the knock on effect I've described.


Yes I did say that. What I did not say, but you attributed to me was that it will have “no knock on effect in terms of gentrifying the area?” 

That’s a different topic


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> You have made comments about big capital.
> 
> 
> If a left wing government came to power and decided to expropriate Squires family of the department store, to turn it into community space for people that need it, you would not have a problem with Squires family losing it?



whatwilldid 

You haven't answered my earlier question.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> whatwilldid
> 
> You haven't answered my earlier question.



How, in your scenario, is it determined which buildings in Brixton get appropriated for 'community space'? Will there be a poll on urban75? I think you'd need to give a bit more detail on what you're proposing before anyone could give a meaningful answer to a question like that.


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> a detrimental social aspect to those who suddenly find themselves being priced put of some parts of their own town.


Is there anyone who isn’t?

I mean, obvs, there are a few people who aren’t. 

But id guess 98% of people are. 

(?)


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> How, in your scenario, is it determined which buildings in Brixton get appropriated for 'community space'? Will there be a poll on urban75? I think you'd need to give a bit more detail on what you're proposing before anyone could give a meaningful answer to a question like that.



Its a straightforward question to remarks the poster made about it preferably being community space.

I will leave the poster to answer the question.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Its a straightforward question to remarks the poster made about it preferably being community space.
> 
> I will leave the poster to answer the question.


It's not a straightforward question at all!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> It's not a straightforward question at all!



We are just going to have to disagree.

I would like whatwilldid respond. He has had a lot to say here. So could respond to the question.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> We are just going to have to disagree.
> 
> I would like whatwilldid respond. He has had a lot to say here. So could respond to the question.



Think you might be disappointed Gramsci because it looks like whatwilldid was do the off.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

cuppa tee said:


> Think you might be disappointed Gramsci because it looks like whatwilldid was do the off.



I thought that. Didn't really want to debate imo. Only joined couple days ago to have a go. Mostly at Ed.

I'm not even clear if whatwilldid is genuine poster.

I could be proved wrong. Will have to see.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

whatwilldid does remind me of mjd


----------



## T & P (Sep 20, 2018)

Worth keeping in mind that at the end of the day no private business is expected to offer access to the public to their offices or facilities. If S&P had quietly moved in and not offered the public access to their building nobody would have bat an eyelid.

As others have said here, this has been a PR exercise, and might well be regarded as a cynical one. But that really is as serious a crime as S&P might have committed since their arrival. Not exactly front page material.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Sep 20, 2018)

T & P said:


> Worth keeping in mind that at the end of the day no private business is expected to offer access to the public to their offices or facilities. If S&P had quietly moved in and not offered the public access to their building nobody would have bat an eyelid.
> 
> As others have said here, this has been a PR exercise, and might well be regarded as a cynical one. But that really is as serious a crime as S&P might have committed since their arrival. Not exactly front page material.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Sep 20, 2018)

They are also looking for THE RIGHT TYPE OF CLIENTELE


----------



## T & P (Sep 20, 2018)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 147550


Not sure I get your point within the context of this discussion tbh. I am no fan of private member clubs but membership vetting is a commonplace procedure amongst them. Unless their admission policies are based on race, gender or social class or anything else unacceptable or discriminatory towards local residents, which nothing in that statement suggests it is so.


----------



## T & P (Sep 20, 2018)

And also worth remembering that this was not an established venue that had been previously enjoyed by the local community. It is a leisure space within a private firm’s HQ that’s been open for barely a year that offered restricted access to a limited numtof non- employees. No pee-existing community asset has been taken away from the public. And no flaunting or rubbing on people’s faces has taken place. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of locals who don’t check this forum or BB would barely be aware of the upstairs place, let alone come across their membership requirements.


----------



## Supine (Sep 20, 2018)




----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

T & P said:


> Worth keeping in mind that at the end of the day no private business is expected to offer access to the public to their offices or facilities. If S&P had quietly moved in and not offered the public access to their building nobody would have bat an eyelid.
> 
> As others have said here, this has been a PR exercise, and might well be regarded as a cynical one. But that really is as serious a crime as S&P might have committed since their arrival. Not exactly front page material.



Im not saying it is a serious crime.

What "some posters" get wrong here is that someone like me just sees things as black and white issues. Sees them through ideological lens.

I've said previously they are behaving like any Capitalist business. That is how life is.

Its no surprise to me an architectural practice for high profile up market projects in central London presents themselves as community oriented for PR purposes. That is also how capitalism operates. Hardly imo controversial to say that imo. Though it is here.

What I object to as that some posters dont see it for what it is.

Capitalism is capitalism. Its creates and entrenches an unequal society. This isn't cynicism. Its objective view of how society works.

Im not blaming Squires for this. In the bigger scheme of this they are just the lackeys.

I just would like it if posters here see Squires for what they are. A family run firm who have done well out of gentrification of central London. Lackeys.

If Squires really wanted to be community orientated they could drop membership to go on the balcony.


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> If Squires really wanted to be community orientated they could drop membership to go on the balcony.


Or start a steak night


----------



## T & P (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Im not saying it is a serious crime.
> 
> What "some posters" get wrong here is that someone like me just sees things as black and white issues. Sees them through ideological lens.
> 
> ...


I actually agree with much of what you say, and I don’t think anyone here thinks the sun shines out of S&P’s arse. But they’re not the pantomime villains they are sometimes painted as (not by you), and but a very small cog in the machine driving inequality or gentrification, and no worse than countless other businesses in Brixton and elsewhere.

The bar membership issue looks to me as the latest stick to best them with, and the issue is being blown out of proportion in here IMO.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

T & P said:


> I actually agree with much of what you say, and I don’t think anyone here thinks the sun shines out of S&P’s arse. But they’re not the pantomime villains they are sometimes painted as (not by you), and but a very small cog in the machine driving inequality or gentrification, and no worse than countless other businesses in Brixton and elsewhere.
> 
> The bar membership issue looks to me as the latest stick to best them with, and the issue is being blown out of proportion in here IMO.



The problem with being critical of capitalism is that its at root anarchic. There is no leader to blame. So people are small cogs or big ones. Squires imo are biggish ones and like it. That is how they see themselves.

My problem with Squires/ Department store is that they are big bucks architecture firm that has done well out of "regeneration" of London. Then come to Brixton. Fair enough. All business need HQ.

They wasnt good enough for them. Squires made a big deal out of it. I've posted my personal experience of it. So I'm not being prejudiced here. And contrasted that with the reality down the line.

I don't think I am being unfair.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 147550



Are they being serious? I read this and it beggars belief. One has to pay a lot to be member and they put this on application?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 147550



Ive just been on there website and ur right this is what it says.

Its actually imo offensive to ask for all this money and then make one apply in grovelling manner.

This really is elitist.

So Squires himself will be looking at applications I wonder. To make sure right kind of clientele join.

The application form gives me impression they could turn one down if they felt like it. 

So its not even free market. You have the money and you get in.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

T & P said:


> And also worth remembering that this was not an established venue that had been previously enjoyed by the local community. It is a leisure space within a private firm’s HQ that’s been open for barely a year that offered restricted access to a limited numtof non- employees. No pee-existing community asset has been taken away from the public. And no flaunting or rubbing on people’s faces has taken place. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of locals who don’t check this forum or BB would barely be aware of the upstairs place, let alone come across their membership requirements.



I have heard people on Loughborough Junction Council estates complaining. People do hear of these things. Surprising number of locals read Brixton Buzz for example. They mention it to me. Brixton buzz gets a lot of traffic.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

littleseb said:


> whatwilldid's first ever sentence:
> 
> makes me questions how genuine their demands for a reasonable debate were.


That is utterly ridiculous and wildly disingenuous.  You clearly haven't read the poster's argument.  

Any excuse *not* to have a debate.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

editor said:


> Exactly. He started being controversial so he can hardly complain about the subsequent debate following his tone.


Absolutely not.  He or she put forward a very well expressed and balanced view. And there was no subsequent debate, but there *were* a lot of cherrypicked and decoy arguments shouted back.

It's OK to admit that you don't want to have a reasoned conversation about any of this.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> whatwilldid
> 
> You haven't answered my earlier question.


I think if you go back and actually read his/her posts then you will see that they are very clear about their views on S&Q.  Do that and then come back and ask them to clarify.

I don't understand why posters only read what they want to hear from those they may disagree with


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> That is utterly ridiculous and wildly disingenuous.  You clearly haven't read the poster's argument.
> 
> Any excuse *not* to have a debate.



I have and I think littleseb is correct.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Its a straightforward question to remarks the poster made about it preferably being community space.
> 
> I will leave the poster to answer the question.


Why don't you put your views forward actually in relation to their posts?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> I think if you go back and actually read his/her posts then you will see that they are very clear about their views on S&Q.  Do that and then come back and ask them to clarify.
> 
> I don't understand why posters only read what they want to hear from those they may disagree with



I asked clear and direct question. He/ she didn't answer it. What are you going on about? I think you should calm down.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Why don't you put your views forward actually in relation to their posts?



I did. Please stop.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> We are just going to have to disagree.
> 
> I would like whatwilldid respond. He has had a lot to say here. So could respond to the question.


I think that ship has sailed (though I thought they expressed themselves very well).  whatwilldid got such a blunt and disingenuous kicking that they decided to leave.  And now you want them to come back?  

If you can't be bothered to engage with their original posts then why are you asking them to come back?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> I think that ship has sailed (though I thought they expressed themselves very well).  whatwilldid got such a blunt and disingenuous kicking that they decided to leave.  And now you want them to come back?
> 
> If you can't be bothered to engage with their original posts then why are you asking them to come back?



For the life of me I don't know what has got into you.

Its not me that has not engaged. Its the other way round.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Only joined couple days ago to have a go. Mostly at Ed.



Seemed pretty legit to me.  Intelligent argument, wasn't having a go in the way that some do. Was very respectful, clearly stated their position and the community activities they were involved in.  Are there any issues with that?


----------



## T & P (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I have heard people on Loughborough Junction Council estates complaining. People do hear of these things. Surprising number of locals read Brixton Buzz for example. They mention it to me. Brixton buzz gets a lot of traffic.


And some Brixton Buzz articles IMO can sometimes be heavily biased and fail to give the the whole picture, in particular if the author cares strongly about the subject. The recent article on this issue is in my view a good example of this.

That is fine of course- everyone else in that industry does it and everyone is entitled to their opinion But If someone reads a BB piece on something uncritically and does not have access to other views on the matter, it is not difficult to imagine many of its readers will form their opinion based solely on what they've read on BB.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> They are also looking for THE RIGHT TYPE OF CLIENTELE



Yes, and you can infer anything you like from that can't you?

We don't want poor people who can't spend money on cocktails
We don't want coked up wankers
Etc


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Seemed pretty legit to me.  Intelligent argument, wasn't having a go in the way that some do. Was very respectful, clearly stated their position and the community activities they were involved in.  Are there any issues with that?



Have you any proof of this? The poster only joined a few days back. Not even lurking here as member. Unless I see someone posting here on regular basis for at least several months I don't assume everything they say about themselves is correct.

I looked up his/ her profile and got wary.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> I think that ship has sailed (though I thought they expressed themselves very well).  whatwilldid got such a blunt and disingenuous kicking that they decided to leave.  And now you want them to come back?
> 
> If you can't be bothered to engage with their original posts then why are you asking them to come back?



I think you're quite right that they got a blunt and disingenous kicking, and it's the reason why the Brixton boards are dying, but I'd not blame Gramsci for that; he rarely shouts people down and generally does engage.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Yes, and you can infer anything you like from that can't you?
> 
> We don't want poor people who can't spend money on cocktails
> We don't want coked up wankers
> Etc



If I was running a company who wanted a membership bar I would not put offensive stuff like that on my website. This is a business providing a paid for service. Maybe thats not the world I live in but if I was selling a service I would treat potential customers with more respect.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> What I object to as that some posters dont see it for what it is.
> 
> Capitalism is capitalism. Its creates and entrenches an unequal society. This isn't cynicism. Its objective view of how society works.
> 
> If Squires really wanted to be community orientated they could drop membership to go on the balcony.


the 

I think people do see it for what it is.  Most people in Brixton would never think of joining a private members' club.  I certainly don't have any interest.  And the vast majority won't even know it exists.

Capitalism is so entrenched that picking on individual businesses is a waste of time.  It seems like the only businesses that are acceptable are those that are entirely neutral, don't make any profit and provide everything for everybody.  That's crazy thinking.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I asked clear and direct question. He/ she didn't answer it. What are you going on about? I think you should calm down.


I'm quite calm thank you.  And there's no offence or personal issues involved.  I think the absent poster was very balanced and upfront about their beliefs.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Have you any proof of this? The poster only joined a few days back. Not even lurking here as member. Unless I see someone posting here on regular basis for at least several months I don't assume everything they say about themselves is correct.
> 
> I looked up his/ her profile and got wary.


They put up very intelligent and well argued initial posts (yes, the initial post was provocative but that is in line with many other posts here).  They made it very clear which local community activities they are involved in. And also made it clear that they would have preferred it if the space had been given over to social housing.  They described very accurately the response they received to all of this.

To clarify, I have no idea who that poster is, but they seemed very genuine and well-considered to me (whether you agree with what they said or not).  But you all kicked the shit out of them without addressing any of the points raised.

Poor show.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 21, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I think you're quite right that they got a blunt and disingenuous kicking, and it's the reason why the Brixton boards are dying, but I'd not blame Gramsci for that; he rarely shouts people down and generally does engage.



I think Gramsci is a very thoughtful and intelligent poster.  I have total respect for him (we actually met a couple of years ago).  And there are clearly areas in which we disagree, but that is what this space is for.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2018)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> View attachment 147550



Well I had a look at Soho House membership application. And they come out with same kind of stuff.

Membership | Soho House 76 Dean Street

You also have to have two existing members propose you as members. Soho House in Dean Street doesn't come cheap.

So looks like Squires Upstairs private membership is modelling itself on the Soho House model. 

Not a world I live in. I wonder how Upstairs will vet applications?


----------



## discobastard (Sep 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> If I was running a company who wanted a membership bar I would not put offensive stuff like that on my website. This is a business providing a paid for service. Maybe thats not the world I live in but if I was selling a service I would treat potential customers with more respect.


That doesn't make sense - I was 'exaggerating for comic effect' and not directing that at you.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2018)

discobastard said:


> They put up very intelligent and well argued initial posts (yes, the initial post was provocative but that is in line with many other posts here).  They made it very clear which local community activities they are involved in. And also made it clear that they would have preferred it if the space had been given over to social housing.  They described very accurately the response they received to all of this.
> 
> To clarify, I have no idea who that poster is, but they seemed very genuine and well-considered to me (whether you agree with what they said or not).  But you all kicked the shit out of them without addressing any of the points raised.
> 
> Poor show.



Sorry who is " you all"? 

I post my opinions here. 

And I have addressed his/ her posts.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Well I had a look at Soho House membership application. And they come out with same kind of stuff.
> 
> Membership | Soho House 76 Dean Street
> 
> ...



Not a world I live in either (though I have friends that live in that world).  Who cares?  Does it matter?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2018)

discobastard said:


> That doesn't make sense - I was 'exaggerating for comic effect' and not directing that at you.



I don't follow what you mean in this post.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Sorry who is " you all"?
> 
> I post my opinions here.
> 
> And I have addressed his/ her posts.


Apologies - 'some of you' - you have been very respectful.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Not a world I live in either (though I have friends that live in that world).  Who cares?  Does it matter?



So why are you posting about it ?


----------



## 3Zeros (Sep 21, 2018)

discobastard said:


> They put up very intelligent and well argued initial posts (yes, the initial post was provocative but that is in line with many other posts here).  They made it very clear which local community activities they are involved in. And also made it clear that they would have preferred it if the space had been given over to social housing.  They described very accurately the response they received to all of this.
> 
> To clarify, I have no idea who that poster is, but they seemed very genuine and well-considered to me (whether you agree with what they said or not).  But you all kicked the shit out of them without addressing any of the points raised.
> 
> Poor show.



Or what actually happened:

They joined the forum specifically to post on this topic. They started their first post with that slightly ridiculous all caps "statement", wrote hundreds of words in defence of S&P, tried to call out Editor on the number of posts he had made since the inception of U75 and within a few posts suggested the only way to resolve the "argument" was to meet in person? 

Then when I calmly pointed out the reasons people might be taking issue with Upstairs they replied they were out of here.


----------



## discobastard (Sep 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I don't follow what you mean in this post.


Can you explain what you find offensive about this, then I can answer you:


----------



## discobastard (Sep 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> So why are you posting about it ?


That's a strange question to ask.  Because I have experience of both sides and live in the area.  Is that acceptable?


----------



## Winot (Sep 21, 2018)

“Please provide information which demonstrates your ability to make a positive contribution to the Urban75 community. We are looking for a broad and varied membership database and wish to fill our space with people who will respect other members, our venue and our staff”


----------



## discobastard (Sep 21, 2018)

3Zeros said:


> Or what actually happened:
> 
> They joined the forum specifically to post on this topic. They started their first post with that slightly ridiculous all caps "statement", wrote hundreds of words in defence of S&P, tried to call out Editor on the number of posts he had made since the inception of U75 and within a few posts suggested the only way to resolve the "argument" was to meet in person?
> 
> Then when I calmly pointed out the reasons people might be taking issue with Upstairs they replied they were out of here.



That's certainly one way to interpret the situation.  And I think they quite clearly put forward their issues and how they might prefer it if S&P were not there.  Their subsequent posts were intelligent and well considered.  The issue regards editor seemed quite objective and at no point were any *real* insults bandied about.  Fair shout for somebody that is new.

Not sure why there is any issue taken with an opportunity to meet up.  This is supposed to be a 'community' forum after all.  And communities have all sorts of members don't they?  Unless of course they're unilaterally deemed to be 'off message' or 'right wing'.

And I think (and you know) that their decision to disappear was not simply based on your post (don't flatter yourself), but the usual shutdown that's delivered to those that want to put forward a more balanced point of view.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Can you explain what you find offensive about this, then I can answer you:
> View attachment 147562



I've already done this in previous posts.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> whatwilldid's first ever sentence:
> 
> makes me questions how genuine their demands for a reasonable debate were.



I am sorry my attempt at humour has made you doubt how reasonable my demands for debate were.  I will duly note that for future reference and check my tone down.  I meant no offence.  



Gramsci said:


> whatwilldid
> 
> You haven't answered my earlier question.



Sorry, Gramsci, I will attempt to do that now.  My intention was to leave the message board altogether following 3Zero's message ("Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?") which I agree with - I have some time off before moving to a new job next week and I'll use some of that to inform myself better about these issues, rather than have an unpleasant time on a message board.  THAT SAID (lol), I couldn't help myself in coming to see how this discussion has developed (curiosity is killing this cat) and I noted particularly that I didn't respond to you - mea culpa.



Gramsci said:


> You have made comments about big capital.
> 
> 
> If a left wing government came to power and decided to expropriate Squires family of the department store, to turn it into community space for people that need it, you would not have a problem with Squires family losing it?



I'm not particularly fond of hypotheticals like this, especially with people that I don't know - but I'll acquiesce.  Should a left-wing government come to power and decide to expropriate Squires family of the department store, to turn it into community space for people that needed it, I believe that I would hold two competing arguments in my head.

1)  This is a good thing.  The space can be better used by those who need it "more" than Squires, who currently are providing a high/luxury-end service that may never benefit most people in the locality in which they have established themselves.

2) This is a bad thing.  It sets a dangerous precedent for a government determining what "better use" is, and while the people of Brixton might gather 'round and cheer as the doors are removed from the hinges and community projects are given much needed space, would we have any guarantee that community space wouldn't be expropriated if it was determined necessary by this hypothetical left-wing government? 

I apologise for using further hypothetical scenarios to answer your hypothetical - but that is why I'm not fond of them.

Ultimately, I think my view, having taken into account the two broad arguments above, is this:  will the leftwing government allow the existing occupants (who spent millions making it habitable, including plumbing, electrics, etc) an opportunity to address the criticisms they were facing for not doing enough for their community, before the left wing government expropriates a building from a family-run business?



Gramsci said:


> We are just going to have to disagree.
> 
> I would like whatwilldid respond. He has had a lot to say here. So could respond to the question.





Gramsci said:


> I thought that. Didn't really want to debate imo. Only joined couple days ago to have a go. Mostly at Ed.
> 
> I'm not even clear if whatwilldid is genuine poster.
> 
> I could be proved wrong. Will have to see.



There seems to be a bit of unresolved tension in these two posts - I have had a lot to say here, and yet I only joined a couple of days ago to have a go, mostly at Ed.  And I may not even be a genuine poster!  What does a genuine poster do?  Is this a trick to get me on webcam?



Gramsci said:


> whatwilldid does remind me of mjd



Well MJD must be very beautiful.



discobastard said:


> I think that ship has sailed (though I thought they expressed themselves very well).  whatwilldid got such a blunt and disingenuous kicking that they decided to leave.  And now you want them to come back?
> 
> If you can't be bothered to engage with their original posts then why are you asking them to come back?



Thanks for the support in this thread - it's nice to have some support when you join a new community, even if it is online.  I do feel like some respondents on this thread have wilfully ignored the points that I've been making and distorting my view, and I really don't understand why that is.  I understand that this is a sensitive topic, and perhaps I haven't communicated sensitively enough (again, I apologise for my earlier stab at humour).  In fact, I would also like to apologise to Ed (sorry don't know how to link posters) for making reference to the amount of time that he spends on the message board.  That was childish, and it certainly was ad hominem and I regret that - while I also regret any recourse to point-scoring, is it not fair to say that I have had a fair amount of Ad Hominem response to my posts, too?



Gramsci said:


> Have you any proof of this? The poster only joined a few days back. Not even lurking here as member. Unless I see someone posting here on regular basis for at least several months I don't assume everything they say about themselves is correct.
> 
> I looked up his/ her profile and got wary.



Given that I won't have been on here for several months until a few months time, I'm not entirely sure that it will have been worth my while responding to you as you requested, if you've already prefaced my response with a wary prejudice.



teuchter said:


> I think you're quite right that they got a blunt and disingenous kicking, and it's the reason why the Brixton boards are dying, but I'd not blame Gramsci for that; he rarely shouts people down and generally does engage.



Thank you, I don't either. Gramsci (much easier to link to a profile when you can just copy from a quote above!) seems like a very reasonable and interesting person to have a conversation with.  But Gramsci isn't emblematic of the tone that one finds on this message board.



3Zeros said:


> Or what actually happened:
> 
> They joined the forum specifically to post on this topic. They started their first post with that slightly ridiculous all caps "statement", wrote hundreds of words in defence of S&P, tried to call out Editor on the number of posts he had made since the inception of U75 and within a few posts suggested the only way to resolve the "argument" was to meet in person?
> 
> Then when I calmly pointed out the reasons people might be taking issue with Upstairs they replied they were out of here.



That's exactly right.  I did join specifically for this topic.  I read the article on Brixton Buzz (which as a website I think is excellent, but lacks balance).  This led me to the message board, and I read the whole thread while I was at work (sorry, employer) and then felt compelled to respond in defence of a private members bar in Brixton.  Which is something I never thought I'd hear myself say!

My all caps statement was supposed to be ENTIRELY ridiculous.  It might have made more sense if it had been delivered in person, but I've learnt not to go there.  Again, I apologise for my poor attempt at humour.

I accept that calling Editor out on the number of posts he's made was childish - however, I did feel that I lacked "message-board" capital (as I said) in the face of his significant contribution to the board.

And yes, I did suggest that the only way to resolve this discussion, and indeed most discussions, is to do so in person.  I really struggle to communicate effectively (as maybe we've seen) with people from behind a keyboard.  I like to hear tone, nuance, read facial expressions and learn about people in order to have challenging conversations.  I was disappointed to read that Editor doubted my sincerity and so rejected my offer to meet up.  I know of my sincerity, and have no doubts about it, but again, perhaps that is pitfall of online communication - how could he, or any of you know?  I must have done something fairly drastic to make both Gramsci and Ed wary of my sincerity, and indeed existance, but I do find it peculiar that my recourse to actual human interaction is rebuffed and mocked - it seems to me that this would be an excellent means of proving my sincerity and my existence, and perhaps even helping me understand why a private members bar in Brixton is such a bad thing.

One thing that I do know about Brixton's history is that in the mid to late 19th century, quite a lot of big and beautiful homes were built around the town to accommodate a rapidly growing middle-class; I imagine that this era of gentrification was discussed in pubs.


----------



## mjd (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Well MJD must be very beautiful.



You flatter me. And I in turn am sure that you are beautiful too. Flippancy aside, it does sound like I am in a similar position to you, insofar as I presently have free time while I am at work and thus only in the recent weeks have had the opportunity to provide some balance to these forums that I feel is lacking.

Gramsci, I am conscious that I have still not responded substantively to your questions around gentrification; I am educating myself as you suggested and will respond in due course.

What seems clear to me, however, and has been observed by a number of posters that have been around these forums much longer than whatwilldid and I, is that the forums are beginning to reflect a little more the changing demographic of Brixton. But, as I have said previously, we can choose to co-exist and accept each other or we can become keyboard warriors distracting ourselves from the real issues. With this in mind, I would be happy to join you for that drink with Editor.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

3Zeros said:


> Or what actually happened:
> 
> They joined the forum specifically to post on this topic. They started their first post with that slightly ridiculous all caps "statement", wrote hundreds of words in defence of S&P, tried to call out Editor on the number of posts he had made since the inception of U75 and within a few posts suggested the only way to resolve the "argument" was to meet in person?
> 
> Then when I calmly pointed out the reasons people might be taking issue with Upstairs they replied they were out of here.


Banged to rights, guv'nor.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

editor said:


> Banged to rights, guv'nor.


Politely, I think you mean "Bang".


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Politely, I think you mean "Bang".


"Bonged" might be more fun.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Politely, I think you mean "Bang".


And I resent the association with criminality, but we're all just having fun here, aren't we?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 21, 2018)

Gratifying as it is to see our nu Brixton representatives in favour of educating themselves there is a simple and unavoidable truth to bear in mind....


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> helping me understand why a private members bar in Brixton is such a bad thing.





whatwilldid said:


> ("Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?") which I agree with


that's exactly the thing - you can't have it both ways. on the one hand you agree with the statement that S&P are setting a precedent, on the other hand you are claiming that they are not that bad ('cheap' and 'friendly') and have every right to set up shop and be part and re-shape and re-define a community. communities and areas change all the time, but in recent trends in London they come at the expense of poor people. people who a few decades ago moved into shitholes, worked hard to build communities and bridges, and in the process made said areas desirable for a different, more affluent demographic. how quickly people are priced out of areas they helped to develop is simply shocking. and it destroys lives, family bonds, and yes, communities.

S&P might not be the worst of the lot, but moving in they are inevitably setting a precedent and normalise a life style and an attitude that shows little respect for existing social structures. it embraces the privatisation of culture and normalises exclusion.
and this is not S&P's fault and S&p certainly haven't designed this trend. but they are profiteering from a cruel and heartless trend that has been destroying communities all over London for a few decades (eg see Notting Hill in the 6ts and 7ts through to Shoreditch in the 00s.).

coupled with cruel austerity and social cuts, this makes the outlook on life for many people very very bleak, so it needs opposing in its roots, from the very start.

as an aside - in my opinion a lot of London areas are in desperate need of re-development, re-design, and a general makeover (as a result of decades of dodgy housing policies). however, gentrification is not the answer, as it is excluding and plays with peoples' livelihoods. the ultimate goal of re-generation must be an approach that strengthens (and doesn't divide) existing communities, one that makes each member more valuable, but at the same time is welcoming to newcomers and new ideas, as everybody's input is respected.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> that's exactly the thing - you can't have it both ways. on the one hand you agree with the statement that S&P are setting a precedent, on the other hand you are claiming that they are not that bad ('cheap' and 'friendly') and have every right to set up shop and be part and re-shape and re-define a community. communities and areas change all the time, but in recent trends in London they come at the expense of poor people. people who a few decades ago moved into shitholes, worked hard to build communities and bridges, and in the process made said areas desirable for a different, more affluent demographic. how quickly people are priced out of areas they helped to develop is simply shocking. and it destroys lives, family bonds, and yes, communities.
> 
> S&P might not be the worst of the lot, but moving in they are inevitably setting a precedent and normalise a life style and an attitude that shows little respect for existing social structures. it embraces the privatisation of culture and normalises exclusion.
> and this is not S&P's fault and S&p certainly haven't designed this trend. but they are profiteering from a cruel and heartless trend that has been destroying communities all over London for a few decades (eg see Notting Hill in the 6ts and 7ts through to Shoreditch in the 00s.).
> ...



I may be missing a point here, but to clarify, the bit of this quote that I agreed with,

"Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?"

Was that I need to spend more time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing and poverty.  I don't think I've agreed that S&P are helping to set a precedent, and I also haven't said that their membership requirements are cheap.  I said that for some, in the context of private membership, £23 per month isn't a lot of money.

I agree with most of what you write.  I think your point about S&P "inevitably setting a precedent and normalise a life style and an attitude that shows little respect for existing social structures... embrac[ing] the privatisation of culture and normalises exclusion", is really very interesting.  I doubt that was ever their intention and I often find myself coming over Kantian when it comes to cause, effect, and intention, but it may well be that by moving to Brixton, S&P have helped to normalise a lifestyle and an attitude that shows little respect for existing social structures - but does this mark S&P out from many other businesses that have set up in Brixton over the last 150 years?  If the argument is anti-capitalist, then okay, I get it.  Let's have that argument, but I feel comfortable that the overall impact, in the wider context of a 21st century capitalist nation, of S&P investing millions of pounds in Brixton, and creating jobs (a number of businesses operate out of the space that S&P re-developed) is a good thing for Brixton - maybe not your Brixton, this person's Brixton, or that person's Brixton - but Brixton will outlive us all, and we will scarcely recognise it as ours for longer than a decade.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

No matter how you spin it, £240 a year just to gain entry to a bar really is an awful lot of money to the majority of local residents, many of whom are struggling to pay bills


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

tbh, the moment I hit the 'reply' button I realised I didn't quite quote what I was meant to quote, and by no means I meant to twist your thoughts or put words in your mouth, and for that I apologise.
I don't want to drag up old posts and over-analyse words, so let's leave it there, I reckon?



whatwilldid said:


> but does this mark S&P out from many other businesses that have set up in Brixton over the last 150 years



some yes, some not. there have always been more expensive places and more daring businesses (which comes with the territory), but than there were always small businesses catering for the needs of a certain community (from market traders down to runners of social clubs and cheap boozers). I wasn't around 150 years ago, but I dare say I would have been as opposed to the former as I am now opposed to the likes of S&P. for the reasons given above.
however, I live in the here and now, so I am opposed to a trend that is happening in front of our eyes, something that will change our lives for the worse in the near future (if it hasn't already happened).

the argument of 'bringing' jobs to an area' is a bit hollow imo, as there are other ways of generating prosperity, even though this responsibility has been largely handed over to private enterprises post Thatcher.
so no, I'm not grateful to S&P for generating jobs, but I'm more worried at what cost said jobs are generated.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

editor said:


> No matter how you spin it, £240 a year just to gain entry to a bar really is an awful lot of money to the majority of local residents, many of whom are struggling to pay bills



Sure.  Yes it is.  Incidentally, that's exactly the same amount of money that it costs in the Prince of Wales for 2 bottles of Spirits and mixers in their swanky Blue Room, for a single night.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Sure.  Yes it is.  Incidentally, that's exactly the same amount of money that it costs in the Prince of Wales for 2 bottles of Spirits and mixers in their swanky Blue Room, for a single night.


Granted the Blue Room is an exclusive space and one many could not afford, but it's a party venue for hire and holds 40+ people so that would be £6 a head....almost as ridiculous as the comparing upstairs with Cairo's which I don't think you explained yet


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> tbh, the moment I hit the 'reply' button I realised I didn't quite quote what I was meant to quote, and by no means I meant to twist your thoughts or put words in your mouth, and for that I apologise.
> I don't want to drag up old posts and over-analyse words, so let's leave it there, I reckon?
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, very happy to leave the early part of the post there - over-analysis of words kills message boards.

I am really glad that you exist in the here and now and that you oppose the trend that is happening in front of our eyes, on the basis that you think it will change our lives for the worse.  I wish more people would.  I am not convinced that the Members bar of Upstairs at the Department Store of S&Ps HQs in Brixton is either cause or symptom of a trend that is going to change our lives for the worse (and for absolute clarity I'm not saying it isn't, just that I'm not convinced) - and so I do not oppose it in the same way.  But the tension and divergence of opinion that we have is vital for a flourishing community, and so long may that live.

I'd like to take you up a little on the counterargument to the "bringing jobs" line.  I accept that in and of itself, it could be seen as a little hollow, and that there are other ways of generating prosperity, but, you live in the here and now, don't you?  And in the here and now, it was S&P that took over a derelict building, regenerated it, and provided the space for business to operate out of.  As I said previously, all that building had up until that point was untapped potential.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

cuppa tee said:


> Granted the Blue Room is an exclusive space and one many could not afford, but it's a party venue and holds 40+ people so that would be £6 a head....almost as ridiculous as the comparing upstairs with Cairo's which I don't think you explained yet


Sure, let's do this.

1) Cafe Cairo - I've been twice and both times been asked to pay.  It looks like a great venue and the door staff were absolutely lovely and made us feel very welcome.  Could I have come earlier and not paid? Yes.  Was there a requirement to pay at the point of use for me?  Yes.  I don't think my comparison quite merits the ridicule I received for it.

2) We can play the £6 per head game with Upstairs, too.  As a member, you're allowed to bring (I believe) three guests with you.  So between four of you, your membership to Upstairs costs less per month, for 12 months access, than a booking in the Blue Room for a single night (and you don't have to pull together 40+ mates - hats off for being able to do that, I struggle to maintain about ten close friendships!)


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Sure.  Yes it is.  Incidentally, that's exactly the same amount of money that it costs in the Prince of Wales for 2 bottles of Spirits and mixers in their swanky Blue Room, for a single night.


That's an utterly meaningless comparison.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Sure, let's do this.
> 
> 1) Cafe Cairo - I've been twice and both times been asked to pay.  It looks like a great venue and the door staff were absolutely lovely and made us feel very welcome.  Could I have come earlier and not paid? Yes.  Was there a requirement to pay at the point of use for me?  Yes.  I don't think my comparison quite merits the ridicule I received for it.
> 
> 2) We can play the £6 per head game with Upstairs, too.  As a member, you're allowed to bring (I believe) three guests with you.  So between four of you, your membership to Upstairs costs less per month, for 12 months access, than a booking in the Blue Room for a single night (and you don't have to pull together 40+ mates - hats off for being able to do that, I struggle to maintain about ten close friendships!)


And this is just desperate. Anyone can go to Cafe Cairo and it's quite often free. Only well-off members who've forked out £240/year - and whose face fits their secret vetting procedure - can gain access to the private members bar at Squires.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

I will have to go now, shit to do, and also I have little interest in POW or Cairo.
what impact private investment and employment has and will have not only on certain areas, but on (the mind set of) society on the whole is a discussion I can't get into atm due to time restrictions.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

"Desperate", "utterly meaningless", "Stupid", "incoherent", "insincere"; can you just not be kind?  I don't think I'm making outlandish claims or statements or comparisons, just ones that differ from your POV.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> I will have to go now, shit to do, and also I have little interest in POW or Cairo.
> what impact private investment and employment has and will have not only on certain areas, but on (the mind set of) society on the whole has is a discussion I can't get into atm due to time restrictions.


Thanks for the time you have given.  Have a good one.


----------



## 3Zeros (Sep 21, 2018)

Focusing on the cost only and making comparisons to other costs misses the point somewhat.


You couldn't ask for a better (or worse) example of gentrification than what S&P have done. From choosing to relocate here to redeveloping and unused space, to sticking a jewelled dome atop it all and then opening a members-only bar. All of which has happened in the wider context of ongoing gentrification in the area (as has been pointed out in earlier posts)


The introduction of the fee and the opaque application process is just the elitist cherry on the gentrification cake.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> I am really glad that you exist in the here and now and that you oppose the trend that is happening in front of our eyes, on the basis that you think it will change our lives for the worse. I wish more people would.


ps: lots and lots and lots of people do. pls do not underestimate what's boiling below the surface.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

editor said:


> That's an utterly meaningless comparison.


Is it?!  We're talking about the value and justice of charging £240 for entrance to an exclusive space in a bar...  And that's a meaningless comparison?!?!


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Sure, let's do this.
> 
> 1) Cafe Cairo - I've been twice and both times been asked to pay.  It looks like a great venue and the door staff were absolutely lovely and made us feel very welcome.  Could I have come earlier and not paid? Yes.  Was there a requirement to pay at the point of use for me?  Yes.  I don't think my comparison quite merits the ridicule I received for it.


Cairo is a standalone business run by individuals not a multi million pound architecture practice, do you think people should run it and work there for nothing ?



> 2) We can play the £6 per head game with Upstairs, too.  As a member, you're allowed to bring (I believe) three guests with you.  So between four of you, your membership to Upstairs costs less per month, for 12 months access, than a booking in the Blue Room for a single night (and you don't have to pull together 40+ mates - hats off for being able to do that, I struggle to maintain about ten close friendships!)



It's a freaking party venue for one off special occasions not a private members club, and I could be wrong but I don't think you'd have to fill out an application form to prove you are the right type of punter. I'll ignore your sarcastic comments about mates suffice to say that a lot of mine don't live in town anymore for reasons some of us are all too aware of


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

cuppa tee said:


> Cairo is a standalone business run by individuals not a multi million pound architecture practice, do you think people should run it and work in for nothing ?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a freaking party venue for one off special occasions not a private members club, and I could be wrong but I don't think you'd have to fill out an application form to prove you are the right type of punter. I'll ignore your sarcastic comments about mates for now apart from saying that a lot of mine don't live in town anymore for reasons some of us are all too aware of



What is it with this message board and infering messages from the ether?!  Where have I ever suggested that the people who run Cairo should work for nothing?  I was making a comparison of entry fees for venues, and alluded to cafe Cairo, a very popular Brixton location charging entry.  They do.  They charge entry.  Do they illegally discriminate against who can come in?  No.  Does Upstairs?  No.  And if they do, then that's a legal matter that can be escalated.  Cairo is a standalone business, great... I never said it wasn't.  Isn't Squires a standalone business?  Or are you using that word in such a way that I won't be able to argue with you about it because the meaning will change according to what definition you want to give it?

I wasn't being sarcastic about the 40+ mates - I was suggesting that on your calculation, you needed 40+ mates in the room to make it £6 per head.  In my comparison to uptairs, you need 3, and only once per month.  If you had a group of 4 friends that wanted to meet up twice a month, use the free wifi and talk about whatever the damn well you please, you could do that for £3 each a visit.  Can you do that elsewhere in Brixton and not spend £3?  Sure.  I never said you couldn't.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> What is it with this message board and infering messages from the ether?!  Where have I ever suggested that the people who run Cairo should work for nothing?  I was making a comparison of entry fees for venues, and alluded to cafe Cairo, a very popular Brixton location charging entry.  They do.  They charge entry.  Do they illegally discriminate against who can come in?  No.  Does Upstairs?  No.  And if they do, then that's a legal matter that can be escalated.  Cairo is a standalone business, great... I never said it wasn't.  Isn't Squires a standalone business?  Or are you using that word in such a way that I won't be able to argue with you about it because the meaning will change according to what definition you want to give it?



From personal experience I would say Cairos are doing quite well from the gentrication of the area but that does not alter the fact that they are a very different operation to Upstairs, and I think you are wrong to try and say there is a comparison. As far as I am aware the people who run Cairos do not have any connection to an architects practice that is not only benefitting from the process but fuelling it. Upstairs on the other hand does, and as others have pointed out this is more the issue.



> I wasn't being sarcastic about the 40+ mates - I was suggesting that on your calculation, you needed 40+ mates in the room to make it £6 per head.  In my comparison to uptairs, you need 3, and only once per month.  If you had a group of 4 friends that wanted to meet up twice a month, use the free wifi and talk about whatever the damn well you please, you could do that for £3 each a visit.  Can you do that elsewhere in Brixton and not spend £3?  Sure.  I never said you couldn't.



You are certainly showing a lot of loyalty to the club but if you were in the position of having a shindig like a birthday or a wedding you'd be possibly expecting more than your three besties  to attend, what about loose acquaintances, family, friends of friends etc etc so it seems to me you are comparing bananas and cucumbers to make a point and I am left wondering why ?


----------



## djdando (Sep 21, 2018)

editor said:


> No matter how you spin it, £240 a year just to gain entry to a bar really is an awful lot of money to the majority of local residents, many of whom are struggling to pay bills


 
Then don't go! I don't do a lot of things because I can't afford it. 

Do me a favour and pop into Footlocker and just cast your eyes at the cost of some of the trainers that a lot of local residents buy, £150 upwards. Hell of a lot of money given you could go to Surprise Surprise across the road and get a pair for 10% of the price.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

And for the record, this is what the £240 buys you at the Prince of Wales, not that I'm going to defend their pricing for this tiny part of their bar and club, which is open to all.


> Package A – 5-6 people: £240
> – 2 bottles of spirit OR 1 bottle of Elyx and 1 bottle of Perrier Jouet, plus mixers



The Prince also does some fantastic live music nights. I still haven't heard a thing about the entertainment that's on offer in the exclusive private bar and I've asked several times now...


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Is it?!  We're talking about the value and justice of charging £240 for entrance to an exclusive space in a bar...  And that's a meaningless comparison?!?!


Do people wanting to go to Cafe Cairo or the Prince of Wales have to fill out a form in advance which is then secretly vetted by an unnamed committee to see if they're the "right" sort of person to be allowed entry?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 21, 2018)

editor said:


> And for the record, this is what the £240 buys you at the Prince of Wales, not that I'm going to defend their pricing.


Blimey that's steep......Looks like I was wrong....


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

POW / Cairo v S&P comparisons are missing the point imo. There's plenty to criticise about eg the POW and I have good reasons not to go there, albeit different ones to opposing S&P.
This thread, however, is about S&P and its impact on the residents of a deprived area.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

cuppa tee said:


> Blimey that's steep......Looks like I was wrong


Looks like they've found a way to cream off some of the rich incomers. Until Squire offers a free bar that's open till late and some great free music nights, they're always going to come over as exclusive and elitist compared to the Prince.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

editor said:


> And for the record, this is what the £240 buys you at the Prince of Wales, not that I'm going to defend their pricing for this tiny part of their bar and club, which is open to all.
> 
> 
> The Prince also does some fantastic live music nights. I still haven't heard a thing about the entertainment that's on offer in the exclusive private bar and I've asked several times now...


Ah yes that's a good point thanks - the Blue Room at PoW is intended for 6 people at £240 - so not really for 40+ people.

As for the entertainment, I was there on Sunday afternoon and they had a very talented singer/songwriter called Benedict Cork playing - free of charge.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> POW / Cairo v S&P comparisons are missing the point imo. There's plenty to criticise about eg the POW and I have good reasons not to go there, albeit different ones to opposing S&P.
> This thread, however, is about S&P and its impact on the residents of a deprived area.


and the argument that other (eg shoes) outlets are selling goods beyond the reach of poorer people doesn't hold water either, imo. There are plenty of cheaper businesses taking part in exploiting an already deprived area, eg Sports Direct.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

editor said:


> Do people wanting to go to Cafe Cairo or the Prince of Wales have to fill out a form in advance which is then secretly vetted by an unnamed committee to see if they're the "right" sort of person to be allowed entry?


No, they don't... "Secretly vetted by an unnamed committee"...?  Is that what Upstairs are doing?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Ah yes that's a good point thanks - the Blue Room at PoW is intended for 6 people at £240 - so not really for 40+ people.


Yes apologies for that, it's comparable to upstairs but in my defence not somewhere that I'd go.......


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

cuppa tee said:


> Yes apologies for that, it's comparable to upstairs but in my defence not somewhere that I'd go.......


Totally understand - but whether or not it's somewhere that the people of this message board would go has never been the point of the discussion... Or has it?

And Seb - 

"POW / Cairo v S&P comparisons are missing the point imo. There's plenty to criticise about eg the POW and I have good reasons not to go there, albeit different ones to opposing S&P.
This thread, however, is about S&P and its impact on the residents of a deprived area."

Understood - that's probably my fault for changing the discussion.  I came on here to comment at the time that regular posters were talking about "£240 just to fucking set foot...", and my two pence was that £240 wasn't that much in the grand scheme of things.  It didn't seem trivial to offer local comparisons that charge entry, but I accept that in the wider discussion of S&P and its impact on the residents of a deprived area, it carries much less weight.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> No, they don't... "Secretly vetted by an unnamed committee"...?  Is that what Upstairs are doing?


Yes. Read the post containing their terms earlier in this thread.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Ah yes that's a good point thanks - the Blue Room at PoW is intended for 6 people at £240 - so not really for 40+ people.
> 
> As for the entertainment, I was there on Sunday afternoon and they had a very talented singer/songwriter called Benedict Cork playing - free of charge.


Shame that it's a private, exclusive gig that no one else can see.


----------



## 3Zeros (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid, I don't know if you've been as a member or as a guest, but if as a member you will know you had to apply for the free membership by telling them about yourself. That process is now more clearly defined in the application form on the website (job title, job description, why you would be a "good fit")


Whether it's by design or not, this will introduce biases. Certainly, I could never describe the clientele that I've seen there as diverse...


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

editor said:


> Yes. Read the post containing their terms earlier in this thread.


For the benefit of those that can't see the message in a quote:

*Please provide information which demonstrates your ability to make a positive contribution to the Upstairs community.  We are looking for a broad and varied membership database and wish to fill our space with people who will respect other members, our venue and our staff.* 

To be clear - from that message, you read "each application will be secretly vetted by an unnamed committee before granting membership"?  It sounds to me as though you're deliberately reading negativity between the lines of a fairly positive message to support your argument.  But the text speaks for itself.

Isn't it good that they want broad and varied membership?  Shouldn't they want to fill the space with people who will respect other members and the venue?


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

3Zeros said:


> whatwilldid, I don't know if you've been as a member or as a guest, but if as a member you will know you had to apply for the free membership by telling them about yourself. That process is now more clearly defined in the application form on the website (job title, job description, why you would be a "good fit")
> 
> 
> Whether it's by design or not, this will introduce biases. Certainly, I could never describe the clientele that I've seen there as diverse...


Will I know that?  I'm afraid that's simply untrue - I did not have to tell them about myself.  I got a membership off them thanks to good ol' fashioned who you know.  A friend of mine works there.  Also it seems that I can pay for a membership without having to tell them anything else about me.  So, it seems that only new members have to give a job title, description, and demonstrate their ability to make a positive contribution to the community.  Is the suggestion that certain professions will be rejected on the basis of not reaching some kind of level of worthiness?  Why don't we try it out?


----------



## 3Zeros (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Will I know that?  I'm afraid that's simply untrue - I did not have to tell them about myself.  I got a membership off them thanks to good ol' fashioned who you know.  A friend of mine works there.  Also it seems that I can pay for a membership without having to tell them anything else about me.  So, it seems that only new members have to give a job title, description, and demonstrate their ability to make a positive contribution to the community.  Is the suggestion that certain professions will be rejected on the basis of not reaching some kind of level of worthiness?  Why don't we try it out?



Nope. Existing members had to do the same and be vetted.

Yes, let's try that experiment. I assume you can find all the participants and fund their memberships?


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

3Zeros said:


> Nope. Existing members had to do the same and be vetted.
> 
> Yes, let's try that experiment. I assume you can find all the participants and fund their memberships?


At which point in the application process?  I can click straight through to paying a monthly direct debit without any questions asked, and I have never been asked about my employment status by Upstairs.

Why don't we have an Urban 75 membership?  We could see if Mr/Mrs standard Brixton demographic would be accepted into Upstairs based on their secretive vetting procedure.  If the application is turned down (and not on the basis of being fully subscribed) then it seems that there might be a point that they are proactively trying to prevent the average person from Brixton being a member.  If the application is successful, then it would appear that they genuinely want a mixed membership (albeit at the cost of £23 per month which is too expensive for many). 

Or better still, we could ask them.  That might be less effort - I'll do that and get back to you.


----------



## 3Zeros (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> At which point in the application process?  I can click straight through to paying a monthly direct debit without any questions asked, and I have never been asked about my employment status by Upstairs.



I think we're referring to different things.

Unless someone got a free membership through "someone in the know" they had to email through "a bit about themselves" and be vetted.

Anyone who has that existing membership can now select just to pay and isn't subject to further vetting.

Any new member applicants have to fill out the application form you can now view on their website.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

London-wide places and venues where an alternative lifestyle is promoted by providing free access and allowing room for creativity and creative and radical thinking to grow are rapidly disappearing. What was a breeding ground (eg Brixton) for exploring alternatives to an ever more commercially-orientated (night life) economy has given way for exploitative business models. I'm refusing to take this as a given, as there are still enough angry people seeking alternatives for the better of a community.
Membership clubs, expensive gastro pubs and yuppie hang outs and greedy estate agents/landlords are not only contributing to normalising a consumer-based lifestyle, but are actively driving a wedge between the haves and the have-nots. It divides communities and discourages radical thinking. This has a massive impact on wider political issues.
Yuppies out.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

...and I'm not only talking about squatters and punks. Working and poor people who just want to have cheap moan are also deprived of places to meet and exchange ideas.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> London-wide places and venues where an alternative lifestyle is promoted by providing free access and allowing room for creativity and creative and radical thinking to grow are rapidly disappearing. What was a breeding ground (eg Brixton) for exploring alternatives to an ever more commercially-orientated (night life) economy has given way for exploitative business models. I'm refusing to take this as a given, as there are still enough angry people seeking alternatives for the better of a community.
> Membership clubs, expensive gastro pubs and yuppie hang outs and greedy estate agents/landlords are not only contributing to normalising a consumer-based lifestyle, but are actively driving a wedge between the haves and the have-nots. It divides communities and discourages radical thinking. This has a massive impact on wider political issues.
> Yuppies out.


You end an impassioned and attractive post with "yuppies out".  So this radical and free thinking community that you wish to see around you caters to you, and people like you, but not me and people like me (assuming the target of "yuppies out" is people who go to a private members bar in Brixton, like me).  Sounds pretty divisive to me.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

never had you in mind, but if you define yourself as a Yuppie be my guest.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

way to mis-interpret my post....


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

Response from Member Liason at upstairs - 

_The member liaison team which includes myself, and a few others when I am unavailable, will be reading through the applications. We require job title and description and, as you say, some information outlining why they would make a positive contribution to the Upstairs community.

By this we mean bringing their energy and love for life Upstairs. Questions regarding an applicants job are so we can get to know our future members and generate their member profile. We do not make any judgement based on job, salary, social status, beliefs or any other defining factor. We make judgements based on the effort made in completing the application, a persons enthusiasm and the ability to demonstrate that they will respect the other members, the space and our staff. It would be a terribly dull place if everyone Upstairs was the same, I hope you agree.  
_
Yeah so maybe they're lying and there is a shadowy committee not letting certain people in, or maybe they're running a private members bar on the roof of their HQ and want to get the mix of members right, and are valuing effort and desire to actually be a member above other factors.  That'll be for individuals to speculate for themselves in the absence of any proof - but at least we have more information from the horse's mouth, as it were.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> way to mis-interpret my post....


Sorry for misinterpreting your post, that isn't my intention - I'm clearly not very good at this but I never said I was.

But as far as I can see it, you want to see a better community for people who are like you.  I don't blame you for that.  But by ending the post with "yuppies out" you are saying that you want that at the expense of a group of people who are defined by their income/social status.  It seems to me to undermine the virtue of your position.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

people like me


----------



## 3Zeros (Sep 21, 2018)

_"It would be a terribly dull place if everyone Upstairs was the same, I hope you agree"
_
If this means they've been going for diversity with their current members; they've failed.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> I'm refusing to take this as a given, as there are still enough angry people seeking alternatives for the better of a community.
> 
> Yuppies out.



Yeah, again, sorry if I've messed up here, but I assumed you were aligning yourself to people who were angry and seeking alternatives for the better of a community.  And then you ended it with Yuppies out.  Yuppies being a word that defines a group of people based on their income/social standing.  I mean no offence.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

if by 'people like me' you mean people who are about to lose their homes and holding on to their livelihoods by their teeth, then yes, I'd like to see a community that accepts and even prioritises 'people like me' and makes a deprived area as un-desirable as possible for people who are likely to profit from peoples' poverty in the near future.
I never said anything about a free radical community, I was talking about spaces that allow for alternative points of view to prosper and for people to organise to defend their livelihoods.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

also, being a Yuppie surely isn't based on income / social status, but a life style choice. one that has rarely if never contributed to the good of the wider community.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> if by 'people like me' you mean people who are about to lose their homes and holding on to their livelihoods by their teeth, then yes, I'd like to see a community that accepts and even prioritises 'people like me' and makes a deprived area as un-desirable as possible for people who are likely to profit from peoples' poverty in the near future.
> I never said anything about a free radical community, I was talking about spaces that allow for alternative points of view to prosper and for people to organise to defend their livelihoods.


Right.  Yeah.  So when I said that you want " to see a better community for people who are like you", that was accurate?  As I said, I don't blame you for that.  My only point was that I think the virtue of your argument is lost a little bit by calling for certain people who are differentiated by their wealth/social class to be somehow sacrificed.  Yuppies out is divisive.  Not inclusive.  What if someone born and bred in Brixton from a challenging background gets a job in the city and buys a house in the town they group up in.  Are they a Yuppie?


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

see post above.


----------



## whatwilldid (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> also, being a Yuppie surely isn't based on income / social status, but a life style choice. one that has rarely if never contributed to the good of the wider community.


Ah okay, in that case this is my mistake.  That wasn't my understanding of the word.  I thought it was a young middle class person with a well paid job.  Forgive me for that, and feel free to ignore my other points.

Edit: Although Mirriam-Webster defines a yuppie as "a young college-educated adult who is employed in a well-paying profession and who lives and works in or near a large city" - it doesn't mention anything about someone who rarely if ever contributes to the good of the wider community, but words are flexible and that's what makes them so fun.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> _By this we mean bringing their energy and love for life Upstairs. _


What the fuck does this mean? It's just touchy feely bullshit from a super rich business ensuring that they only get the faces they want for their exclusive, expensive private club.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2018)

3Zeros said:


> _"It would be a terribly dull place if everyone Upstairs was the same, I hope you agree"
> _
> If this means they've been going for diversity with their current members; they've failed.


I can't think of anything duller than a club that limits its membership to those with plenty of disposable income and keeps out poor people and prices out local struggling artists, musicians etc. The fact that they've set up in one of the poorest and most deprived wards in London only makes it worse.


----------



## klang (Sep 21, 2018)

night time linkedin for a couple of hundred quid.


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Ah yes that's a good point thanks - the Blue Room at PoW is intended for 6 people at £240 - so not really for 40+ people.


In which case, that’s hugely unethical. 56 standard units between 6 people? That’s 8 units apiece - more than double the accepted recommended daily limit for both men and women.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> also, being a Yuppie surely isn't based on income / social status, but a life style choice. one that has rarely if never contributed to the good of the wider community.



Yuppie to me is a demographic rather than 'lifestyle choice'.

If it's a lifestyle choice, what are the choices made that lead to the designation?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2018)

Deleted as difficult to use quotes didn't work again.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> I may be missing a point here, but to clarify, the bit of this quote that I agreed with,
> 
> "Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?"
> 
> ...



Your agreeing with 3Zeros then in last paragraph saying S&P coming here is something you are "comfortable" with.

Surely if you say you want to do more "research" you are neutral on S&P coming here?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2018)

littleseb said:


> I will have to go now, shit to do, and also I have little interest in POW or Cairo.
> what impact private investment and employment has and will have not only on certain areas, but on (the mind set of) society on the whole is a discussion I can't get into atm due to time restrictions.



Thanks for your contributions so far.

As long time poster here on Brixton forum section of  U75 the debate on gentrification has gone through several stages over the years since I first posted here.


Opposing it when I first joined ( the reason I joined)

Arguing its only few places.

Saying one is complicit as one helped to make area fashionable. The its so complicated argument.

Now its moved to argument I see in recent pages here . That business are regenerating area that was derelict. ( It wasn't. This is down to cuts/ austerity as 3Zeros points out. Example. The Grove APG I'm involved in. Council are saying selling land to developer is good idea as this adventure playground is not used. It wasn't used due to austerity cuts. We have reopened it by volunteers. Still the narrative is of unused derelict land and property that private sector is all to keen to regenerate. This is ideological obfuscation. Services for ordinary people are cut then he presto private business comes to the rescue. Its neo liberalism in action. Dressed up as commonsense. With handwringing over his unfortunate this is but what can one do?

To add. Other recent argument is that this was area for well to do middle class in late 19th Century to early 20th. Now its returning to that. This is how history works and one should just accept it.
An aspect of gentrification is that it is not radical its incremental. It becomes commonsense. Which makes it difficult to argue against.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> I may be missing a point here, but to clarify, the bit of this quote that I agreed with,
> 
> "Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?"
> 
> ...




Actually you are wrong here. This building was used. It wasn't derelict. It was used by among others the Refugee Council. As 3Zeros its cuts/ austerity which led to building being "derelict".


So no S&P didn't do Brixton' a favour by coming here.


----------



## madolesance (Sep 22, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Actually you are wrong here. This building was used. It wasn't derelict. It was used by among others the Refugee Council. As 3Zeros its cuts/ austerity which led to building being "derelict".
> 
> 
> So no S&P didn't do Brixton' a favour by coming here.



Oh for FFS, there may have been a very small part of the building being used by 'Refuge Council', but most of it was empty. The Post Office had more space than they needed.

Sq


Gramsci said:


> Actually you are wrong here. This building was used. It wasn't derelict. It was used by among others the Refugee Council. As 3Zeros its cuts/ austerity which led to building being "derelict".
> 
> 
> So no S&P didn't do Brixton' a favour by coming here.



Can't be bothered writing any response as it's all become really boring.

If only 4/5 people can be bothered to discuss this, is it actually relevant?

What's the point?


----------



## editor (Sep 22, 2018)

madolesance said:


> Oh for FFS, there may have been a very small part of the building being used by 'Refuge Council', but most of it was empty. The Post Office had more space than they needed.


Given the queues that often arc out into the street from the new, much smaller Post Office, I'm not so sure that I can agree. 

Not so sure the entire building was ever 'derelict' either.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2018)

madolesance said:


> Oh for FFS, there may have been a very small part of the building being used by 'Refuge Council', but most of it was empty. The Post Office had more space than they needed.
> 
> Sq
> 
> ...



Put the thread on ignore. 

Btw the new post office is to small. Might be boring to you but not for me.


----------



## 3Zeros (Sep 22, 2018)

'Only' 4 or 5 people discussing a topic means it's irrelevant? That might be the most ridiculous statement on this forum for quite some time. Which is quite an achievement.


----------



## Supine (Sep 22, 2018)

What's the policy on hats at this private members club?


----------



## klang (Sep 22, 2018)

3Zeros said:


> 'Only' 4 or 5 people discussing a topic means it's irrelevant? That might be the most ridiculous statement on this forum for quite some time. Which is quite an achievement.


i don't think madolesance is worth engaging with.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Sep 22, 2018)

Supine said:


> What's the policy on hats at this private members club?


Is that place still there?


----------



## discobastard (Sep 22, 2018)

Mrs Miggins said:


> Is that place still there?


Yes. And as predicted they dropped the membership idea. And they now have quite a lot of decent live music nights. And civilisation as we know it didn’t end.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Sep 22, 2018)

discobastard said:


> Yes. And as predicted they dropped the membership idea. And they now have quite a lot of decent live music nights. And civilisation as we know it didn’t end.


Well there you are


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Sep 22, 2018)

discobastard Do they still have cheese?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2018)

whatwilldid said:


> Given that I won't have been on here for several months until a few months time, I'm not entirely sure that it will have been worth my while responding to you as you requested, if you've already prefaced my response with a wary prejudice.



Its not prejudice its based on long experience of using internet. Being wary is just common sense.

Example. Poster called Slo-mo came on the Windrush thread here. Engaging posters in discussion of immigration. Even pm me to say I had got him all wrong and he wasn't anti immigration. Later he deliberately started racist thread on different sections.of Urban for which he was rightly promptly banned. His posts sounded "reasonable" but my initial feeling was right. I had given him benefit of the doubt. When I saw he had been banned I realized I had been taken for a ride. My time wasted in discussion with him.

Sophisticated right wing trolling.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Sep 23, 2018)

editor said:


> Yes. Read the post containing their terms earlier in this thread.


You also have to upload a photgraph of yourself and state your date of birth, then tell them why you think you would be benificial to the upstairs community.


----------



## sealion (Sep 23, 2018)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> You also have to upload a photgraph of yourself and state your date of birth, then tell them why you think you would be benificial to the upstairs community.


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Sep 23, 2018)

sealion said:


>


Ha ha ha he got his membership Fed Ex to him


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2019)

Ugh! Drain your wallet at the Badgers Velvet Underground pop-up at The Department Store, Brixton, 16th-17th Nov 2019


----------

