# Brixton Rec/central Brixton consultation and the 'Rec Quarter' proposals



## Gramsci (Feb 10, 2014)

I went to a BRUG meeting (Brixton Rec Users Group) meeting last Saturday.

BRUG were set up as independent voice for those who use the Rec.

Will try to post up more about that later. 

The issue of (yet more) consultation came up. 

The Council are going to do a survey of the Rec and also consult about further improvements. 

Also the Council have hired architectural consultations to do ( yet more) consultation on the central Brixton area. 

As some of you may remember the Council did consult locals several years ago and there is a Brixton Masterplan agreed by Cabinet that was the basis of the Brixton SPD.

The area that is to be consulted about is the area around the Rec, the old Ice Rink site and the arches covering Atlantic road.

The consultants are called "Soundings" 

Who are set up by Fluid Architects. Fluid Architects have piece here.

Piece here on the Future Brixton website.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 10, 2014)

Future Brixton says:


> Lambeth Council and Network Rail have jointly appointed AECOM and Fluid Architects to work with local people on a masterplan development brief for Brixton Central. This area was identified in the Brixton Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as a major area for growth and investment in the town centre.
> 
> Lambeth Council and Network Rail are the major landowners in this area and we want local people to help with proposals for its long-term future. The masterplan development brief will detail the type of development and public space we want in the area, as well as how it should be delivered.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 10, 2014)

The area covered is this:


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 10, 2014)

Is it that they are going to keep 'consulting' on Brixton Rec until they can persuade people to let them sell it off (too cheaply)  in exchange for a smaller, crappier facility in a less central location?   

/cynical] 

Or is it protected?


----------



## CH1 (Feb 10, 2014)

quimcunx said:


> Is it that they are going to keep 'consulting' on Brixton Rec until they can persuade people to let them sell it off (too cheaply)  in exchange for a smaller, crappier facility in a less central location?
> 
> /cynical]
> 
> Or is it protected?


I'm thinking of standing in the council  in elections as _*Independent - sack all consultants!*_


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 11, 2014)

quimcunx said:


> Is it that they are going to keep 'consulting' on Brixton Rec until they can persuade people to let them sell it off (too cheaply)  in exchange for a smaller, crappier facility in a less central location?
> 
> /cynical]
> 
> Or is it protected?



From what I have been told there are no plans to get rid of the Rec now.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Feb 11, 2014)

It's interesting that Network Rail is involved. I won't be surprised if this plan doesn't amount to anything, but if it does then this will probably be the only real chance to rebuild Brixton station and incorporate access to the Overground.


----------



## leanderman (Feb 11, 2014)

Damarr said:


> It's interesting that Network Rail is involved. I won't be surprised if this plan doesn't amount to anything, but if it does then this will probably be the only real chance to rebuild Brixton station and incorporate access to the Overground.



You'd hope so - but Johnson at City Hall seems to have ruled out the possibility of a new rail connection - in central Brixton at least.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 11, 2014)

leanderman said:


> You'd hope so - but Johnson at City Hall seems to have ruled out the possibility of a new rail connection - in central Brixton at least.


That's a shame. An Overground station is in the Future Brixton masterplan. They'd be foolish not to at least include passive provision.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 12, 2014)

quimcunx said:


> Is it that they are going to keep 'consulting' on Brixton Rec until they can persuade people to let them sell it off (too cheaply)  in exchange for a smaller, crappier facility in a less central location?
> 
> /cynical]
> 
> Or is it protected?


Well, Cllr Lib Peck promised - in virtually her first meeting as Leader of the Council - to a packed public meeting just over a year ago that the Rec would not be sold/demolished. So it's on her head. Keeping the Rec is also in the Future Brixton masterplan from 2009 (though that didn't stop the council proposing its sale towards the end of 2012.)

I think some in the council would have liked to have done what you suggest (sell it off and re-use the space, relocating the leisure facilities) but the community stopped them.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 12, 2014)

Damarr said:


> It's interesting that Network Rail is involved. I won't be surprised if this plan doesn't amount to anything, but if it does then this will probably be the only real chance to rebuild Brixton station and incorporate access to the Overground.


Network Rail own all the railway arches, which Lambeth see as part of the development. Lambeth seem particularly interested in the rail arches to the east of the overground station (along Brixton Station Road on one side and the back of Granville Arcade/Brixton Square on the other) and the space in between them. This map will help:


----------



## leanderman (Feb 12, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Network Rail own all the railway arches, which Lambeth see as part of the development. Lambeth seem particularly interested in the rail arches to the east of the overground station (along Brixton Station Road on one side and the back of Granville Arcade/Brixton Square on the other) and the space in between them. This map will help:



Smartening up the railway station would be a start.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 13, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Smartening up the railway station would be a start.


Yeah…(though surely that's Network Rail's job, rather than the job of the Lambeth taxpayer.) I'd like to see alternative access to the rail station…eg a lift and stairs from Popes Road.


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Smartening up the railway station would be a start.


The big fenced off triangle on the southbound platform really is quite an eyesore..


----------



## RubyToogood (Apr 4, 2014)

Got this through from the council this morning, online survey is in the link:
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/the-future-services-of-brixton-recreation-centre



> Dear all
> 
> *The future of services at Brixton Rec – Healthier for longer *
> 
> ...


----------



## Greebo (Apr 4, 2014)

Again???????

Why does this reek to me of "We don't want to take your previous answers seriously"?


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 4, 2014)

Quite a loaded set of questions too


----------



## nagapie (Apr 4, 2014)

I just filled it in, it didn't actually give me an option for where I live so I just ticked Brixton.


----------



## High Definition (Apr 11, 2014)

I attended the first of the Brixton Masterplan Workshops at the end of March and have spoken since to people who attended the second workshop in early April.  I and other attendees I've been able to discuss this with were very unhappy about the organisation of the workshops.

My main criticism is that, instead of being shown plans or asked for our views on Central Brixton, we were asked to play a card game which is designed on the assumption that Brixton Central is an underdeveloped vacant space and can be filled with anything Lambeth Council, Railtrack or other developers decide to put in it. 

The reality is that most of the area within the boundaries of the "Brixton Central Masterplan" is occupied and there is very little vacant space.  The only vacant development site in the Masterplan area is the former ice rink site.

The rest is pretty much occupied right now by businesses and small enterprises which give Brixton its distinctive character - from the arches in the section of Station Road between Popes Road and Gresham Road which provide invaluable storage space to stallholders in Brixton Market to the railway arches on the south side of Valentia Place which are used as studio space by the Bureau of Silly Ideas and other creative enterprises. 

Those of us who live and work in Brixton need to get our act together and tell Lambeth Council and Network Rail that Brixton Central is NOT an empty space. and that we need to start .  

This issue is going to be discussed at the next meeting of the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum.  The Forum brings together a wide range of local community representatives, from residents groups to the Market Traders, but meetings are open to all who live or work in Brixton.  The meeting is on Friday 2nd May at 7 pm at the Vida Walsh Centre, 2b Saltoun Road SW2.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2014)

High Definition said:


> I attended the first of the Brixton Masterplan Workshops at the end of March and have spoken since to people who attended the second workshop in early April.  I and other attendees I've been able to discuss this with were very unhappy about the organisation of the workshops.
> 
> My main criticism is that, instead of being shown plans or asked for our views on Central Brixton, we were asked to play a card game which is designed on the assumption that Brixton Central is an underdeveloped vacant space and can be filled with anything Lambeth Council, Railtrack or other developers decide to put in it.
> .



I went to both workshops on behalf of the Brixton Rec Users Group.

At the second workshop I raised the issue of the "card game" at the beginning of the workshop. I said that I was not happy. I did not mind it as an exercise but it should not be taken as my views.

Also the local community/ residents/ existing small business owners are there to lobby the Council in order to get the most benefit out of redevelopment for the local community.

Below is the feedback I gave to BRUG after the first meeting:


I was not happy with the group work. Fluid have developed this pack of cards which we used to balance commercial and community benefits for possible redevelopment brief for the site.

Each "playing card" have scores for commercial viability and community benefit. Not surprising that community benefits all got minus points.

The idea of the "game" was to balance community benefits with commercial viability. So housing for sale at market prices ( out of reach to most people) got a high score.

Fluids idea was that this is what "Co-production" is. To get us the local residents and small business owners to see how difficult it is to make a feasible scheme. To show us the hard decisions that have to be made. And to get us to take responsibility for some of it.

I was in hindsight very uncomfortable about this. There is danger that we, the local community, are going to be put in a position that we agree to things we are not that happy with because we have been persuaded that only a financially feasible scheme can be done.

To go back to when the Rec was under threat. We were all told how expensive the Rec was to run. How it would be better to look at the idea of a new up to date Rec for the "21st Century". etc etc. This was a political and ideological argument. Saving the Rec was symbolic. It was preserving a public owned resource built in a time when providing good facilities for all was politically acceptable.

I am concerned that Fluid have been briefed to get the local community to buy into and support a scheme which will attract a "development partner". ie a scheme that produces commercial profit for a developer.

I noticed that many of the work groups ( there were different tables of people doing the same exercise) preferred options that produced a lot of community benefit ( affordable housing being a big one) but not commercial profit.

IMO its not the role of local community to help Council produce a brief which is financially sell-able to a developer. Its the local community role to lobby for the benefits to the area. Will not mean everything sought will be obtained but I am not keen on what I have seen of "Co-production".

From what was said to me the brief produced will go out to tender for a development partner. As has happened with the Town Hall scheme.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2014)

At the second meeting there was a Q&A at beginning with Council officers and Fluid the consultants. 

I also raised the issue of how the redevelopment of "Brixton Central" would be done ( ie partner wiht a developers or some other model) The senior Regen officer there said that this was not yet decided. So there is scope for discussion here. 

I said there needs to be local community input as the scheme progresses not only consultation being done now.


----------



## nagapie (Apr 12, 2014)

I thought BRUG were quite on the ball when it comes to threats to the Rec?


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2014)

I told them at the meeting I had with them that I wasn't interested in planning along with those ridiculous cards because I felt it was just their way of shoehorning opinions into a compromised format that suited their needs over everyone else's.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 12, 2014)

I get the feeling it's all about building profit centres rather than strong communities, i've long had that feeling what irks me more now is the pretence of consulation conducted in such a patronising manner; of ticking boxes and doing things by their book. Everything by their book, fuck that.

I'm going to get more involved in this and will be at the next meeting.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2014)

nagapie said:


> I thought BRUG were quite on the ball when it comes to threats to the Rec?



There is no threat to the Rec. Its future is guaranteed in the Brixton SPD.

As the Rec is part of the Brixton Central site they are one of the groups contacted. Any plans for the the Brixton Central site need to be coherent so BRUGs involvement is necessary. 

A survey is being done of the Rec to see what works could be done to improve it. Its a large underused space. Any redevelopment of the "Brixton Central" area could also involve using the Rec building in a better way. It could be a more publicly used space. As it was envisioned when it was first designed.Through the work of the stalwarts of BRUG the Council is consulting them into the Rec future.

To give the consultants "Fluid" there due they were interested in the Rec building. I do think the "playing cards" was a mistake. I am not the only one not happy with that approach.

I do think that the site is so complicated ( railway lines cross it, different owners of land, existing business in place in the area) that I am not at all clear how it would be possible to develop this site without major disruption. The Market traders rep at the first meeting said he was concerned that two years of disruption in that area could destroy the street market.

The only section of the site that is a clear area is the old car park/ ice rink site.

BRUG does contain people who have a lot of knowledge of the area. Many of them are concerned about what is happening to Brixton as well as protecting the Rec.  ( gentrification , affordable housing , protecting the markets etc. A lot of the issues that get raised on these boards. Goes to show that U75 is not out of touch). So there input is important imo.


----------



## boohoo (Apr 13, 2014)

Some of these post need to be copied into the Brixton chitter-chatter thread - I think sometimes people feel this stuff won't affect them or the facilities they use so they aren't looking at these threads about consultation and potential development yet if you told them some of the possible outcomes they would be interested.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2014)

Brixton is changing. Not all the local business have the same interests.

The head of the street market traders gave an impassioned speech, at the first meeting, that there is a danger that the street market, which provides affordable products for the working class ( his words),  could be pushed out of Brixton.

Two of the businesses from Brixton Village ( two restaurants) , however , were keen to bring more people in who would spend more.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Some of these post need to be copied into the Brixton chitter-chatter thread - I think sometimes people feel this stuff won't affect them or the facilities they use so they aren't looking at these threads about consultation and potential development yet if you told them some of the possible outcomes they would be interested.



You have a point.

This thread has low number of hits. 

This is bread and butter boring planning issues. But its what really matters to all those concerned about what is happening to Brixton.


----------



## nagapie (Apr 13, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> There is no threat to the Rec. Its future is guaranteed in the Brixton SPD.
> 
> As the Rec is part of the Brixton Central site they are one of the groups contacted. Any plans for the the Brixton Central site need to be coherent so BRUGs involvement is necessary.
> 
> ...



Ah, so that is what I thought about BRUG and glad it is so. I got the impression that the consultation was perhaps a threat to the Rec again, despite the promises in the SPD (we all know about politicians and promises) so I'm glad to hear that I misinterpreted that. 

As an aside, my 4 year old started football at the Rec yesterday morning. There were also martial arts and bowling going on that I could see from where we were, a total cross section of people. It reminded me why I like it so much and how lucky I am to have one place that offers so many activities for me and my family.


----------



## Winot (Apr 13, 2014)

Which parts are underused Gramsci?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2014)

Winot said:


> Which parts are underused Gramsci?



There is large space in basement that is now used for storage.

There are also spaces like by the pool that are used for storage. By the main pool was space to sunbath for example.

There are outside spaces that are partly cordoned off now.

The main atrium was designed to be more like an indoor public square. There used to be a pub and a cafe over the pool.

Over the years bits and pieces of the Rec have been cordoned off or used for other purposes.

BRUG have managed to get Better to refurbish the social / meeting room upstairs. It now is much improved.

The way the Rec works now is that u come in do your exercise and leave. That was not the original idea when Rec was built. It could be much more social place and community hub.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2014)

High Definition said:


> Those of us who live and work in Brixton need to get our act together and tell Lambeth Council and Network Rail that Brixton Central is NOT an empty space. and that we need to start .
> 
> *This issue is going to be discussed at the next meeting of the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum.  The Forum brings together a wide range of local community representatives, from residents groups to the Market Traders, but meetings are open to all who live or work in Brixton.  The meeting is on Friday 2nd May at 7 pm at the Vida Walsh Centre, 2b Saltoun Road SW2.*



Just thought I would emphasize this meeting.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 13, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> There is large space in basement that is now used for storage.
> 
> There are also spaces like by the pool that are used for storage. By the main pool was space to sunbath for example.
> 
> ...



A pub


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> A pub



Used to be above the main pool where gym machines now are in place. Directly above where one comes into the main pool entrance.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 8, 2014)

Posted by hand through my letterbox this morning.


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2014)

I went to the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum meeting on May 2nd. The Forum is independent of the Council.

The issue of the Brixton Central consultation was discussed. Here are my notes.

Here are notes from the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum meeting on Friday 2nd of May.


Brixton Central recent consultations by Fluid and Council have led to concern about what will happen to existing business and how development may lead to further gentrification of area.


Three people spoke about their concerns:


Rep from the market traders ,a rep from the artists studios in Valentia place and a member of Brixton Society who had gone around the site and produced a map and detail of existing uses. ( post up after this post)


Below is my summary of issues raised at meeting.


Valentia place used to contain engineering works. They left 3 or 4 years ago. Since then Network rail has been running down the use of the arches.


At moment some of the arches have been let as studio space. The artists had got Arts Council funding to develop the arches. Network Rail did not support this in the end.


Rumour has it that Network Rail would like to turn Valentia place into a Bermondsey market style development. This is the reason for running down the use of the arches.


Network Rail is reputedly not giving out new lets on arches to light industrial uses. Such as car repairs etc. Which are useful businesses for local people.


Popes road , which may be affected by new development contains the street market, and several shop units. One of which is the Latin American shop that provides a meeting point for the Latin American community in the area.


There is danger that if Popes road is redeveloped the Latin American community will lose this asset. The market traders will face several years of disruption. Stuart said that when they last did some works on Popes road he was moved around the corner and lost a lot of passing trade.


The arches in Brixton Station road are nearly all in use. A complaint about the recent consultation was the existing use of the arches was not acknowledged. The arches from Brixton road up to Popes road opposite the Rec contain a lot of affordable cafes and shops. They are mostly leased on short term basis. So have little long term security.


Beyond Popes road the arches are used for storage and light industrial. Also a DIY shop. Some sell vegetables on wholesale basis.

The market needs infrastructure- storage, car parking. Stuart said that Lower Marsh market declined after losing most of its storage.


There is a four storey building in Popes road by the station that has not been in use for a long time. This is the only large empty site that could be redeveloped apart from the former Ice Rink site.


In front of this building are the public toilets and the compactor machine for the street market. Any redevelopment of this site could cause loss of toilets and infrastructure necessary for the street market.


Stuart of the market traders said that the market in Brixton Station road is doing well on Saturdays.


The rep from BRUG said that the Brixton Rec had a lot of potential. There was a lot of underused space. There is survey being done of the Rec.


Another rep said that the Rec building had a lot of potential to be used more as a public space. Any designs/ plans for the development of the Brixton Central site should be should make sure that the different buildings complemented each other.


It was also pointed out that the wider view needs to be taken into account. It was often uses at the periphery of an area that played an important role. They were overlooked as they are designated as being on the periphery.

Issues/ Questions



Respect the existing business on this site. Most of this site , except former ice rink site, is in use. Start with looking at existing uses.

Artists. an important part of Brixton. Those in Valentia space should be consulted on how to remain and how Valentia place/ Popes road may be developed.

Market. Storage space and car parking is essential for market. Storage space needs to be retained and car parking provided.

Traders. Construction work must take account of the concerns of street market traders about loss of business.

High Definition


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2014)

Uses of area: not my notes. part one as to much to post up on one post.


*Brixton Central 1 . Street markets * a) Electric Avenue between Brixton Road and Atlantic Road, market stalls on one side of the roadb) Popes Road - market stalls on both sides of the road. c) Station Road between Brixton Road and Popes Road - single row of stalls weekdays (additional stalls weekends).Previously there were stalls in Station Road between Popes Road and Valentia Place, but no longer in use 

I_*ssues and concerns raised by market traders**Need for customer parking to be provided - customers won't come to the market to do their weekly food shop if they can't parkMaintain storage units in arches in Brixton Station Road - essential for traders to have access to arches so they can store stands and goods overnightMinimise disruption to the market during building work - if sections of the market close then risk that customers won't return - particular concerns about the section of the market in Popes Road where Network Rail plan to create a new station entrance*_

*2. Other retail uses*_I have ignored Brixton Village and Granville Arcade as these are outside the Brixton Central Masterplan area._ This leavesa) Atlantic Road Shop units in arches on railway side. Very few vacant units. Mainly A1 retail. On the S side of Atlantic Road, from Brixton Road heading west: modern shop units in block between Brixton Road and Electric Lane; Brady's pub (disused) on corner of Electric Lane and Atlantic Road; one storey shop units between railway arch and Electric Avenue. b) Electric Avenue: two storey shop units on both sides of Electric Avenue, selling similar goods to the market tradersc) Popes Road: On the west side is a large single storey retail unit, formerly a Tesco store, but now subdivided into three units. The units stretch back approx 70 metres with additional storage areas to the rear. At first floor level above the retail units there was previously e customers car park for the Tesco Store accessed via a ramp from Valentia Place but now disused. Network Rail are the freeholders. The former Tesco building is leased (on a long lease) to Mr Shah, who also operates operates retail units in Atlantic Road. d) Station Road - arches under railway line between Brixton Road and Popes Road, mix of retail, cafes and takeaway food, punctuated by entrance to the station (with shop units on one side). Shop units on the north side of Station Road in section between Brixton Road and Beehive Place and on ground floor of the Recreation Centre.

*3. Valentia Place railway arches- former light industrial, now artists workshops * Area between railway lines bordered on the N by railway arches (which are the rear of units in Brixton Station Road), on the W by retail units (former Tesco store) facing Popes, on the E by Valentia Place by gates, on the S by 16 double height arches Around a third of the arches are currently occupied, one by a market trader, and 6 are used by artists as studio space (including two by the Bureau of Silly Ideas). One arch is leased from Network Rail by the owners of the Walton Lodge Laundry in Coldharbour Lane and formerly used to provide access to the site for refuse vehicles when the laundry was in operation. The laundry operation closed at the end of April 2014 and the future of the building is uncertain. The western-most railway arch (at the end closest to Popes Road) is an open space. It adjoins the rear wall of a storage yard used by a trader (fish stall) in Brixton Village, so could potentially provide a direct access route from Valentia Place arches to Brixton Village.I saw inside some of the arches used by artists. The arches are dry and are double height with mezzanine floors used as studio space. _*

I**ssues and concerns raised by artists occupying the studio units**Concern that Network Rail want to turn Valentia Place into a replica of Borough Market, selling luxury foodstuffs, and that artists and creative businesses will be priced out of the area.There is demand for the arches in Valentia Place from artists but Network Rail are reluctant to lease vacant units, preferring to keep them vacant in preparation for redevelopment.Some of the Masterplan documents suggest that Valentia Place has been identified as suitable for retail development. This is unacceptable and the arches must continue to be designated as B1c (light industrial or workshops).A scheme was proposed a few years ago for the arches to become a centre for small arts organisations and Arts Council funding had been secured, but was scuppered when Network Rail pulled out. A similar scheme could be included as a Masterplan proposal. *_

*4. Arches in Brixton Station Road E of Popes Road  - storage and light industrial*Between Popes Road and Valentia Place and Gresham Road arches are used mainly for storage of goods by market traders, but also include some retail and light industrial. Arches in good condition, lined with plastic sheeting and dry. No vacant units. Arches furthest away from Popes Road and nearest to Gresham Road are double height with mezzanine and suitable for light industrial units e.g. arch used by specialist firm which tints car windows + fits vehicle alarms, ground floor used for work on vehicles, office in the mezzanine. The section between Gresham Road and Barrington Road (which is outside the Central Brixton area) has a mix of storage and light industrial uses, including large vehicle repair firm which occupies space between the arches (accessed from rear via gates on Barrington Road)Railway arches continue west from Barrington Road (also outside the Brixton Central area) with an alleyway on the north side (Orphans Yard) which houses mix of light industrial and creative tenants (including Simulcra Studios)..

*I*_*ssues and concerns raised by tenants of Station Road arches**Maintain storage units in arches in Brixton Station Road - essential for traders to have access to arches so they can store stands and goods overnightEvidence that Network Rail are no longer leasing units for light industrial uses, e.g. vehicle repair businesses - important that these businesses remain in Brixton as they offer employment and services to local residents.*_


High Definition


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2014)

part two


_*.*_*5. Vacant/unused sites and land**a. Canterbury Crescent (Canterbury Arms, traders car park, the former ice rink site and disused shop unit. *Block bordered by Canterbury Crescent, Station Road, Popes Road and the housing estate to the east. The Canterbury Arms is in the Nw corner of the site. Currently a pub, but planning permission granted in March 2014 for demolition and replacement by residential block with restaurant/bar on the ground floor.Next to it, and facing Canterbury Crescent, is a carpark used by market traders. In the SE corner is a disused retail unit (formerly used to sell skateboards) and a car park (formerly used by ice rink employees)Rest of site is cleared land. Previously occupied by the temporary ice rink and before that by the Pope's Road multi-storey car park. Long term future of site undecided, but in the short term (two years) LB Lambeth have announced plans for the site to be used for a mix of community/horticultural and employment uses (known as the Meanwhile Use). 

_*Issues and concerns raised by market traders in relation to the Ice Rink site**View that the site must continue to provide parking for market traders and in addition provide some customer parking (replacing parking previously provided in the multi-storey). During the Meanwhile phase it is important that the site provides parking for customers provide customer parking*_*b) Railway lands - above and between the railway tracks*The Masterplan Brief suggests that the land above and between the tracks could be developed to provide retail and employment with improved access to the station including a new entrance from Popes Road. However, while LB Lambeth's and Network Rail's plans are ambitious, the space available for redevelopment appears to be quite limited and development costs will be high, given the need to retain and improve access to the station. The space above and between the tracks can be broken down into two sections:

*a) Western section, between Brixton Road, Brixton Station Road, Popes Road and Atlantic Road. *To the W, the railway tracks occupy nearly all the space at track/platform level between Brixton Road and the station buildings. The space between the tracks widens out a little at the entrance to Brixton overground station. At ground floor level there is a passage way linking Brixton Station Road and Atlantic Road, a flight of stairs leading up to the eastbound platform and a row of retail units. At first floor level there is a ticket office, two small offices used by staff and a narrow triangle of land at the end of the platform which is protected by railings. To the E between the railway buildings and Popes Road is a derelict 4 storey office building (the ground floor of which was formerly a furniture store). At ground floor level the W side of this building faces the pedestrian link between Station Road and Atlantic Avenue. At track level, the building joins the eastbound platform. The W side of the building faces Popes Road (and can be glimpsed through railings behind the public WC). 

*b) Eastern section, between Popes Road, Brixton Station Road, Valentia Place and the railway viaduct.*Area bordered by railway arches - on the north side by rear of units which face onto Station Road and on the south side by double height arches facing onto Valentia Place and used by creative industries. Between these there is one storey building, the former Tesco store in Popes Road, now subdivided into three retail units. This area is identified in the Masterplan as suitable for retail development. Current tenant has a long lease, however, so would need to be bought out.

*c) Brady's public house and land facing Electric Lane at the rear of Brady's*Former pub (Brady's aka The Railway Tavern). Formerly owned by Lambeth Council, now privately owned. Planning permission for flats above bar/restaurant. In Electric Lane to the S of Bradys there are two yards, with separate entrance gates. The owners of the Brady's site have submitted a planning application for a temporary market in the yard immediately adjacent to Bradys - application to be determined. There is a second yard on the Electric Avenue side of this which includes a covered section used by market traders for storage. On the W side of Electric Lane (the Brixton Road side) there are gates providing access to two separate service yards (which appear to provide service access to Sainsbury, Smiths, Boots and Iceland). In between the service yards is a two storey building, mmediately behind the underground station and which appears to house London Underground offices/services above the Victoria line. There was formerly an alleyway, open to the public, leading from Brixton Road to Electric Lane with an entrance to the immediate N of the underground station. This alleyway was closed off when the underground station was redeveloped and is now guarded by a staff only access pad.

_*Issues and concerns raised by the Brixton Society**There are very few vacant or unused sites in Brixton Central other than the Ice Rink site.Share the view of the Market Traders that the Ice Rink site should include parking for market traders and customersOverall, important that the Brixton Central Masterplan takes account of and respects the needs of existing users, including market traders, shops which cater for local residents, and affordable space for artists and creative businesses.*_


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2014)

map of site:


----------



## Crispy (May 11, 2014)

Fantastic work as always


----------



## Gramsci (May 12, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Fantastic work as always



Just to clarify. I went to the meetings on this.

My notes are in post 32.

The notes in posts 33 and 34 are not mine but I had permission to put them up. They are
High Definition who did sterling work going around the area recording what the uses are at present.

We both shared concerns about the recent consultations.

It was said at one of the early consultation meetings, by a senior Council officer, that development of this area is not going to be "gentrification"

In which case it then it needs to be bottom up. Looking at existing uses and seeing how the concerns of those using the area now can be taken into consideration.

This area is not a blank sheet. Most of it is in use. An affordable mix of cafes, light industrial and artists studios. Also a mix that reflects the diversity of Brixton. See Brixton Station Road ( opposite Rec) for a really diverse mix of cultures and people. This is in danger of being lost.

I also put in a word for the artist studios. Art is an important part of London. I know several artists who are now in process of leaving London due to increasing lack of affordable artists studios. Culture might not seem important. But imo it is. And I am not an artist. London has been a centre of culture. The way that its becoming a playground for the rich will impoverish London culturally.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 12, 2014)

I'd quite like a replica of Borough market


----------



## leanderman (May 13, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I'd quite like a replica of Borough market



Pretty sure that is the opposite of what Gramsci is arguing for!

All I want is a better entrance to the Rec.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 13, 2014)

No I know, it wouldn't be good for the artists who use the space. I just quite like Borough market and it would be nice to have something like that here


----------



## SpamMisery (May 13, 2014)

What's wrong with the entrance to the rec?


----------



## cuppa tee (May 13, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> No I know, it wouldn't be good for the artists who use the space. I just quite like Borough market and it would be nice to have something like that here



the real thing is only a short journey by bus, tube or fixed wheel bike.......


----------



## leanderman (May 13, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> What's wrong with the entrance to the rec?



Gloomy


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I'd quite like a replica of Borough market



Brixton already has a street market and covered markets.


----------



## SarfLondoner (May 13, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> No I know, it wouldn't be good for the artists who use the space. I just quite like Borough market and it would be nice to have something like that here


Granville arcade is like a replica Borough market and vice versa.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 13, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> the real thing is only a short journey by bus, tube or fixed wheel bike.......



True, but a stroll is better than a bus for this lazy bugger



leanderman said:


> Gloomy



Good point, well made



SarfLondoner said:


> Granville arcade is like a replica Borough market and vice versa.



Sort of, but I can see why people cross London to visit Borough market; I can't say I've ever felt the same way about Granville Arcade except as somewhere for dinner before a night out


----------



## leanderman (May 13, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Sort of, but I can see why people cross London to visit Borough market; I can't say I've ever felt the same way about Granville Arcade except as somewhere for dinner before a night out



The cheese selection at the much-reviled Champagne + Fromage is brilliant.

Pricey, but good for special occasions


----------



## SpamMisery (May 13, 2014)

Not been. Not seen the menu even


----------



## SpamMisery (May 16, 2014)

Now seen the menu. Plan on going soon


----------



## boohoo (May 16, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I'd quite like a replica of Borough market



it's quite nice when a place is allowed to retain its identity and not become a poor copy of a transplanted idea.


----------



## editor (May 16, 2014)

Seen the menu. No plans on ever going.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 16, 2014)

editor said:


> Seen the menu. No plans on ever going.



Lactose intolerant?


----------



## leanderman (May 17, 2014)

boohoo said:


> it's quite nice when a place is allowed to retain its identity and not become a poor copy of a transplanted idea.



Should identities be permanent?


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Should identities be permanent?


Surely it is a question of authenticity and quality?


----------



## leanderman (May 17, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Surely it is a question of authenticity and quality?



Quality certainly.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Should identities be permanent?



That's a good question.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Should identities be permanent?



The answer is no. Just as we as individuals change over the course of our lives so do neighbourhoods. Even individual buildings change their function and then we change our relationship to them.
I'm just thinking aloud posting freely, for me it's about how the change comes about, what drives it, how the change impacts upon those with little or no say about its direction; those without the voice are working class. We are only given a voice by a middle class media for the purpose of entertainment at best and political persecution at worst.

Even class identities shift, especially now as communication via internet makes information freely available breaking down barriers for all of us. Everything changes all of the time, it's about managing the change in a just manner, having regard for what was there before. Middle class people are good at restoring original features in properties once the working class have been evicted.

I make some pertinent points badly because i am drunk but at least i did not shit in the river.


----------



## Winot (May 17, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> We are only given a voice by a middle class media for the purpose of entertainment at best and political persecution at worst.



There's no need to be so rude about Urban75.


----------



## boohoo (May 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Should identities be permanent?



I don't expect them to be permanent but it would be nice if change was a bit more organic rather than forced.


----------



## Rushy (May 17, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I don't expect them to be permanent but it would be nice if change was a bit more organic rather than forced.


Even in organic process the pace of change varies. Changes in Brixton have been happening slowly for years and it appears to have hit the tipping point. With no specifics in mind, changes which might not look organic when considering Brixton on its own might look more organic when you zoom out and consider the whole of Lambeth / London / UK / Europe.
Which changes do you feel have been forced and which have been organic?


----------



## boohoo (May 17, 2014)

Rushy I don't think anything has been forced. This conversation is in reply to
SpamMisery 's comment about wanting Brixton to become Borough market. 

Although some of the consultations are clear that many decisions have been made before hand for example the town hall scheme.


----------



## Rushy (May 17, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Rushy I don't think anything has been forced. This conversation is in reply to
> SpamMisery 's comment about wanting Brixton to become Borough market.
> 
> Although some of the consultations are clear that many decisions have been made before hand for example the town hall scheme.


Does consultation make change any more or less organic per se?


----------



## boohoo (May 17, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Does consultation make change any more or less organic per se?



Consultation should reflect community opinion (though of course there are lots of problems with consultations). It could have the potential to provide things that grow out of community need.


----------



## Winot (May 17, 2014)

And there are many different communities.


----------



## Rushy (May 17, 2014)

And conflicting needs.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 17, 2014)

Consultation is bollocks. It's a real life sham. Looking down their noses, ticking their boxes, assuaging their guilt, they wash their hands of us, their democracy unsullied marches on. It's not wearing any clothes!


----------



## SpamMisery (May 17, 2014)

Who'd have thought saying you like Borough market would cause a fracas. Two sentences and we might have found ourselves in a ruckus. It's easy to see how wars get started.


----------



## boohoo (May 17, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Who'd have thought saying you like Borough market would cause a fracas. Two sentences and we might have found ourselves in a ruckus. It's easy to see how wars get started.



SpamMisery   You said you would like a replica of Borough Market not you like Borough Market - they are two different sentences. And this isn't a fracas...


----------



## brixtonpete (May 19, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> There is no threat to the Rec. Its future is guaranteed in the Brixton SPD.
> 
> As the Rec is part of the Brixton Central site they are one of the groups contacted. Any plans for the the Brixton Central site need to be coherent so BRUGs involvement is necessary.
> 
> ...



It is quite true that Brixton Rec’s future is guaranteed by the SPD, but do remember that such a plan has a life, I believe, of 10 years and while its short and medium term future is also secured by Cllr Lib Peck’s unequivocal commitment, no-one can guarantee she will be council leader in ten years time, therefore it is worth looking at the longer term future of the Rec - say 15 years and up.

A key major expense of Brixton Rec is energy. Darren Pope, the manager, reported in March that he was reading the meters daily and gas consumption amounted to £450/day and electricity to £380/day, which happens to be down from last year due to GLL energy saving measures. In fact GLL publish energy consumption statistics and graphs alongside the Energy Performance Certificate in the Rec’s foyer which confirm his figures. If this issue isn't tackled very seriously then its continued existence as a community facility could well be revisited in 15 or 20 years.

The council will be looking at all ways of making the Rec more financially viable. It is currently a hugely popular, successful and well-used facility, with 75,000 visits per month, but some areas such as the under-used very large and high bowls hall down at the bottom are likely to be reviewed. One question that may be considered is whether it could be ‘mezzanined’. Another question that has been asked is could it remain as a single space but become, or double as, a conference hall or convention centre? 

Just one of the very many different options in the capacity study prepared in consultation with BRUG is: "As part of the exploration of sustainability and energy efficiency opportunities, this should include exploration and analysis of the ability to achieve Passivhaus EnerPHit Standard" and hopefully that this is included is an indicator of a more open attitude within Lambeth to new ideas.

Passivhaus is an energy efficiency standard well above that required by current building standards achievable by only a small or zero cost premium over standard new-build. While being taken up around the world, especially in Germany and Austria, it is little known about in this country. In fact Passivhaus involves a fairly simple set of principles, applied as a package - more info at: http://passipedia.passiv.de/passipedia_en/

The Mildmay Community Centre in north London was originally a Victorian generator building for north London trams. In 2011 it was refurbished to Passivhaus standards and now uses 90% less energy than before. If Brixton Rec could reduce its energy bills by a substantial amount - say 80 or 90 per cent - that would reduce the pressure on its day to day running costs and reduce the temptation to turn over some of its space to commercial enterprise. Of course, saving energy and money doesn’t in itself exclude the possibility that an area of the Rec that is underused should not be looked at as to how its usage could be increased.

It is not just the general building that contributes to the high energy use but also the swimming pool, which high summertime gas consumption suggests is also expensive to run. There are two Passivhaus swimming pools in Germany and the monitoring of one of them suggests that improvements could be made to the pool itself, and to the pool’s building, that could raise it to greater energy efficiency than a standard low-energy new-build swimming pool (such as at Clapham), but whether that would actually be achievable in practice would depend of course on in depth studies, and any Passivhaus refurbishment would also involve the question of whether it is better to spend more money now in return for future savings. It is not just in energy bills that Passivhaus offers savings, but should also lead to lower maintenance costs as Passivhaus buildings need greatly reduced heat input and therefore much smaller heating plant. Apart from contributing to global warming, the Rec’s massive energy consumption will either be paid for by us directly in the entrance charges or by us indirectly through council tax. In April an energy sub-group to BRUG organised a visit to Mildmay Community Centre and is now recommending a visit by a German expert on swimming pools from the Passivhaus Institute in Germany to give a presentation and an initial consultation on possibilities for the Rec. 

So, what are the possible downsides of a Passivhaus retrofit? Brixton Rec is recognised as being part of the brutalist school of architecture, and was designed by George Finch who was very keen to design for the community and for the ordinary person, and  who spent a year looking at other buildings in preparation. A Passivhaus retrofit might prefer external rather than internal insulation on some of the walls e.g. the sides and back, which would change the appearance, but would mean less disruption and no loss of space to the inside and give greater internal temperature stability. Next time you pass it by take a look at the sides of the Rec (you can only see the back with difficulty, if at all). Would a change in appearance be a problem - or a challenge to Brixton artists to come forward with design proposals? I believe that buildings should be changeable in design to meet changing needs if the new design makes a positive improvement to the area, but any such choice should be put to the people of Brixton.

Inside, a modern ventilation system might require silvery looking circular ducts running throughout the building as existing ducts are likely to be unsuitable - would that be a problem or another interesting design challenge? In the 1970s George Finch was regarded as a bit of a maverick and didn’t follow existing convention in his designs. I would argue that we should not blindly follow convention either and be prepared to make positive changes. It would be sad if in 30 years time Brixton Rec was preserved as a brutalist shell to a shopping mall...

What is happening next? The council will appoint, via LSH, a cost consultancy firm to review all the options as defined in the capacity study, and a tendering process will examine how the companies would handle the issues. BRUG has been kept in touch with progress and procedures via quarterly meetings between GLL/Lambeth and BRUG, and in between, and will get the opportunity to put questions to the companies bidding. Brixton Energy/Repowering is producing a report re Brixton Central.

Planning and debate on the Rec will go on for a while but currently there is survey of what people think about it until the 30th May. It is not only for people who use the Rec but also for people who don’t to find out why they don’t, so if you live or work in Lambeth, do fill it it.

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

To join the Brixton Rec User Group mailing list go to

http://groups.google.com/group/recuser/subscribe

or send an email to:

recuser+subscribe {AT symbol} googlegroups.com


----------



## uk benzo (May 19, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Which changes do you feel have been forced and which have been organic?



Forced: Eviction of squatters and selling off council properties


----------



## editor (May 19, 2014)

uk benzo said:


> Forced: Eviction of squatters and selling off council properties


The mass eviction of just about the entire long term squatting community in central Brixton really was a massive turning point for the worse.


----------



## Rushy (May 19, 2014)

uk benzo said:


> Forced: Eviction of squatters and selling off council properties


True. And before that compulsorily purchasing a huge proportion of the properties in central Brixton, evicting the renters / owners / communities and leaving the properties empty so that they became squatted.


----------



## boohoo (May 19, 2014)

Rushy said:


> True. And before that compulsorily purchasing a huge proportion of the properties in central Brixton, evicting the renters / owners / communities and leaving the properties empty so that they became squatted.



Is this pushing it further and further back in time cos we could? The displacement of communities by the war, The displacement of the poor by the arrival of the railways, the displacement of the poor by the introduction of major new roads such as Regent's street, the displacement of the poor by the enclosure of common land in the late 18th and early 19th century, etc....


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2014)

Rushy said:


> True. And before that compulsorily purchasing a huge proportion of the properties in central Brixton, evicting the renters / owners / communities and leaving the properties empty so that they became squatted.



The properties in central Brixton were originally "Short Life" not squatted. Parts of Rushcroft Road, Clifton Mansions and Carlton Mansions.

Compulsory purchase for the Hollamby planned development ( only Barrier Block and Rec were built) was resisted at the time from what I have been told. By 70s some Afro Caribbeans had bought houses in Brixton.


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Is this pushing it further and further back in time cos we could? The displacement of communities by the war, The displacement of the poor by the arrival of the railways, the displacement of the poor by the introduction of major new roads such as Regent's street, the displacement of the poor by the enclosure of common land in the late 18th and early 19th century, etc....



I see you have been studying your history well.


----------



## leanderman (May 19, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Is this pushing it further and further back in time cos we could? The displacement of communities by the war, The displacement of the poor by the arrival of the railways, the displacement of the poor by the introduction of major new roads such as Regent's street, the displacement of the poor by the enclosure of common land in the late 18th and early 19th century, etc....



Don't forget the Norman Conquest - not a day goes by without reminders of its enduring, doleful impact.


----------



## boohoo (May 19, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Don't forget the Norman Conquest - not a day goes by without reminders of its enduring, doleful impact.



The Normans? Before that it was them Saxons coming over here, and then the Romans before that and then the various tribes moving around. And then those poor displaced dinosaurs.


----------



## leanderman (May 19, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Is this pushing it further and further back in time cos we could? The displacement of communities by the war, The displacement of the poor by the arrival of the railways, the displacement of the poor by the introduction of major new roads such as Regent's street, the displacement of the poor by the enclosure of common land in the late 18th and early 19th century, etc....



It is pointing out that Brixton has had many lives. And privileging one over another is dubious.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 19, 2014)

boohoo said:


> The Normans? Before that it was them Saxons coming over here, and then the Romans before that and then the various tribes moving around. And then those poor displaced dinosaurs.



Could not resist it.


----------



## boohoo (May 19, 2014)

leanderman said:


> It is pointing out that Brixton has had many lives. And privileging one over another is dubious.



And it has many different communities living very separate lives side by side. So who wins?


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Is this pushing it further and further back in time cos we could? The displacement of communities by the war, The displacement of the poor by the arrival of the railways, the displacement of the poor by the introduction of major new roads such as Regent's street, the displacement of the poor by the enclosure of common land in the late 18th and early 19th century, etc....



Also Capital volume one is a mine of information on how development of modern Capitalism affected the poor. It also shows how new identities can be formed. In 19c the factory system led to development of a new industrial proletariat. A new identity that Marx correctly saw as the future. The other development of that period was the enlarging of the servant class drawn from the poor. Industrialization led to greater productivity and a surplus population.

The displacement you quote are directly related to the development of Capitalism in 19c.

Identities as Deadwood said are not fixed. Nor should they be imo. Marx saw that Capitalism had revolutionized society. Its effects, however, left to its own course was to lead to an unequal society. The whole point of Marx was not to preserve a working class identity. It was that new working class was the identity that could get rid of Capitalism. Then using the great industrial productivity developed under Capitalism to free people from "work". All could develop there human potential. Identities could be pursued in freedom. 

The "forced" changes in Brixton  ( I refer to recent years) are due in large part to Capitalist market in land and housing. Forced in the sense that there is no democratic control over them. Other than some weak planning guidelines. This affects whole of London.


The better changes ( do not like word organic) are that from Windrush generation Brixton has been a multicultural area. ( This also goes for rest of London) As Brixton was an affordable place to live new for "identities" like North African and South American came to Brixton. This is becoming less so now due to the forced changes. London was a wonderful experiment in how people from all parts of the world could live together. This is being lost as London becomes increasingly unaffordable for many.

Why the consultation on Brixton Central site is important. Its not imo about keeping Brixton in aspic its about keeping it affordable.


----------



## leanderman (May 19, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> London was a wonderful experiment in how people from all parts of the world could live together. This is being lost as London becomes increasingly unaffordable for many.



Ironically, part of the reason why this is being lost is exactly because 'people from all parts of the world' come to live here (and I include myself - a Westcountry hayseed - in this).

That's because the unaffordability is driven by what the Economist calls spectacular population growth, along with easy money and little building.


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Ironically, part of the reason why this is being lost is exactly because 'people from all parts of the world' come to live here (and I include myself - a Westcountry hayseed - in this).
> 
> That's because the unaffordability is driven by what the Economist calls spectacular population growth, along with easy money and little building.



Just going to have to disagree with you on this.

Over years Council housing has not been built. Companies like Barrats can get out of affordable housing on there developments, rent controls were got rid off, tenancies are less secure than years ago etc etc.

Unlike Germany the "free" market rules here. Heard a German on radio ( who had lived here) say that in this country housing is about profit. In Germany this is not the case.

Why do the less well off have to bare brunt of lack of housing?


----------



## leanderman (May 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Just going to have to disagree with you on this.
> 
> Over years Council housing has not been built. Companies like Barrats can get out of affordable housing on there developments, rent controls were got rid off, tenancies are less secure than years ago etc etc.
> 
> ...



Fair points - the lack of building was one of the three factors I cited.

But you cannot ignore the demand issue, especially in London.

People want to live here, not in other parts of the UK, where affordability is better.

This chart just about sums it up


----------



## boohoo (May 20, 2014)

leanderman There are quite a lot of empty buildings and large empty sites. It would be better for the councils to work on negotiating the empty buildings back into use, developing empty sites or making it difficult for sites to stay empty rather than sweeping the poorer people out of the area as that is the easy option for them.


----------



## leanderman (May 20, 2014)

boohoo said:


> leanderman There are quite a lot of empty buildings and large empty sites. It would be better for the councils to work on negotiating the empty buildings back into use, developing empty sites or making it difficult for sites to stay empty rather than sweeping the poorer people out of the area as that is the easy option for them.



Two big sites at the end of this road empty for a combined 30 years. Should have been compulsorily purchased for social housing.


----------



## Rushy (May 20, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Is this pushing it further and further back in time cos we could? The displacement of communities by the war, The displacement of the poor by the arrival of the railways, the displacement of the poor by the introduction of major new roads such as Regent's street, the displacement of the poor by the enclosure of common land in the late 18th and early 19th century, etc....



I would listen to you intently boohoo even if you were to argue links back to the flap of a butterfly's wings in the Congo or even the Big Bang.  My history is not as good as yours so I am limited to referencing the living memory eviction of the same buildings by same council, a forced change without which the large scale squatting history of Brixton is unlikely to have ever happened.


----------



## editor (May 20, 2014)

Without going too far back in the time machine, I'd say that the decision to replace the originally proposed blocks of social housing with the private, expensive and 'securely gated' Brixton Square also had an noticeable impact on the area, as did the 'regeneration' of Brixton Village which now usually appears as a major feature in all glossy brochures for new upmarket private housing development in the area.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 20, 2014)

What's the noticeable impact of the decision?


----------



## editor (May 20, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> What's the noticeable impact of the decision?


Er, no social housing and the appearance of Brixton Square instead, with the demographic shift that introduced.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 20, 2014)

It was sheltered accommodation right?


----------



## editor (May 20, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> It was sheltered accommodation right?


If I recall correctly it was a not-for-profit social housing group (Places for People) who were originally going to build something like 150 flats.

Here's something from the u75 blog when Barratts were later wriggling out of their affordable housing commitments, like the scum they are.


> Permission was originally given to Places for People to build the ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing in 2005. Barratt Homes argue that the economic situation has changed so much it is now not possible to fulfill that promise. However, we note that Barratt Homes bought the site in the knowledge of the Section 106 agreement only last year (well after the 2008 crisis) and that in Brixton specifically the housing market is not deflating.
> 
> http://www.urban75.org/blog/barratt...-housing-in-brixton-please-sign-the-petition/


----------



## CH1 (May 21, 2014)

Someone sent me this link about the barrier block http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2014/05/11/brixtons-burdensome-barrier-building/

I am posting for information - please note this is someone's blog and personal opinion. I think it is a bit negative and some of the facts are wrong. Good pictures though.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 21, 2014)

Which facts are wrongs?

I think you're right though, it is a bit negative. I do however consider the barrier to be a terrible terrible mistake


----------



## editor (May 21, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Which facts are wrongs?
> 
> I think you're right though, it is a bit negative. I do however consider the barrier to be a terrible terrible mistake


Most of it appears to have been repurposed from my article , but this is definitely incorrect: 


> The monolithic block was later split into three separate units to break up the pedestrian rat-runs that had perpetuated crime, although they have have limited effect on the drugs and other social problems.


And this doesn't make sense: 


> Two inserts at either end of the barrier block are almost reminiscent of East German watch towers, less facilitating access for residents than watching over them


Not sure what's so " noiseome" about them: 


> Two noisome corridors on either side lead to the residential estate behind the barrier, but are even less welcoming than the watchtowers.


And it's actually a very pleasant place to live in. 


> It’s almost as if the council thinking, this is a bad building, so how can we make it worse, got their wish, and lavished millions less on making it a more pleasant place to live in


Etc etc.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 21, 2014)

Fair enough although some of that is just personal opinion as opposed to factually incorrect. The bit about splitting the block into three sections sounded like so much of a building ballache, I couldn't believe it was true


----------



## CH1 (May 22, 2014)

editor said:


> Most of it appears to have been repurposed from my article......And it's actually a very pleasant place to live in. Etc etc.


As a pedant can I point out that the concierge entrances and stair structures clad with metal panels and screens were designed by Greenhill Jenner architects, at the time in Shakespeare Road now in Islington, and added later.
I think this was a Brixton Challenge scheme, contemporaneous with the concierge schemes on the New Loughborough, by the same architects.
I think these alterations date to the early 1990s.

The style of the article seems to be parodying Ian Nairn or Jonathan Meades. Thought provoking for those who are not connected with the area, but maybe ludicrous or insulting for people who are.

I think the suggestion that the "concrete overhangs" were designed to break up the noise from motorists is spurious.

It is unfortunate that with the internet, some of the factoids in articles like this could come to be accepted as truth when in fact they are speculation or prejudice.


----------



## Rushy (May 22, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I think the suggestion that the "concrete overhangs" were designed to break up the noise from motorists is spurious.


I have always assumed this is the case - the idea was that it would reflect noise back to the motorway and disrupt it?

The angle of the Seagram Ark in Hammersmith does that to some extent - unintentionally, mind you.


----------



## leanderman (May 22, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I have always assumed this is the case - the idea was that it would reflect noise back to the motorway and disrupt it?
> 
> The angle of the Seagram Ark in Hammersmith does that to some extent - unintentionally, mind you.



A friend's dad architected that.


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Someone sent me this link about the barrier block http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2014/05/11/brixtons-burdensome-barrier-building/
> 
> I am posting for information - please note this is someone's blog and personal opinion. I think it is a bit negative and some of the facts are wrong. Good pictures though.



This is not on the topic of this thread. Can this have a separate thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2014)

There is update from Fluid and Council about this site.



> A ‘Co-production strategy’ update report is available here. A more detailed stage 2 report covering “Co-production Strategy” will be available in due course.
> 
> In July, further community consultation will take place to discuss masterplan options for the town centre through a combination of a Reference Group Workshop, public drop-in exhibition and pop-up events.



High Definition


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2014)

Update here: 
Brixton Rec, Ferndale and Flaxman sports centres to benefit from £203k investment


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2014)

Another, rather positive, update: 
Lambeth Council ‘committed to Brixton Rec’ declares Cabinet member


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2014)

This Brixton Buzz piece on young peoples views on the "Brixton Central" area



> Some of the findings make for optimistic reading.
> 
> In the eyes of the young folk, Brixton is:
> 
> ...



There is not a lot for young people in central Brixton. I can see why they think Brixton Central needs less bars etc. The Rec is the only place that is in central Brixton for them. 

​


----------



## CH1 (Jul 11, 2014)

Went to the Fluid/AECOM Brixton Central Reference Group Workshop yesterday evening in the Impact Hub - which is actually the former Juvenile Court in the basement of Lambeth Town Hall.

At least 2 other Urbanites attended - we were on the dissenting table and adjourned to the Beehive afterwards to recover.

I am still getting my thoughts together on this workshop - and also looking for plans and illustrations to post up, so hope to give a proper report later.

Suffice it to say for now - pace Editor - THIS is where the slick presentations and mind games occur. Compared to this MUSE were straight amateurs.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Went to the Fluid/AECOM Brixton Central Reference Group Workshop yesterday evening in the Impact Hub - which is actually the former Juvenile Court in the basement of Lambeth Town Hall.
> 
> At least 2 other Urbanites attended - we were on the dissenting table and adjourned to the Beehive afterwards to recover.
> 
> ...



Look forward to your report.

After the meeting I was feeling slightly nauseous. I did not find it an enjoyable experience.

Mind games- this is good way to summarize what it was like.

I was wondering why I was getting more and more uneasy as the slick presentations ( which went on far to long) from officers and Fluid were shown to us.

Part of the problem with the meeting was that half was presentations. A lot to take in and then comment on. It was to rushed. I felt I was being pushed into making decisions on the proposals without proper time for discussion. Also that I was expected to take as given what Fluid/ Council had decided was the way forward based on their reading of previous consultation meetings.

Also starting to irritate me is the inspirational talks from officers and Cllr about Future Brixton that one gets at every meeting. At one point a senior officer was waxing lyrical about the "hot desking" they were experimenting with in the Town Hall.

The consultation is about producing a "development brief" that will entice a developer to take an interest in the site. This skews the consultation process. The Council say that they have not decided on a delivery model yet but this is how it looks to me.

I will say the lady from Fluid at our "dissenting table" was ok.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2014)

There will be a "pop up" stall in Brixton Station road this Saturday about the Brixton Central Masterplan ( 12th July) between 10am and 4pm

So anyone can give there views and see what is being proposed.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 12, 2014)

Still trying to digest.
We were presented with 2 scenarios.
A. Studios and workspace, outdoor events, potential new cultural leisure and community uses - supported by new housing and shopping

or scenario B: studios and workspace on Popes Road with an extended indoor market - supported by new housing and shops


Spot the difference is/was my immediate reaction!

We were asked to feedback on all sorts of general aspirations and  propositions such as ranking in order of preference affordable housing, local jobs, affordable workspace and retail, refurbished and improved railway station, new public realm (roads? pedestrianised squares?), sustainable employment/retail mix??, town centre parking (seems a divisive issue), culture and community (what that?), local energy network (some sort of combined heat and power idea), enhancing the Rec, an overground station (probably at East Brixton), continued (undefined) community development.

The presentations at the beginning of the meeting went way over time. We heard from Fluid's Steve McAdam, AECOM's Jonathan Rose and perhaps in most detail from Tom Bridgman a senior manager in Lambeth Regeneration, who had so much to cram in, his delivery was very rapid. Not good if your ears are bunged up like mine.

I felt, and still feel that we were being asked to vote on 2 rather similar concepts.

Major differences between the options are these:
International House - scenario A - demolish and build housing
							- scenario B - refurbish for employment use

Canterbury Arms - scenario A - proceed with existing planning permission and							use Ice Rink site for mix of cultural/educational/housing 
						 - scenario B - seek to incorporate this into a bigger housing							scheme for the former Ice Rink site

Car parking  - scenario A - underground car park under Ice Rink site
				   - scenario B - "decked car parking" (mini-multi storey?)

Objections to scenario A: demolishing International House was energy wasteful - not energy saving.
Objections to scenario B: extending the indoor market area was risky - many existing indoor market uses are marginal and only open part of the week it was said. 
Also losing some existing railway arch tenants would be foolish - they are situated in the large out-door arches because that suits their businesses.

Maybe Gramsci or others can add other bits they recall?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Spot the difference is/was my immediate reaction!
> 
> 
> Maybe Gramsci or others can add other bits they recall?



Its late but a couple of comments. Excellent you got the pics online.

Spot the difference is a very good point. This is what the meeting was presented with.

There was no discussion on what we actually felt about the options. Whether people liked the options. The attitude was this is what Fluid/officers have come up with. You can say which one you prefer but the consultation is moving on and there is a timeline for a development brief to be finished.

There was no opportunity to give feedback on what had happened at the previous two meetings.

I felt that I was being expected to choose one of the two plus add a few comments about priorities within the option I preferred.

The other good comment made at meeting was that there was no option for incremental change rather than a sweeping redevelopment. The Ice Rink site is empty so is up for redevelopment. The other parts of the area could be improved in a sensitive fashion that does not disrupt the businesses and retains existing uses. This would help to preserve the aspects of the area that people liked.

The more I looked at the plans and what we were being asked to comment on the more  cautious I became in making a comment. As I felt it would be used to endorse what the officers/Fluid were presenting.

Several people said that the two options were over development of site (including me). To much being crammed into a small space. Mainly between the railway lines.  This, of course , makes the scheme "feasible". At this and at previous meetings I felt that residents were being pressurized to temper their comments/ criticisms by being told the scheme had to be "viable". I do not think this is how it should be done. Residents should be able to raise concerns without that. In the end its up to the Council to decide. They are the local authority. As residents we can comment. I feel the Council/ Fluid do not want comments they want endorsement of they way they are progressing. Its what CH1 says in his first post about mind games and getting people to compromise themselves. 

It was also raised that the mixture of uses stacked on top of each other ( retail/ workshops/ housing) would cause problems for those living above all these different uses unless it was managed well. A good point.

I felt that the two options were about maximizing financial returns from development of the site first of all. Which is fair enough way to do it. Its just that I do not have to agree to all of it.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 12, 2014)

Really not sure of the date for this webpage, but there are some familiar themes.

"Lambeth council by trusting commerce and buisness to be the agents of change have failed the community by allowing capital to dictate the reshaping of Brixton."


----------



## CH1 (Jul 12, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> Really not sure of the date for this webpage, but there are some familiar themes.
> "Lambeth council by trusting commerce and buisness to be the agents of change have failed the community by allowing capital to dictate the reshaping of Brixton."


I'm not sure how far that website is right - the council may not be culpable in some of their examples.

For example the turning of Brixton College of Building in Ferndale Road into flats - this site belonged to GLC/ILEA I think, so was presumably sold off by the people appointed to wind up GLC assets - down to Thatcher etc ultimately. 

The replacement of Robils fancy goods shop with Iceland seems not to be Lambeth's responsibility.

Should Lambeth compulsorily purchase shops to determine the type of shops to be available in the high street? Where they did do that we ended up with 4 mobile phone shops in a row and an Argos!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 13, 2014)

I went to the "pop up" consultation in Brixton Station road on Saturday.

Did look like a lot of people were taking an interest. 

The largest amount of written comments was that affordable housing was the most important thing the plans for site should provide.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2014)

questionnaire about the provisional proposals



> You can read about these proposals here and feed your comments back via our short questionnaire by *Friday 8 August*.



Also:



> *Your help and next steps*
> During July we held a community reference group workshop and pop-up stalls around Brixton town centre.  This week we’ll be hosting a drop-in exhibition in Electric Avenue on:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## leanderman (Jul 21, 2014)

Fiendishly complicated consultation.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 21, 2014)

I might prefer the 'employment-led' Scenario A. 

Not sure why the market needs to be extended, as in Scenario B.

Anyway, both plans seems plausible. 

A tarted-up station would be nice as well as, of course, 'affordable' housing. 

Car parking seems to be a necessary evil for the market. 

A hotel would be good. 

Shame about lack of a link to the orbital railway.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 21, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Shame about lack of a link to the orbital railway.


Is this being definitively ruled out now? Or just kicked down the road again?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 22, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Is this being definitively ruled out now? Or just kicked down the road again?



Kicked down the road. An aspiration - but acknowledgement that it is beyond the scope/budget of this project


----------



## CH1 (Jul 23, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Is this being definitively ruled out now? Or just kicked down the road again?





leanderman said:


> Kicked down the road. An aspiration - but acknowledgement that it is beyond the scope/budget of this project


The impression Tom Bridgman left me with was that the East Brixton option was most likely for a Brixton station on the London Overground - but that this was Network Rail's baby and not part of the Brixton Central project.

Incidentally this issue also cropped up at LJAG's AGM. LJAG are in touch with Network Rail on matters to do with Loughborough Junction station but they have got the same mood music on a London Overground station - East Brixton. They were speculating on how East Brixton could be made more accessible from Loughborough Road/Loughborough Junction.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 23, 2014)

An overground station at East Brixton would pretty much kill off the chance of it ever happening at LJ or Brixton proper :-/
The whole point of the Overground is to remove the need for going in and back out of central London, so good interchanges are vital. It would be a real shame if these two potentially transformative interchanges get cancelled just for expedience's sake.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 23, 2014)

Crispy said:


> An overground station at East Brixton would pretty much kill off the chance of it ever happening at LJ or Brixton proper :-/
> The whole point of the Overground is to remove the need for going in and back out of central London, so good interchanges are vital. It would be a real shame if these two potentially transformative interchanges get cancelled just for expedience's sake.


In these days when you can write off an office building in 30 years (Olive Morris/Mary Seacole and quite possibly International House) - I would have thought the same would apply to stations.

Of course it would rule out a grand Brixton interchange in my lifetime (and possibly yours) - but not permanently.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Aug 16, 2014)

In response to yet another message from future Brixton, I sent this message to them:

"_It is surprising that Brixton does not have an East London Line station. Imagine the benefits for Brixton if the existing Chatham Main Line station could be augmented with ELL platforms. And why not reinstate Catford Loop platforms as well ? Thus Brixton would become a public transport hub, with one tube and three rail lines.

Let's not aim low, with interminable discussions about murals and endless public consultation theatre. Lobby for some real, substantial transport infrastructure enhancements. That is, if you actually want to help Brixton. Or is this just a talking shop ?_"

I know it's a bit single-issue-obsessive, but surely it not beyond the wit of man to build an ELL station at Brixton. I will post any reply they send.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 17, 2014)

The Council has confirmed 'over half a million pounds' to invest in the Rec over the next year. Most of this is for H & S upgrades. I 'm a little confused as a figure of just over £200k for similar work was announced back in June, but also to include the Ferndale and Flaxman.

A figure of £9m  has been quoted by Cllr Jane Edbrooke, the Cabinet member for Neighbourhoods, if the Rec is to see out the next ten years. No mention where this is coming from.

It's great that the short term investment is being made. My concern is that by quoting the £9m figure, this then strengthens the hand of those that think that a fresh start is the best option. Invite in the developers and get them to foot the bill for a new build, and then allow them to do what they want with the rest of the land.

But that's just the cynical view 

Full story up on BBuzz later this morning.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Council has confirmed 'over half a million pounds' to invest in the Rec over the next year. Most of this is for H & S upgrades. I 'm a little confused as a figure of just over £200k for similar work was announced back in June, but also to include the Ferndale and Flaxman.
> 
> A figure of £9m  has been quoted by Cllr Jane Edbrooke, the Cabinet member for Neighbourhoods, if the Rec is to see out the next ten years. No mention where this is coming from.
> 
> ...



The figure of half a million for H&S works is still to be finalised. It may be less.

The £9 million is to update building systems and plant. Basically renewing existing systems to keep the Rec going in its present form. It does not cover extra improvements to make better use of the Rec. Not sure how much of a funding problem that will be.

From what I have seen the Council are working on the basis that the existing Rec will be kept.

The Council have been acting in good faith so far. They are informing BRUG at each stage. They are doing ongoing surveys of the Rec. The basic structure of the Rec appears to be sound. Though further surveys are planned. Council Officers have been good at keeping BRUG informed.

Cllr Jane Edbrooke is now the Cllr directly dealing with the Rec.

Councils are cash strapped due to this Government. So do not know what effect this will have in future. Looks to me that this Council is trying to keep sport and fitness facilities going. They are developing a sports strategy.


----------



## Winot (Oct 19, 2014)

Fed up with the Rec at the moment.  Tried to take Winotette 1 to the Saturday morning climbing session and it took 20 mins to buy a ticket - the staff on reception didn't have a clue how to do it. In the end lied and said the 2nd ticket (for Ol Nick's son) was for Winotette 2 as he wasn't on the 'system' (whatever that is) and she was.  Then once they'd negotiated the Byzantine complexity of the booking system I couldn't use a card to pay because only one till takes cards and the person logged into that one had gone to lunch.

This is for a session that we have been going to for more than a year with no trouble, doing exactly the same thing.

Also as a result of the revamp the spin class has been moved into a dingy airless room and they aren't mending the broken bikes cos apparently they are going to buy new bikes at some indeterminate point in the future.

Meh.  I want to use the Rec as it's a resource used by lots of different Brixton communities but sometimes the organisation running it seems to do its best to put up barriers to that.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 14, 2014)

Yet more consultation coming up on the Brixton Central site:

*POP- UP CONSULTATION:*
· Saturday 15th November, 11-3pm, Brixton Station Road
· Wednesday 18th November, 11-3pm, Electric Avenue

*
DROP-IN EXHIBITIONS:
· Saturday 22nd November, 11am-4pm, Impact Hub Brixton, Lambeth Town Hall
· Monday 24th November, 1-9pm, Assembly Hall Lambeth Town Hall
· 19th-30th November, static exhibition at the Lambeth Town Hall foyer
· Wednesday 3rd December, 5-7pm Impact Hub Brixton, Lambeth Town Hall*


I got this email from the Council appointed consultants "Fluid"




> We are writing to inform you about the next round of consultation events regarding the Brixton Central Masterplan Development Brief.
> 
> Since the co-production process began at the beginning of the year, we have engaged with the local community at workshops, pop-up events, one–to-one meetings and youth engagement. Thank you to all of those who have been involved, we are reliant on the engagement of the community to make the development of the town centre as successful as possible.
> 
> ...



*
*


----------



## High Definition (Nov 15, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Yet more consultation coming up on the Brixton Central site:
> 
> *POP- UP CONSULTATION:*
> · Saturday 15th November, 11-3pm, Brixton Station Road
> ...


Went along to the stall in Station Road this pm (15th November).  Got the impression that the stall was being managed by FLUID (consultants appointed by Lambeth) and couldn't be bothered to speak to them.  

However, I did notice Steve Taylor from Network Rail hanging around the stall (his job title is Heritage and Town Planning Manager), so took the opportunity to ask him about Network Rail's plans for the area.  

Network Rail are still looking at turning the area between the viaducts east of Pope's Road into an extension of Brixton Village.

I pointed out that the retail space which front onto Pope's Road on the east side (the former Tesco Store) can only be developed if Network Rail are able to buy out a local businessman (Mr Shah) who has a 70 year lease on land occupied by the former Tesco store - and also the office building on the west side of Pope's Road (between Pope's Road and the overground station).

He said Network Rail have contingency plans - in the event that they can't buy out Mr Shah - which would be to focus the railway arches only and leave out the space in between.

Seems to me, however, that the Brixton Central Masterplan would be dead in the water if Network Rail can't buy out Mr Shah.   

The latest version of the Masterplan shows a 15 storey residential block on the east side of Pope's Road (more or less where Tesco used to be).  If Network Rail can't buy out Mr Shah, then they lose the funding from the residential block which they are relying on to cross subsidise the station improvements.  

Hopefully, this will scupper the Brixton Central Masterplan.

I 

  - he wasn't wearing a name badge, but I recognised him from meetings I sp


----------



## SpamMisery (Nov 15, 2014)

Is a 70 year land lease different from a 70 year house lease?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 15, 2014)

High Definition said:


> Went along to the stall in Station Road this pm (15th November).  Got the impression that the stall was being managed by FLUID (consultants appointed by Lambeth) and couldn't be bothered to speak to them.
> 
> However, I did notice Steve Taylor from Network Rail hanging around the stall (his job title is Heritage and Town Planning Manager), so took the opportunity to ask him about Network Rail's plans for the area.



I talked to Taylor as well.

I asked about the drawing that was on the stall. Which did not look that different from what we were all shown at last meeting on the site. I did ask why there was only one drawing and not alternatives. The reply was that they had taken account of all peoples comments and that was in their view ( I take it Network Rail and Lambeth consultants Fluid) that this was the option that people wanted.

I did ask about the large block of flats on Popes road site and was told that people consulted were in favour of it.

So its going to be that , as at last meeting on the site. that those critical will be considered to be a minority.

I said to Taylor that the plans if built would cause at least a year of disruption to the market traders. That I was concerned that this could damage the street market traders.

I said to him that I was concerned that the "regeneration" of the area would lead to the pushing out of the affordable cafes etc on Brixton Station road opposite the Rec. These were popular with locals.

Revealingly he said that Network Rail had not managed them that well. In the sense that NR had not got maximum return out of them. I said that imo that was good management. The arches in Brixton Station road were a bit of Brixton that was in danger of being replaced by the likes of Brindisi etc.

I told him that a lot of peoples concerns about regeneration was that it would push out affordable shops etc. As a lady said who looked at the stall- letting the yuppies in.

Nice of enough guy Taylor but as a business Network Rail are going to make as much money as they can out of the arches.

I am also concerned about possible loss of light industrial uses of arches further up from Brixton Station road. Promises are they will be kept. But unless this is written into any plans then I do not see it happening.

I also noticed that in the drawings International House is to be demolished and replaced with housing. This is now Councils preferred option.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 15, 2014)

I suppose I am not against all the ideas in the plans. But my main concerns are:


How much of the new housing will be affordable

How will the affordable and diverse cafes/ shops in Brixton Station road be protected and not pushed out in effort to make whole area like Brixton Village

Consultation. I am not happy with it. Today at the stall people were coming up and complaining about gentrification of Brixton. Its like the Council/ NR and Fluid do not listen. Its not just a minority saying this.

Disruption to the street markets whilst new building works are onsite. Its something the traders have brought up more than once at consultations. Its not something that has been addressed.

Protection of light industrial uses in central Brixton. How will this be done in reality.

The suggested proposals do not address how the Rec building will fit into the whole regeneration scheme. Their is no "joined up" thinking on this issue at this point.


----------



## Twattor (Nov 15, 2014)

I'm not entirely sure this is as new as we're led to believe. I have a vague recollection that an option on the triangle between the railways might have been offered to a local HA maybe 6-ish years ago at the beginning of the construction downturn. At that time (and almost certainly now) the only viable option would have been a bloody great tower which no-one could afford to build and would never have got planning permission anyway.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 15, 2014)

Twattor said:


> I'm not entirely sure this is as new as we're led to believe. I have a vague recollection that an option on the triangle between the railways might have been offered to a local HA maybe 6-ish years ago at the beginning of the construction downturn. At that time (and almost certainly now) the only viable option would have been a bloody great tower which no-one could afford to build and would never have got planning permission anyway.



Some of this is in the Brixton Masterplan that was developed some time ago. Not a planning document like a SPD but is detailed look at how Brixton could develop.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 15, 2014)

Twattor said:


> I'm not entirely sure this is as new as we're led to believe. I have a vague recollection that an option on the triangle between the railways might have been offered to a local HA maybe 6-ish years ago at the beginning of the construction downturn. At that time (and almost certainly now) the only viable option would have been a bloody great tower which no-one could afford to build and would never have got planning permission anyway.


Would this have been before Railtrack/Network Rail sold a lease on this site to a third party? The current situation is a mess ownership-wise. No doubt Network Rail need Lambeth Council to step in with a CPO to sort it all out (as they see it now).


----------



## Twattor (Nov 16, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Would this have been before Railtrack/Network Rail sold a lease on this site to a third party? The current situation is a mess ownership-wise. No doubt Network Rail need Lambeth Council to step in with a CPO to sort it all out (as they see it now).



No idea. Just recall discussing viability. Given the logistics, the footprint and the locality, anybody with any ideas is going to struggle with making it stack up even without a raft of CPOs.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2014)

Station Road is one of the very places left in central Brixton that retains its old character. All those small businesses in the arches are an important life of Brixton life. I don't fancy their chances of survival much if this development goes through.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 17, 2014)

Lambeth Council has today published the proposed changes to the Lambeth Local Plan, following recommendations by the Secretary of State.

It's a ball breaking 61 page document [pdf].

I confess to giving up after p.2. Which is a shame because I'm sure that there's some fairly crucial detail in there about affordable rents, developer contributions, pubs etc.

What I did manage to pick out is that Lambeth Council now seems to support the idea of local Neighbourhood Plans. This was previously thrown out by Pete Robbins back in the day when he had a seat around the top table.

Anyone else care to read through it and pick anything of interest out? We could even... crowd source a BBuzz piece 

One page per person would be great.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 17, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> Lambeth Council has today published the proposed changes to the Lambeth Local Plan, following recommendations by the Secretary of State.
> 
> It's a ball breaking 61 page document [pdf]. <snip>


If ViolentPanda will download and print it (he's got the printer right next to his computer) I'll take a long hard look at it on Wednesday.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Station Road is one of the very places left in central Brixton that retains its old character. All those small businesses in the arches are an important life of Brixton life. I don't fancy their chances of survival much if this development goes through.



After going to the "pop up consultation" I had a chat with one of the small business owners in the arches and he said the same. 

He compared Brixton Station Road to the Brixton Village. And said he felt out of place in Brixton Village. 

I agreed. I like Brixton Station road the way it is.


----------



## Winot (Nov 20, 2014)

I've just bought Nairn's London (1966) which has been reissued by Penguin.  The section on Electric Avenue, Brixton, is worth quoting in full, particularly with regard to the Masterplan:

"Electric, all right, and high voltage too. A whole area east of Brixton Road, opposite the jolly town hall, where the ground floor has dissolved and re-formed as a magic cave of people and goods. Stalls everywhere, arcades everywhere, diving through buildings and under the railway. Meat, fish, nylons, detergent: an endless, convoluted cornucopia. Compared with it, Petticoat Lane is synthetic; this cockney centre has kept all of its Victorian vitality. And it is the twentieth-century New World that has saved the bacon of the Old; for more than half the faces are one shade of brown or another. There is of course a Grand Plan out for this unplanned sky-rocketing power-house. With luck, it will be so grand that it is deferred until planners can understand what makes this place tick. It lives by free growth, like a great hedgerow tree. And as a tree depends on leaves, this vast emporium depends on the humble light bulb. Naked and without frills, binding the whole place into a web of stars at eye level. Electric."


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 20, 2014)

Winot said:


> I've just bought Nairn's London (1966) which has been reissued by Penguin.  The section on Electric Avenue, Brixton, is worth quoting in full, particularly with regard to the Masterplan:



Thanks for this Winot. I had not heard of this book. Sound interesting book:



> _'This book is a record of what has moved me between Uxbridge and Dagenham. My hope is that it moves you, too.'_ _Nairn's London_ is an idiosyncratic, poetic and intensely subjective meditation on a city and its buildings. Including railway stations, synagogues, abandoned gasworks, dock cranes, suburban gardens, East End markets, Hawksmoor churches, a Gothic cinema and twenty-seven different pubs, it is a portrait of the soul of a place, from a writer of genius.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 20, 2014)

Copy of building inspection report for the Rec. Its long document.

What the Council say



> The survey report, by Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) shows that while the core structure of the Rec, which opened in 1985, is considered to be in sound condition, the building systems, plant and disabled access are all reaching the end of their serviceable life and will need to be replaced


----------



## Winot (Nov 22, 2014)

Have just got round to reading the Future Brixton info pictured below. I thought it was a very good summary of the various projects and issues and how they fitted together. They have also acknowledged people's concerns about 'affordable rent' being unaffordable and flagged up an aspiration to provide as many council rent homes as possible in Somerleyton Rd.


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2014)

Aspirations come cheap.


----------



## Winot (Nov 22, 2014)

editor said:


> Aspirations come cheap.



Yes, and it is important to hold Lambeth to account.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 22, 2014)

Winot said:


> Have just got round to reading the Future Brixton info pictured below. I thought it was a very good summary of the various projects and issues and how they fitted together. They have also acknowledged people's concerns about 'affordable rent' being unaffordable and flagged up an aspiration to provide as many council rent homes as possible in Somerleyton Rd.
> 
> View attachment 64046


I only got this yesterday because I am looking after a flat in Morval Road for a friend who is on holiday.

Seems inefficient to me they are distributing this material almost in Herne Hill when I don't get it at home in Coldharbour Lane in central Brixton almost on top of the projects they are supposed to be keeping me informed about.


----------



## High Definition (Nov 25, 2014)

I've been looking at the latest Masterplan display boards (now on the Lambeth website).  

Was disappointed (but not totally surprised) to see that the plans include replacing the artists studios in the double height arches off Valentia Place with yet another shopping arcade.  

This is clear from an image on one of the display boards showing the arches, including the two currently occupied by the Bureau of Silly Ideas, turned into a kind of sanitised Borough Market, complete with chi chi gift shops, a tea shop and a glass roof to keep out the elements.

Found all this particularly disappointing as the Bureau of Silly Ideas, and other artists based in the arches now, have been trying promoting an alternative plan for the Valentia Place arches to be leased to an artist-led not-for-profit company so that they can be turned into studio/rehearsal space for up and coming artists,


Tried to insert image from one of the display boards - but not sure this has worked - so here's a link to a pdf of all the boards

Feel very fed up they've gone instead for an extension of the covered market, which means we lose yet another tranche of studio/workshop space in Central Brixton.

However, as Lambeth and Network Rail say they are still "consulting" on the plans, we have to assume there's still time to promote the alternative artist studio plan.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 25, 2014)

High Definition said:


> I've been looking at the latest Masterplan display boards (now on the Lambeth website).
> 
> Was disappointed (but not totally surprised) to see that the plans include replacing the artists studios in the double height arches off Valentia Place with yet another shopping arcade.
> 
> ...


I think this was what you wanted to insert:


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Nov 26, 2014)

Lambeth have, in the past, commissioned Bureau Of Silly Ideas to create work for times and places when building disruption is taking place.....hard if it is their own workshop being rebuilt..... 

BOSI are fab.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 26, 2014)

Do we need more retail spaces?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 26, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Do we need more retail spaces?


Capitalism does.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2014)

Just checked the Future Brixton website and its been updated.

You can comment on these proposals:



> *Brixton Central*
> The Brixton Central area includes the former ice rink site, the Rec and International House, the train station, Brixton Station Road, Atlantic Road and the land between the viaducts off Valentia Place. It is a major area for investment in the town centre. Local people are helping set out proposals for the long-term future of this part of the town centre.
> 
> These will help to create local jobs and bring about improved town centre facilities – such as affordable workspace, space for retail and leisure, along with an opportunity for town centre parking.
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2014)

If you click on images they enlarge.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2014)

> *The latest proposal – extending the town centre*
> We now have a preferred set of ideas which aim to balance the aspirations and priorities of local people with attracting investment.  These plans include:
> 
> *New homes*
> ...


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2014)

What the fuck is this and why would we want it?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 27, 2014)

Here's the BBuzz piece.

Quite a lot to take in. Everything seems to have 'potential.' This includes the 9 storey hotel above the mainline station, a refurbished train station, a high rise car park, converting International House to accommodation and connecting the Village with Brixton Station Road.

There is yet another workshop session scheduled for 2 December. You need to reserve a place. The link isn't working 

Architectural pics are always rubbish anyway. The poor little fella at the bottom is so 'vibrant' he has had his arm sliced off.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 27, 2014)

All these new high rises will supposedly bring in those who can afford them and will want more shops. I'm just not sure where all these people are who can afford to buy these properties. There is a housing shortage but it is for affordable homes - and that's properly affordable not the marketplace affordability.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2014)

How many more fucking boutique shops and trendy arcades do we need? 
And Brixton doesn't need swanky unaffordable 'affordable' homes: it's needs homes for ordinary workers, most of whom are struggling on shit pay.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 27, 2014)

editor said:


> How many more fucking boutique shops and trendy arcades do we need?
> And Brixton doesn't need swanky unaffordable 'affordable' homes: it's needs homes for ordinary workers, most of whom are struggling on shit pay.



I don't know who can afford these homes. With restrictions on the amount of money being lent to people wanting mortgages in London, then I can see more people heading towards the 'affordable' homes option even if it seems poor value because they don't want to be at the mercy of the private landlords and London housing even in the suburbs is unaffordable (yes -even the shitty places)


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I don't know who can afford these homes. With restrictions on the amount of money being lent to people wanting mortgages in London, then I can see more people heading towards the 'affordable' homes option even if it seems poor value because they don't want to be at the mercy of the private landlords and London housing even in the suburbs is unaffordable (yes -even the shitty places)


It'll probably provide another investment for the smart money set.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 27, 2014)

editor said:


> It'll probably provide another investment for the smart money set.



But who are all these people?


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2014)

boohoo said:


> But who are all these people?


Rich people who don't give a fuck about Brixton. They're only here for the money.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Rich people who don't give a fuck about Brixton. They're only here for the money.


Do you see them all buying as an investment? Brixton is central, has good transport, good night life, not far from dulwich to send the kids to school and is on the up.

Stockwell has had very wealthy people for a long time and they do care quite a lot for their area (of course often for their benefit) so  (I slightly can't believe I can hear myself saying it) rich people can be a positive influence in the area.


----------



## High Definition (Nov 27, 2014)

editor said:


> What the fuck is this and why would we want it?
> 
> View attachment 64223


It's what some of us thought Network Rail have been dreaming of all along.   Get rid of the artist's workshops in the arches off Valentia Place and replace them with up-market shops which will bring in top of the market rents.  

Had careful look at the image and I think the tea parlour and the twee shop labelled "Ecoge" are in the arches which are currently leased to the Bureau of Silly Ideas.  

Feel very fed up about this, as many of those involved in the earlier round of Masterplan consultations asked Lambeth and Network Rail to keep the Valentia Place studio space.  Instead, they've gone for an extension of the covered market, which means we stand to lose yet another tranche of studio/workshop space in Central Brixton.

However, as Lambeth and Network Rail say they are still "consulting" on the plans, we have to assume there's still time to push for something else.

The Bureau of Silly Ideas have an alternative plan for the Valentia Place arches which they'll be putting to LB Lambeth and Network Rail as part of their response to the Masterplan.  This is for the arches to be leased to a not-for-profit artist-led company.

The arches would be refurbished and fitted providing, market stall holder storage, workshop space for heavy making, rehearsal space for performance artists, studio space for dance and circus, desk space for people in creative industries hot desks and a café area (which would help cross subsidies other activities).

The Bureau of Silly Ideas are in dialogue with Arts Council who have expressed interest in the this project and suggested it could be part of the planned £6m on the strategic outdoor arts spend before 2017. 

Lambeth and Network Rail know about this plan - it was discussed with them in September - but no mention in the latest Masterplan proposals.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 27, 2014)

editor said:


> How many more fucking boutique shops and trendy arcades do we need?
> And Brixton doesn't need swanky unaffordable 'affordable' homes: it's needs homes for ordinary workers, most of whom are struggling on shit pay.



the bit I don't get is how much these master plans cost to produce, i imagine architects and global corporations time don't come cheap and the council are always talking about being skint, shouldn't they be concentrating on matters closer to home than "prestige developments" that only cater for the minority, I reckon the new embassy at vauxhall looms large in this and south of the river is like the Klondike for developers and their associates as global cash comes pouring into the area ,  the radio was talking this morning about a elongated trampoline along which yuppies could bounce merrily to work this being up for serious consideration


----------



## CH1 (Nov 27, 2014)

boohoo said:


> But who are all these people?


Given that the Oval Quarter was marketed in Penang, Hong Kong and Singapore foreign buy-to-let investors one assumes.

An alternative theory favoured by the Telegraph is that these flats are easily managed buy-to-lets being bought by expatriate British executives stationed in Singapore etc but worried they do not have a British property to return home to in due course.

Neither explanation offers any hope for ordinary local people.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 27, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Stockwell has had very wealthy people for a long time and they do care quite a lot for their area (of course often for their benefit) so  (I slightly can't believe I can hear myself saying it) rich people can be a positive influence in the area.


Do you think there same would apply if those people were in gated campuses where interaction with local people was actively discouraged?


----------



## boohoo (Nov 27, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Given that the Oval Quarter was marketed in Penang, Hong Kong and Singapore foreign buy-to-let investors one assumes.
> 
> An alternative theory favoured by the Telegraph is that these flats are easily managed buy-to-lets being bought by expatriate British executives stationed in Singapore etc but worried they do not have a British property to return home to in due course.
> 
> Neither explanation offers any hope for ordinary local people.



It is depressing as this affects all the surrounding house prices, pushes people out of the central areas and into the suburbs and doesn't really solve the housing problem.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 27, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Do you think there same would apply if those people were in gated campuses where interaction with local people was actively discouraged?



Who knows. I never suggested they interacted with the local community but that they did things that benefited the local community as a whole.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 27, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> the bit I don't get is how much these master plans cost to produce, i imagine architects and global corporations time don't come cheap and the council are always talking about being skint, shouldn't they be concentrating on matters closer to home than "prestige developments" that only cater for the minority, I reckon the new embassy at vauxhall looms large in this and south of the river is like the Klondike for developers and their associates as global cash comes pouring into the area ,  the radio was talking this morning about a elongated trampoline along which yuppies could bounce merrily to work this being up for serious consideration


Actually I had a naughty but positive thought today.
If they're going to throw money around why not incorporate the long muted railway interchange as part of the nine story hotel - and have a mega-yuppy travelator to link it all to Brixton Tube à la Chatalet-Les Halles (on the Paris Metro)


----------



## Twattor (Nov 27, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Given that the Oval Quarter was marketed in Penang, Hong Kong and Singapore foreign buy-to-let investors one assumes.
> 
> An alternative theory favoured by the Telegraph is that these flats are easily managed buy-to-lets being bought by expatriate British executives stationed in Singapore etc but worried they do not have a British property to return home to in due course.
> 
> Neither explanation offers any hope for ordinary local people.



You wouldn't believe it. I worked on a scheme in north london where Malaysian investors turned up in a bus and bought a whole block for £16m.  It was like a tour - it exists, we will buy. Absolutely staggering.  (For the avoidance of doubt, the affordable was safe)


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2014)

There's an absolutely brilliant analysis of Brixton's plight here: 
Future Brixton and its failure to address the affordable housing crisis


----------



## leanderman (Nov 28, 2014)

editor said:


> There's an absolutely brilliant analysis of Brixton's plight here:
> Future Brixton and its failure to address the affordable housing crisis



It's really good despite the occasional  sentence like this:

''Sadly, this will all go to benefit the new people moving to Brixton, replacing all of those who participated in this community process in the first place.''


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> It's really good despite the occasional  sentence like this:
> 
> ''Sadly, this will all go to benefit the new people moving to Brixton, replacing all of those who participated in this community process in the first place.''


That's completely correct, no? Ask Gramsci .


----------



## leanderman (Nov 28, 2014)

editor said:


> That's completely correct, no? Ask Gramsci .



Dunno. Not sure what the sentence means really. Or what specific 'community process' it refers too.


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Dunno. Not sure what the sentence means really. Or what specific 'community process' it refers too.


I would have thought it meant going to all the meetings and then finding out the decisions that are made are the very ones that lead to you being priced out/excluded/evicted out of your own neighbourhood.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 28, 2014)

editor said:


> I would have thought it meant going to all the meetings and then finding out the decisions that are made are the very ones that lead to you being priced out/excluded/evicted out of your own neighbourhood.



It says 'all': that _everyone _who went to consultation events is or has been carted out of Brixton. I find this unlikely.


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> It says 'all': that _everyone _who went to consultation events is or has been carted out of Brixton. I find this unlikely.


Perhaps so, but it's also unlikely that the future nu-residents will have attended the consultation events either.


----------



## Onket (Nov 28, 2014)

"Future nu-residents"


----------



## leanderman (Nov 28, 2014)

Onket said:


> "Future nu-residents"



Old residents good*, new residents bad!

*but only some of them


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Old residents good*, new residents bad!
> 
> *but only some of them


I really haven't said that at all, but I am doubtful that many of the new residents will have attended the community meetings that preceded the building of their new upmarket, private tower block* - which I believe was the point being made.

(*with minimal unaffordable 'affordable' flats and zero social housing included)


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> It's really good despite the occasional  sentence like this:
> 
> ''Sadly, this will all go to benefit the new people moving to Brixton, replacing all of those who participated in this community process in the first place.''



editor High Definition

Replacing in the sense that the regeneration of Brixton according to these drawings could undermine what I like about Brixton. And my views are not unusual. I have talked to market traders, small business and local residents. None are enthusiastic. Some small business fear for their future if Brixton is developed like this.

One person I know said to me these drawing make him think that Network Rail want to make the area another Bermondsey market. And he did not mean that in support of it.

The point of taking part in this community process ie consultation is to make sure those in power take notice of what people want.

As High Definition has pointed out issues like retaining existing business and artists studios are not being taken seriously.

I would not trust the Council when they say that 40% of the housing will be affordable either. I do not think that the Council are good at dealing with developers.

I will be going to the next consultation meeting on the 2nd. Despite my reservations about the consultation process.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 28, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the BBuzz piece.
> 
> Quite a lot to take in. Everything seems to have 'potential.' This includes the 9 storey hotel above the mainline station, a refurbished train station, a high rise car park, converting International House to accommodation and connecting the Village with Brixton Station Road.
> 
> There is yet another workshop session scheduled for 2 December. You need to reserve a place. The link isn't working



If you want to go to the meeting on the 2nd I would advise you just to turn up. They were not sending people away last time. 

Its in the Town Hall from 6.30pm


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 28, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Given that the Oval Quarter was marketed in Penang, Hong Kong and Singapore foreign buy-to-let investors one assumes.
> 
> An alternative theory favoured by the Telegraph is that these flats are easily managed buy-to-lets being bought by expatriate British executives stationed in Singapore etc but worried they do not have a British property to return home to in due course.
> 
> Neither explanation offers any hope for ordinary local people.



I was reading article in Guardian ( will try to find it tomorrow). Journalist looked at someone from Singapore who had invested in property in London. Turned out the person lived in public housing in Singapore. Which is not unusual. Also Singapore has much more restrictive rules on foreigners buying/ owning property unlike this country. In short the journalist said that all mainstream politicians in this country have supine relationship with international capital.

Found it. Worth quoting in full:


> Earlier this year a colleague and I spent months visiting a huge private development on the other side of the borough from New Era. Called Woodberry Down, it was a huge overhaul of an old council estate. In the showroom, the saleswoman pointed at the reservoir outside and said: “That water outside: very attractive to Asian buyers.” One of the new private tenants, Paul O’Neill, told us that he’d never met the man to whom he paid his rent, because he lived in Singapore. He added: “All of my neighbours rent from foreign absentee landlords.”
> 
> Going through the Land Registry, we traced O’Neill’s invisible landlord. He did indeed live in Singapore – in a public-housing block, in an area carpeted with public housing. That’s hardly unusual for the island state: about 85% of all Singaporeans live in public housing. So O’Neill, who desperately wanted to buy somewhere in London but could barely afford even the remotest suburbs, was paying rent to a landlord who lived in public housing.
> 
> ...



So there you have it Singapore government provides public housing and actively puts off foreign buyers. It can be done.


----------



## High Definition (Nov 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> editor High Definition
> 
> Replacing in the sense that the regeneration of Brixton according to these drawings could undermine what I like about Brixton. And my views are not unusual. I have talked to market traders, small business and local residents. None are enthusiastic. Some small business fear for their future if Brixton is developed like this.
> 
> ...



Agree with all of Gramsci's points - except that I think Network Rail want something a bit more upmarket than Bermondsey  -  they're dreaming of a cross between St Pancras Station and Covent Garden, boutiques selling luxury goods.

This is one of the aspects of the Masterplan that I really want to object to - turfing out artists and market traders from one of the last parts of Brixton where people are still making things and then replacing them with a whole load of bars and shops paying top of the market rents.

Here are a couple of photos which show how some of the arches are being used now.   The open arch (with the big foot on wheels in the foreground) is one of the three arches used by the Bureau of Silly Ideas and used to store big equipment (the pineapple on wheels, the walking busstop, etc).   The other photo is of one of two double height arches leased by the BISI from Network Rail and used as workshop and recording space.  

If these go and are replaced by yet more bars and boutiques, then we lose part of what makes Brixton special, which I why I'll be doing all I can to challenge the Masterplan proposals for Valentia Pl   

I 

Found a couple of photos to show how some of the Valentia Place arches are being used now -


----------



## High Definition (Nov 30, 2014)

Have been looking at Lambeth's planning policies and seems to me that the Brixton Masterplan can be challenged because it flouts Lambeth's Saved UDP Policy 24:  Use of Railway Arches.  This says that Lambeth's railway arches are "a finite and scarce resource" providing "relatively cheap and flexible accommodation to a range of activities which play an essential role in the functioning of the local economy".  Recognising this, the Council's planning policies provide special protection to railway arches - "Railway arches in industrial or storage uses are protected for such uses unless they are proven to be causing detriment to residential amenity".  

Saved UDP policy 24 is one of a group of policies adopted in 2007 which provide detailed guidance on employment sites and are still used by Lambeth planners to justify recommendations - e.g. the officers report recommending the Higgs Triangle site (overturned at Planning Committee a few days ago) quoted another UDP policy to argue that it was okay to replace industrial space with officers as long as there was no net loss in floorspace.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2014)

I filled in the questionnaire 

There is a lot of space for extra comments. So High Definition I would recommend you copy and paste some of your very good posts here into the questionnaire. I think its important this all gets passed onto Council.

I wrote this:

The recent drawings/ proposals are detrimental to long term benefit of Brixton. They will lead to the affordable shops in Brixton Station road being pushed out.Proposals say refurbishment of the arches on Brixton station road. How will this be done? I am afraid the traders there will be forced out and not return. Same with the use of arches in Valentia place by artists. There is nothing in the recent drawings to show where these artists studios will be relocated. Looks like they will go and not be able to come back.

One of the things about the consultation was that Affordable housing and culture/ community are very important to people. Yet I do not see how the recent drawings will achieve those aims.

It looks to me that if implemented this will lead to further gentrification of the area.

I would like the consultants/ Council officers to go out and talk to the actual small business/ artists who use the arches to find out what are there fears and concerns. What they want for the future. As the ones I have talked to fear that the Brixton they know and like will go for ever. To be replaced by extension of Brixton Village.

A better plan would be to do incremental changes rather than a big project. This was suggested at one of the reference group meetings.

This would decrease the complete disruption for existing small traders. It would also make the whole Brixton Central project more liable to be responsive to local needs. Rather than a grand scheme.

The website says a development partner will be sought. I would like the Council to retain ownership of the ice rink site - whatever is built there. I would also prefer the Council to lead the development of the site rather than hand that to a developer.

I am very concerned about affordable housing. In what sense will it be affordable?
How will the Council ensure its built? As at Brixton square the developer altered the affordable housing after the development had already been started to be built.

I also think there is no joined up thinking with relating the Brixton Rec to the whole site. The Rec could be integrated into the development of the whole site. The outside of the Rec could be better used than it is now. There is no attempt to look at how the Rec fits in with the whole site. Its just treated as separate issue. There is also oppurtunity to extend sport uses outside the Rec onto the Brixton Central site.

The Rec is a very important part of the central site. Its a community resource not just a Rec. The Brixton Central site could be seen as developing community uses for the site in conjunction with the Rec.

The present proposals / drawings look like something to get a "development" partner interested or for Network Rail to maximise there income from the part of the site they own.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2014)

To add. Someone just pointed out to me that Network Rail is publicy owned.

Network Rail is publicly owned. Here its was classified as publicly owned

As its publicly owned then there is argument that the arches it owns are publicly owned assets. So there refurbishment should be done in public interest. Not purely for maximum profit like a purely private company would.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 30, 2014)

I filled out the questionnaire too. 

The proposals all seemed plausible enough.

You are right about the unaffordable affordable housing - but can Lambeth do anything about that and stay within the centrally-imposed rules?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 1, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I filled out the questionnaire too.
> 
> The proposals all seemed plausible enough.
> 
> You are right about the unaffordable affordable housing - but can Lambeth do anything about that and stay within the centrally-imposed rules?



The problem is that Lambeth constructs these consultation exercises as though the end result is something all sides are happy with. The myth of Co production.

At the same time they ask people want they want to see in a masterplan.

I feel pressured at consultation meetings to go along with what is presented. 

I’m only a resident. I would rather tell those in power what I want to see happen. Its their problem if they cannot deliver. 

Affordable housing is the top of peoples concerns according to the Future Brixton consultation.

Second come is about retaining "Culture and Community".


----------



## leanderman (Dec 1, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The problem is that Lambeth constructs these consultation exercises as though the end result is something all sides are happy with. The myth of Co production.



Yep: the questionnaire very much encourages you toward giving the answers they want.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 1, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> <snip> I feel pressured at consultation meetings to go along with what is presented.
> 
> I’m only a resident. I would rather tell those in power what I want to see happen. Its their problem if they cannot deliver. <snip>


Word.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 4, 2014)

I just filled in the questionnaire again. I had already done it a few weeks back, but didn't put my email address in this time and it got accepted. Hope this might help!

Although I did add that in light of the deficit and the govt's proposal to cut a further 1 in 5 public sector jobs, maybe they won't be needing all of their nice new swanky New Town Hall space and some could be given up to other things..... was this a bit below the belt??


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2014)

Here's another report from the last meeting and a superb analysis of the Masterplan:

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/12/brixton-central-masterplan-another-nail-in-the-coffin/


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Dec 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Here's another report from the last meeting and a superb analysis of the Masterplan:
> 
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/12/brixton-central-masterplan-another-nail-in-the-coffin/


 
Interesting looking at all the drawings for this site. The plan before 2008 as for OvalHouse to go between the railways, facing on to a square and an improved entrance to the overground...

One thing:
"The council is treating the three developments — Brixton Central, Brixton Hill and Somerleyton Rd — as one development in their treatment of housing" isn't the case as far as I know it from Somerleyton Rd. Each development is being treated separately and will go through Planning as an individual project and need to meet the levels of 'affordable' that are council policy on it's own terms. Council Policy is  to provide 'affordable' at 40%, while the Somerleyton Rd project is geared towards 40% at council target (i.e council property) rent and then 'affordable' at different levels in addition to that. There will be no possibility of countering the Somerleyton Rd levels with lower levels of 'affordable' on other sites!


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Here's another report from the last meeting and a superb analysis of the Masterplan:
> 
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/12/brixton-central-masterplan-another-nail-in-the-coffin/



I have yet to write up my notes of the meeting.

Andrea is basically correct.

I was as usual on the "dissenting" table in the consultation.

Whilst to my surprise the Council and consultants have taken on board the fact that people top priorities are "affordable housing" and "culture and community" there is no mechanism/ delivery model in how these concerns will be met.

As OvalhouseDB says the affordable housing on Somerleyton road will be dealt differently from the other sites.

To clarify Andreas article the housing on Brixton Central will be 40% affordable ( in theory) and based on the up to 80% of market rent model. The officers will use the affordable model they used on Brixton Square. That is larger family units will be around 60% of market rent to make them approximately similar to Council target rent. One bed single person flats will be nearer to the 80% of market rent. ie not really affordable. Lambeth Council officers reckon this is good deal. It means they can get larger family sized units ( 3 beds) at rents which will not be affected by benefit caps. Single people are low priority for the Council.

As regular readers of U75 know developers use "feasibility studies" to reduce the amount of affordable housing down from the 40%. I do not know in what ways Lambeth will seek to stop this happening on Brixton Central. As it looks like they Council have decided they will be seeking a development "partner".

The other main issue is Network Rail. I did ask senior officer about this. Told him that Network Rail were now classified as a public company. Implying that they should not be purely profit driven. So seek to not push up rents that push out existing traders/ small business/ artist studios.

He said that Network Rail profit from its property was meant to be ploughed back into the railway network. ie they were supposed to maximize return from the property ( mainly arches in Brixton) they own. This imo would lead to the existing business in Brixton Station road going in the future. On the plans it says those arches will be "refurbished". Whatever that means.

The consultation found that the 4th priority for people was affordable workspace and retail. So its an issue of local concern. I saw no suggestions from Council side about how to do this. Apart from the usual Council pet scheme of business "start up" units. Which is not really the issue. The issue is how to safeguard the existing small business and traders. 

So whilst all the right noises are made by the Council the reality is that the Brixton Central scheme is liable to be mainly about financial "feasibility" and the return on investment that the site can produce.

Looks to me that Council will put forward argument that this is "inward investment" into Brixton that will produce jobs for local people and knock on effects for other business.

Council will argue that they will ensure that jobs/ training will go to local people. That the 40% affordable housing is the best they can do in the limits put on them by central government and Boris.

There is a gulf between what the range of local people who voiced an opinion actually want and what the Council (Labour) will deliver in reality.

The thing that residents/ small business do not know about is the talks that must be going on between Network Rail and Council. They were hinted at but no detail.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 6, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I filled out the questionnaire too.
> 
> The proposals all seemed plausible enough.
> 
> You are right about the unaffordable affordable housing - but can Lambeth do anything about that and stay within the centrally-imposed rules?



Its not the rules that stop Lambeth building more Council housing at target rent its the finance.
On land it owns in theory it can build 100% Council housing at target rent.

On land owned by developer or large landowner like Network Rail the Council has a more difficult time getting them to build the 40% affordable housing that large developments should have according to planning guidelines.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 6, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Its not the rules that stop Lambeth building more Council housing at target rent its the finance.
> On land it owns in theory it can build 100% Council housing at target rent.
> 
> On land owned by developer or large landowner like Network Rail the Council has a more difficult time getting them to build the 40% affordable housing that large developments should have according to planning guidelines.



Precisely: finance (financial rules). 

Maybe the/a whole project can be paid for and delivered on target rent. 

But the lower the rent the greater the chance that the project would need to be 'subsidised'.

It might - even should - be the case that Lambeth council taxpayers want to pay, say, £100 more a year to fund social housing. But it won't happen.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 7, 2014)

Fuller notes on the Brixton Central Masterplan "reference group" meeting on 2nd December. Part one as site said to long to post up all in one message.

This was the third reference group consultation meeting on the development of a masterplan for the Brixton Central area.

Well attended. Though only a few had been to all three meetings.

The officers/ consultants gave an overview first then we were split up on tables for discussion of the proposals developed so far by the consultants and officers.

Summary of what they said below:

The Future Brixton project would bring a lot of new investment into Brixton. New jobs and homes.

The full 60 page report on the consultation up to now is here

The consultation identified 12 development principles which people were asked to rate. The top four were affordable housing - which was truly affordable, culture and community, car parking for market and affordable workspace and retail.

There will be new car parking space on the old Ice Rink site. Either a smaller car park at ground level or a larger multi story car park.

The idea of a hotel where the disused building by station on Popes road was not fully supported. Two thirds had concerns. Such as does Brixton need another hotel.

The proposal was to "activate" the space between the railway lines. With retail on ground level. Above that an opportunity for workspace and homes higher up.

The site would be able to have additional retail, light industrial and artists studios. They did say artist studios but its not on the website. There are artists studios in some of the arches. Which are in danger of being lost if there is new development.

Design approach.

The design approach was to look at the use of the space and environment. There is opportunity for a new and improved public realm. Particularly by the Rec alongside Brixton Station and between Rec and Ice Rink site. Also extension of Brixton Village with a new covered market space. At higher levels flats with their own outdoor space. About 250 units. To put this amount in the heights would be 15 to 18 stories. There would be a new "public square" on Popes road with new entrance to station.

The development brief that would go to a "development partner" is not the actual architectural design itself. This comes at later stage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After this there were some questions/ points from those present:

The building of 250 units and improvements would have a knock on effect of increasing land values in surrounding area and thus putting up rents of private renters.

The answer from Council officer:

The Council was encouraging the building of more housing. This was in line with planning policy. This would help to ease pressure on housing. Officer did not refute that land values around the area may increase.

Someone from London Citizens said that they wanted affordable housing to be based on medium income for the area. Rather than the up to 80% of market rent that is classified as affordable but in reality is not to most people.

Answer from officer:

40% of the housing on the site will be affordable ( in theory) and based on the up to 80% of market rent model. The officers will use the affordable model are using on other sites in Lambeth- a "blended" rate.  That is larger family units will be set at around 60% of market rent to make them approximately similar to Council target rent. One bed single person flats will be nearer to the 80% of market rent. ie not really affordable. Lambeth Council officers reckon this is good deal. It means they can get larger family sized units ( 3 beds) at rents which will not be affected by benefit caps. (Single people are low priority for the Council.)

The proposal include a lot of tall buildings. This will affect the skyline. The Council have produced a Tall Building study which says how tall buildings should be in specific areas.

Answer from officer:

The heights of buildings will take into account the tall building study.

(There appears to be an argument about how much height of buildings is affected by being in Brixton. Most of which is in Conservation area. So I am not sure there is definite answer to how tall certain buildings can be yet.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Officer said that the next stage will be for the Council to agree a "development brief". The Council will need to define its relationship with the other big landowner on the site- Network Rail. In theory NR could decide on its own what to do with its land and apply for planning permission. The Council is likely to seek a relationship with NR to make a coherent scheme for all the site.

The officers will put a report into the Cabinet of the Council ( the main decision making body of the Council consisting of Cllrs). The Cabinet will agree the development brief or amend it. This will take place in April/ May. A full planning application will go in around Autumn 2016.

There will be more consultation later on as the project progresses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We were split up into groups to discuss the proposals 

We wrote our comments on the sheets provided by consultants. I do not have yet the full report for this meeting. The consultants asked specific questions on homes, heights of building and uses.

There was a summing up at the end from each group so here are some for my notes on what came up.

Concerns about putting people living above other uses ( workshops/ retail). This might be detrimental to the living environment. There would need to be good management and security for the housing if it was above a other uses.

At my table we did not think there should be housing between the railway lines when so many other uses were on the same site. That this would not work. Instead we said there should be new public space. Also the new blocks between railway lines would be inappropriate heights for the existing streetscape of Brixton.

Everyone agreed that truly affordable housing was very important. Some said they did not mind how tall buildings were as long as that meant the maximum affordable housing.

Air quality- was a study to be done about this? As a lot of new homes would be on the site.

As the buildings were high and therefore highly visible the architecture should be of a high standard.

Instead of hotel a youth hostel or homeless centre was suggested instead.

The new retail should be affordable shops that retained the culture and flavour of the area and not just new more expensive restaurants/ bars. Existing traders should be protected and the market not diluted.

Pushing the existing light industrial further out east was wrong approach. Some of the big arches were used by well established arts group "The bureau of Silly Ideas" to fabricate large pieces for example.

The car park led to differing opinions. Some thought it was necessary for the market. Others thought car use should be discouraged and greener form of transport use encouraged by less car parking space. It would be possible to "filter" out certain types of traffic from the area. ie private cars but allow traders vehicles, delivery vehicles and buses.

(The Council said it is thinking of doing an experiment like up at Loughborough Junction closing some roads etc around market area to through traffic. Not sure yet exactly how this will work).

Suggested that there should be secure cycle parking as this was not on the proposal drawings. Also Boris bikes in the market area.


................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 7, 2014)

Part two of notes:

A few comments by me on all the above.


The Council and consultants have taken on board the fact that people top priorities are "affordable housing" and "culture and community" There is no mechanism/ delivery model in how these concerns will be met.

The affordable housing on Somerleyton road will be dealt differently from the other sites.

Developers use "feasibility studies" to reduce the amount of affordable housing down from the 40%. I do not know in what ways Lambeth will seek to stop this happening on Brixton Central. As it looks like they Council have decided they will be seeking a development "partner".

The other main issue is Network Rail. I did ask senior officer about this. Told him that Network Rail were now classified as a public company. Implying that they should not be purely profit driven. So seek to not push up rents that push out existing traders/ small business/ artist studios.

He said that Network Rail profit from its property was meant to be ploughed back into the railway network. ie they were supposed to maximize return from the property ( mainly arches in Brixton) they own. This imo would lead to the existing business in Brixton Station road going in the future. On the plans it says those arches will be "refurbished". Whatever that means.

The consultation found that the 4th priority for people was affordable workspace and retail. So its an issue of local concern. I saw no suggestions from Council side about how to do this. Apart from the usual Council pet scheme of business "start up" units. Which is not really the issue. The issue is how to safeguard the existing small business and traders. 

So whilst all the right noises are made by the Council the reality is that the Brixton Central scheme is liable to be mainly about financial "feasibility" and the return on investment that the site can produce.

Looks to me that Council will put forward argument that this is "inward investment" into Brixton that will produce jobs for local people and knock on effects for other business.

Council will argue that they will ensure that jobs/ training will go to local people. That the 40% affordable housing is the best they can do in the limits put on them by central government and Boris.

There is a gulf between what the range of local people who voiced an opinion actually want and what the Council (Labour) will deliver in reality.

I did object to the demolition of International House. Its an integral part of the Brixton Rec design and should be retained. I do not think they ( Council / consultants) had really thought about that. 

Also I did say that the potential of the Rec as part of the site has not been dealt with in these proposals. A lot of the outside of the Rec could be used. 

Another issue that came up in my group was questioning if all the new retail was needed in the long term. It could be in the future that more workspace/ light industrial was more needed. So the proposals do not justify the need for extension to Brixton Village. The extension will be on Network Rail land. Just because Brixton Village is seen as success by Council and Network Rail at the moment does not mean that it will be in the future.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 28, 2014)

Latest update from Council on the future of the Rec.

Council have produced a "first phase report" on the Rec:



> *The state of the Rec*
> A survey report, published in October by Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) shows that while the core structure of the Rec, which opened in 1985, is considered to be in sound condition, the building systems, plant and disabled access are all reaching the end of their serviceable life and will need to be replaced. That means around £9m worth of major work needs to be carried out over the next decade.
> 
> As recommended by LSH, Lambeth Council has already committed half a million pounds to upgrade fire, health and safety measures at Brixton Rec, and that work’s underway/due to start soon.
> ...



The report is long. And was a pain to open due to size. A lot of it is diagrams and charts so its not to much to read. 

The next "phase" is to consult people next year more about actual uses etc of Rec.

The first phase report brings together a lot of information about Rec. The next stage is to use this info to make decisions and choices for the way forward.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Latest update from Council on the future of the Rec.
> 
> Council have produced a "first phase report" on the Rec <snip>
> 
> The next "phase" is to consult people next year more about actual uses etc of Rec. <snip>


And so, yet again, Lambeth council repeats its apparently favourite tactic; keep asking the question in different ways until it gets the answer it wanted all along.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Dec 28, 2014)

That is a BEAST of a report to try and digest


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 28, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> That is a BEAST of a report to try and digest



I have written some notes/comments on it. Will see if I can put them some of them here. Its a public document so its fair enough to comment on it.

Its a monster doc but a lot of its diagrams/ graphs so not as much to read as one might have thought.

Its an example of Lambeth putting out a lot of information in public domain instead of waiting for an FOI. So the doc is example of what you were talking about on the fireworks thread regarding FOI.

Greebo One thing that does come from the doc is that the Council are serious about decision to keep the Rec and refurbish it. Its early days yet but they are acting in good faith. This "Beast" is a compilation of information that the Council have gathered so far in one doc. Its the start of a process to plan to refurbish Rec for a 25 year life. ( This is pretty standard time).

This is a risk for the Council.  The Council are going to put in 9 million to replace essentials like plant and ventilation which is coming to the end of its life. But this does not cover anything else.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 28, 2014)

The first section of the first phase report goes into demographics, types of user and location of Rec.

The Council does produce strategy for things such as leisure and sport. Private gyms have developed in London but sport/ leisure facilities are not something Councils are giving up on. Yet. One of those things that has yet to be fully privatised.

So graphs on projected age demographics. There is a projected 10% increase in population over 10 years. With an increasing % of older people +55

I am not good at figures but seems to me that to much stress can be put on projections. In particular population growth for London.

The Rec is situated in an area with a wide range of socio economic groups. That is a lot of single reasonably well off professionals as well as a section of population who are economically poor. The report recognises that there are those who do not have the funds or time to take part in sporting activities. So planning future use of Rec needs to be done in a sensitive manner to take this into account.

What I am not clear on is how the Council are going to reconcile providing affordable sport facilities with aim in the report that the Rec needs to show that it can be "self sustaining" over next 25 years.

The report does show that the the Rec is losing out on the 20s to late 30s age group. This the Council think is due to ageing gym facilities. This is where the private gyms in central London have edge over Rec imo. I know a few people who use private gyms. Some are open 24 hours which is useful for people who work odd hours etc.

The Council also note that the Rec has large number of younger users compared to other Recs. This the Council (correctly imo) see due to its having a youth zone. This is something the Council should build on imo. Its been pointed out to me that there is little for younger people in Brixton. Much of central Brixton caters for adults ( minus children).

The Council see the Rec as a "Civic Hub". They recognise its importance to the Brixton area. In particular the Brixton Central site. Its also easy to get to due to the transport links. This is something the report emphases. Nothing wrong with that.

But from what I have seen of the Brixton Centra consultation there is not joined up thinking between planning the future of Rec and the Brixton masterplan consultation. The Brixton Central masterplan consultation is much more based on producing a "feasible", ie economically attractive to developement partners, scheme. Whereas the consultation on the Rec is much more based on community needs.

You can skip to page 17 of the doc from summary of these issues.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2014)

The next part of report goes into issues of how how the building is used.

As the Rec was originally part of a larger plan for Brixton some aspects of it do not work as well. There are unused spaces that would have been part of a elevated walkway around the new planned Brixton that never happened.

The "circulation" inside the building is also seen as a problem. The most used facilities are higher up the building, the entrance is small and not located at street level. The atrium ( the central well) is a hindrance according to the report.

This is where I do have concerns. There are after this proposals for different internal layouts. That the architects reckon would lead to better "circulation" in the Rec. These include proposed new entrances and getting rid of/ altering atrium area.

I feel that the architects are to negative about the atrium space. The Rec was originally designed to be not just a sports facility but a public space. Like an indoor square. The architects do not have a vision for the Rec. They are seeing it more as a series of technical problems to overcome. The first part of the report says the Rec is a Civic hub.

Page 24 of the report shows the unused/ underused space. Its a lot. 24% or 35% with the basement bowling green. They also note "double height" areas. Hope this does not mean they are think of boxing off areas. One thing about Rec is that its does not feel cramped. Its an open airy space.

This section of the report does not imo look at Rec design in a positive manner. For example the climbers at the Rec have proposed a floor to ceiling climbing wall in the atrium. Which I think would be a good addition to the atrium. Make positive use of this unique space.

What I am concerned about in design terms is that it could lead to making the inside of Rec look like any other bland but functional space. People may "circulate" in more rational manner. But is this what people really want? The quickest route from entrance to gym? The Council also notes in earlier part of report that the thing people like about Rec is the mixing of people that happens in it. I would argue that the design of building does play some part in this.

The design section of the report has little to say about the outside space. This is something that I would like to see being looked at. The report notes that there is a lot of unused space outside. I would like to see better use of the space. At moment a lot of it is closed off or people are not encouraged to use it.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 29, 2014)

I really like the idea of them trying to tackle the problems of unused interior space, the strange atrium, poor circulation and entrance issues.

But I also like the climbing idea, if feasible.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2014)

The last section of the report is appendix on BREEAM, Passivhaus, Plant/ Ventilation replacement schedule and also new proposed locations.

The appendix about BREEAM is quite technical. Its good that Council will be using outside guidance on this.  BREEAM is largely ( I think. Someone correct me if I am wrong) about sustainability and low carbon foot print. It does , interestingly, cover the actual building process.

BREEAM is done by independent assessor who oversees how the project is fulfilling guidelines. The project gets points for targets it reaches. The finished project then gets a rating up to "Excellent". So it depends on what the Council wants to aim for. From report looks like "Very Good". One level below excellent.

BREEAM is a well used industry standard.

Passivvhaus.

This is the greenest building standard. Usually used on new build but old buildings can be retrofitted.

However before the Council can look at this option seriously an survey of the building envelope needs to be done. This has not been done so far. The major loss of heat/ energy is through the walls, roof etc - the buildings envelope. Until this is done no decisions on Passivhaus practicality can be taken.

A Passivhaus building can radically reduce energy use (70 to 90%) and carbon footprint. Its above BREEAM very good.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2014)

One thing I did notice about the report is that it says project will be done with OPL principles.

The report also says the OPL (One Planet Living) principles will be used for this project. 

The One Planet Living Principles are here

Health and Happiness
Equity and local economy
Culture and Community
Land use and wildlife
Sustainable water
Local and sustainable food
Sustainable materials
Sustainable transport
Zero Waste
Zero Carbon

Its a good list. I wonder if Council realise how much they have to do to fulfill it. They come out with OPL in their reports a lot but I do not see them doing much about it in reality. 

  So the question is how will the Council make sure this project to refurbish the Rec will meet these principles?

Will the Council use an outside assessor to see how these principles are applied and independently report on how the Council is doing? Said reports to be made public?

Bioregional can do this


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2014)

Two other issues from the report:

The Council are putting in £9 million to replace plant etc. But there is nothing in the report how they will raise funds to do all the rest of planned refurbishment. 

Secondly:

The report does say that around 60% say that they are satisfied with charges. But that is of those who use Rec. The report also says that due to local area being deprived area some do not have time or funds. The report  says that the wide range of socio economic users means that improvements to Rec need to be done in a sensitive manner. 

Around 60% being happy about cost of Rec means 40% are not. Which is a lot. How will Council address this in future? As report says the aim is to make the rec self sustaining. Will this not imply higher charges?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I really like the idea of them trying to tackle the problems of unused interior space, the strange atrium, poor circulation and entrance issues.
> 
> But I also like the climbing idea, if feasible.



One of the climbers is an architect. He reckons its feasible. I think they said it would make Brixton Rec climbing wall the largest indoor one in London. There would be lot of climbers who would come from other parts of London to use it. 

The atrium. It used to have a lot of plants. You can still see the spaces for them where the balconies are. The space was originally a bit like the indoor garden at the Barbican. 

I agree the entrance is an issue. The original design was based on the walkways connecting to rest of the new tower block Brixton that never happened. So its never been a great place for entrance. 

When it was first opened it was open to general public more as well. No big security or gates.


----------



## Mr Retro (Dec 29, 2014)

I've recently joined the Rec for the weights room and gym. The biggest problem there is groups of friends using the weights room and generally being fucking dickheads and anti-social. They treat the place as if they own it, preening and posing, hogging the machines, leaving weights where they drop them, lumps of tissue (for whipping down equipment) on the floor.

I don't give a fuck but I wouldn't like my wife to go into that atmosphere. It should be controlled and it wouldn't take £9m to do it, it would just take the current staff to do their job.


----------



## uk benzo (Dec 29, 2014)

Thank you Gramsci for taking the time to read the document and summarising it for us : )


----------



## harrinh (Dec 29, 2014)

Hello, I am new to this forum and I dont live in Brixton currently but I am curious about all this consultation and participation stuff. It seems to not be working very well, and I would like to know what you guys think would be more successful way of getting your opinions across or listened to more?


----------



## Greebo (Dec 29, 2014)

harrinh said:


> Hello, I am new to this forum and I dont live in Brixton currently but I am curious about all this consultation and participation stuff. It seems to not be working very well, and I would like to know what you guys think would be more successful way of getting your opinions across or listened to more?


To give you some background, at least in this borough, an awful lot of consultations and surveys have been done in the last 10 years, but IMHO there's been bugger all feedback about the information gathered and even less noticeable action afterwards (unless it was in line with what the council wanted).

I'm sick of being expected to wade through yet another heap of information and expected to spend my free time giving my views on it, as all that seems likely to happen afterwards is the square root of sweet FA.


----------



## harrinh (Dec 29, 2014)

Greebo said:


> To give you some background, at least in this borough, an awful lot of consultations and surveys have been done in the last 10 years, but IMHO there's been bugger all feedback about the information gathered and even less noticeable action afterwards (unless it was in line with what the council wanted).
> 
> I'm sick of being expected to wade through yet another heap of information and expected to spend my free time giving my views on it, as all that seems likely to happen afterwards is the square root of sweet FA.




Fair Point Greebo! And thank you for your reply! 

I think its a tricky one really. Basically I am an architectural student doing my postgrad at the moment, and I am looking into this idea of participation- and if there needs to be more of it in our profession to act more on the behalf of the people and get less stuck in the trap of developers. But in my research it seems communities dont like consultation either so I guess I am just trying to analyse how as architects we can find a sneaky way to act for the people more (or as much as we can- since the people who hire us are developers etc).

Basically I want to see how architects can extend our duty of care towards the people more when we dont necessarily even have that power or involvement to the completion of a project (which many people may not be aware of)


----------



## harrinh (Dec 29, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> One thing I did notice about the report is that it says project will be done with OPL principles.
> 
> The report also says the OPL (One Planet Living) principles will be used for this project.
> 
> ...




Were you around for the previous master plan in 2008/9 where Bioregional were involved in the development of that version? Do you know why did that one not go ahead with Stockwool architects as the urbanists/master planners or whatever you want to call it?


----------



## wjh (Dec 29, 2014)

harrinh said:


> I think its a tricky one really. Basically I am an architectural student doing my postgrad at the moment, and I am looking into this idea of participation- and if there needs to be more of it in our profession to act more on the behalf of the people and get less stuck in the trap of developers. But in my research it seems communities dont like consultation either so I guess I am just trying to analyse how as architects we can find a sneaky way to act for the people more (or as much as we can- since the people who hire us are developers etc).
> 
> Basically I want to see how architects can extend our duty of care towards the people more when we dont necessarily even have that power or involvement to the completion of a project (which many people may not be aware of)



The problem you've articulated there is that as architects your responsibility is to your paying client, not the people who end up living in the built results.  Consultation (in as much as I've seen it in Lambeth over the last ten years or so) is basically the worst kind of manipulative public relations.  I've never seen it as part of an iterative design process and people get rightly annoyed when they spend a lot of time involved in a consultation only to be ignored, as Greebo said.

It would be great if architectural practices could convince their clients to use a Participatory design (co-design) methodology but when the fundamental aim of a developer is to maximise their return or in the case of Lambeth, to reduce ongoing costs, I doubt we'll ever see a design process like this that is perceived as high risk.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

harrinh said:


> Fair Point Greebo! And thank you for your reply!
> 
> I think its a tricky one really. Basically I am an architectural student doing my postgrad at the moment, and I am looking into this idea of participation- and if there needs to be more of it in our profession to act more on the behalf of the people and get less stuck in the trap of developers. But in my research it seems communities dont like consultation either so I guess I am just trying to analyse how as architects we can find a sneaky way to act for the people more (or as much as we can- since the people who hire us are developers etc).
> 
> Basically I want to see how architects can extend our duty of care towards the people more when we dont necessarily even have that power or involvement to the completion of a project (which many people may not be aware of)



The issue of consultation is, to say the least, fraught. Some of the primary problems (in my opinion) are:


Managed consultation: this is where the foundation of the consultation - the information offered to the public regarding the matter under consultation - is filtered through the desires and requirements of the body that is legally-obliged to hold consultations (in this case the local authority), usually through the employment of (ironically!) consultants. 
Re-consultation: where the legally-obliged body gets a result from consultations that it doesn't like/want, and reformulates the consultation process in a more tightly-managed way.
Lack of independent *and neutral* management of the consultation process and arbitration of dispute(s).
Legally-obliged bodies adopting a "minimum publicity" approach to publicising consultation. We've seen a fair bit of this in Lambeth, where a single public notice is placed on-site in an inaccessible place or not facing where major foot traffic will pass, alongside being (statutorily, I believe) published in the local paper.
Communities "don't like" consultation because we generally have experienced the above, not because we're opposed to consultation _per se_.


----------



## harrinh (Dec 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The issue of consultation is, to say the least, fraught. Some of the primary problems (in my opinion) are:
> 
> 
> Managed consultation: this is where the foundation of the consultation - the information offered to the public regarding the matter under consultation - is filtered through the desires and requirements of the body that is legally-obliged to hold consultations (in this case the local authority), usually through the employment of (ironically!) consultants.
> ...




Yes its true! Basically the whole system needs a shake up and architects need to be more involved from the top- ie in the GLA and more in planning!( but alas there is only so much I can take on in an essay- i fear i have already scuppered myself with too much haha)

There are many architects out there who have been rallying for more meaningful participatory work and methods for decades(such as Jeremy Till and many more), and I know many of my colleagues feel the same as myself - it involves a change in the role of the architect but also we can change but it won't make enough difference until the system changes more. We can only encourage and push this approach more and I guess for the mean time that is what I am trying to say - it is changing and it will change but its taking time unfortunately. But do have hope as there are plenty architects out there that do want to help communities and develop good cities- we are just sometimes as stuck as you guys are- which was actually the starting point for my essay lol.

Overall I think I am still trying to say that architects should use participatory work more as a tool in our toolbox to help for the greater good and as a mechanism in trying to push the developer in better directions, until such time all developers become as sensitive as Argent St George ....

Could i ask- in Brixton with the involvement of FLUID- at what stage in the whole process did the participation start? Were there plans at first? Was it just a fact finding mission the first few times? How far has the process gotten now? Has the master plan been approved, and how involved were the community in that?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2014)

harrinh said:


> Were you around for the previous master plan in 2008/9 where Bioregional were involved in the development of that version? Do you know why did that one not go ahead with Stockwool architects as the urbanists/master planners or whatever you want to call it?



Yes I was.

The Brixton Masterplan is not a statutory planning document. It was agreed by Cabinet of Council as what should be aimed for in developments.

So OPL should be a part of developments. I do not see it happening. Trouble is a lot of well meaning aspiratons are never put into practise. 

In my experience a limited number of Lambeth officers are really interested in consultation. Most officers regard it as a pain. There is still officers know best mentality. Which would be all right if they wanted to build loads of Council homes. Nor do I feel Lambeth is well served by the top regen officers. ie Sharpe and Foster (OBE- says it all). They are more powerful than some Cllrs. 

Its not that the Brixton Masterplan did not go ahead. It always was a document to be referred to in the future.

Out of the Brixton Masterplan consultation came the Council setting up Future Brixton. The Brixton area in the Masterplan is divided up into separate area.

Council was thinking of setting it up so whole area of the Brixton Masteplan would be developed under one over arching body. This would mean that assets could be pooled.

The way the Council is developing Masterplan is by doing each section separately. Town Hall, Somerleyton Road and Brixton Central.

Each one is being consulted on a different ways using different consultants.

Fluid are doing Brixton Central. Igloo are development management team for Somerleyton road. The community supposedly being represented by Brixton Green. Town Hall "consultation" is limited. Town Hall site came under Lambeth Councils office strategy. ie selling off land.

As someone who saw the other side of Lambeth ( Carlton Mansions eviction) I am all to aware of the powers that Councils have invested in them.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2014)

harrinh said:


> Yes its true! Basically the whole system needs a shake up and architects need to be more involved from the top- ie in the GLA and more in planning!( but alas there is only so much I can take on in an essay- i fear i have already scuppered myself with too much haha)
> 
> Could i ask- in Brixton with the involvement of FLUID- at what stage in the whole process did the participation start? Were there plans at first? Was it just a fact finding mission the first few times? How far has the process gotten now? Has the master plan been approved, and how involved were the community in that?



Fluid were hired as consultants by Council to produce a development brief for the Brixton Central site. Not just consulting residents and small business for a masterplan.

So they looked at Brixton Masterplan. The other big landowner is Network Rail. So they talked to them. They also had preliminary talks with residents groups.

Then residents were consulted. As previous posts have pointed out Fluid is not without criticism.

The bottom line issue is imo not so much design for a lot of people( though I think its integral) as building affordable housing. Affordable housing is top of issues in consultation. A lot of issues raised are to do with making sure new developments are affordable. That includes affordable space for small business and retail. Otherwise however well designed a development is it will just lead to more gentrification of area.

So when u say architects need to be more involved at top not sure what u mean.

Secondly there is what I call over designed environment. New developments need to be done with "secured by design" criteria. ie designing out crime. It ends out with Hausmann type developments like "Windswept" square by the Ritzy.

There is something to be said for a less organised environment. For example it was put to Fluid consultation that development of Brixton Central area could be done piecemeal (CH1) rather than one large regeneration project.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 30, 2014)

harrinh said:


> I think its a tricky one really. Basically I am an architectural student doing my postgrad at the moment, and I am looking into this idea of participation- and if there needs to be more of it in our profession to act more on the behalf of the people and get less stuck in the trap of developers. But in my research it seems communities dont like consultation either so I guess I am just trying to analyse how as architects we can find a sneaky way to act for the people more (or as much as we can- since the people who hire us are developers etc).
> 
> Basically I want to see how architects can extend our duty of care towards the people more when we dont necessarily even have that power or involvement to the completion of a project (which many people may not be aware of)



Well this raises more questions than it answers.

Architects do not have so much influence now in general. Large projects used to be architect led. Now architects are more like hired professionals working under a management team. There are a few celebrity architects like Zaha Hadid.

When u say on "behalf of the people" and "duty of care" that needs definition.

Have you seen (the free) exhibition at Tate Britain about the 1953 ICA exhibition _Parallel of Life and Art._

This artists and architects looked at how art/ architecture and social criticism can overlap. It was still top down. The photos of East End were not about consulting actual people but looking at how they lived from outside and drawing conclusions for street layouts and building communities from that.

Post war, it has to be remembered, through to late 60s was a time when the consensus was that there would be no return to 1930s economic. Then along came Thatcher and neo liberalism. So building schools and affordable housing was taken as a given by architects up to Thatchers time. Architecture takes place within a wider political climate.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 30, 2014)

Getting back to the Rec.

Given this helpful blog post about what Passivhaus is and is not.

Its about energy efficiency and comfort. Its not like BREEAM which covers a lot of issues and is points based.

Passivhaus is simpler and more difficult as its pass or fail. You cannot get points in one area to make up for losing points elsewhere. So it ends up doing what is promised at the beginning.

Its about comfort as its possible to have energy efficient home- ie using a lot less gas for heating- that is not warm throughout the whole building. Or a building that is either to hot or cold at times.

So its not hair shirt green technology. End result is comfortable environment to live or work in. A healthy environment.

What Passivhaus does not do is deal with "embodied energy". That is the energy that is used to make building materials. Its a performance standard. Not a carbon reduction building standard. This does mean the building materials and design are flexible.

Its does deal with a major element of CO2 emissions which is heating.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 30, 2014)

While you are all theorising, I'll grab a brush and whitewash that dismal red brick interior.

It'd be as good a way as any to start.


----------



## editor (Apr 9, 2015)

A photo feature: 
Underneath the arches – a look around Brixton’s gentrification-threatened Valentia Place studios


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 24, 2015)

The comprehensive response from BRUG to the Lambeth Council commissioned survey on the future of the Rec is well worth a read. The criticism is that the survey is patchy and not evidence based. Plus it also looks at cuts, rather than investment.

BBuzz piece.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 24, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The comprehensive response from BRUG to the Lambeth Council commissioned survey on the future of the Rec is well worth a read. The criticism is that the survey is patchy and not evidence based. Plus it also looks at cuts, rather than investment.
> 
> BBuzz piece.



They used agency staff to conduct the survey and those staff that I interacted with had no idea about the nature of the survey.
This is typical of corporates and hollowed out government and it's actually a soul destroying, market driven way to interact/consult; it's insulting.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 24, 2015)

I like this;

 

Taken from the article above, hope to attend as I have issues with the changes regarding the Sauna.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2015)

Latest edition of the Brixton Rec Users Group newsletter. 

Topic are; Afewee boxing club classes, possible listing of Rec, how to complain and over 55s day. 

Tricky Skills has done this piece for Buzz re the latest newsletter. 

Its important to note however that the BRUG committee do not have a position on listing at this time. The article is start of a more public discussion of the issue. 

Its also an issue for those interested in architecture who are not necessarily users of the Rec.

This group called Docomomo are holding meeting next week about the Rec and listing issue.


----------



## gaijingirl (Sep 28, 2015)

I didn't really know where to put this but I am worried about the Rec.  We go weekly and it is getting worse and worse.  For ages now (probably since before Easter) the showers have been a mess - either scaldingly hot, or freezing cold - yesterday the family showers were not heated at all - actually freezing cold.  The showers for washing before you get in the pool were scalding.  The showers in the ladies' changing seem to pretty much be ok all the time thankfully. The spinny machine was broken (ok - not the end of the world but just one more thing).  The pool was like swimming in soup - so cloudy and horrible.  The swimming instructor for my daughter's class didn't turn up leaving a poolside duty manager and the other instructors dealing with lots of angry parents first thing on a Sunday morning.  The second kids' pool was closed down.   The security guards were let go a few months ago so the sauna is now controlled by a code door which is causing all kinds of problems.  We have thrown in the towel and cancelled our daughter's lessons there and when we went to talk to staff there they were downhearted, saying they had been passing on concerns to managers for ages but were being ignored.  We used to get our teas/coffees etc from the cafe - but that is gone now, so one of us goes out to Cafe Max for drinks and brings them back whilst we do softplay (there is a tea/coffee vending machine but it's horrible).  In other leisure centres we'll use cafes to feed the kids as they're often an affordable meal out - but not at the Rec.  I don't understand it as it's always busy with families and swimmers early on a Sunday - so it's not like the demand isn't there - it just feels really deliberate.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 28, 2015)

The boiler issue is hopefully being addressed. The Council is spending £156k on replacements.

£6m investment is needed over the next ten years. Where this money comes from is still being 'identified'.

Hopefully we'll find out more when the delayed outcomes from the Cultural Consultation are announced. This should be sometime next month.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 28, 2015)

On Saturday, the family showers were scaldingly hot.

Over the summer, lessons were cancelled without notice because of staff problems.

We've not noted any water quality issues though.


----------



## gaijingirl (Sep 29, 2015)

leanderman said:


> On Saturday, the family showers were scaldingly hot.



Each week now for months they've either been scalding or freezing - you never know.  To the point where we can't wash the kids.  Tbf... this was the first week with horrible water quality but it just felt like there were SO many things wrong at once.

I get so annoyed/upset that it seems so unloved when it's such a great place.  I worry about how long it will be before there's another attempt to grab the land and replace it elsewhere with something smaller and "more profitable".


----------



## gaijingirl (Sep 29, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The boiler issue is hopefully being addressed. The Council is spending £156k on replacements.
> 
> £6m investment is needed over the next ten years. Where this money comes from is still being 'identified'.
> 
> Hopefully we'll find out more when the delayed outcomes from the Cultural Consultation are announced. This should be sometime next month.



good - I really hope this is going to happen.  I think many people don't see beyond the red-brick and realise what good stuff goes on in there.  It needs some love and hard cash!


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 29, 2015)

It's still Fusion / GLL run isn't it? 

They seem to be having their never ending series of problems in actually delivering anything against their budget and the staff are the ones who seem to end up suffering, through demotivation etc.


----------



## gaijingirl (Sep 29, 2015)

Yeah - I felt really sorry for the staff (who _had_ turned up) on Sunday - they were having a _really_ hard time of it.  Gaijinboy went to talk to them at reception (he's gentle but there were some really angry people there) and they seemed really dejected.


----------



## brixtonscot (Sep 29, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> It's still Fusion / GLL run isn't it?


The Rec is run by GLL
Unite for Public Services - When privatisation goes wrong


----------



## brixtonpete (Oct 16, 2015)

Why listing Brixton Rec wouldn't secure it as a community owned resource - making it energy sustainable would make it more pleasant and comfortable for users​There are two main reasons why Brixton Rec should be brought up to the best modern standards of energy sustainability. Firstly with an energy bill of over a quarter of a million pounds a year, representing more than 1,500 tonnes of CO2, the current energy usage cannot be justified for reasons of cost or the future of the planet. Secondly, an energy efficient Rec could have a far more comfortable environment than that currently on offer. Instead of being greeted by a cold draught as you walk from the swimming pool into the changing rooms, and having another one descending from above the lockers, the changing rooms could be warm and draught free.

The UK's current minimum energy standards lag well behind the best from around the world, particularly Germany and Austria, where the Passivhaus standard (EnerPHit for refurbishments) offers ultra low energy bills and increased comfort and air quality. Would a Passivhaus EnerPHit refurbishment be possible for Brixton Rec? Would a change of appearance be necessary to achieve such a standard? To get some answers I consulted Maiia Williams of Sturgis Carbon Profiling, who writes:​_"I am familiar with the Brixton Rec building. I believe external insulation is always a better option, if the building could be wrapped up completely. Mildmay Community Centre used external insulation as part of its retro works and achieved Passivhaus.

I am certain that the most prominent external features, such as concrete pillars and external cast stairs would need to be preserved in Brixton Rec for conservation reasons. For that reason I do not think that it would be possible to eradicate all the cold bridges completely using external insulation. So a better approach would be to come up with a strategy  that combines the use of internal and external insulation that works for this building while preserving the heritage features.

The good news is that, EnerPHit can be done on any building! You just need to get the architect/ Passivhaus Designer that understands the principles.

Key pointers:
(1) you can replicate the existing external finish like for like. For example, we have used eps external insulation with brick slips in Westminster to great success on a rear wall of row of 12 terraced houses, and even replicated details like brick corbels and soldier course arches to ensure that the building looks exactly as before. The benefit is that it is very light weight and can be applied using plastic fixings.

(2) there are a lot of internal insulation products on the market that are both slimline, breathable and achieve exceptionally low u-value. In the same project it is not easy to tell the difference from the front between EnerPHit and a normal house. Yet one uses 80% less energy than the other.

As far as the answer to your question is concerned, the only person who can answer it is the project planning/ conservation officer. If conservation is a priority, a change of appearance is not necessary."_​
The Brixton Rec User Group seeks to secure the future of Brixton Rec and its continued long term use as an affordable community asset. One strategy being discussed is the possibility of having the Rec Grade II listed by Heritage England. While this would certainly preserve the structure, it would not in itself guarantee its continued use as a community resource. For example the Grade II listed Pioneer Health Centre in Peckham was sold off in the 1990s by Peckham Council for housing and the listed Park Hill Estate in Sheffield was sold by Sheffield council with promises of some social housing in return - mostly abandoned when developer Urban Splash got into financial difficulties. Residents in the few flats that have been completed complain that they are cold in winter.

The Peckham Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Park Hill, Sheffield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


While Brixton Rec’s building and use are currently protected by the Supplementary Planning Document and a written commitment from Cllr Lib Peck, it wouldn’t be beyond the bounds of possibility that in the future one of those consultants our council just loves might propose that it should be sold and converted into, say, a shopping mall. If the Rec's energy bill was as low as any new-build replacement that would greatly weaken such a proposal.

Users and other interested people will shortly be invited to a meeting to discuss the future of the Rec to be held on Tuesday 27th October at 6pm at Brixton Rec. Philip Boyle will be speaking about its architecture, followed by a Q&A.

** ——————————————**​The elements that make up the Passivhaus standard:

Passivhaus involves a package of simple principles tied together with a sophisticated software design tool plus rigorous quality control at the build stage. The principles involved are:

	• Insulation
	• Elimination of thermal bridges (structural elements that break the insulation)
	• Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR)
	• An airtight building envelope
	• The use of the Passivhaus Planning Package (PHPP) software.
	• Good building site supervision

To be successful these elements must be incorporated as a complete package and not just cherry-picked. For detailed information see:
Passipedia - The Passive House Resource [  ]​


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 13, 2016)

Sorry to dredge this old thread - can it be moved somewhere more appropriate if there is one? I've not searched for BRUG / BRIG.

Rec users accuse 'arrogant' councillor as meetings scrapped - Brixton Blog


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 14, 2016)

snowy_again said:


> Sorry to dredge this old thread - can it be moved somewhere more appropriate if there is one? I've not searched for BRUG / BRIG.
> 
> Rec users accuse 'arrogant' councillor as meetings scrapped - Brixton Blog



Beat me to it. 

Busy all day today and this has all happened very suddenly. 

I am on the BRUG committee. There was supposed to be a BRIG meeting this week which got cancelled yesterday - very short notice. 

The BRIG Brixton Rec Improvement Group meetings were important for the Brixton Rec Users Group committee. 

They were regular quarterly meetings with the senior Cllr Edbrooke, Council officers and GLL/ Better. 

Without them the users group is effectively sidelined. Its now up the Cllr Edbrooke to decide when and if to consult the users group. 

Here is what Cllr Edbrooke had put up on the Future Brixton website.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 14, 2016)

snowy_again said:


> Sorry to dredge this old thread - can it be moved somewhere more appropriate if there is one? I've not searched for BRUG / BRIG.
> Rec users accuse 'arrogant' councillor as meetings scrapped - Brixton Blog


All about Jane - from the horse's mouth so to speak The evolving role of the backbench councillor  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2016)

CH1 said:


> All about Jane - from the horse's mouth so to speak The evolving role of the backbench councillor  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community



Fuck me, but that article is SMUG!!!


----------



## CH1 (Jan 14, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fuck me, but that article is SMUG!!!


What do you expect from the Labour equivalent of Iain Duncan Smith?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2016)

CH1 said:


> What do you expect from the Labour equivalent of Iain Duncan Smith?



I noticed that almost the first thing she did in that article was slip in that she did an undergrad degree at LSE, so you may be right!


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

Now Grade II listed. 

Historic England give Brixton Recreation Centre Grade II listed status


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Now Grade II listed.
> 
> Historic England give Brixton Recreation Centre Grade II listed status



The Council opposed listing. So it was down to BRUG and Docomomo efforts that it was listed. 

A lot of people also wrote in individually to support the listing of the Rec. I was on a few of the stalls we (BRUG) did to tell people about the listing application. The Rec is important to a lot of people. 

It is good to see that Historic England are listing it for cultural and political reasons as well as purely architectural ones. In fact the design is linked to the politics behind it. 

Whilst the listing will only protect the building to a certain extent its good to see that Historic England have taken aboard all the reasons why this building means a lot to people. 

Whether the Council take this onboard remains to be seen. In a fast gentrifying area like Brixton the Rec symbolises a public space for all. An alternative way of regenerating an area.


----------



## brixtonpete (Nov 3, 2016)

I agree totally with Gramschi's sentiments about the Rec.

I was initially against the idea of listing Brixton Rec for two reasons. Firstly I thought it would make it more difficult to make the Rec really energy efficient, and secondly after investigating the fiasco of Sheffield's Park Hill housing estate listing in 1998 (most remains empty and derelict 18 years after listing and really should be demolished) I had little confidence in Historic England’s judgement regarding which buildings, and especially which aspects of those buildings, deserved preservation, but both Lambeth officers' and GLL’s insensitivity to Brixton Rec's special internal architecture, with Lambeth’s consultants’ feasibility studies and officer comments (John Kerridge mooted mezzanining the atrium, which Lambeth’s consultants recorded as wasted space) that made possible the destruction of its special interior features, lead me to change my mind so I was one of the 50 people who wrote in support of the listing application made by architectural association Docomomo.

Lambeth “the co-operative” Council opposed the application -  the result of yet another expensive consultant’s report they had commissioned which totally dissed the building architecturally. Lambeth officers seem totally incapable of thinking for themselves. “We Shall Hire Consultants” should be written in Latin on the council’s official coat of arms. Their next trick is rumoured to be "a celebration of Lambeth’s architecture". Do I hear a hollow laugh coming from the direction of Cressingham Gardens?

Docomomo requested that office block International House be included in the listing, which I thought was nonsense, so my view of Historic England’s judgement is now raised somewhat as I see that they have had the sense to exclude International House from the listing. They also rightly emphasise the Rec's internal rather than external architectural features, the huge cultural importance of the Rec to the community of Brixton, and that architect George Finch was following his socialist principles when researching the design for a year in order to achieve the best quality building for the community.

Historic England should however revisit Cressingham Gardens Estate, which they turned down for listing and certainly whose low rise pedestrian streets sections should be preserved, and the Park Hill Estate, Sheffield whose remaining undeveloped tower blocks should be de-listed and demolished to make way for low rise social housing, ideally built to Passivhaus standards, as does Exeter City Council. The newly redeveloped part is suffering from inadequate heating in winter due to some design or installation cock-up which the architects don't want to admit to, but essentially the whole massive totally exposed concrete grid structure that English Heritage was so keen to preserve is an energy efficiency nightmare and the building is just not fit for purpose, however much a bunch of coloured aluminium swatches might have prettified it up.

Finally, does this listing of Brixton Rec put paid to the Rec being made very energy efficient? No, it doesn’t. Firstly, technology is moving on and thin vacuum based insulation (albeit still expensive) can insulate internally without losing much space. Secondly, the atrium and swimming pool are rightly key designated areas for listing. This would still allow ducting for Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery to be run discretely away from the atrium and pool. Politically now is not the right time for making the Rec low energy as Lambeth simply does not have the political will, officer interest, skills, training, qualifications or external fund-raising abilities, to carry out such a job competently.

STUART EVERITT’S SHORT FILM ABOUT BRIXTON RECREATION CENTRE - Rec Collection (2016)


HISTORIC ENGLAND's OFFICIAL LISTING RECORD FOR BRIXTON REC
Brixton Recreation Centre - 1436440 | Historic England

HISTORIC ENGLAND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE BRIXTON REC LISTING
http://tinyurl.com/rec-listing-docs

UNCLE STEADMAN (2013) - film about Steadman Scott who runs Afeewee football and boxing clubs at Brixton Recreation Centre


ROMANCING THE STONE (2010) - DOCUMENTARY ABOUT PARK HILL ESTATE, SHEFFIELD


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2018)

Update: 



> Brixton Rec will soon start a five month programme of essential repairs costing more than three quarters of a million pounds. Phase one of the project will fix emergency lighting, fire alarms and pool ventilation.
> 
> This follows the Lambeth Council decision in 2016 to make a budget of £5,950,000 available for significant repair or maintenance at the Rec over the next 5-7 years.
> 
> This funding came after a community campaign in 2012 when it emerged that the Labour group at the Town Hall was considering bulldozing the iconic Rec.



Phase One of Brixton Rec repair work to start in September as project revised to avoid complete closure of the building


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 3, 2018)

The Pop bloke in the yellow dungaree shorts is out in force again!


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2018)

snowy_again said:


> The Pop bloke in the yellow dungaree shorts is out in force again!


He's the face (or rather, the behind) of Nu Brixton!


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2018)

Update: Brixton Rec Users Groups organises public meeting as essential repairs carried out at Grade II Listed building


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2020)

Behold! The Brixton Rec 'Quarter' Lambeth Council appoint design team to regenerate the ‘Brixton Rec Quarter’


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Some pics before 'quarterification'





















						In photos: Brixton Station Road before it becomes the Brixton Rec Quarter
					

Arguably one of the very few areas of Brixton with any kind of authentic, old-school community vibe left, Station Road has long been known for its collection of cafes and small shops occupying the …



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## nagapie (Aug 16, 2020)

So this was the pool for my swim this afternoon. Their max is 30 people but I was a glitch in the app, which allowed me to book for a slot that didn't exist. When I arrived poolside, the cover was already over but they opened it just for me. I guess because trying to sort out a refund through the app must be almost impossible and they can't just give me a credit note like before. No workers were harmed as it was 4pm and they work until 5pm anyway.


----------



## gaijingirl (Aug 16, 2020)

nagapie said:


> So this was the pool for my swim this afternoon. Their max is 30 people but I was a glitch in the app, which allowed me to book for a slot that didn't exist. When I arrived poolside, the cover was already over but they opened it just for me. I guess because trying to sort out a refund through the app must be almost impossible and they can't just give me a credit note like before. No workers were harmed as it was 4pm and they work until 5pm anyway.



ooh you lucky thing!


----------



## coldwaterswim (Aug 16, 2020)

nagapie said:


> So this was the pool for my swim this afternoon. Their max is 30 people but I was a glitch in the app, which allowed me to book for a slot that didn't exist. When I arrived poolside, the cover was already over but they opened it just for me. I guess because trying to sort out a refund through the app must be almost impossible and they can't just give me a credit note like before. No workers were harmed as it was 4pm and they work until 5pm anyway.


Ooooooo looks lovely! I’ve not been back yet, what were the changing rooms like?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 16, 2020)

coldwaterswim said:


> Ooooooo looks lovely! I’ve not been back yet, what were the changing rooms like?


Mostly sealed off, don't go needing a wee! The women's change rooms have a small unisex area for taking off your top layer (you have to arrive in your swimsuit already). The family changing area is where you go after.


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2021)

Redevelopment news Brixton Rec Users Group issues critical statement on redevelopment of the Rec Quarter in central Brixton


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2022)

Update: Lambeth Council to announce partner for growing Brixton Rec Quarter


----------



## brixtonpete (Feb 2, 2022)

editor said:


> Update: Lambeth Council to announce partner for growing Brixton Rec Quarter


I don't think anyone will shed any tears about housing replacing Pop Brixton, but to what standard will it be built? Claire Holland is proud of her attendance at COP26 and trumpets the fact that Lambeth was the first council in London to declare a Climate Emergency, but Lambeth is trailing badly when it comes to matching the rhetoric with action. All around the country councils with less boasting are quietly getting on with building for the future. As far as I can tell, Lambeth has only one small genuine Net Zero housing scheme in the pipeline, which is the Energiesprong retrofit of up to 42 homes at Myatts Fields South. This is the type of terrace that stands to benefit:



If successful the solar panels on these will be able to generate as much electricity in a year as the houses consume. How can that be possible? Because the target is to retrofit them to the Passivhaus standard for retrofit, called EnerPHit, so they will need a minimal amount of energy to keep warm in winter. The construction method involves a prefabricated external envelope whose sections will be built in a factory and fitted in less than one month without any need for tenants to move out.

Unfortunately Lambeth's record on new build falls far short of the above standard. Everyone (well, everyone except Lambeth Council officers and councillors) knows that building to a mediocre standard and then having the developer pay a small fee into a carbon offsetting fund won't go anywhere near to covering the costs of the major retrofitting that will be needed later on for these buildings to meet 2050 climate change standards, a legacy the present officers and councillors seem happy to leave for those that will follow them to somehow find the funding for. They might well ask, 'how did they get away with this?' This is the mediocre  standard set for the housing proposed to replace the first building on Cressingham Gardens Estate, whose minimal carbon offsetting fee might well buy a few trees but won't pay for expensive future remedial works that will inevitably become necessary.

There are several primary schools around the country that more enlightened councils have had built to the Passivhaus standard, with three in Wolverhampton alone that were built by a firm of architects with enough previous Passivhaus experience to compete on price with lower standard buildings. One example is Hackbridge Primary School, a timber framed building built to the Passivhaus Plus standard.


Lambeth sadly sets its sights rather lower. A typical example is the new Sudbourne Primary School, pictured under construction below in February 2021, which also requires a carbon offsetting fee to greenwash it.

Anyone who has had their ear to the ground in architectural circles in the last couple of years will be well aware that architects concerned about climate change are including the embodied carbon within building materials in their lifetime carbon calculation of buildings they are designing. Concrete comes with a massive carbon budget, brick and steel a bit less while a timber framed building stores carbon. If anyone was walking down Stockwell Avenue and watched the construction of the large building on the corner of Bellefields Road in the last 18 months they will have seen at its early stages some massive engineered timber vertical beams that formed its main structure. Timber framing is a well established technology with a well established supply chain.

Whoever Lambeth chooses as the developer for housing on the Pop Brixton part of the Brixton Rec Quarter, Lambeth should specify at the outset that the development must be built to the Passivhaus standard and be timber framed. The developer could then engage one of the country's large leading architectural firms with a strong track record in building timber framed buildings to the Passivhaus standard to guide or design the scheme. Given that 50% will be sold on the open market the Passivhaus standard would be able to command a price premium to cross-subsidise the 35% council rent and 15% shared ownership housing, which is how Camden are financing their Passivhaus development at Agar Grove. Of course, some might say that given the size of the council housing waiting list there should be 100% council rent housing on council land, but how could that be financed? How the Rec Quarter's new housing is to be developed will clearly indicate whether Lambeth's climate change credentials are genuine - or PR greenwash.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 3, 2022)

Report to Cabinet for 7th Feb says the development will,



> Supporting the borough wide target for carbon neutrality and tackling climate change by delivering a net-zero development. This will be achieved by delivering a comprehensive sustainability strategy, including:
> 
> o Retention, refurbishment and enhancement of International House (subject to further condition surveys), instead of demolishing and rebuilding, which will reduce the embodied carbon emissions of the development;
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 3, 2022)

So some Passiv Haus principles are supposed to be used.

Good to see International house will be retained.

Thing is whether Council will keep to these promises for the scheme.

So far consultation with locals has been poor to non existent despite what the report says.


----------



## brixtonpete (Feb 4, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> So some Passiv Haus principles are supposed to be used.
> 
> Good to see International house will be retained.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info Gramsci! However, 'Passivhaus principles will be used' is a phrase that makes me fume! I don't blame the average punter from not realising why, but it is used by architects (and officers, and councillors) who should know better, or are trying to convince the public they are doing something worthwhile when they are not. What they should be committing to building to is the 'Passivhaus standard' which means that the building shall not require more than 15kWh per square metre per year to heat (15kWh/m2/pa). A nice clear and simple definition that is easily verifiable after completion. Either a building meets that standard or it doesn't. If you went to a petrol station and the price was listed as '£5 for quite a lot' people would not accept such a vague financial deal. Why the council should spend a great deal of public money on a building that they want to meet their advertised climate change goals and and then accept some wooly definition of what they're likely to get rather than a guaranteed outcome makes no sense to me at all.

What 'using Passivhaus principles' normally means is that they'll cobble together a pick'n'mix of some of the features involved in Passivhaus construction, namely more insulation than normal but not quite as much as for the Passivhaus standard, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR), which may or may not be well installed, airtightness testing, yes, but probably to a lower than Passivhaus requirement, reducing thermal bridging as much as they can do easily without bothering to detail ALL the junctions and then throw it all together with builders who aren't trained to build to the Passivhaus standard and say here you are, this will save you lots of energy and then hey presto, surprise surprise it uses a bunch more energy than they predicted, the so-called 'Performance Gap', by which time it is too late, and the council never chases up sub-standard workmanship anyway, though if they haven't committed to the Passivhaus standard there will be nothing to chase up...

There is one more 'Passivhaus principle' they almost certainly won't be using, which is the Passivhaus Planning Package (PHPP) software that should be at the very centre of the whole design process. If they were, then they might as well be registered Passivhaus designers and be building to the Passivhaus standard. PHPP has been developed and refined over 30 years and coupled with rigorous quality control at all stages results in buildings that DON'T have a performance gap. What is sadly all too common is that lazy builders, property developers and architects are disinclined to get out of their comfort zones and undertake the training with its learning curve that is involved in building to the Passivhaus standard. The interaction between insulation levels all round, a building's form factor, its orientation, window sizing, window over-shading, solar gain in summer, solar gain in winter, type of glazing, air infiltration and MVHR efficiency is highly complex and only PHPP deals with all these factors comprehensively to not only keep residents warm in winter with barely any energy input but also to prevent overheating in summer.

If councillors instruct officers to specify the Passivhaus standard, then they are serious about their climate change pledges. If they specified Passivhaus Plus that would rate them as VERY serious. If they accept 'using Passivhaus principles' as the guideline then they are at best negligent or at worst either clueless or just engaging in PR and greenwash, none of which serve the people of Lambeth well.

As for the details, it will be interesting to see whether they actually do install air source heat pumps, or end up switching to the far cheaper capital cost of gas boilers, with the option of replacing them with heat pumps in the future. This seems to be what Camden have done with their Passivhaus development at Agar Grove, but the recent huge rise in the cost of gas might be the clincher for immediate heat pumps. In the long term, as the climate heats up, a heat pump can be run in reverse to cool a building down. If ground source heat pumps were used instead of air source, such excess summer heat would go into the ground and not add to the urban heat island effect of multiple heat sources exacerbating a heat wave, something that a large number of close together urban air source heat pumps just might contribute to - pure speculation that, as I'm not aware of anyone ever having raised that as a possible future problem to do with air source heat pumps!  One other advantage of ground source heat pumps is less risk of noise nuisance compared to air source heat pumps. The only disadvantage of ground source heat pumps is their current cost, which hopefully will plummet once the technology becomes ubiquitous.

To add to my previous piece, there is another Lambeth building that is being built to a similar standard to that of Sudbourne Primary School, the Lambeth Resource Centre in Coburg Place/Palace Road . Also built in concrete and steel its energy standard is the same mediocre ’35% better than 2013 Building Regulations’. It is pictured below, under construction in March 2021. One more to add to the Lambeth legacy portfolio.


----------



## NicolaKench (Feb 4, 2022)

Excellent overview of the key Lambeth built environment sustainability issues. Hopefully, all this - and the energy efficiency target specifics (Passivhaus 'gold standard' 15kw/m2/pa) will be brought into the forthcoming Housing Strategy negotiations with Lambeth Council. #sickofgreenwashing #theyshouldknowbetter


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 4, 2022)

brixtonpete 

On this from your previous post. 

The boiler in the Brixton Rec broke down some time ago. Why the pool and heating of Rec hasn't been up to standard. 

The officers report to replace the boiler summarily dismissed putting in greener alternative for cost reasons. So gas boiler it is. When the Council finally get around to it that is. Supposed to be in place now. Good thing this winter so far has been mild. 



> As for the details, it will be interesting to see whether they actually do install air source heat pumps, or end up switching to the far cheaper capital cost of gas boilers, with the option of replacing them with heat pumps in the future.


----------



## brixtonpete (Feb 4, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> brixtonpete
> 
> On this from your previous post.
> 
> ...


Weren't both boilers replaced not so many years ago? As a heat pump is particularly suitable for providing low temperature heat which is what a swimming pool needs, and underfloor heating in the changing rooms would be rather nice too, helping to keep the floors clean, and the heat demand for a swimming pool is inevitably high due to unavoidable evaporation heat losses (but I'm venturing there into specialist technical territory that I'm not familiar with) and as Brixton Rec is listed and definitely here to stay, the heat pump option should certainly have been explored. Exeter City Council, who are now completing the UK's first Passivhaus leisure centre with three swimming pools, could have been consulted. This article about it also makes a strong case for the Rec Quarter flats being built to the Passivhaus standard. Here's a paragraph from the report: "It took leadership, bold thinking and courage to develop a vision and deliver it in challenging times as a UK first. When the doors open in the spring and the first residents use the facilities, it will be testament to both the political leadership which demanded the best for the residents of this city, and the sheer dedication and perseverance of a committed team of officers who have seen this project through from conception to delivery." My comment regarding Lambeth's officers and councillors: "Well, that would be nice, wouldn't it?"
How we created the UK’s first Passivhaus-standard leisure centre | Local Government Chronicle (LGC)

One interesting point that comes out of this article: "The council’s wholly-owned development company now builds Passivhaus homes for the private sector, using the profits to help fund the council’s building programme." What if Homes for Lambeth, instead of giving over 50% of _council owned_ land to the private sector homes as it is now planned were able to build Passivhaus homes for the private sector on p_rivate sector_ land and use the profits to build 100% council rented homes on council land, as Exeter is doing? That would need Lambeth to invest in suitably qualified enthusiastic and dedicated people who are sincere about climate change and 100% knowledgeable about and experienced in Passivhaus to lead the team, in the way that Exeter City Council has had Emma Osmundsen to lead theirs. In that respect, Lambeth is at least 10 years behind Exeter.

With regards to the planned Rec Quarter flats I wouldn't condemn the council for initially installing gas boilers in a new Passivhaus building there because the building would need such minimal energy to keep warm that the actual gas consumption would be tiny. They might only need a cascade of large domestic boilers for the whole complex, principally to meet the hot water demand. Solar PV could supplement the hot water, as it could on the roof of Brixton Rec (an idea they apparently rejected some years ago) - if the Hondo tower doesn't scupper that possibility by overshadowing them both. If the planned new flats were made 'heat pump ready' by planning where and how they would install a heat pump, or pumps, later on, then it might be the most sensible option given the current very high cost of installing ground source heat pumps, a cost which almost certainly will plunge when they become mainstream. What is inexcusable is cutting corners with the fabric of the building which is always a very expensive option to upgrade later, and which the description 'using Passivhaus principles' (which can only mean 'not Passivhaus') suggests that a future major upgrade later would be necessary. Better to spend the extra money now on getting the building fabric right (Passivhaus) and leaving the future upgrade plan to be for a heat pump, which would be a relatively easy swap over of the building's heat generator. Including air source heat pumps in the scheme while excluding the actual Passivhaus standard smacks of virtue signalling rather than good design sense.

Consider Brixton Rec itself. Regardless of the swimming pool's heat demand the rest of the building is just dumping heat outside, admittedly somewhat less now that they're not heating the changing rooms . It needs insulating and the ventilation system completely changing to one with heat recovery, and to be done properly, should be part of an integrated plan, rather than done piecemeal. Who knows, if the Energiesprong concept takes off, Brixton Rec could be a candidate for an Energiesprong makeover, being brought up to the Passivhaus EnerPHit standard!


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2022)

Have your say! Have your say about the future of the Brixton Rec – public meeting on Tues, 15th March, 6pm


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 26, 2022)

BRUG Newsletter Nov 2022
		


Report on last meeting.

On the leaks. Clearly the ongoing leaks which have taken years to rectify caused extensive damage to internal areas of the Rec. The Council have only now got around to dealing with them.

The lifts. Council are trying to blame GLL/ Better for lift breakdowns. The escalator has been out of action for a long time now. I think that this is unfair. Like a lot of the plant in Rec its now very old and needs replacing. This imo is not Better responsibility. 

The Nine million to refurbish Rec was agreed a long time ago. In wake of public protest about officers trying to demolish Rec and replace it with smaller one on pop site. Leaving the large rec site available for "redevelopment".

The refurbishment program has gone in fits and starts. Stopping during the pandemic.

In last year with transition to Council taking back in-house the management the works have re started.

It looks like about 6million has been spent.

Outstanding issues related to phase two works are lifts and heating/ ventilation.

As users will know the changing rooms are very cold in winter. The heating in them failed years ago. Surveyors report say the heating and ventilation system reached the end of its useful life years ago. It needs replacing.

So far I see no Council time table to do this. It needs redesigning and replacing throughout the building.

The ongoing saga with the social room. This was lost to GLL/ Better years back when a senior officer agreed with GLL it could be converted into their London area office. Without consulting users of Rec. It's been a sore point for years now.


----------

