# Keeping Brixton Crap: our public realm



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

Let's take the following premises at the outset:

- Gentrification is real and is happening in Brixton
- It has real negative effects for many, and it's completely valid to resist certain changes on this basis.

What I want to talk about is whether it makes sense to oppose "improvements" to the public realm specifically. That means, the parts of the environment that are available for use by everyone - streets, public squares, parks.

I think this also includes the appearance of buildings that front onto those public spaces. 

I'd like to try and separate this, as much as is possible, from arguments about the usage of the buildings or land that adjoins these public spaces. This is not about whether we should protect existing businesses or call for higher proportions of social housing in new developments. 

I (increasingly) see opposition to general improvements to the public realm, and often it seems to boil down to a "Keep Brixton Crap" (I have stolen the slogan from the Hackney T-shirt campaign) argument. Essentially, let's not make the public realm more pleasant because it'll attract people and businesses with more money and therefore accelerate the changes that are taking place.

I see it in particular extending to schemes which involve making things better for pedestrians and cyclists. It was not the only argument made against the Loughborough Junction road closures but it was certainly one of them. I don't remember there being the same kind of opposition to the changes made to Brixton Road through the town centre when the pavements were widened and the barriers removed from the middle. Was that because it was prior to the latest gentrification surge, and therefore people saw these kinds of "improvements" as something positive for people who live here rather than something that would attract the wrong sorts?

Does it make sense to oppose public realm improvements on the basis that making things "nicer" is now counter to the interests of the local community?

Or do we need to be careful in separating out changes that benefit everyone from changes that only benefit a certain portion of society?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

yes


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 31, 2016)

This sounds a bit straw-mannish to me. Are there any specifics here?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Let's take the following premises at the outset:
> 
> - Gentrification is real and is happening in Brixton
> - It has real negative effects for many, and it's completely valid to resist certain changes on this basis.
> ...


Burn the Dog Star and the Ritzy? Would that do it?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 31, 2016)

It's like deciding whether to paddle with or against at 60ft wave. Either way it's going to drown you.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This sounds a bit straw-mannish to me. Are there any specifics here?


Prompted by initiative just announced to "improve" Brixton Station Road. Proposals invited for making it friendlier to pedestrians/cyclists, removing street clutter, appearance of historic frontages. I already see negative comments against it on facebook for example.

If you could bear to read through the LJ road closures thread you'd see there was an element of resistance to making streetscape "nicer" on the basis that it would encourage gentrification.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 31, 2016)

I'm not against changes to the street infrastructure or public conveniences in Brixton, but it must complimented each time with an opening of at least one new speedy noodle or pound stretcher, for balance.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

Crispy said:


> It's like deciding whether to paddle with or against at 60ft wave. Either way it's going to drown you.


The implication of your analogy is that the actions of the paddler don't have an effect on the progress of the wave. In which case it's not a difficult decision - support public realm improvements and enjoy them for as long as you stay afloat.


----------



## sealion (Aug 31, 2016)

I think the longer term residents of Brixton are pissed off because f all has been done for years.Now the money is coming in Lambeth have started to spruce certain parts up whilst letting there estates/housing stock run into disrepair.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

Sea Lion said:


> I think the longer term residents of Brixton are pissed off because f all has been done for years.Now the money is coming in Lambeth have started to spruce certain parts up whilst letting there estates/housing stock run into disrepair.


In which case the argument is that any money spent on public realm improvements should have been spent on housing instead. Would that apply to money spent on the upkeep of Brockwell park, for example?


----------



## sealion (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> In which case the argument is that any money spent on public realm improvements should have been spent on housing instead. Would that apply to money spent on the upkeep of Brockwell park, for example?


Seeing as Lambeth make Shit loads of money from Private events in there parks/common land they should use the profits for public realm improvements not from other budgets they may dip into.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

Sea Lion said:


> Seeing as Lambeth make Shit loads of money from Private events in there parks/common land they should use the profits for public realm improvements not from other budgets they may dip into.


Why should the money from these events not be invested into housing, instead of public realm improvements?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Burn the Dog Star and the Ritzy? Would that do it?


it's a start i suppose. but you seem to have forgotten the town hall and the police station.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Why should the money from these events not be invested into housing, instead of public realm improvements?


always with the binaries 

false dichotomy, teuchter, false dichotomy


----------



## sealion (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Why should the money from these events not be invested into housing, instead of public realm improvements?


I am saying they should but private companies are taking the profits.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 31, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Burn the Dog Star and the Ritzy? Would that do it?



Then the Satay bar would go too wouldn't it? Fewer cocktails.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 31, 2016)

Crispy said:


> It's like deciding whether to paddle with or against at 60ft wave. Either way it's going to drown you.



At least you could go out getting some gnarly board time


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> always with the binaries
> 
> false dichotomy, teuchter, false dichotomy


It's a binary that was not introduced to the discussion by me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> It's a binary that was not introduced to the discussion by me.


that doesn't alter your use of a false dichotomy.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 31, 2016)

I largely agree with crispy.

Using Brixton Station road as an example I have lots of questions.  Where is the money coming from in this time of 'austerity'? Why spend it on this when there are other things public money could be spent on that would also improve people's lives locally or generally. Who decides what the money can be spent on? What is their motivation for doing it? Where was the money and will to improve streetscapes 5 or 10 years ago?   Whose lives does it improve, in the short term, in the long term, directly, indirectly?  And by how much will it actually improve people's day to day lives? What are the downsides, long term, short term, directly, indirectly, and to who?  Not easy to measure, and not easy for your man on the Clapham omnibus to work out for himself. Why is there a will to spend money on this but not on improving council housing or other initiatives targeting people who have more need?  On a list of things to improve local people's lives how high is improving a streetscape to people who are struggling to keep the bailiffs from the door?  I can imagine it's a bit of an irrelevancy to many people who have bigger problems than whether BSR is prettified or not.


If you live in private rented accommodation in a gentrifying area there will be a number of variables that affect what your rent will be next year. Streetscapes will be one of them - by how much, who knows, but it might be one of the visible things or things you can ostensibly have a say on.   What use is an improved streetscape to you if in a year's time you will have to move somewhere with an unimproved streetscape anyway?  So yay, direct improvement (maybe) to how a street they walk down once a month has improved but indirectly it contributes to an increase in rent they can no longer afford. And of course the businesses there might change to ones that are of little use to them. They have to move away from family or friends etc.   Landlords can charge more  so their lives improve indirectly.   Or you can sell your house for a little bit more if local prices are outperforming other areas.

Another indirect consequence to the gentrifrication public space improvements contribute to could be that as richer people move into the area they bring their tory votes with them.    I'd rather have an untidy streetscape than that.

Ultimately maybe you're seeing objections because people look at proposed improvements and can see that they are simply not delivering improvements to them.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 31, 2016)

dp


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> that doesn't alter your use of a false dichotomy.


If you put some thought into this you may come to realise that the point of my post was to highlight the possibility that the argument advanced by Sea Lion was based on a false dichotomy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> If you put some thought into this you may come to realise that the point of my post was to highlight the possibility that the argument advanced by Sea Lion was based on a false dichotomy.


false dichotomies all round. but i was picking up on your use, Sea Lion's a veritable newbie and cannot be expected to know better, you by contrast are a veteran poster and should set an example for those who have but recently joined us.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Why is there a will to spend money on this but not on improving council housing or other initiatives targeting people who have more need?



What are the relative sizes of the pot of money allocated to these kinds of street improvements and the pot of money allocated to council housing improvements? Why do you think it's disproportionate?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> What are the relative sizes of the pot of money allocated to these kinds of street improvements and the pot of money allocated to council housing improvements? Why do you think it's disproportionate?



No idea.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Why is there a will to spend money on this but not on improving council housing or other initiatives targeting people who have more need?


probably because they're running down council estates to flog them off i expect


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> false dichotomies all round. but i was picking up on your use, Sea Lion's a veritable newbie and cannot be expected to know better, you by contrast are a veteran poster and should set an example for those who have but recently joined us.


Perhaps as a veteran poster you should set an example and make a constructive contribution to the discussion by explaining exactly why Sea Lion's dichotomy is a false one.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> No idea.


Why do you say there's a "will" to make street improvements but not housing improvements, then?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> What are the relative sizes of the pot of money allocated to these kinds of street improvements and the pot of money allocated to council housing improvements? Why do you think it's disproportionate?





quimcunx said:


> No idea.



That said I do appreciate that there are different pots and we don't get to decide what pots exist or what is in each pot and that rejection of one doesn't mean money will be redirected to something else. I have priorities on what I want my taxes/public money to be spent and there are a lot of things higher on my list than how pretty one particular street is.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Why do you say there's a "will" to make street improvements but not housing improvements, then?



Well this proposed streetscape improvement will cost money, so that money exists. It is available.   _Somewhere_ the decision was made to direct that money down a path where street improvements were an option but housing improvements not.


----------



## sealion (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> If you put some thought into this you may come to realise that the point of my post was to highlight the possibility that the argument advanced by Sea Lion was based on a false dichotomy.


Is it a fallacy that Lambeth are neglecting there housing stock?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> That said I do appreciate that there are different pots and we don't get to decide what pots exist or what is in each pot and that rejection of one doesn't mean money will be redirected to something else. I have priorities on what I want my taxes/public money to be spent and there are a lot of things higher on my list than how pretty one particular street is.


It's not just about prettiness though. It's also about accessibility and congestion and pollution. Improvements in those areas benefit nearly everyone so inevitably make the area more attractive to people who might not come/be here otherwise. And that's the basic question here - is it valid to weigh those considerations against each other.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

Sea Lion said:


> Is it a fallacy that Lambeth are neglecting there housing stock?


I await Pickman's model who I am sure will explain to you why he feels raising this question in the context of this particular discussion invokes a false dichotomy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I await Pickman's model who I am sure will explain to you why he feels raising this question in the context of this particular discussion invokes a false dichotomy.


i don't as it doesn't


----------



## sealion (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I await Pickman's model who I am sure will explain to you why he feels raising this question in the context of this particular discussion invokes a false dichotomy.


Okay ta.Im off out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

Sea Lion said:


> Okay ta.Im off out.


see my post 34 first tho


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

Anyway: discussion about the costs of public realm improvements is a diversion from what I wanted to talk about here.

I wanted to talk about the notion that making these improvements (even if it doesn't cost anything) is negative in itself. See this comment on facebook. It doesn't seem the objection is to the cost but to the fact that an intervention is being made at all.


----------



## sealion (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Anyway: discussion about the costs of public realm improvements is a diversion from what I wanted to talk about here.
> 
> I wanted to talk about the notion that making these improvements (even if it doesn't cost anything) is negative in itself. See this comment on facebook. It doesn't seem the objection is to the cost but to the fact that an intervention is being made at all.
> 
> View attachment 91794


How representative is facebook in regards to the overall community?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

Sea Lion said:


> How representative is facebook in regards to the overall community?


That's from the Reclaim Brixton page. How representative readers of that are, I can't tell you. It's not the only source I have of gauging general feeling. There's stuff I see on facebook and there's stuff I see on urban, and there's stuff I hear people say in real life. I'd make no claims about any of those being representative overall.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to my question though. I just want to look specifically at whether it makes sense to object to public realm improvements on the basis that making public spaces more attractive has negative effects that outweigh the positive ones.

I feel I see people making that kind of argument. How many people subscribe to that argument is independent of whether it makes sense.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 31, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Anyway: discussion about the costs of public realm improvements is a diversion from what I wanted to talk about here.
> 
> I wanted to talk about the notion that making these improvements (even if it doesn't cost anything) is negative in itself. See this comment on facebook. It doesn't seem the objection is to the cost but to the fact that an intervention is being made at all.
> 
> View attachment 91794


I bet that's just a snap response to the word "regenerate" in the title.


If it was titled using boring technical language the response would be different, a bit, maybe.

Council plan to make busy road junction cleaner, brighter and safer for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. It's not very snappy though tbf


----------



## isvicthere? (Aug 31, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Burn the Dog Star and the Ritzy? Would that do it?



The Ritzy has been trading (not always at the current premises) for north of 100 years, so I don't think it counts as an engine of the recent hyper-gentrification.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 31, 2016)

I completely agree with the OP, all these terrible complainers. I mean why are workers always complaining when managers just want to improve the workplace, who wouldn't want to work in a more _flexible_ workplace. And don't get me started on those unions, always carping and obstructing, just think of what we could achieve if we all worked together.


----------



## Manter (Aug 31, 2016)

skyscraper101 said:


> I'm not against changes to the street infrastructure or public conveniences in Brixton, but it must complimented each time with an opening of at least one new speedy noodle or pound stretcher, for balance.


I miss speedy noodle. Even though it was, objectively, crap


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I completely agree with the OP, all these terrible complainers. I mean why are workers always complaining when managers just want to improve the workplace, who wouldn't want to work in a more _flexible_ workplace. And don't get me started on those unions, always carping and obstructing, just think of what we could achieve if we all worked together.


Very well, as far as I can make out you want to imply that improvements to public spaces, presented as aiming to make them safer, more accessible to all and more pleasant in general are analogous to workplace changes imposed on a workforce which doesn't want them, where they are presented dishonestly as being in the interests of the workers rather than the employers.

But why not explain how and why, in your opinion, improvements to the public realm don't in fact benefit the people that use those spaces, and who it is that really benefits.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Aug 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I completely agree with the OP, all these terrible complainers. I mean why are workers always complaining when managers just want to improve the workplace, who wouldn't want to work in a more _flexible_ workplace. And don't get me started on those unions, always carping and obstructing, just think of what we could achieve if we all worked together.


Quite
Who doesn't want to work agilely on a flexible contract with a higher workload? Who?


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Aug 31, 2016)

This thread makes me think that we should keep the fly tipping in Thornton heath boohoo BigMoaner


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 31, 2016)

Manter said:


> I miss speedy noodle. Even though it was, objectively, crap


It was, objectively, Heaven after six pints.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 1, 2016)

> Very well, as far as I can make out you want to imply that improvements to public spaces,* presented* as aiming to make them safer, more accessible to all and more pleasant in general...


(my emphasis). Perhaps, like many workers whose experience has told that that it's wise to be suspicious when _flexibility_ starts to be banded about, many of those in the community have learned to be, rightly, suspicious when terms like _regeneration_ are banded about by councils. Especially council that are know to have a history to destroying social housing, cutting funding to local services and generally attacking the working class.

Not that the OP is interested in any of this of course, it's just another pathetic attempt to further his beef with the editor.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> (my emphasis). Perhaps, like many workers whose experience has told that that it's wise to be suspicious when _flexibility_ starts to be banded about, many of those in the community have learned to be, rightly, suspicious when terms like _regeneration_ are banded about by councils. Especially council that are know to have a history to destroying social housing, cutting funding to local services and generally attacking the working class.



Yes, it's understandable that people might be suspicious of terms like regeneration.

That's not really what I'm asking about though.

I'm asking - having acknowledged and set aside the issue of choice of language to describe proposals - if it is agreed that a set of proposals would improve the public realm for those using it, then is that fact in some cases a good reason to resist the proposals? The basic argument being that if somewhere is made more attractive for people to live or visit, its increased desirability will cause problems for those already living there - problems that outweigh, for those people, the benefits.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I don't remember there being the same kind of opposition to the changes made to Brixton Road through the town centre when the pavements were widened and the barriers removed from the middle. Was that because it was prior to the latest gentrification surge, and therefore people saw these kinds of "improvements" as something positive for people who live here rather than something that would attract the wrong sorts?



I would say yes to this.

It really does not help when Lambeth say this:




> de-cluttered, safer, more pedestrian and cycle-friendly streets” with “an attractive environment for walking, shopping and cycling that will support *the economic well-being of the area.*”




As another poster pointed out if Lambeth had just said street improvements to make it better for pedestrians and cyclists that would have been fine. But no the brains in Lambeth have got to put in economic well being - who in Lambeth writes this shit.

At a time when a controversial scheme has led to the destruction of a row of shops its the height of insensitivity by the Council to word it in this way.

Nor do I understand why this requires an architect. Surely this is a job for a traffic engineer? Unless the real reason for this scheme is to tart the area up.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2016)

Reminded of reading the Evening Standard property pages. When I can bring myself to as they are nauseating. But its worth it to see how the enemy thinks. 

One article was praising Boris bikes docking stations. As if one was put near your house ( and in the ES the assumption is you are a home owner) it would put up the value of your house 2 grand. Crossrail is another ES favourite. Sole purpose of Crossrail is to put up property prices. ( A good thing in ES eyes).

Just two examples. I think its understandable that people have become negative about any improvements. Its not in there interests. Its likely to contribute to the further gentrification of the area they live in.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2016)

Talked to a market trader last weekend. Complaining about the now delayed works on Electric Avenue. I saw no enthusiasm from him for these works.

Told me that his trade is reduced. Brixton is not what it was. Its being gentrified.

So I would say people have become more sceptical about improvements to there areas over last few years. Justified in my opinion.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 1, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I (increasingly) see opposition to general improvements to the public realm, and often it seems to boil down to a "Keep Brixton Crap" (I have stolen the slogan from the Hackney T-shirt campaign) argument.


BTW intresting back story to where Keep Hackney Crap slogan came from - credit goes to Fozzie Bear
Keeping Hackney Crap

"Last year there was a bit of a set to, when Childrens’ Laureate and all round good guy Michael Rosen had the temerity to criticise the Council’s plans to “regenerate” Dalston:

_“But it hasn’t been ‘regenerated’ for the people living and working there. They’ve been shoved out. The only thing that’s been regenerated are the profits of the property companies and it’s the Labour council tipping our money into their pockets that has enabled them to do it. Regeneration? Degeneration, more like. ”_

Obviously the control freaks at Hackney Council weren’t going to let that go, any more than they were going to let Iain Sinclair launch his latest book _Hackney: That Rose Red Empire_ from one of its libraries. The False Mayor [Mayor of Hackney, Jules Pipe] branded Michael Rosen part of the “Keep Hackney Crap Brigade”

To which he very sensibly responded:

_“The point is, I don’t think Hackney is crap. I’ve never thought Hackney is crap. I’ve never thought that the wrong people were living in Hackney. However, I do think the council is crap. The accusation arcs back to Pipe himself. Perhaps he thinks Hackney and its people are crap and it’s his job to see it bulldozed, replanned and the people moved on. A different matter altogether.”_


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 1, 2016)

This "mini-Holland" initiative is in full force up here in Walthamstow. This article Waltham Forest ‘mini-Holland’ row: politics, protests and house prices from 9 months ago explains the situation fairly well. Despite the opposition the scheme continues apace.

I'm sure the opposition to it is as strong as it ever was. However as the council have pushed on with the scheme it has become apparent that people adapt quickly and the sky hasn't fallen down. My personal view is its making Walthamstow an increasingly more pleasant and safer place to be.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 1, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Talked to a market trader last weekend. Complaining about the now delayed works on Electric Avenue. I saw no enthusiasm from him for these works.
> 
> Told me that his trade is reduced. Brixton is not what it was. Its being gentrified.
> 
> So I would say people have become more sceptical about improvements to there areas over last few years. Justified in my opinion.


I don't think talking to a market trader can be extrapolated out to "people" being more sceptical about improvements to their area.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 1, 2016)

teuchter said:


> - if it is agreed that a set of proposals would improve the public realm for those using it, then is that fact in some cases a good reason to resist the proposals?


Who has agreed that this proposal is in the best interests of the community? The council/employer? 

This rather reminds me of the EU ref, liberals telling the people Cornwall that they were idiots for voting Leave because they benefitted from the EU. Ignoring the fact that many people hadn't experienced these supposed _improvements_, and that they had had no say in the _proposals_.


----------



## Winot (Sep 1, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Who has agreed that this proposal is in the best interests of the community? The council/employer?



One of the challenges of democracy is knowing who to listen to. Sometimes leadership is needed to push something through that is initially unpopular but ultimately beneficial, eg Livingstone's congestion charge or possibly the Walthamstow example above. But yes it's true that Lambeth are crap at listening generally.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2016)

Mr Retro said:


> I don't think talking to a market trader can be extrapolated out to "people" being more sceptical about improvements to their area.



I was using it as one example of the kinds of things I hear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Talked to a market trader last weekend. Complaining about the now delayed works on Electric Avenue. I saw no enthusiasm from him for these works.
> 
> Told me that his trade is reduced. Brixton is not what it was. Its being gentrified.
> 
> So I would say people have become more sceptical about improvements to there areas over last few years. Justified in my opinion.


Ime market traders are frequently better informed about what's going on than they're given credit for


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 1, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I was using it as one example of the kinds of things I hear.


Sure, but it's easy to filter out the kinds of thing you hear so you only hear what you want to. As an argument for or against something its wholly useless.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2016)

Mr Retro said:


> Sure, but it's easy to filter out the kinds of thing you hear so you only hear what you want to. As an argument for or against something its wholly useless.



Another example is LJ.

The opposition to the road closures was partly driven by feeling that this was a step towards gentrifying the area. That the road closures were being pushed through by a group of middle class do gooders working with a New Labour Council. That they wanted , as one said, "us out" of the area.

Its not about filtering things out. On the other side (LJAG) they have different view. I hear both.

Up in LJ its widespread on the estate that improvements are not in there interest. They see what’s happened to Brixton and do not want it on there patch.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Who has agreed that this proposal is in the best interests of the community? The council/employer?



What proposal? I'm not talking about a specific proposal. I'm talking about a general principle.

I would not say that all proposals are in the best interests of the community. My question was, *if* we agree a proposal would lead to improvements that everyone benefits from, does it still make sense to oppose it because those improvements will accelerate the processes of gentrification.

The obvious problem with that approach is that it condemns people to live with congestion, pollution, and the rest, for ever.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 1, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Another example is LJ.
> 
> The opposition to the road closures was partly driven by feeling that this was a step towards gentrifying the area. That the road closures were being pushed through by a group of middle class do gooders working with a New Labour Council. That they wanted , as one said, "us out" of the area.
> 
> ...


I lost the will to live reading that LJ thread. What do you think of the article on Walthamstow I linked to? It seems to me the changes, when people got used to them are very positive.

However this is only from talking to a few friends up here who will think along the same lines as me so not in anyway scientific.

If I understand your point I think it's very sad people feel they need to keep things "crap" in order to feel they are able to safely stay in their houses or neighbourhood. That they think improvements to their standards of living equals gentrification equals them being forced out. 

But you need to be careful taking this stance. Another example (sorry from Walthamstow again) is the area across the road from Wood Street station is apparently crap. So it's going to be totally bulldozed. Not saying the residents there objected to improvements but a rundown area can be subject to far more drastic "solutions" than one that has kept itself up to date with continual improvements (for want of a better way to put it).


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2016)

Mr Retro said:


> I lost the will to live reading that LJ thread. What do you think of the article on Walthamstow I linked to? It seems to me the changes, when people got used to them are very positive.
> 
> However this is only from talking to a few friends up here who will think along the same lines as me so not in anyway scientific.
> 
> ...



I wasn't saying I took this stance on LJ road closures. 

I have friend in Walthamstow who has house in bit that has the Dutch style Road calming. So have seen it. As a cyclist I do support what Walthamstow are doing. 

I also thought the failure of the scheme in LJ Road scheme was a missed opportunity. 

I can understand why people on the estate feel improvements are a threat.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 1, 2016)

teuchter said:


> What proposal? I'm not talking about a specific proposal. I'm talking about a general principle.


So was I. Who is involved in the decision making, unless we are in the realms of fiction (which you seem to want to be) it's not going to be the local community is it, it's going to those in power whether an employer, a council, a government. 



teuchter said:


> I would not say that all proposals are in the best interests of the community. My question was, *if* we agree a proposal would lead to improvements that everyone benefits from, does it still make sense to oppose it because those improvements will accelerate the processes of gentrification.


 Who is the 'we' here? FM summed it up on the first page, this is castles in the air.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2016)

Mr Retro said:


> If I understand your point I think it's very sad people feel they need to keep things "crap" in order to feel they are able to safely stay in their houses or neighbourhood. That they think improvements to their standards of living equals gentrification equals them being forced out.



As I get told often. Its not that simple. Its not that the estate wanted to keep things crap.

Its that, as with Atlantic road, there is/ appears more to an improvement than meets the eye.

The measures to reduce road traffic were linked to making LJ a "destination". ( The Atlantic road one is linked to "economic well being"). Instead of suggesting improvements to reduce traffic it was mixed in with other ideas. Which definitely people on the Estate saw as leading to gentrification. I remember people from the estate telling me this.

As redsquirrel points out its who is making the decisions. Council did not listen to concerns about proposals. Never took seriously concerns about LJ becoming a "destination" ( a pet scheme of LJAG). Some people on the estate I talked to did think traffic was an issue. But debate got polarised by the end.

I remember telling one of the Cllrs that the underlying issue of people on the estate was future of the social housing they lived in and concerns that LJ could be gentrified. Also these long time Council tenants felt that no one had listened to them for years. So I suggested the Council do some research/ consultation to find out what peoples fears were for the future and what they thought would be good improvements.

Despite consultation on various issues in LJ no one in power has really asked people on estate what they want. Even when locals from the estate do make suggestions I notice they never really get recorded properly.

Said Cllrs did not think this was great idea.

So I feel it gets to point that sectors of the local community start to oppose things in total. Or are very suspicious.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> So was I. Who is involved in the decision making, unless we are in the realms of fiction (which you seem to want to be) it's not going to be the local community is it, it's going to those in power whether an employer, a council, a government.
> 
> Who is the 'we' here? FM summed it up on the first page, this is castles in the air.


Sounds like your position is that any "improvements" to the public realm proposed by council/government should be opposed, regardless of what they are, full stop. In which case, end of discussion. I'm not sure why you wanted to post in this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Sounds like your position is that any "improvements" to the public realm proposed by council/government should be opposed, regardless of what they are, full stop. In which case, end of discussion. I'm not sure why you wanted to post in this thread.


Because he can


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 1, 2016)

I've suggested no such thing


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> As I get told often. Its not that simple. Its not that the estate wanted to keep things crap.
> 
> Its that, as with Atlantic road, there is/ appears more to an improvement than meets the eye.
> 
> ...


What improvements to the public realm do you think people *do* want? The ones who feel they aren't being listened to?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 2, 2016)

teuchter said:


> What improvements to the public realm do you think people *do* want? The ones who feel they aren't being listened to?



I do not know.

Looking back on my post. I think asking people on the estate what there fears are for the future of area and there place in it is the first thing. Its not specifics it starting a dialogue. Its a dialogue that’s been missing. Its what Co production is really supposed to be about.

Council tenants were never liked by New Labour. New Labour didn’t like the working class.

I agree with redsquirrel its a generalised feeling that :


> Especially council that are known to have a history to destroying social housing, cutting funding to local services and generally attacking the working class.



This not being listened to is what made Cllr Rachel break ranks with the ruling group. Its being going on for years. A Labour run Council is not seen as on "our" side.

This has been simmering away for years. And finally boiled over when Council did the road closure experiment.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 2, 2016)

teuchter said:


> What improvements to the public realm do you think people *do* want? The ones who feel they aren't being listened to?


Speaking for myself here, not Gramsci, I reckon the people on the two Loughborough Estates are happy with things as they are. I expect the budgets allocated for public realm improvements are filched off TFL and the Mayor - not Lambeth money.

What a pity the Mayor does not take back responsibility for the elephant in the room - social housing. Then we could have some proper strategic planning and concrete results instead of this constant drip drip drip of £10,000 for imporvement here, £50,000 for improvements there - half of which goes on consultants doing consultations and architects drawing plans a council tenant could do on the back of a fag packet.


----------



## boohoo (Sep 2, 2016)

Mr Retro said:


> If I understand your point I think it's very sad people feel they need to keep things "crap" in order to feel they are able to safely stay in their houses or neighbourhood. That they think improvements to their standards of living equals gentrification equals them being forced out.



As a private renter and someone who likes to be involved with local community and proactive in making places better, I am incredibly reluctant to improve my area. This is not about improvement equalling gentrification but improvements being a way of pushing up prices. New leisure centre close by, well that should be an extra £100 a month on your rent, local park got mentioned as a place to move, let's shove the prices up another £200. In my last flat, there was no improvements to the area, my landlady took at least 8 months to repair some damage which meant a part of our flat was not useable - so I am paying rent for something I can't use. But she still wanted to raise our rent - why? because the market says so. The cost of moving apart from the stress of it is a few hundred in admin fees and a couple of hundred on the day of the move. Plus i am now in zone 4 so that's an increase in my fares. 

So why would I want my area to improve? That runs the risk of a bigger increase.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 2, 2016)

boohoo said:


> This is not about improvement equalling gentrification but improvements being a way of pushing up prices.



What's the difference between those two things?


----------



## bimble (Sep 2, 2016)

My downstairs neighbour is an active member of LJAG and last Summer she organised a thing where someone from Lambeth council came round with lots of scaffolding boards tools earth & plants. A few (very few) local people joined in making these planters, which were positioned all up and down nearby streets, partly to reduce flytipping.

The council man brought little placards along that were affixed to each saying 'these have been built by local people to help make Loughborough Junction a nicer place to live - please respect them'. The very next morning they had 'Stop Social Cleansing' stickers stuck on them.

It seems crazy on the surface of it to say that even flowers can be seen as a sort of violence but I kind of get it that these planters, with the best of intentions, might be felt by some as an aggressive invasive sort of gentrifying action, and unwelcome. They're mostly all trashed now, almost all the plants removed and empty cans and stuff in their place.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 2, 2016)

I understand the fear that it might cause future rents rises, but the "lets all live in mud huts" mentality has got to be the wrong approach 

Unfortunately, I don't know what the right approach is


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 2, 2016)

Perhaps see it less as an approach as a response to an incorrect approach.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 2, 2016)

bimble said:


> My downstairs neighbour is an active member of LJAG and last Summer she organised a thing where someone from Lambeth council came round with lots of scaffolding boards tools earth & plants. A few (very few) local people joined in making these planters, which were positioned all up and down nearby streets, partly to reduce flytipping.
> 
> The council man brought little placards along that were affixed to each saying 'these have been built by local people to help make Loughborough Junction a nicer place to live - please respect them'. The very next morning they had 'Stop Social Cleansing' stickers stuck on them.
> 
> It seems crazy on the surface of it to say that even flowers can be seen as a sort of violence but I kind of get it that these planters, with the best of intentions, might be felt by some as an aggressive invasive sort of gentrifying action, and unwelcome. They're mostly all trashed now, almost all the plants removed and empty cans and stuff in their place.


That's depressing beyond belief. There is something like this on Gardeners World tonight about some neighbours in Liverpool doing something similar. On BBC2 now!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 2, 2016)

bimble said:


> It seems crazy on the surface of it to say that even flowers can be seen as a sort of violence but I kind of get it that these planters, with the best of intentions, might be felt by some as an aggressive invasive sort of gentrifying action, and unwelcome. They're mostly all trashed now, almost all the plants removed and empty cans and stuff in their place.



I think ur right on this. Especially if it was seen as LJAG initiated and Council supported.

It is unfortunate. I rather like the planters in LJ. Put some seeds I bought in a couple of them in spring to see what would grow. But I can see why they could signify "prettifying the area" as one person put it to me. 

In Brixton its different. Small World Urbanism have put planters in Brixton Station Road and no one sees them as a gentrifying action. In fact the opposite. They are not trashed. Despite gentrification in Brixton being well advanced. (They are having an event this Saturday in Brixton Station road.)


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> In Brixton its different. Small World Urbanism have put planters in Brixton Station Road and no one sees them as a gentrifying action. In fact the opposite. They are not trashed. Despite gentrification in Brixton being well advanced. (They are having an event this Saturday in Brixton Station road.)



Are you sure it's not that the reason they aren't trashed is *because* gentrification in Brixton is well advanced?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 3, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Are you sure it's not that the reason they aren't trashed is *because* gentrification in Brixton is well advanced?



Yes I am sure. I know Brixton well enough. Its a difference between LJ and Brixton. Both have large number who hate idea of gentrification. But in Brixton green stuff is not seen as part of gentrification as it is in LJ. Nor are the artsy planters that Small World make seen in that light. In different areas the same thing has a different significance.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Sep 3, 2016)

We have had a specialist access report done on the plans for our new building, wrt disability. We have planned to make the new theatre as accessible as possible, for visitors, staff and artists, and it has been designed this way from the outset so the plans inside the building have been pretty much green lighted. However there is concern about the street environment: the general inaccessibility of uneven narrow pavements, things like electricity boxes blocking the pavements at narrow points, shops using more of the pavement than they should, poor lighting, a host of things that make life hard for someone with mobility difficulties or using a wheelchair, or visually impaired, problems in the general confusion of signage for people with learning disabilities. It's not hard to see how these things affect older people, or people with buggies etc.
Surely money put into improving the accessibility of the street environment is simply inclusive.
Is this the sort of thing you mean?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 3, 2016)

OvalhouseDB said:


> We have had a specialist access report done on the plans for our new building, wrt disability. We have planned to make the new theatre as accessible as possible, for visitors, staff and artists, and it has been designed this way from the outset so the plans inside the building have been pretty much green lighted. However there is concern about the street environment: the general inaccessibility of uneven narrow pavements, things like electricity boxes blocking the pavements at narrow points, shops using more of the pavement than they should, poor lighting, a host of things that make life hard for someone with mobility difficulties or using a wheelchair, or visually impaired, problems in the general confusion of signage for people with learning disabilities. It's not hard to see how these things affect older people, or people with buggies etc.
> Surely money put into improving the accessibility of the street environment is simply inclusive.
> Is this the sort of thing you mean?


All this is good news - but Mr? teuchter seems to be implying that people complain about improvements because they are destroying the character of Brixton (as perceived by the hard core remnant who remember what it was like in the 1970s and 1980s).

In your own case you will recall there was a big debate on here about why Lambeth Council was eradicating Housing Co-ops - specifically Carlton Mansions, which was I suppose the last to go, the council having connived in selling off Clifton Mansions and three of the Rushcroft Road mansion blocks to Lexadon, the well-known supplier of luxury accommodation to flat sharers who like to live at the end of the Victoria Line and wine and dine in Brixton's increasingly edgy and vibrant entertainment zone.

Naturally those most closely connected with the Carlton Mansions situation will never accept that it was an improvement to evict the people living in the mansions and convert the flats into an alternative use.

So whilst the New Oval House theatre having fully accessible facilities is highly welcome - that does not cancel out the loss of a form of community social housing which deserved  to be supported not destroyed.

The problem in Lambeth (maybe in all public/private developments currently) is that packages are put together that also have a political edge. Right wing political edge I mean.

Can you imagine Ted Knight or Joan Twelves putting up a complex regeneration scheme for Somerleyton Road involving sacking a housing co-op apparently out of spite? I can imaging Stephen Whaley doing it. By the time he was leader of the council the Labour Party had resigned itself to Conservative regeneration tactics. If you look at any documentation to do with Brixton Challenge you will see you this quango set itself up to provide regeneration along centrally planned lines.

As it happens at that time the worst disaster must be the demolition of the Granda Bingo (formerly the Empress Theatre) in Brighton Terrace. That theatre had a lovely golden orb on the top with rays like rays of the sun. You could see it from a distance and it added character to central Brixton. Brixton Challenge cooked up the idea of replacing this historic theatre building with a nondescript block of flats (possibly with Metropolitan - they maybe not as they are not really ugly enough for Metropolitan c. 1994)

I really regret this too - though no doubt the tenants of the flats are happy enough.








Empress Theatre, Brighton Terrace and Bernay's Grove, Carlton Grove, Brixton. Historical Brixton - old and new photos of Brixton, Lambeth, London, SW9 and SW2


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2016)

Sea Lion said:


> I think the longer term residents of Brixton are pissed off because f all has been done for years.Now the money is coming in Lambeth have started to spruce certain parts up whilst letting there estates/housing stock run into disrepair.



Not "letting", "continuing to allow". This shit - minimal maintenance and really low-quality repairs - has been going on for over a decade now, and "Lambeth Living" just accelerated how quickly this spread throughout the borough's social housing stock.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2016)

OvalhouseDB said:


> We have had a specialist access report done on the plans for our new building, wrt disability. We have planned to make the new theatre as accessible as possible, for visitors, staff and artists, and it has been designed this way from the outset so the plans inside the building have been pretty much green lighted. However there is concern about the street environment: the general inaccessibility of uneven narrow pavements, things like electricity boxes blocking the pavements at narrow points, shops using more of the pavement than they should, poor lighting, a host of things that make life hard for someone with mobility difficulties or using a wheelchair, or visually impaired, problems in the general confusion of signage for people with learning disabilities. It's not hard to see how these things affect older people, or people with buggies etc.
> Surely money put into improving the accessibility of the street environment is simply inclusive.
> Is this the sort of thing you mean?



I agree with what you're highlighting here. However, it needs to be borne in mind too that local people with disabilities, having familiarity with the foibles of their civic environment, will have evolved workarounds, much as we do in our own homes. The disabled people most likely to be affected will be visitors, who will be faced by what feels like an assault course!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2016)

There seems to be some confusion here between street improvements, which have traditionally meant re-paving, dropping kerbs, re-siting streetlights and furniture etc, and the re-design of the street environment to make it more amenable to a particular set of users, which appears to be what's proposed for Atlantic Rd.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 5, 2016)

The call for the Atlantic Rd proposals specifically mentions making it better for pedestrians and cyclists and removing street clutter. 

Lambeth are, perhaps, asking for trouble by including mention of "economic wellbeing" because that's open to various interpretations. But what are specific examples of changes to a street environment that make it "more amenable to a particular set of users"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2016)

teuchter said:


> The call for the Atlantic Rd proposals specifically mentions making it better for pedestrians and cyclists and removing street clutter.
> 
> Lambeth are, perhaps, asking for trouble by including mention of "economic wellbeing" because that's open to various interpretations. But what are specific examples of changes to a street environment that make it "more amenable to a particular set of users"?


Go on, I know you're dying to tell us


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 5, 2016)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Surely money put into improving the accessibility of the street environment is simply inclusive.
> Is this the sort of thing you mean?



I don't think anyone is opposing improvements to improve accessibility. 

But this is no just about that. 

The Council are seeking an architect not a traffic engineer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 5, 2016)

teuchter said:


> The call for the Atlantic Rd proposals specifically mentions making it better for pedestrians and cyclists and removing street clutter.
> 
> Lambeth are, perhaps, asking for trouble by including mention of "economic wellbeing" because that's open to various interpretations. But what are specific examples of changes to a street environment that make it "more amenable to a particular set of users"?



As a broad example that's occurred throughout London's boroughs, pedestrianisation and quasi-pedestrianisation (for example St John's Rd, SW11). Makes the environment more amenable to "gaze and graze"-type shops and shoppers, over more traditional retail outlets.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 5, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> As a broad example that's occurred throughout London's boroughs, pedestrianisation and quasi-pedestrianisation (for example St John's Rd, SW11). Makes the environment more amenable to "gaze and graze"-type shops and shoppers, over more traditional retail outlets.


I am not sure I know exactly what you mean by "more traditional retail outlets" but whatever they are - do you not think that pedestrianisation makes the environment more amenable to their customers?


----------



## reubeness (Sep 5, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I am not sure I know exactly what you mean by "more traditional retail outlets" but whatever they are - do you not think that pedestrianisation makes the environment more amenable to their customers?



Ask brixton traders where the customers are, the gazers and grazers are increasing, shoppers decreasing.


----------



## bimble (Sep 6, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I am not sure I know exactly what you mean by "more traditional retail outlets" but whatever they are - do you not think that pedestrianisation makes the environment more amenable to their customers?


Not this olde chestnut again, we've been here before, painfully, for days, with the LJ road closures. Strolling pedestrians are more likely to buy a takeaway flat white and a muffin, less likely to buy a second hand fridge and a carpet offcut, isn't it.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 6, 2016)

Both of the above replies dodge the question, which is not about which shops wealthier/poorer people prefer but whether a pedestrianised environment - the street itself - is somehow more amenable for one or other. Are less wealthy people somehow less negatively affected by crowded pavements, dangerous traffic, pollution and noise?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 6, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I am not sure I know exactly what you mean by "more traditional retail outlets" but whatever they are - do you not think that pedestrianisation makes the environment more amenable to their customers?



"More traditional retail outlets" = local shops serving local needs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 6, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Both of the above replies dodge the question, which is not about which shops wealthier/poorer people prefer but whether a pedestrianised environment - the street itself - is somehow more amenable for one or other. Are less wealthy people somehow less negatively affected by crowded pavements, dangerous traffic, pollution and noise?



A pedestrianised environment attracts "cafe culture", cafe culture attracts the sort of "gaze and graze" custom I spoke of, and isn't as amenable to the "more traditional retail outlets" I mentioned.

Do you have some food you want me to pre-digest for you, too?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 6, 2016)

Local shops, serving local needs, on a pedestrianised street vs. the same local shops serving local needs on a street with heavy traffic and cluttered pavements. Which environment is more amenable to the customers of those shops?

I've made it pretty clear throughout the thread that I'm aware of the argument that improving the public realm can attract different people and businesses which have economic consequences for those already living there.

I am attempting to get an answer to the question of whether the improvements themselves - in this case we are discussing pedestrianisation - are disproportionately attractive to one group of people over another. I want to separate out that question, from the one about consequencial effects on the businesses that then develop on such streets, to try and see to what extent we do or don't agree.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I've [...] I'm [...] I am [...] I want


it's not all about you, you know


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Local shops, serving local needs, on a pedestrianised street vs. the same local shops serving local needs on a street with heavy traffic and cluttered pavements. Which environment is more amenable to the customers of those shops?
> 
> I've made it pretty clear throughout the thread that I'm aware of the argument that improving the public realm can attract different people and businesses which have economic consequences for those already living there.
> 
> I am attempting to get an answer to the question of whether the improvements themselves - in this case we are discussing pedestrianisation - are disproportionately attractive to one group of people over another. I want to separate out that question, from the one about consequencial effects on the businesses that then develop on such streets, to try and see to what extent we do or don't agree.



Your logic is impeccable.

I would still say that the political and economic situation in which improvements are done is a factor.

The Brixton Rec is an example. This was designed and planned as part of the post war rebuilding of this country. The politics behind it were of the post war left. That the working class should not just have access to swimming pools and a gym but should have a "Peoples Palace". The size of the space and facilities was above and beyond a purely utilitarian approach. The Rec was designed ( the Atrium) as a public space.

The Rec was part of a larger political project to change post war Britain. Those politicians and architects who designed this had direct knowledge of the 30s and WW2. The Rec was part of the post war Welfare State. Mass Council house building was part of this. And the Welfare State was not about , as it now is seen, about shirkers vs strivers. It was a collective project  Listening now to a programme on radio that shows that health is a collective issue. Or as its now put "wellbeing". Which is a term that depoliticises what is about reducing inequality in case it scares off middle England.

This now is seen as utopian. But its why when the Council were thinking of getting rid of the Rec there was uproar. The same kind of  people ( in my opinion) ,who are sceptical of new planned improvements and opposed NR plans to "regenerate" the arches,turned up to give Cllr Lib Peck a barracking when they felt there Rec was threatened- and what it represented to them. Its what CH1 was suggesting- If I read his post correctly.

So people are not always against improvements. Its the political and economic context they are done in that matters. Now its one where Neo Liberalism is the orthodoxy. The "free market" rules. As posters have said above improvements now mean the property owners can make a bigger profit. Its an orthodoxy our New Labour Council accepts as a given. It being the heirs of Blairism.

But I can agree this can have perverse effects. As up at LJ and the road closure. A poor area with low car ownership opposed plans to stop middle class commuters from the leafy south London from coming through there estate every morning and evening. If the Council had sold this on basis that its stopping the above it might have had a better chance of being supported. But this is New Labour. So they said it would help to make LJ a "destination". 

So improvements that could be argued benefit the working class ( who are less likely to own cars and depend on public transport) are now seen as helping to push the working class out.


----------



## Winot (Sep 6, 2016)

Good post Gramsci. I think we (by which I mean I) forget the power of politics over logic (hence Brexit too).


----------



## teuchter (Sep 6, 2016)

But do or don't we agree there *is* a logic in saying that certain "improvements" are against the interests of poorer residents, because of consequential effects which negate their benefits for those same people?

This is a different issue from that of how proposed changes are perceived according to political context. That's a significant issue but not really what I am mainly trying to look at here.

The council using different language to describe proposals can change perception but it can't address the problem of improved public realm environments contributing to a pricing-out of less wealthy locals (if we think that problem is a real one).


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2016)

Two articles from the Evening Standard property porn pages. Today two page of why Cycling Quietways are good for property prices. 



> says Rebecca May of Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward. “For example, we expect Earlsfield, part of the Clapham to Wimbledon Quietway, *to get a boost*.



A "boost" in slimy estate agent language means increase in property values.

And here is the article about Boris bike docking stations I posted about earlier.




> “And landlords are buying more  buy-to-let properties close to docking  stations because they get good rent  and  fewer void periods,” says Stephen Ludlow of estate agent Ludlow Thompson.



 Quietways were going to be part of the LJ "improvements" in the long term. Part of making it a "destination". Reading these ES articles can make me understand why the working class on the Loughborough Estate wanted none of this.

And I am saying this as someone who is a cyclist.

Until this is sorted out there is going to be opposition from working class neighbourhoods to these "improvements".


----------



## Winot (Sep 7, 2016)

But how can it be sorted out?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2016)

Winot said:


> But how can it be sorted out?



Eradicate property developers and buy to let merchants with extreme prejudice. Estate Agents deserve a good kicking.


----------



## Winot (Sep 7, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Eradicate property developers and buy to let merchants with extreme prejudice. Estate Agents deserve a good kicking.



So deal with the structural inequalities rather than keeping things crap? I'd sign up to that.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2016)

Winot said:


> But how can it be sorted out?



The point I am making in reply to Teuchter is that "improvements" under the present order are not for the good of all.

I am not trying to score points here. Its depressing that its come to this.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2016)

Winot said:


> So deal with the structural inequalities rather than keeping things crap? I'd sign up to that.



I agree with this but its not happening in the present political climate. As I tried to put forward in my post #99.

Given that I think its understandable that some people are pushed into the position of opposing improvements.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2016)

Winot said:


> But how can it be sorted out?



And the ES article on Quietways left me foaming at the mouth. This is not what its supposed to be about.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2016)

I can imagine that if the original road improvements in LJ had gone through ES would have put it in there article as place to buy.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 7, 2016)

teuchter said:


> But do or don't we agree there *is* a logic in saying that certain "improvements" are against the interests of poorer residents, because of consequential effects which negate their benefits for those same people?
> 
> This is a different issue from that of how proposed changes are perceived according to political context. That's a significant issue but not really what I am mainly trying to look at here.
> 
> The council using different language to describe proposals can change perception but it can't address the problem of improved public realm environments contributing to a pricing-out of less wealthy locals (if we think that problem is a real one).




I'm still not completely sure what you're asking or trying to look at.  You can't remove it from context.  And perception is important. How we perceive the world matters.  Our brains can't process every visual stimulus that comes our way so we construct our visual world, ignoring some things, looking for patterns, filling in gaps. What we perceive is not a faithful representation of the visual world so you get optical illusions.  Our understanding of the world we live can't take in every variable, every political  motivation, every possible outcome,  so our brain constructs a world map, an overview of the context we live in  and makes decisions on this this basis. 

  Are street improvements good? Yes.  But without other improvements the results are lopsided and can actually cause unintended consequences (or intended but covert ones) 

Is working out at the gym good?  Yes.  Gym equipment and a personal trainer at your disposal.  But if the gym equipment is designed to be 'right handed' so only your right side can be exercised, and there is no pilates classes, no aerobic exercise then what use is your pumped up right side?  "Oh, my right side is in the peak of physical health.  Feel my bicep. Go on. My heart hasn't benefited at all and actually the lack of balance between my honed and toned right side and my weak and spindly left side has caused me lots of problems with my lower back and hips, not to mention my shoulders.Overall I feel worse than before I started but hey, feel my bicep".


----------



## madolesance (Sep 7, 2016)

Winot said:


> But how can it be sorted out?



The working class could get on their bikes.
After all it worked in the 50's and 60's.

Now it's a become about car owner ship and the right to own the road.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Estate Agents deserve a good kicking.


too little too late


----------



## Winot (Sep 8, 2016)

madolesance said:


> The working class could get on their bikes.
> After all it worked in the 50's and 60's.
> 
> Now it's a become about car owner ship and the right to own the road.



Cycling benefits everyone!


----------



## Rushy (Sep 8, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Estate Agents deserve a good kicking.


Harmens got turfed out of the arches. Good, bad or conflicted?


----------



## aka (Sep 8, 2016)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> At least you could go out getting some gnarly board time


get a tow-in off yer mate's jetski and busk it Laird Hamilton styleeee


----------



## aka (Sep 8, 2016)

teuchter said:


> What are the relative sizes of the pot of money allocated to these kinds of street improvements and the pot of money allocated to council housing improvements? Why do you think it's disproportionate?


those pots of money are not related - that is not how local govt funding works.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Sep 8, 2016)

As Gramsci says: it's depressing that it comes to this. That the least advantaged people feel they have to / would rather put up with inaccessible facilities (in the public realm) and a range of other inconveniences and unpleasantnesses because having decent, even legal standards, brings the worse evil: higher prices.

This is exactly contrary to how monies for public, civic amenities should be.

To state the obvious.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 8, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Local shops, serving local needs, on a pedestrianised street vs. the same local shops serving local needs on a street with heavy traffic and cluttered pavements. Which environment is more amenable to the customers of those shops?
> 
> I've made it pretty clear throughout the thread that I'm aware of the argument that improving the public realm can attract different people and businesses which have economic consequences for those already living there.
> 
> I am attempting to get an answer to the question of whether the improvements themselves - in this case we are discussing pedestrianisation - are disproportionately attractive to one group of people over another. I want to separate out that question, from the one about consequencial effects on the businesses that then develop on such streets, to try and see to what extent we do or don't agree.


  I'm still not sure exactly what you are asking. And I'm not sure that Brixton has ever been especially crap - well no more than the average state of London crap anyway. I've always prefered London crap to small town crap anyway. I believe the quality of the built environment and our public spaces affects our health and wellbeing. The removal of the fencing along Brixton high rd and widening of the pavements a few years back seemed to be a good thing for shoppers and pedestrians - but poor air quality due to slow/ standing traffic isn't such a good thing after all. The problem of traffic and pollution is a whole city/national issue, rather than a local one. I think its exacerbated by the raising cost /unreliability of public transport, increased number of personal deliveries and the fact that so few people can afford to live near their workplace.  

Although I'm not and never have been a car driver, and I'm not fan of car pollution and noise I've found in general
 that pedestrianisation generally takes some sort of life out of the area. There is something about crowds and traffic that can make a lone female pedestrian feel safe. They pedestrianised my home town - and now its a soulless place to shop and a really eerie place to wait for a bus in the evening. I'm not sure what the answer is, but don't think imposing unpopular schemes on local people is a good response.



teuchter said:


> But do or don't we agree there *is* a logic in saying that certain "improvements" are against the interests of poorer residents, because of consequential effects which negate their benefits for those same people?


As I can see 'improvements' to Brixton market/arches are not for the benefit of the existing existing traders nor their customers, and I'm not sure who they do benefit. Lambeth Council are a slimey bunch who a lot of people don't trust through personal experience - so why trust what they say about 'improvements'.  The 'regeneration' of council housing estates is a misnomer - and seems to be for the benefit of property developers and people with enough cash to buy their luxury developments, not for the existing tenants or Lambeth tax payer.  



> The council using different language to describe proposals can change perception but it can't address the problem of improved public realm environments contributing to a pricing-out of less wealthy locals (if we think that problem is a real one)


Well I do think its a real problem. But it would take far longer than I have now to detail why. 

I'm worried that although my home is secure and they can't get rid of me, the area around me is becoming so affluent that it becoming more and more like chelsea or notting hill. I'm already socialising out of the area more and more for economy and to meet people I relate to, I hope I won't have to shop elsewhere too. 

Will Brixton be the sort of place where I have the choice of several dozen place to buy a cup of coffee - but nowhere to buy a roll of lino or a light bulb? I think we've gone beyond the tipping point on that one.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 8, 2016)

madolesance said:


> The working class could get on their bikes.
> After all it worked in the 50's and 60's.
> 
> Now it's a become about car owner ship and the right to own the road.



This reminds me of someone up at LJ- think bimble posted on this- who said they needed a car to get children to school. Gangs and "postcodes" meant it was a safety issue.

I walked to school. As did most of the children in the working class area of Plymouth I grew up in. This was in the pre Thatcherite era. Not to get misty eyed and nostalgic about it but everyone had a job. Housing wasn’t great but affordable. There was a sense of community. People had there shops and the pub was a pub with beers that one could afford.

Recently was reading about housing in Plymouth. Caught my eye as I came from there. Talked of knocking down and "regenerating"  a crime ridden estate with a lot of social problems. Was not like that when I was there.

As with the rest of this country Plymouth working class lost out post 80s. Its not that the working class should get on there bikes. What they would like is a return to what they had in the 60s and 70s.Its like that time was on another planet.

Have friend in London from Wales. Whose experience is similar.

And the centre of Plymouth was totally rebuilt after WW2. ( Heavily bombed in the war). This was not seen as "gentrification". The word was not used then. Remember using the affordable cafes and shops there. Another example of how improvements need to be put in the social and political context there are made in.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 8, 2016)

Rushy said:


> Harmens got turfed out of the arches. Good, bad or conflicted?



None of the above. I opposed all the shops in the arches being pushed out. 

I don’t think anyone who opposed NR picked or choose which business to support or not.


----------



## bimble (Sep 8, 2016)

Yep, I heard that a couple of times from local people during the road closures, people saying they felt they had no choice but to drive their kids to school to keep them safe. Very sad .


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 8, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I walked to school. As did most of the children in the working class area of Plymouth I grew up in. This was in the pre Thatcherite era. Not to get misty eyed and nostalgic about it but everyone had a job. Housing wasn’t great but affordable. There was a sense of community. People had there shops and the pub was a pub with beers that one could afford.



Remember, when we were little most children walked to school - but those schools were nearby and the streets were 'safe' precisely because the streets were full of children and more importantantly there was fewer cars - so streets were safer. Lots of older children rode bikes to school - but roads had less traffic to compete with.  obviously I'm talking about a long time ago here, dinosaurs roaming the earth etc)

Lambeth have been selling off schools all over the borough for years. Am I right in thinking that a while ago there were NO secondary schools in Lambeth  so most secondary school children attend schools in other boroughs so have to travel, and so a lot of extra car journeys happen. Don't think there is any council/london/national policy to addressing all this extra school traffic is there? other than the obligatory _don't park here_ makings outside all schools, that make them look like odd, dangerous places and seem to be often ignored.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 9, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> None of the above. I opposed all the shops in the arches being pushed out.
> 
> I don’t think anyone who opposed NR picked or choose which business to support or not.


How is that none of the above? If you don't think that anyone would have been pushed out, surely the answer is that it is"bad" that they were pushed out? 

But then, they are estate agents who deserve a good kicking. They apparently got one. So why is it bad?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 9, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> This reminds me of someone up at LJ- think bimble posted on this- who said they needed a car to get children to school. Gangs and "postcodes" meant it was a safety issue.


I wonder if once a parent has a car they feel obliged to use it to take the kids to school and go to Tescos, Lidl and other car-park equipped local supermarkets. Reason - they think they are only getting value for money out of their car if they use it.

P.S. Quite a lot of children walk to school going from Loughborough Estate area to the Evelyn Grace Academy in Loughborough Park (going via Barrington Road). The Moorlands Rd/Coldharbour Lane traffic light pedestrians phase gets well utilised around 8.30 am.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 9, 2016)

Rushy said:


> How is that none of the above? If you don't think that anyone would have been pushed out, surely the answer is that it is"bad" that they were pushed out?
> 
> But then, they are estate agents who deserve a good kicking. They apparently got one. So why is it bad?


Surely you can accept that one could be opposed to forced eviction without making a forensic examination of people;s business methods.

Are you in fact moving towards a statement that the end justifies the means?


----------



## alex_ (Sep 9, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Two articles from the Evening Standard property porn pages. Today two page of why Cycling Quietways are good for property prices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Estate agent always have a positive spin, they are in marketing - no matter what is happening - talk up the market.

This is why everyone hates them, even people in marketing.

Alex


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 10, 2016)

Rushy said:


> How is that none of the above? If you don't think that anyone would have been pushed out, surely the answer is that it is"bad" that they were pushed out?
> 
> But then, they are estate agents who deserve a good kicking. They apparently got one. So why is it bad?



As I said I opposed all the shopkeepers in the arches from being evicted by NR. At no time did I post up here that I wanted NR to give the estate agent there "a good kicking".

At no time did I pick and choose between the shopkeepers seeing who is more worthy of support than others.


----------



## Baron (Sep 15, 2016)




----------



## technical (Sep 19, 2016)

Coming late to this thread.

Its come to something if people are arguing that they don’t want improvements to buildings and public realm, simply on the basis that this will fuel gentrification. Why shouldn’t all of us who live in or visit Brixton be able to take advantage of an attractive, well-designed town centre – just like others who live in more ‘affluent’ areas are able to? Lack of investment in the town centre over many years is one reason (of many) why perhaps Brixton suffered from misconceptions historically.

All town centres need regular investment – the alternative would be for buildings to fall apart and places to become dysfunctional. And its not physical improvements to places that drive gentrification – these kind of effects are symptoms of much wider economic and demographic forces as landlords and owners seek to take advantage of restricted supply.

While we’ve had demographic change in Brixton for a while, physical change to the built environment hasn’t caught up. Beyond whether or not you think the proposals for Atlantic Rd are a good idea, the town centre is much busier now than it has been for a long time. Another reason to look at how roads, pavements and buildings can be remodelled to make sure they’re safe, easy to use and functional.

Totally appreciate lots of people are uneasy about how property trends are manifesting themselves in Brixton – can’t say I’m overly keen about a lot of it myself – but to prefer the status quo rather than new investment won’t make much of a difference I don’t think.

As for the points about pedestrianisation working against traditional retail – is there any evidence for this? I can think of lots of places across the country where pedestrianised town and city centres work well and contain plenty of conventional retail.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 20, 2016)

Gentrification is primarily driven by bigger things than improvements to the local public realm. That said, we still have to recognise that those improvements can contribute to the process. But for me the question becomes whether that negative effect (how do we even quantify it?) is significant enough that it outweighs the positive effects of an improved public realm that everyone can enjoy.

I really struggle to accept the notion that anything that "improves" the area should be resisted, on the basis that it might assist in processes of gentrification. Because following that logic, don't we end up saying, for example, that parks shouldn't be maintained, or that we should welcome libraries closing?

Each proposal for "improvement" has to be looked at on its own merits. We have to try and decide whether the benefits it brings are disproportionately apply to one group of people over others. If it is something that improves the environment for people with a lot of money to spend, but not for those without, then there is a reasonable case for resisting it. This is why, earlier in the thread, I was trying to ask for examples of public realm improvements that fall into that category.

Pedestrianisation was given as an example. But as technical asks above - is there actually evidence to support such a broad statement? St Johns Rd, Clapham Junction was given as a specific example. I was there a couple of days ago and thinking of this thread, but looking at the shops on that stretch of road, it's hardly true to say that it's packed with exclusive retail or pretentious cafes. It's a fairly bog standard high street. In actual fact, to find most of the more expensive shops and pavement cafes you have to continue up and onto Northcote Rd which isn't pedestrianised. Why's that? I'm sure the reasons are complex but the cafes and bars are probably something to do with the wider pavements which means that businesses have space to put tables outside.

It's simplistic to say that pedestrianisation in itself facilitates gentrification or mainly benefits only the more affluent. You have to look more specifically at the particular situation. It might well be that a pedestrianisation scheme which makes part of the new space available to outside seating for cafes and restaurants does indeed end up benefitting the more affluent, and pushing out "traditional retail". But a design (yes, also a political) decision could be made when implementing that pedestrianisation that the newly freed-up space is - for example - instead used for planting and public seating that everyone can use, including, say, older people who might like the opportunity to sit down at some point whilst doing their shopping but were previously forced to battle through crowded pavements and try and cross a busy road full of traffic.

So that's why I get frustrated when I see schemes proposing things like pedestrianisation or improved cycle routes jumped upon automatically as sinister gentrification schemes. There might be many cases where there's a good reason to argue against a pedestrianisation scheme but it would make much more sense to argue for the details of the proposal to be changed, than to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is exactly what happened with the LJ road proposals.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Gentrification is primarily driven by bigger things than improvements to the local public realm. That said, we still have to recognise that those improvements can contribute to the process. But for me the question becomes whether that negative effect (how do we even quantify it?) is significant enough that it outweighs the positive effects of an improved public realm that everyone can enjoy.
> 
> I really struggle to accept the notion that anything that "improves" the area should be resisted, on the basis that it might assist in processes of gentrification. Because following that logic, don't we end up saying, for example, that parks shouldn't be maintained, or that we should welcome libraries closing?
> 
> ...



In LJ before the road closures experiment there was already a difference of opinion between LJAG and the people on the Estate. LJAG want to make LJ a "destination" the people from the estate said that ( an this was said to me personally) that LJ was "just somewhere you pass through".The idea behind that was making LJ a "destination" would contribute to gentrification. 

Remember pre road closures someone in one of the Arches saying the thing about LJAGs plans for LJ was that (unintentionally) they would lead to gentrification of the area.

Looking at the Council final draft of the LJ Masterplan I cannot help but thinking on one level is this not going to make the area nicer for developers and estate agents? Is it really going to benefit the people on the estate? Given whats happened in Brixton I would  be wary of planned "improvements" Despite years of consultation on Masterplans in Brixton ( I attended so know about) where we were promised that these plans would protect Brixton at the first serious hurdle ( the arches) they failed. In fact they were used as a justification. 

Ive given examples here of how cycling improvements contribute to an area becoming more desirable. Other posters have made similar comments based on there experience (boohoo).


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Ive given examples here of how cycling improvements contribute to an area becoming more desirable. Other posters have made similar comments based on there experience (boohoo).



So how do you resolve this in your mind? Do you now think cycling improvements should be resisted, in general?


----------



## newbie (Sep 21, 2016)

technical said:


> As for the points about pedestrianisation working against traditional retail – is there any evidence for this? I can think of lots of places across the country where pedestrianised town and city centres work well and contain plenty of conventional retail.



can you?   Even after dark?

I like visiting towns and cities, I like walking round them and looking at what I can see.  My observation is that after the major retailers have shut pedestrianised shopping areas are empty, soulless and and rather unwelcoming, sometimes intimidating. When the majors shut there's no incentive for smaller places to stay open, so the change is quite stark. The roads the planners left with traffic still bustle, partly because people can park to nip into a shop, partly because that's where walkers choose to go, rather than through the empty quarter.

Newer pedestrianised areas do seem to 'work well' for 'conventional retail' in the sense that the majors and multiples snap up the leases, presumably because they're profitable. Older ones are more variable, there are plenty of failures, really horrid places with only charity shops, bookies, voids and not much else where even during the day the footfall is minimal.

How are people to be encouraged back into a pedestrianised area once they've deserted it?  Shops on ordinary roads stand some chance of attracting passing trade, a single decent shop can attract enough to make it worth others clustering nearby- how can that work in a pedestrian precinct?

They're the kiss of death for an area, imo.  Planners and major retailers obviously don't agree.

Does organising our built environment around the interests of major retailers really count as an improvement?


ps, forgot to mention that St Johns Rd is not pedestrianised, it's been made buses only, which means it's still used in the evening.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2016)

newbie said:


> can you?   Even after dark?
> 
> I like visiting towns and cities, I like walking round them and looking at what I can see.  My observation is that after the major retailers have shut pedestrianised shopping areas are empty, soulless and and rather unwelcoming, sometimes intimidating. When the majors shut there's no incentive for smaller places to stay open, so the change is quite stark. The roads the planners left with traffic still bustle, partly because people can park to nip into a shop, partly because that's where walkers choose to go, rather than through the empty quarter.
> 
> ...



You seem to be saying that pedestrianised areas are dead in the evening because the only people who want to use shops in the evening are people who want to drive to the shops. Is that right? Are you talking about London here? Or are you talking about places with limited public transport?

Yes shops benefit from passing trade. If we are arguing that the principle source of passing trade is car drivers, then there's something wrong because we shouldn't be designing cities around the interests of drivers. The deserted pedestrianised centres you talk about are generally in places where planning decisions have allowed retail to move to out-of-town retail parks which are completely designed around the convenience of car drivers. And there is not adequate public transport provided to the "real" centre, particularly in the evenings. The cause of this situation is not the act of pedestrianisation but the failure to do so as part of a wider, thought-through strategy.

Let's not forget that those who have no option but to rely on public transport are the less well-off. If they are lucky there might be an infrequent "shopper" bus service to the local retail park. A trip to the out-of-town supermarket might take hours and unlike the car owners they can't buy in the quantity that fits in a car boot - they are still restricted by what can be carried from the bus stop to their front door. Shops nearer to them are less likely to survive because of competition from the big places out of town. Likewise for shops in the "old" centre - ie the location where it makes sense for public transport to converge, and where the infrastructure for that transport already exists.

In London we are lucky enough that we have a viable public transport system - that runs into the evenings. As you say, St Johns Rd remains busy in the evenings despite being closed to cars, because it is accessible by bus. Similarly I can think of many continental European towns and cities that have widely pedestrianised centres which don't feel deserted at night. Because people can get to, and around, them without driving. There is proper public transport and these cities tend to have a wider strategy that favours pedestrians and cyclists.

In Britain, unfortunately, we have completely messed up many of our towns outside of London by planning strategies that favour car drivers. In some of these places, yes, pedestrianised streets can feel intimidating. Why? Simply because no-one is around. Why is no-one around? Because most people get around in their private cars. What's the solution - to allow the cars back onto those roads, making everything even more convenient for their drivers, or to have a proper planning strategy that invests in public transport and other measures that make streets more attractive to those using that public transport - those people that become pedestrians once they get of the train or bus?

Anyway, I am going off topic. In London we already have decent public transport and the problems with pedestrianisation that might exist elsewhere aren't present.

Are there examples of pedestrianisation in London which have supposedly created dead streets?


----------



## newbie (Sep 21, 2016)

teuchter said:


> You seem to be saying that pedestrianised areas are dead in the evening because the only people who want to use shops in the evening are people who want to drive to the shops. Is that right?


of course not.  Pedestrianised areas are dead at night because no-one wants to use them. People in cars are just a subset of that. However it's pretty obvious that people using their cars in the evening park briefly in order to pop into shops.



> Are there examples of pedestrianisation in London which have supposedly created dead streets?


I'll need to think about that.  The post I replied to mentioned 'lots of places across the country'.


----------



## Winot (Sep 21, 2016)

newbie said:


> of course not.  Pedestrianised areas are dead at night because no-one wants to use them. People in cars are just a subset of that. However it's pretty obvious that people using their cars in the evening park briefly in order to pop into shops.



Pedestrianised areas are dead at night if they are shopping streets. Because the shops are shut. Shopping streets which are on roads have cars going down those roads, but the concept of passing trade doesn't really apply if the shops are shut.

Streets which have lots of bars/pubs/restaurants are busier at night, no matter whether they are pedestrianised or not.


----------



## technical (Sep 21, 2016)

technical said:


> As for the points about pedestrianisation working against traditional retail – is there any evidence for this? I can think of lots of places across the country where pedestrianised town and city centres work well and contain plenty of conventional retail.





newbie said:


> can you?   Even after dark?
> 
> I like visiting towns and cities, I like walking round them and looking at what I can see.  My observation is that after the major retailers have shut pedestrianised shopping areas are empty, soulless and and rather unwelcoming, sometimes intimidating. When the majors shut there's no incentive for smaller places to stay open, so the change is quite stark. The roads the planners left with traffic still bustle, partly because people can park to nip into a shop, partly because that's where walkers choose to go, rather than through the empty quarter.
> 
> ...



Your point about after dark is a slightly different issue - what I was trying to say, in response to the point about pedestrianisation working against traditional retail, is that I'm not sure there's any evidence to back that up. I can think of several places I've been in over the last year or so where pedestrianising (or at least restricting vehicle access to) *part *of the city centre works well IMO - Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow city centres. On a smaller scale Kendal and Weston super Mare also have pedestrianised bits of the town centre that help 'traditional' retail - although in the case of Kendal I appreciate this is probably down to location of the town itself more than anything. Its a while since I've been there but Brighton is another one. Where pedestrianisation is done well I think it helps attracts shoppers/visitors and its not the pedestrianisation per se that leads to cafe culture. 

The point about lack of people 'after dark' is more about range of uses and the health of the local economy I think - some of them are dead, no question (Cabot Circus in Bristol springs to mind on the one occasion I've been there). But town centres are struggling in general for lots of reasons.


----------



## newbie (Sep 21, 2016)

technical said:


> Where pedestrianisation is done well I think it helps attracts shoppers/visitors and its not the pedestrianisation per se that leads to cafe culture.



Maybe not but it helps: Station Rd is mostly traffic free during the day and is full of cafes, Atlantic isn't and isn't.


----------



## Winot (Sep 21, 2016)

newbie said:


> Maybe not but it helps: Station Rd is mostly traffic free during the day and is full of cafes, Atlantic isn't and isn't.



Very good local examples: Station Rd is much more pleasant than Atlantic Rd because it is pedestrianised. And it is not (yet) gentrified - the pedestrianisation happened a long time before the gentrification was a gleam in Jack Hopkins' eye and plenty of good ordinary cafes and shops have benefited from it.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 21, 2016)

Winot said:


> the pedestrianisation happened a long time before the gentrification was a gleam in Jack Hopkins' eye and plenty of good ordinary cafes and shops have benefited from it


....and then lo, along came Pop and Network Rail and flashing pound signs lit up the area


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2016)

teuchter said:


> So how do you resolve this in your mind? Do you now think cycling improvements should be resisted, in general?



At this point in time Im not able to resolve it. 

Seems to me that its become more of an issue now as gentrification is now eating up areas that had been left alone. 

As the case of  Brixton Station Road outside the Rec pedestrianised. No one objected to that when it came in. 

I can imagine that if the same was suggested now for Atlantic road there will be objections.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Are there examples of pedestrianisation in London which have supposedly created dead streets?



I go up to see my friend in Walthamstow as unlike Brixton they have a cheap cinema there. The Empire. Basic multiplex but screens are good.

Walthamstow lacked a cinema for some years. It new and built in the the now pedestrianised High Street. Been there a few times. The cinema is ok. But leaving it Saturday evening and the area is a bit dead. Unless you are into drinking- which my friend is not. Not against pedestrianisation but the whole area felt a bit dead in evening. it felt dark and an uninviting unless you were there to spend a lot of money. Even then it looked pretty dead to me. Most coffee bars were closed. Only Pizza Express open. A few late night clubs/ pubs were getting going. Unlike central London like Soho area. Where coffee bars stay open all night in Old Compton street on weekends.

It partly the culture in this country - shopping / drinking/ restaurants . Its heavily consumerist. You need money to do it.

A place where pedestrianisation ( not even cycles allowed) has worked is Lisle street in Chinatown. Partly as the road has been done like on Brixton Station road. Much more pleasant to walk around. This was stuck between Leicester sq and Gerrard street ( pedestrianised some time ago). Lisle street and the bottom of Wardour are now open to traffice ( delivery lorries mainly) until midday when its closed for rest of day. This works well. It is however all restaurants. Nothing else.

Personally I  would prefer to see cycle routes / pedestrianisation as part of move away from the dog eat dog capitalism that people have to live in. Utopian as that is. A friend of mine took her relatives to central London to see the sights. As she said a lot of central London is not that nice to be in. Its full of traffic, everyone is under pressure to get to next meeting , deliver something. The traffic is a symptom of how capitalism works - chaotic, damaging the environment and putting people under pressure in a situation they dont control. Whilst giving them the illusion that they have independence. The way that green routes, pedestrianisation etc has been co opted by profit makers ( see my posts about the ES ) is also a symptom of how capitalism co opts ideas to pursue profit.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2016)

This radio programme is relevant. Heard it last week its online



> The battle in big cities continues: how do you keep cars out to cut congestion and reduce pollution? Chris Ledgard visits Paris and Barcelona to explore two different approaches. In Paris, the mayor's office wants to ban the most polluting cars, and coloured stickers are being introduced to help the authorities determine which vehicles can enter the city centre. Meanwhile, more and more Paris residents are turning to the electric car-sharing scheme, Autolib. We hear how it works. In Barcelona, urban ecologists are adapting the famous grid system designed by Ildefons Cerda to create 'superblocks' - large traffic-free spaces across the city where the sound of traffic is only distantly heard. Chris talks to the scheme's inventor, Salvador Rueda, and hears about his vision for Spain's second biggest city.



Paris focussed on electric cars for hire. Moving to replace car ownership with using cars when needed. The system in Paris has been set up to be cheap to use for short city journeys and easily available. Deliberately cheap for reasons of social equity. This is not just for the well off. Works like Boris bikes. No need for a membership like some off the schemes here. Like Zip Cars. One of the mistakes in this country is that these improvements are seen to benefit the better off. Or only realistically accessible by the better off.  The Paris electric cars are designed to be used by all - not just the well off.If this attitude was used here there would be more support for improvements.

Barcelona - they are doing there own version of the dutch planning ideas ( as used in Walthamstow). Keeping main roads for traffic and closing side roads to create "superblocks".

Both interesting ideas. The one in Barcelona does appear to be top down. The local government has just got on with it. Its new so as yet not much info how how people feel about it and how wellit works.


----------



## newbie (Sep 22, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> A place where pedestrianisation ( not even cycles allowed) has worked is Lisle street in Chinatown. Partly as the road has been done like on Brixton Station road. Much more pleasant to walk around. This was stuck between Leicester sq and Gerrard street ( pedestrianised some time ago). Lisle street and the bottom of Wardour are now open to traffice ( delivery lorries mainly) until midday when its closed for rest of day. This works well. It is however all restaurants. Nothing else.



Lisle St feels like it's been Disneyfied to me.  It used to be a very earthy, working street, now it's for tourists.

It would be an exaggeration to say the same is true of Station Rd, but not by much.  It's been moving away from being a working street and towards being a leisure destination at least since they moved the junk stalls from the other end. A remnant of that change, the hardware shop, looks ever more out of place.  Whenever that was it predates Hopkins, can't remember if it coincided with the daytime pedestrianisation.  While each of the various cafes and Pop appeal to slightly different demographics, overall it's becoming the preserve of those who want to spend their disposable income sitting and chatting or perhaps buying fripperies. Not so different from Northcote Rd in that respect, but with greater tourism potential.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2016)

newbie I'm confused about what your point is. Earlier you were blaming the desertion of town centres on pedestrianisation, now it's responsible for a proliferation of people sitting around and spending money. It seems like pedestrianisation is becoming the fall guy for other more significant factors to me. Station Rd doesn't really work as an example of pedestrianisation leading to gentrification because right on the other side of the line is atlantic rd which is where the chain operations and upmarket bars have actually started appearing first - Wahaca, Brindisa, Eckovision, Wine Parlour etc etc. And Northcote Rd isn't pedestrianised.


----------



## newbie (Sep 22, 2016)

teuchter said:


> newbie I'm confused about what your point is. Earlier you were blaming the desertion of town centres on pedestrianisation, now it's responsible for a proliferation of people sitting around and spending money.



why do you think I have a single, consistent point? Or that every clause of every post is there to build a case?  

my first post on this thread related to "_traditional retail .... lots of places across the country_", in which I attributed the evening emptiness of pedestrianised shopping streets to pedestrianisation. The latest follows on from the discussion.  

I'm aware that Northcote Road is not pedestrianised, thanks. I'm also aware it used to be a thriving street market with accompanying day-to-day household shops; that the remaining stalls are some sort of chocolate box pastiche; that there is very little traffic these days; that (in the stretch I was thinking of) there are plentiful cafes with tables on the pavement where people with disposable income sit and chat; that many of the remaining shops sell stuff best described as fripperies. Maybe you missed those parallels because the road signs aren't exactly the same?  There are differences between NR and SR, of course there are.  There are also similarities.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2016)

Well, broadly, we have been discussing pedestrianisation and to what extent it is really or necessarily a causal factor in gentrification processes. If you are just offering commentary that there are pedestrianised streets and unpedestrianised streets, but making no consistent point about how this might be related to gentrification or other matters, fair enough.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2016)

newbie said:


> Lisle St feels like it's been Disneyfied to me.  It used to be a very earthy, working street, now it's for tourists.
> 
> It would be an exaggeration to say the same is true of Station Rd, but not by much.  It's been moving away from being a working street and towards being a leisure destination at least since they moved the junk stalls from the other end. A remnant of that change, the hardware shop, looks ever more out of place.  Whenever that was it predates Hopkins, can't remember if it coincided with the daytime pedestrianisation.  While each of the various cafes and Pop appeal to slightly different demographics, overall it's becoming the preserve of those who want to spend their disposable income sitting and chatting or perhaps buying fripperies. Not so different from Northcote Rd in that respect, but with greater tourism potential.





newbie said:


> Lisle St feels like it's been Disneyfied to me.  It used to be a very earthy, working street, now it's for tourists.
> 
> It would be an exaggeration to say the same is true of Station Rd, but not by much.  It's been moving away from being a working street and towards being a leisure destination at least since they moved the junk stalls from the other end. A remnant of that change, the hardware shop, looks ever more out of place.  Whenever that was it predates Hopkins, can't remember if it coincided with the daytime pedestrianisation.  While each of the various cafes and Pop appeal to slightly different demographics, overall it's becoming the preserve of those who want to spend their disposable income sitting and chatting or perhaps buying fripperies. Not so different from Northcote Rd in that respect, but with greater tourism potential.



I think the difference in demographics between those who used the cafes in the arches in Britain Station Road and Pop was large. In terms of ethnic composition and income.One of the reasons NR plans were opposed was that was the last bit of affordable Brixton. 

It does give example where pedestrianisation does no have to lead to gentrification. 

People need good and affordable public spaces. For a few years this worked in Brixton Station Road. 

The pedestrianisation of the road worked well with the Rec. Another public space designed when it was thought that people should have good public spaces.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 22, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> It does give example where pedestrianisation does no have to lead to gentrification



except it did in the long run as we are now seeing, would the craft beer co and boom burger have plotted up in a street that wasn't pedestrianised I ask myself.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> except it did in the long run as we are now seeing, would the craft beer co and boom burger have plotted up in a street that wasn't pedestrianised I ask myself.



I know but the interesting case of Brixton Station Road is that no one complained about it in these terms when it was first pedestrianised.

I am seeing this in Soho. Had a most aggravating experience today. One of the new shop units in Broadwick street has just opened. (Broadwick street was redone with nice cobbles recently. )It appears to be a shoe and accessory shop. So trendy that the sign for who its run by is tiny. Obviously one has to be in the know to go there. Like the newish Supreme shop around the corner. I was standing by in my usual spot. Thought I really cant stomach this. The oh so hip music was blaring out. The staff are so trendy they do not look like hipsters. Hearing bits of conversation of people going in and out. Its like a private club for those in the know. Big unit painted white with about 10 pairs of shoes and half a dozen bags placed artistically around the massive unit.

Curiously the homeless who had camped up for some time by where I hang out have been moved on. This coincided with the opening of the new shop. Funny that. Saw they had pitched up there tent outside an empty shop on Soho square by the building site. So not used much at the moment.

Another aggravating experience last week. An old guy who lives in a hostel begs in West end. He is ok , not a drinker , the cops leave him alone. I chat with him and give him a bit of money. Unfortunately the spot he uses is near the entrance to some new Penthouse flats built above the shops. Which I know were going for 5 million. He had to move because one of the rich vermin living in one of the Penthouses complained about having beggar outside.Gave him a load of abuse a few days ago.

As my van driver friend said London is becoming for the rich. Its coming to Brixton now ( on a smaller scale but just as bad). I wouldnt say its down to pedestrianisation. Its down to this shit society we live in.

But you cant say anything. Rich = scum. Estate Agents= deserve a kicking. Say that and ( not saying you) one gets criticised.

Estate Agents. Few weeks ago in my spot in Broadwick street a small group of people stopped near me. It was an Estate Agent showing people around the nearly finished units. Said they were getting "high end" retailers in and an "upmarket" restaurant. Nothing to common then.  The long standing chemist on the corner went recently. Could not afford the rent anymore. More room for a "high end" retailer.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 23, 2016)

One of the least "gentrified" streets in Brixton is pedestrian Electric Avenue.

Gentrification will no doubt come (it's being smartened up as we speak). And when it does it may eventually become the poshest street in Brixton, because of the handsome and fairly unique architecture. But no one can say that it was its pedestrianisation which kicked it off. Or that pedestrianisation hasn't served retailers and shoppers at the lower end of the economic spectrum well for a long time.

Incidentally, it is remarkably dead at night.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 23, 2016)

newbie said:


> why do you think I have a single, consistent point? Or that every clause of every post is there to build a case?


I do like this paragraph!


----------



## newbie (Sep 23, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Well, broadly, we have been discussing pedestrianisation and to what extent it is really or necessarily a causal factor in gentrification processes. If you are just offering commentary that there are pedestrianised streets and unpedestrianised streets, but making no consistent point about how this might be related to gentrification or other matters, fair enough.



commentary, yes I suppose so.  Should one always advance a case when commenting, always have something to prove?  I don't really see any need to have a single, principled view on whether pedestrianisation is causal or even necessarily related to gentrification.  I can observe that there are bleak and empty pedestrianised 'traditional' shopping precincts on the one hand and clearly gentrified pedestrianised streets on the other.  You mentioned the new upmarket places in congested Atlantic Rd, Rushy has now contrasted that with long-term tatty pedestrianised Electric Avenue yet all over Brixton unpedestrianised streets have gentrified at an alarming rate. But to deny that pedestrianisation can be a component of the changes would be ridiculous.



Gramsci said:


> I think the difference in demographics between those who used the cafes in the arches in Britain Station Road and Pop was large. In terms of ethnic composition and income.One of the reasons NR plans were opposed was that was the last bit of affordable Brixton.


I was trying to draw out that the cafe culture behaviour is similar, despite the economic or demographic differences in clientele. That culture is popular, but not universally so, it doesn't appeal to everyone irrespective of their disposable income. So while some people like a public space for sitting and chatting, others don't make the time, whether or not they could afford to. There certainly seems to be plenty of money in it, eateries, cafes and  watering holes are apparently flourishing at the moment, and colonising new spaces where cafe culture can thrive.

Is that gentrification? not necessarily but it can certainly be one of the drivers.  In Granville and Market Row it is, in Lisle St it is, I'd suggest that on one side of Station Road it is, and that dates back to San Marino taking over the old Lambeth BS office. The other side, where not so long ago there were far fewer cafes with tables on the pavement, well it's hard to argue it's full on gentrification but equally hard to say there's not a hint.

Is cafe culture more of a feature, or perhaps precursor, of gentrification than pedestrianisation?  Can anyone think of a street lined with cafes with pavement tables that is not gentrifying, or already very wealthy?  Apart from perhaps on the prom at seaside resort.  Does anyone doubt that when the first cafe with tables outside appears on Electric Avenue that will mark a turning point in the process?


----------



## Rushy (Sep 23, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> But you cant say anything. Rich = scum. Estate Agents= deserve a kicking. Say that and ( not saying you) one gets criticised.


I think what you perhaps mean is that you can't say anything on a feisty geographically local public forum without sometimes being challenged on it. Which is quite different to not being able to say anything, no?

Not being able to say anything would imply that you were under some sort of editorial or other threat of consequences if you posted off message. If that happened you might have just cause to complain about being silenced. Except that you probably wouldn't be allowed to complain!


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 23, 2016)

Rushy said:


> One of the least "gentrified" streets in Brixton is pedestrian Electric Avenue.
> _*
> Gentrification will no doubt come (it's being smartened up as we speak). And when it does it may eventually become the poshest street in Brixton, *_because of the handsome and fairly unique architecture. But no one can say that it was its pedestrianisation which kicked it off. Or that pedestrianisation hasn't served retailers and shoppers at the lower end of the economic spectrum well for a long time.
> 
> Incidentally, it is remarkably dead at night.


 can't argue with any of that, especially the bit in italics which is what the thread is about , ie improvements to the public realm made by local government and  paid for from public funds rather than simply pedestrian areas that have been around for ages, the second last sentence in the post seem to mean something along the lines "the lower orders can fuck off now and be grateful for the good times" or is that just me ?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 23, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> can't argue with any of that, especially the bit in italics which is what the thread is about , ie improvements to the public realm made by local government and  paid for from public funds rather than simply pedestrian areas that have been around for ages, the last sentence in the post seem to mean something along the lines "the lower orders can fuck off now and be grateful for the good times" or is that just me ?


I think it simply means it is remarkably dead at night. Presumably because as of now (and heretofore) the businesses there are all purely retail, and many of the flats above the shops are empty and derelict - despite 4 decades of hand-wringing by the council (and the Brixton Society et al).


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 23, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I think it simply means it is remarkably dead at night. Presumably because as of now (and heretofore) the businesses there are all purely retail, and many of the flats above the shops are empty and derelict - despite 4 decades of hand-wringing by the council (and the Brixton Society et al).



sorry post edited


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> sorry post edited


Seems like you read that meaning into 90% of everything written on here by "certain posters", so it doesn't actually matter which sentence you're talking about.


----------



## Angellic (Sep 23, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I think it simply means it is remarkably dead at night. Presumably because as of now (and heretofore) the businesses there are all purely retail, and many of the flats above the shops are empty and derelict - despite 4 decades of hand-wringing by the council (and the Brixton Society et al).



It's also rather gloomy with the dark and shabby steps and overhanging bit of the station. I suppose if it were cleaned up...


----------



## Rushy (Sep 23, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> can't argue with any of that, especially the bit in italics which is what the thread is about , ie improvements to the public realm made by local government and  paid for from public funds rather than simply pedestrian areas that have been around for ages, the last sentence in the post seem to mean something along the lines "the lower orders can fuck off now and be grateful for the good times" or is that just me ?


I expect it's just you and some posters.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2016)

newbie said:


> commentary, yes I suppose so.  Should one always advance a case when commenting, always have something to prove?  I don't really see any need to have a single, principled view on whether pedestrianisation is causal or even necessarily related to gentrification.  I can observe that there are bleak and empty pedestrianised 'traditional' shopping precincts on the one hand and clearly gentrified pedestrianised streets on the other.  You mentioned the new upmarket places in congested Atlantic Rd, Rushy has now contrasted that with long-term tatty pedestrianised Electric Avenue yet all over Brixton unpedestrianised streets have gentrified at an alarming rate. But to deny that pedestrianisation can be a component of the changes would be ridiculous.
> 
> 
> I was trying to draw out that the cafe culture behaviour is similar, despite the economic or demographic differences in clientele. That culture is popular, but not universally so, it doesn't appeal to everyone irrespective of their disposable income. So while some people like a public space for sitting and chatting, others don't make the time, whether or not they could afford to. There certainly seems to be plenty of money in it, eateries, cafes and  watering holes are apparently flourishing at the moment, and colonising new spaces where cafe culture can thrive.
> ...



The case of Brixton Station Road is an exception. The arches were taken over by North Africans and Portuguese. Cafe culture is not a fashion trend for them. For Portuguese Cafe Max is standard.

What is a new driver for gentrification in that part of Brixton is a cash strapped Council who see Network Rail as bringing large scale investment into Brixton. It will be the Council working with Network Rail who decide how that area is developed.

Another driver for gentrification is the power that large developers have. Behind the surface of gentrification is the pursuit of profit. Planning and elected Councils have been shown to be toothless. which is not a criticism of Council its how the system is set up to work.

It's underlying political issues like this that drive gentrification.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> can't argue with any of that, especially the bit in italics which is what the thread is about , ie improvements to the public realm made by local government and  paid for from public funds rather than simply pedestrian areas that have been around for ages, the second last sentence in the post seem to mean something along the lines "the lower orders can fuck off now and be grateful for the good times" or is that just me ?



You are right on this. 



> "the lower orders can fuck off now and be grateful for the good times"



Sums it up perfectly.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2016)

Rushy said:


> I expect it's just you and some posters.



No. Its the kind of view I hear a lot offline. Both here and in other parts of London. 

cuppa tee is voicing what I hear offline around central London.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2016)

newbie said:


> commentary, yes I suppose so.  Should one always advance a case when commenting, always have something to prove?  I don't really see any need to have a single, principled view on whether pedestrianisation is causal or even necessarily related to gentrification.  I can observe that there are bleak and empty pedestrianised 'traditional' shopping precincts on the one hand and clearly gentrified pedestrianised streets on the other.  You mentioned the new upmarket places in congested Atlantic Rd, Rushy has now contrasted that with long-term tatty pedestrianised Electric Avenue yet all over Brixton unpedestrianised streets have gentrified at an alarming rate. But to deny that pedestrianisation can be a component of the changes would be ridiculous.
> 
> 
> I was trying to draw out that the cafe culture behaviour is similar, despite the economic or demographic differences in clientele. That culture is popular, but not universally so, it doesn't appeal to everyone irrespective of their disposable income. So while some people like a public space for sitting and chatting, others don't make the time, whether or not they could afford to. There certainly seems to be plenty of money in it, eateries, cafes and  watering holes are apparently flourishing at the moment, and colonising new spaces where cafe culture can thrive.
> ...



What teuchter is saying , if I get T right, is that improving areas for the benefit of all is not necessarily linked to gentrification.

On this I agree with Teuchter.

Cycling home today thinking on your posts I remembered reading Mike Davis "Planet of Slums". The problem with urbanisation in last 30 years is that its been done with Neo Liberalism as the political and economic orthodoxy.

This was not always the case. He does not use examples from this country. But as I have said the Brixton Rec is an example. As I have already posted. Capitalism and Capitalists have a parasitical relationship with society. They look for new ways to make a profit. Its not the fault of Councils building pedestrianised areas. Its developers like NR coming along looking at "improvements" and seeing how they can use this to increase there business/profits.

Public spaces with affordable places for people to mix is not gentrification. Its only become that due to Thatcherite economics and values being considered the norm by the "middle ground". ie New Labour and the Cameronite Tories.

There is no reason why there should not be car free spaces for ordinary people.

My remedy , as I have intimated, is hammering the rich and powerful as well. Changing planning guidelines to make sure that locals have real influence, bringing in rent controls for retail and housing, stop selling off land and building Council housing, making 50% affordable social rented on all large private developments with no argument. Would like to know which posters oppose these suggestions. Its the lack of what I have suggested in this paragraph that leads to gentrification. Not a few cafes on Brixton Station Road.

You make it sound like its a natural process that having affordable cafes run by ethnic minorities is a precursor to gentrification. Its not. This happens due to political and related economic ideas that are not inevitable.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 24, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> No. Its the kind of view I hear a lot offline. Both here and in other parts of London.
> 
> cuppa tee is voicing what I hear offline around central London.


Just to clarify Gramsci, you agree with Cuppa that *my* post should be read as "the lower orders can fuck off now and be grateful for the good times" because you've heard people confirm that's what I meant all across London?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2016)

Rushy said:


> Just to clarify Gramsci, you agree with Cuppa that *my* post should be read as "the lower orders can fuck off now and be grateful for the good times" because you've heard people confirm that's what I meant all across London?



Yes.


----------



## Winot (Sep 24, 2016)

I've heard some people saying things in London too. Maybe we should start a separate thread.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 24, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Yes.



 One more time... all these people you have been chatting to across London have been agreeing with Cuppa's attribution of the sentiment "the lower orders can fuck off now and be grateful for the good times" to my post about pedestrianisation having worked well for the current traders on Electric Avenue?


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2016)

some of this I agree with, but some of it lacks shades of grey.



Gramsci said:


> What teuchter is saying , if I get T right, is that improving areas for the benefit of all is not necessarily linked to gentrification.
> 
> On this I agree with Teuchter.
> 
> ...



I don't have any problem with your paragraph of suggestions, though in the current climate all significant 'private developments' leave a bit of a sour taste.  But it's not those policy failures that lead to gentrification: they're lacking in Sunderland or Rochdale just as much as in Brixton. They were lacking in Brixton before gentrification really kicked off, back when investment was called regeneration and the local 'public realm' discussions were about fly-tipping, litter, sharps and dogmess.

An unholy (and politically/economically motivated) alliance of the council, Network Rail, Foxtons, Pop and so on cannot create gentrification all by themselves.  There's more to it than that.  Otherwise they could engineer people to move to the northern towns, the ones that are actually depopulating.

Popularity begets gentrification.  More people want to live (or own) here than can, leading to competition to buy their way in, squeezing out those already here without the money to compete. Unless you recognise that, and thus recognise that every incremental addition to the attractiveness of the area also adds to its popularity and promotes gentrification, istm you're (not you personally, 'one') baying at the moon.  Keeping the public realm crap won't stop gentrification, but it doesn't accelerate it either.

You seem to be saying that because cafes on Station Road are run by 'ethnic minorities' they're somehow not a factor in gentrification.  Really?  Are only some units in Pop or Granville implicated, depending on the ethnicity of the owner?  That just doesn't make sense.  They're part of the same -fairly recent- trend, and while there are obvious differences between a champagne bar and a cafe with sport on the telly, there are also similarities. 

So while I agree with your statement


> There is no reason why there should not be car free spaces for ordinary people.


it needs to be recognised that if/where pedestrianised public realm is popular, it's likely to become colonised by cafes, and that's likely to come hand in hand with gentrification. Planning- simply not giving permission for cafes, pavement tables, bars etc- could have ensured that Station Road remained like Electric Avenue, somewhere that spending is largely from the non-discretionary part of the household budget.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 24, 2016)

newbie said:


> commentary, yes I suppose so.  Should one always advance a case when commenting, always have something to prove?  I don't really see any need to have a single, principled view on whether pedestrianisation is causal or even necessarily related to gentrification.  I can observe that there are bleak and empty pedestrianised 'traditional' shopping precincts on the one hand and clearly gentrified pedestrianised streets on the other.  You mentioned the new upmarket places in congested Atlantic Rd, Rushy has now contrasted that with long-term tatty pedestrianised Electric Avenue yet all over Brixton unpedestrianised streets have gentrified at an alarming rate. But to deny that pedestrianisation can be a component of the changes would be ridiculous.
> 
> 
> I was trying to draw out that the cafe culture behaviour is similar, despite the economic or demographic differences in clientele. That culture is popular, but not universally so, it doesn't appeal to everyone irrespective of their disposable income. So while some people like a public space for sitting and chatting, others don't make the time, whether or not they could afford to. There certainly seems to be plenty of money in it, eateries, cafes and  watering holes are apparently flourishing at the moment, and colonising new spaces where cafe culture can thrive.
> ...



For me, it *is* a point of principle to support moves that favour the pedestrian, cyclist and public transport user. That doesn't mean full pedestrianisation is the solution in every situation but in nearly every situation, anything that reduces car dominance is a positive move.

Some people seem to think this is an extreme position, which I find a bit puzzling. We should support access to decent transport and decent public space for all, just like we should support access to decent housing and decent healthcare for all.

I observe that schemes aimed at reducing car dominance, including but not restricted to pedestrianisation, seem to get scapegoated and blamed for all sorts of things. I'll not go on about the reasons that happens here, but I think it is something that does happen. Pedestrianisation is linked to the death of town centres but it's not the thing that has created the underlying problem, just like immigrants aren't the underlying cause of reductions in local workers' conditions and so on.

More recently, people are attempting to blame things like pedestrianisation schemes for gentrification. Things that could benefit everyone get blocked because of lazy arguments that oversimplify everything. We can't ignore the context of gentrification processes when examining proposals for public space or streetscape. The point of this thread is not to pretend that context doesn't exist or is insignificant. The point is to try and look carefully at how to judge the balance of benefits and avoid a situation where the strategy to resist gentrification is effectively to deliberately make public space unpleasant for everyone. Meanwhile those with money can focus on making their own unshared private spaces nice for themselves (and that includes their cars and where they can drive them by the way).


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2016)

teuchter said:


> For me, it *is* a point of principle to support moves that favour the pedestrian, cyclist and public transport user. That doesn't mean full pedestrianisation is the solution in every situation but in nearly every situation, anything that reduces car dominance is a positive move.
> 
> Some people seem to think this is an extreme position, which I find a bit puzzling. We should support access to decent transport and decent public space for all, just like we should support access to decent housing and decent healthcare for all.
> 
> ...




fair enough.  You seem to be declaring that your point of principle overrides your antipathy to gentrification.  Someone else, starting from a different point of principle, may (equally reasonably) have entirely the opposite view.  Being principled, those views are fundamentally irreconcilable.

Both (and other) views have merit.  It's obviously not an entirely binary argument, but if it were it's fairly plain that your pov will currently trump your opponent, because you're swimming with the tide of popularity and political will.

Of course, you must recognise that your principled position has consequences, intended or otherwise, which impact unfavourably mostly on those least able to defend themselves.  The benefits, whether reduced exposure to pollution or improved quality of life, are shared more evenly, ie they accrue at least as much to those who have most (who are further encouraged into the area) as they do to those with least.

That stick in my craw somewhat, but then I can't argue that the social harm wrought by gentrification should be resisted at all costs, because among the consequences of keeping 'the public realm crap' are included harm to health and quality of life, for all but especially for the poor who live in ungentrified areas. Had we, the people of Brixton, fully resisted gentrification we would all still be living with the squalor and deprivation of previous decades, to the detriment of the poorest.

<which, going back, is why I tend not to a have a _single, principled view_ about this or most other topics.  It's always too complicated and there's seldom a monopoly of truth and justice on only one side of any argument.>


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2016)

newbie said:


> some of this I agree with, but some of it lacks shades of grey.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




On the unholy alliance. I was trying to propose what the underlying causes of gentrification are. And a realistic way to oppose them. I was actually trying to get away from some of the arguments that have gone on this forum about coffee bars etc.

If the underlying causes are dealt with then my argument is that gentrification will no longer be an issue.

I was focusing on London. As you have widened it to outside London. Why does gentrification not happen in some area outside London? In case of London the rot set in when Thatcher deregulated the City in the Big Bang. London became a world city for the financial sector. Gentrification is not a very good word for it. Outside London. Another legacy of Thatcher is the de industrialisation of the other parts of the country and the economy ending up centred around London as a financial centre. With all the need for people to service this. The unholy alliance wont engineer people to move to the Northern towns - that is not how the economy works. Its one of the problems with it.

 I make a difference between those who think gentrification is just what happens. Its a natural process of change. Its all very unfortunate but thats how life is. ( Also those who say this but in practise welcome it/ do not oppose it).

And those who believe it should be opposed but disagree in some of the causes of it.

I think you are in the second camp.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2016)

In Brixton today. Someone I know asked me about the new decorated pedestrian crossings on Atlantic road/ CHL crossing. Said I rather liked them.

Then they said the new crossing annoyed them. That Brixton was being made nice for the new middle classes. Saw all this new arty stuff as being allowed now.

That  the Afro Carribbeans were first asked to come here ( Windrush) to help rebuild post war London. Back years ago if someone from that background did tagging etc they were liable to be arrested.

Its all different now. They didn’t like improvements, like the new crossing, saw it as being for the new ( white) middle class.

Then they got onto as they put it the gentrification of the shops opposite the Barrier Block. Sign that it will happen to LJ in future given time.

I can understand where they are coming from. I dont think they were saying to keep Brixton crap. What they were saying was that this was not for them. Its a case of an improvement to the public realm not being seen as a positive.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2016)

newbie said:


> some of this I agree with, but some of it lacks shades of grey.



This is wrong. Stepping back a bit to try to see the larger picture is one way of thinking about a complicated issue like gentrification. 

The shades of grey then can be seen not as causes but as symptoms. 

I may have a rant on this forum every know and again but I also try to step back a bit sometimes as well.


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> In Brixton today. Someone I know asked me about the new decorated pedestrian crossings on Atlantic road/ CHL crossing. Said I rather liked them.
> 
> Then they said the new crossing annoyed them. That Brixton was being made nice for the new middle classes. Saw all this new arty stuff as being allowed now.
> 
> ...


not just me then.  I was wondering the other day why I find myself shopping in Streatham more and Brixton less but couldn't quite put a finger on it as well as that person. colonisation was the word that came to mind.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 24, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> In Brixton today. Someone I know asked me about the new decorated pedestrian crossings on Atlantic road/ CHL crossing. Said I rather liked them.
> 
> Then they said the new crossing annoyed them. That Brixton was being made nice for the new middle classes. Saw all this new arty stuff as being allowed now.
> 
> ...


I think that objecting to "arty" crossings is a bit paranoid.
My problem with crossings is when they take about 10 minutes to change - such as the one between the Beehive and Ferndale Road, or the one near Villa Road crossing over to the 336 building.


----------



## newbie (Sep 25, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> On the unholy alliance. I was trying to propose what the underlying causes of gentrification are. And a realistic way to oppose them. I was actually trying to get away from some of the arguments that have gone on this forum about coffee bars etc.
> 
> If the underlying causes are dealt with then my argument is that gentrification will no longer be an issue.
> 
> ...



I've been trying to work out how to inject some shades of grey without writing a huge, messy essay.  Suffice to say that for decades London was rapidly depopulating, since when the accelerating desire to live here has reflected *the individual agency of millions of people*. Of course the political climate matters, but to attribute that huge change in attitude to a single government policy implies that with a different policy population decline would have continued (and that would have been a good thing?). I don't think that's credible, but to claim there was a 'natural process' at work would be equally wrong.

We are not homogenous, and like any economic shock, gentrification bears very unevenly on us. For some people the effects are life-changingly negative, others are affected not at all, or are affected positively. There is no equality of outcome.

There's a large pool of potential victims, victims of the political abandonment of social housing and planning controls, victims of the decline in the economic importance of non-cognitive labour, victims of other forces equally far beyond their individual or collective control.  Those people may pay heavily for gentrification (they may not, there's an element of personal good- or ill-fortune involved) but as a group they're vulnerable to losing their agency and potentially being forced out of London, against their will. They include the large, precarious and vulnerable, group who have insecure housing and/or work yet choose to spend a huge proportion of their income for the perceived benefit of living here. Their agency, their desire to be here whatever it takes, puts each of them in direct competition, one with the next, and forms a large part of the pressure that manifests as social cleansing. 

There are also, of course, all those with (so far) secure homes and incomes for whom the impacts of the changes are mainly backdrop, in many cases quite positive, and not only for homeowners.  And so on, there's 8 or more million of us and we've all got our own circumstances and our own exposure to the risks and benefits of gentrification.  

What is common amongst us is that we all, week by week, choose to live here. Very few of us choose to inflict harm on others but the cumulative effect of our millions of personal decisions has, for many years now and increasingly, harmed some of our fellow Londoners by driveing them into debt, into losing their home, into relationship breakdown and eventually into leaving London. Social cleansing of those at the sharp end. 

Yet while not wishing harm on anyone, collectively local people have consistently voted in a neo-liberal Labour council for the last decade or so, with an increased majority at each election. So, perhaps unsurprisingly, we have a council that thinks it has a mandate for its clear pro-wealth agenda.  

We can, individually or collectively, oppose specific political decisions, planning applications or whatever, sometimes successfully.

What we've been unable to do, at least since regeneration turned to gentrification, is oppose the collective agency of our fellow Londoners. And would-be Londoners, who'll be here in a flash if they can achieve it, whether they're coming from the other side of the world with little or nothing or from the Home Counties with a good degree and a plummy accent.  We can't stop this being an attractive place to live to modern eyes, or even agree on _keeping the public realm crap_ in order to reduce the attractions. We can't stop people clamouring to move here.  We may wish there was a clamour to move to northern towns, it would solve an awful lot of problems, but we're not personally wanting to do that. We don't want social cleansing but our own agency reinforces the pressures which cause it, because each of us wants to live in Brixton/London. 

I'm afraid I've written the huge, messy essay anyway.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 25, 2016)

newbie said:


> I've been trying to work out how to inject some shades of grey without writing a huge, messy essay.


I believe that many people who actively chose to live in Brixton pre 2005 [approxiately] saw Brixton as a life choice with a transcendental meaning, involving a rejection of the consumer society and embracing empathy for the poor, disadvantaged and otherwise marginalised.

Lately on the contrary Brixton appears to be transitioning into a sort of lesser Bullingdon Club orgy of affluence and hedonism beyond the reach of ordinary people.

No more down at heal gay poets squatting in Railton Road. It's all about getting the £1,200 deposit from Daddy so you can rent a shared flat from a well-known Brixton entrepreneur and whoop it up in the Villaage or Pop or whatever. Not forgetting having a moan if you aren't allowed allowed in Brixton beach with your tracksuit bottoms.

That is it for me. Not your geography lesson - it's all about transitioning from fiercely proud rebel to someone who simply doesn't count because now it's not who you are, or what your values are - its how valuable is your bank account.


----------



## Winot (Sep 25, 2016)

What utter bollocks.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 25, 2016)

Winot said:


> What utter bollocks.


Are you pre or post 2005 then?


----------



## Winot (Sep 25, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Are you pre or post 2005 then?



1995 and there wasn't any transcendence involved I can assure you.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 25, 2016)

Winot said:


> 1995 and there wasn't any transcendence involved I can assure you.


Ah then it must come down to that old debate: SW2 or SW9?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 25, 2016)

newbie said:


> snip> What we've been unable to do, at least since regeneration turned to gentrification, is oppose the collective agency of our fellow Londoners. And would-be Londoners, who'll be here in a flash if they can achieve it, whether they're coming from the other side of the world with little or nothing or from the Home Counties with a good degree and a plummy accent.  We can't stop this being an attractive place to live to modern eyes, or even agree on _keeping the public realm crap_ in order to reduce the attractions. We can't stop people clamouring to move here.  We may wish there was a clamour to move to northern towns, it would solve an awful lot of problems, but we're not personally wanting to do that. We don't want social cleansing but our own agency reinforces the pressures which cause it, because each of us wants to live in Brixton/London.


  In the 80s and 90s people weren't clamouring to live in Brixton - and taxi drivers didn't even want to go south.
Some of us here, escaped from northern towns in the first place. Please don't send me back!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2016)

newbie said:


> I've been trying to work out how to inject some shades of grey without writing a huge, messy essay.  Suffice to say that for decades London was rapidly depopulating, since when the accelerating desire to live here has reflected *the individual agency of millions of people*. Of course the political climate matters, but to attribute that huge change in attitude to a single government policy implies that with a different policy population decline would have continued (and that would have been a good thing?). I don't think that's credible, but to claim there was a 'natural process' at work would be equally wrong.
> 
> What is common amongst us is that we all, week by week, choose to live here. Very few of us choose to inflict harm on others but the cumulative effect of our millions of personal decisions has, for many years now and increasingly, harmed some of our fellow Londoners by driveing them into debt, into losing their home, into relationship breakdown and eventually into leaving London. Social cleansing of those at the sharp end.



In then end the way I look at gentrification is from a Marxist perspective. ( Though I would not say I am a very good one in practice). Its Capitalism that is the end thats the problem. Its either to be got rid or tamed- as it was post war for a short period. Probably should have made that more clear. Its not just government policy.

Individual agency-  people do what they have to get by. Im no saint myself. That is where shades of grey are necessary.

Even if one does not like Marx its not that controversial to look at society being composed of larger forces than that of aggregate of individual decisions.

Given people are not individuals in the sense that all live in (a) society its necessary to look at the larger underlying factors imo.

Marx saw his work as giving individual people the tools to collectively change society. He analysed the underlying forces in society. There are other views. Its what Sociology is about.

Looking at society as being driven by individuals choices which collectively have (unintended) good or bad consequences on others outside there intentional control ,as you do, is in practise taking away peoples agency to change society. Its a view of society that its made up of atomised individuals.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 25, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I believe that many people who actively chose to live in Brixton pre 2005 [approxiately] saw Brixton as a life choice with a transcendental meaning, involving a rejection of the consumer society and embracing empathy for the poor, disadvantaged and otherwise marginalised.
> 
> Lately on the contrary Brixton appears to be transitioning into a sort of lesser Bullingdon Club orgy of affluence and hedonism beyond the reach of ordinary people.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure that there was much transcendental meaning or empathy for the poor about pre millenial brixtionites. Surely it was as mixed here as many other London places. Perhaps there were less stuck up / posh / judgemental people because it wasn't 'fashionable' and there was a perception of Brixton as rough / hard / dangerous.  But at least it was cheap, zone 2 and near a tube!

As a queer woman most of London felt dangerous I'm not we counted for much anywhere in Thatchers Britain - but around here at least this area had some queer history and a reputation for tolerance of difference.  There are still some queer rebels, poets, muscians and artists living around here - its just fewer now and we're all getting older.  Someone refered to me as 'a local character' a while back - fucking cheek.

My only plan is to keep shouting about shit and to intrude on these chichi new places occasionally (when I can afford to) just to remind them we exist.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 25, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm not sure that there was much transcendental meaning or empathy for the poor about pre millenial brixtionites. Surely it was as mixed here as many other London places. Perhaps there were less stuck up / posh / judgemental people because it wasn't 'fashionable' and there was a perception of Brixton as rough / hard / dangerous.  But at least it was cheap, zone 2 and near a tube!


Surely Brixton was uniquely ahead of its time in that respect The Brixton Fairies and the South London Gay Community Centre, Brixton 1974-6


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2016)

newbie said:


> We don't want social cleansing but our own agency reinforces the pressures which cause it, because each of us wants to live in Brixton/London.



Your view is damned if we do damned if we dont. It runs through your posts. Its pessimistic viewpoint.

Its why its so hard to argue against.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> In the 80s and 90s people weren't clamouring to live in Brixton - and taxi drivers didn't even want to go south.
> Some of us here, escaped from northern towns in the first place. Please don't send me back!



When I first came to London some of the people I worked with were from Northern towns. This was when Thatcher was busy destroying the North. They moved south not because they really wanted to but because Thatcher was setting out to destroy there communities.


----------



## newbie (Sep 25, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Your view is damned if we do damned if we dont. It runs through your posts. Its pessimistic viewpoint.


For that I'm sorry.  you tried to put me into one of two camps, neither of which I felt comfortable with so I over explained some of my viewpoint.  I'm aware that, on this topic at least, I'm pessimistic &/or cynical. And the last thing I want to do is to post stuff that might sap the will of those actively opposing a process I loath.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Your view is damned if we do damned if we dont. It runs through your posts. Its pessimistic viewpoint.
> 
> Its why its so hard to argue against.


Miserabilism


----------



## newbie (Sep 25, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Even if one does not like Marx its not that controversial to look at society being composed of larger forces than that of aggregate of individual decisions.


yet there are a bunch a recent posts where people give different reasons for coming (and, by extension, remaining) here.  The gods eye view doesn't take into account the real lives of real people.  None of us willingly surrenders our agency, however much we understand the economic and political forces bearing on us.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2016)

I feel equally ambivalent about the paid-for painting of commercial businesses by street artists*, particularly when it's an estate agents paying for the trendy makeover (see: Coldharbour Lane). Yes, the artwork can sometimes be attractive but at the same time it's very much designed to appeal to a particular demographic and almost always happens just before full on gentrification strikes.


*I think it's a different story if the messages are defending the community, as seen along Atlantic Rd/Station Rd though.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 26, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Surely Brixton was uniquely ahead of its time in that respect The Brixton Fairies and the South London Gay Community Centre, Brixton 1974-6


thats what I mean by queer history - I knew one of those fairies on Shakespear rd for many years. Also Brockwell being home to Pride 91, 94 and Europride 1992. And the Fridge host many a lesbian or gay night.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 26, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> When I first came to London some of the people I worked with were from Northern towns. This was when Thatcher was busy destroying the North. They moved south not because they really wanted to but because Thatcher was setting out to destroy there communities.


I was 'on my bike' in 1984


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2016)

newbie said:


> For that I'm sorry.  you tried to put me into one of two camps, neither of which I felt comfortable with so I over explained some of my viewpoint.  I'm aware that, on this topic at least, I'm pessimistic &/or cynical. And the last thing I want to do is to post stuff that might sap the will of those actively opposing a process I loath.



As I posted before I thought you were in the camp that was not happy with gentrification but disagreed as to what causes it. So last post was a bit harsh.

The internet is a blunt instrument and its how your posts could be read. To take it to extreme the idea that its all about individuals making decisions in an atomised way fits in with NuLabour and Thatcherite ideas. Which some here would agree with. 

I get criticised for not being nuanced in my views. Well that is what I come here to do. U75 is a left of centre website imo.

Also depends on what forums one is on. On the politics boards Im a moderate. Here Im a right lefty.


----------



## newbie (Sep 27, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> thats what I mean by queer history - I knew one of those fairies on Shakespear rd for many years. Also Brockwell being home to Pride 91, 94 and Europride 1992. And the Fridge host many a lesbian or gay night.


the organised lesbian/separatist squatted street in Radnor Terrace (all that way away up South Lambeth Road) seems to have been more or less airbrushed out of history, at least so far as google is concerned. It was around the same time, from at least 1972 until demolition in about 1976.


----------



## newbie (Sep 27, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> As I posted before I thought you were in the camp that was not happy with gentrification but disagreed as to what causes it. So last post was a bit harsh.
> 
> The internet is a blunt instrument and its how your posts could be read. To take it to extreme the idea that its all about individuals making decisions in an atomised way fits in with NuLabour and Thatcherite ideas. Which some here would agree with.


No, I'm not happy with it.  I wouldn't move to Brixton now.  

Of course it's not all about atomised decisions: eg imo major components of the specifics stem back to the explicit decisions to orient Brixton towards the 'night economy' (about which I've long had issues) and to hand over Granville to a trendy PR company. But gentrification started long before either of those, but also long after it happened so much more comprehensively in nearby Clapham.  Local circumstances, reflected in the decision making of individuals.

Yet the wider political and economic backdrop was the same, so while the broadbrush blame Thatch, blame Bliar, blame globalisation, blame neoliberalism etc is so obviously true it's equally obviously unsatisfactory as a full explanation of almost anything specific.  



> I get criticised for not being nuanced in my views. Well that is what I come here to do. U75 is a left of centre website imo.
> 
> Also depends on what forums one is on. On the politics boards Im a moderate. Here Im a right lefty.


your views can be as nuanced (or harsh  ) as you like, but I seldom see things in binary terms. That said, I know which side I'm on.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 27, 2016)

newbie said:


> the organised lesbian/separatist squatted street in Radnor Terrace (all that way away up South Lambeth Road) seems to have been more or less airbrushed out of history, at least so far as google is concerned. It was around the same time, from at least 1972 until demolition in about 1976.


Didn't know about that. When I moved to London in 1977 there was a vibrant organisation in South London called WAGS (Wimbledon Area Gay Society) which started as a community organisation with speaker meetings in the William Morris Hall (Labour HQ) in Wimbledon Broadway and a fortnightly disco in the Merton (council) Hall at South Wimbledon.

There is no information about this at all on the net as far as I can see - but if I may sum it up (since I was involved as a committee member and disco organiser) the orgnaisation was essentially financed by income from the discos - plus a small council grant for a telephone help line.

As happened at this time we had a change of police chief who was homophobic and objected to our license. I had to go to Wimbledon Magistrates court to try to rescue the situation. We had a compromise of a monthly license only, which was not really viable for us, so we turned to various pubs to host the night. The White Lion in Putney was not popular with the punters. One in Colliers Wood likewise.

We though we'd hit the jackpot with the Wheatsheaf at Tooting Bec which was picking up nicely. Unfortunately it turned out the Wheatsheaf was being used by a "glamour photography" group at weekends which was infiltrated and exposed by "The News of the World".

The brewery was not amused - and we were "barred" along with the Glamour photographers.

The final act of this flirtation of the Wimbledon Gays with commercial pressures was when one of our DJs secured a room at the Dog and Fox in Wimbledon Hill. He and the pub then cut WAGS out of the deal to be able to retain the profits of the party going queens for themselves.

Such is the nature of community action. What starts off as something social and community minded ends up being commercially exploited  - whether it be an accepting alternative community in Brixton or a bunch of well meaning gays in Wimbledon.


----------



## newbie (Sep 27, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Didn't know about that.


pre-web ennit.  Nothing happens now without records on wiki, fb, flikr, instagram and so on. As with your story, that bit of social history only exists now in the memories of those who knew and probably a few fading papers hand produced on a Banda or something.

It's not my history, so i don't want to overstep, but for some reason the participants have not felt inspired to record their experiences for google to index for posterity.  I don't know why, but I think it's a shame it's been lost, a similar community has quite possibly never existed on that scale before or since.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 27, 2016)

newbie said:


> the organised lesbian/separatist squatted street in Radnor Terrace (all that way away up South Lambeth Road) seems to have been more or less airbrushed out of history, at least so far as google is concerned. It was around the same time, from at least 1972 until demolition in about 1976.


 Probably not so much airbrushed as just invisible, as so much LGBTQ life was. 



newbie said:


> pre-web ennit.


 That sums it up. 

Very little on the web about the Pride marches that I was involved in and that was as late as 89-91, we really struggled to get press coverage. 25000 on the march and 50000 people in Kennington park and only one small pic in the Sunday Observer. There was the gay press of course, but even that doesn't have a public archive/library.  I recall radio/TV coverage only started in 92 and that was only because there had been some gay murders and the media all showed up in Brockwell park. 

Just because its not on the web doesn't mean it didn't exist.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 27, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Just because its not on the web doesn't mean it didn't exist.


I found this obituary fascinating - and only 50% off-topic, as Capital Gay had an office in the Eurolink Centre in Effra Road for a while.
Michael Mason, gay rights campaigner - obituary


----------



## newbie (Sep 27, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Probably not so much airbrushed as just invisible, as so much LGBTQ life was.



my slight surprise is that the participants haven't celebrated (or critiqued, or just remembered) what they built.

I liked the ones in Kennington Park


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 27, 2016)

newbie said:


> my slight surprise is that the participants haven't celebrated (or critiqued, or just remembered) what they built.
> 
> I liked the ones in Kennington Park


I went to a fantabulousa cabaret event this year- lots of celebrating, critiquing and remembering there.  Most people old enough to have gay sex in the 70s, the internet probably isn't the place for them to do anything. I'm younger but have no idea how to do most web things.  There are bits of queer history here and there. eg A Brighton based memories project recorded interviews with older LGBT people some years ago. We may have to wait for someone to scan some gay archives, which might need extensive funding so don't hold your breath.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 27, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I found this obituary fascinating - and only 50% off-topic, as Capital Gay had an office in the Eurolink Centre in Effra Road for a while.
> Michael Mason, gay rights campaigner - obituary


thanks for posting that - I recall meeting him once.  Where they in the the Eurolink centre after the firebombing? where they there long?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 27, 2016)

Recalling anarchist squats has anyone mentioned the 121 squat on Railton rd? Remember going to some fairly worthy vegan lesbian separatist evenings there in mid '80s. 

Thought it was very sad when they evicted them all a few year ago. It looks like very dull ordinary flats now.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 28, 2016)

Rushy said:


> I expect it's just you and some posters.


hold up lets have a look at your original post and see.......................


Rushy said:


> One of the least "gentrified" streets in Brixton is pedestrian Electric Avenue.


Agree, but......


> Gentrification will no doubt come (it's being smartened up as we speak)


again agreed, public realm improvements will lead to higher rents and it's character will change.......


> And when it does it may eventually become the poshest street in Brixton, because of the handsome and fairly unique architecture


can't argue with that, an iconic and vibrant address too, and handy for the tube, but the architecture is kind of irrelevant to the people who use it now


> But no one can say that it was its pedestrianisation which kicked it off


we will have to disagree slightly here because the fact its pedestrianised will definitely make it attractive to new money


> Or that pedestrianisation hasn't served retailers and shoppers at the lower end of the economic spectrum well for a long time.


IMHO this sentence has an air of finality to it and given your earlier prediction, it could be construed as not giving a shit, as if that time is now over, a shrug of the shoulders, time to move on......


> Incidentally, it is remarkably dead at night.


yes, but no doubt this will change with the arrival of posh apartments and cafe society that you have predicted.......just like Soho as mentioned by Gramsci and many other parts of London


teuchter said:


> Seems like you read that meaning into 90% of everything written on here by "certain posters", so it doesn't actually matter which sentence you're talking about.


75% of what is written by "certain posters' [ your words not mine] is real or  tacit approval of gentrification, another 10% is making out its effects are overstated


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> thanks for posting that - I recall meeting him once.  Where they in the the Eurolink centre after the firebombing? where they there long?


I can't be definitive about the years. What I do remember is one of their staff turning up at some council meeting for businesses (similar to what has now become BID) and having a good old moan about security in the Eurolink (meaning it was very prone to burglaries - and they had lost a lot of computers). That was probably in 1994. 

The arson attack was in 1987 - when they were somewhere else. Quite possibly Capital Gay moved to Eurolink after the arson attack, but I am not at all sure of any dates. 

Somewhere I filed away the last copy of Capital Gay, but can't find it right now. If I could it would presumably confirm if they were still in Brixton up to when publication ceased on 1st June 1995.

The most interesting thing about the Eurolink (apart from it used to house Captial Gay) is it used to be a Synagogue:
JCR-UK: Brixton (United) Synagogue (closed), Effra Road, Brixton, London SW2, England


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2016)

CH1 said:


> The most interesting thing about the Eurolink (apart from it used to house Captial Gay) is it used to be a Synagogue:
> JCR-UK: Brixton (United) Synagogue (closed), Effra Road, Brixton, London SW2, England
> View attachment 93132


Possibly the worst death masking of a building ever. I actually think the functionality of neighbouring Halfords might be more attractive!

My first flat in Brixton had modest stained windows recovered from the synagogue gracing the first floor outside WC.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> hold up lets have a look at your original post and see.......................
> 
> Agree, but......
> 
> ...


Ok. Maybe my response should have read _You, "some posters" and various people Gramsci met all over London who were hotly discussing my post._


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2016)

Rushy said:


> Possibly the worst death masking of a building ever. I actually think the functionality of neighbouring Halfords might be more attractive!
> 
> My first flat in Brixton had modest stained windows recovered from the synagogue gracing the first floor outside WC.


I guess you probably have had time to consider the aesthetic qualities of the "death masking" as you put it from your bathroom window every day. 
Hope your mate does a better job with the Walton Lodge Laundry.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I guess you probably have had time to consider the aesthetic qualities of the "death masking" as you put it from your bathroom window every day.
> Hope your mate does a better job with the Walton Lodge Laundry.


Not really. The WC to which I refer was in a first floor flat on Tunstall Road with a view over the old armature and rewinders factory. Glass was installed by the squatters who then bought the squatted building from Lambeth (for next to nothing because it was squatted), converted it into flats, one of which they which they sold to a barrister and the other to a Cambridge Dr of music in the early 90s before moving to the country.

Chill a bit, fella. You are needlessly (and incorrectly) personalising everything a bit much at the moment.


----------



## newbie (Sep 28, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> the architecture is kind of irrelevant to the people who use it now


I use it, I want the canopies back, like we were promised.


----------



## campanula (Sep 28, 2016)

Sigh - I lived/squatted in Clapham in 1974 - used to sign on in Brixton. Loved it. There will always be a 'Brixton of the heart', separate from Brixton the geographical location and political nexus. Like a lot of liminal spaces, edgy lifestyles, the middle classes always envied a certain rebel freedom - sought to tame/monetise it (festivals!)...we move on. Cambridge circa 1976 - boho, squatting again, green, leafy, lovely - all gone. A sad investment opportunity of student accommodation scams - time to move on again. Norfolk beckons - no good rail link yet, no motorway, true, no great bookshops, cafes, and nightlife (who cares). Maybe even full circle back up north.
Brixton...or anywhere, is people.

Not particularly relevant when facing eviction from untenable rent rises...but what made Brixton special and even a bit unique was not found in prettified public spaces.


----------



## newbie (Sep 28, 2016)

newbie said:


> I use it, I want the canopies back, like we were promised.


but, to pre-empt anyone else, of course that demand is for accelerated gentrification, because the canopies won't just make it more pleasant to buy cabbages or yams, they'll encourage all the rest of it.


eek, I seem to have said much the same thing in 2004



newbie said:


> I remember hassling someone from Brixton Challenge about this, however long ago that was...I'd love to see them restored... they looked a bit embarrassed and mumbled about more pressing priorities and in the fullness of time.
> 
> Mind you, given the crumbling nature of the buildings themselves, they may well have a point.  Who owns the buildings and when are they destined to play their part in the plans?
> 
> ...


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 28, 2016)

Does anyone know what became of the canopies ? Were they destroyed, or are they dumped in the countryside somewhere ? Like the stonework of the Euston Arch lying at the bottom of the River Lea.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2016)

urbanspaceman said:


> Does anyone know what became of the canopies ? Were they destroyed, or are they dumped in the countryside somewhere ? Like the stonework of the Euston Arch lying at the bottom of the River Lea.


I don't think anyone knows. But there's some spare canopies coming up shortly from Vauxhall Bus Station.


----------



## Angellic (Sep 28, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I don't think anyone knows. But there's some spare canopies coming up shortly from Vauxhall Bus Station.



It's going?


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2016)

Angellic said:


> It's going?


Creating a new High Street, I believe.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2016)

urbanspaceman said:


> Does anyone know what became of the canopies ? Were they destroyed, or are they dumped in the countryside somewhere ? Like the stonework of the Euston Arch lying at the bottom of the River Lea.


The persistent rumour was that they were stored somewhere with the promise of eventual reinstatement, but given the decrepit state of them by the end, I suspect they were just trashed, more's the pity.


----------



## technical (Sep 28, 2016)

How long since they were in situ? Don't recall ever seeing them in my time here


----------



## CH1 (Sep 29, 2016)

technical said:


> How long since they were in situ? Don't recall ever seeing them in my time here


Probably all taken down in 1982. But even so some portions had already gone by then.


----------



## Angellic (Sep 29, 2016)

Rushy said:


> Creating a new High Street, I believe.



I'd heard there were options but not seen any updates recently. Shall consult the World Wide Web.


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2016)

According to the paper version of yesterdays Standard, 57% of sales in each of Peckham and Brixton go to first time buyers, the highest proportions in London.  The price difference between the two is eye watering.  Despite being far higher than everywhere on the list except NW3, prices in Brixton are apparently growing faster than almost everywhere else.

Is that because of, or in spite of, the public realm?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2016)

Interesting, although comparing SW2 and SE15 doesn't quite amount to a comparison of "Brixton" and "Peckham".

SW2, SW9, SE24, SE5, not even on the list.

SW2 wraps along Brockwell Park - maybe this public realm element contributes to the high prices? A solution would be to turn the park into a car park, perhaps? This could bump up traffic in the area generally, and increase the number of cycling gentrifiers killed each year.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Interesting, although comparing SW2 and SE15 doesn't quite amount to a comparison of "Brixton" and "Peckham".
> 
> SW2, SW9, SE24, SE5, not even on the list.


yes, I knew someone would make the point that SW9 is not on the list at all, but then nor is SW16, Streatham, which seems to me like it ought to be more fertile territory for FTBs than super expensive Brixton.

The park and the tube are both obvious factors, but are they really sufficient to cause FTBs to pay a premium of over a quarter of a million quid just to be in Brixton SW2 rather than Peckham (which, after all, has the Rye and rail links)?  I'm afraid I don't know any recent FTBs well enough to ask, and I doubt any will explain their reasoning on here.

Because maybe none of the public- or private- realm stuff matters, the key factor is that prices here have increased by 20% in a year.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 7, 2016)

newbie said:


> yes, I knew someone would make the point that SW9 is not on the list at all, but then nor is SW16, Streatham, which seems to me like it ought to be more fertile territory for FTBs than super expensive Brixton.
> 
> The park and the tube are both obvious factors, but are they really sufficient to cause FTBs to pay a premium of over a quarter of a million quid just to be in Brixton SW2 rather than Peckham (which, after all, has the Rye and rail links)?  I'm afraid I don't know any recent FTBs well enough to ask, and I doubt any will explain their reasoning on here.
> 
> Because maybe none of the public- or private- realm stuff matters, the key factor is that prices here have increased by 20% in a year.


Yet if you look at Zoopla it says 4%.
I really don't believe there have been 20% rises here in the past year. It would be interesting to know where they get their figures from.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2016)

Rushy said:


> Yet if you look at Zoopla it says 4%.
> I really don't believe there have been 20% rises here in the past year. It would be interesting to know where they get their figures from.


the article seems to rely on a report by David Fell from Hamptons International, but I can't find the report on their website.

i wonder if the 4%/20% discrepancy is between overall prices and prices (for flats) paid by FTBs?  dunno, I was taking the figures on their face value, I'm not going to try to stand them up.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 7, 2016)

newbie said:


> the article seems to rely on a report by David Fell from Hamptons International, but I can't find the report on their website.
> 
> i wonder if the 4%/20% discrepancy is between overall prices and prices (for flats) paid by FTBs?  dunno, I was taking the figures on their face value, I'm not going to try to stand them up.


Even so, I'd be surprised. But possibly. Might just be out of date data.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2016)

Average first time buyer price for a flat in Brixton £650,000? That can't be right (I mean I think it's a mistake).


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2016)

bimble said:


> Average first time buyer price for a flat in Brixton £650,000? That can't be right (I mean I think it's a mistake).


It's not clear if its average for all FTBs or just ones that are flats.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2016)

But it says 97 % of first time buyers in Brixton bought flats. It has to be wrong somewhere.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2016)

bimble said:


> Average first time buyer price for a flat in Brixton £650,000? That can't be right (I mean I think it's a mistake).


in the Evening Standard?  how can that be????

I think you must be right, the first couple of pages of SW2 flats on Zoppla reveal nothing that expensive.

All I can say in my defence is that I'm not a regular reader of property porn pages, I just noticed the table as I flicked through and was rather gobsmacked at the scale of difference between here and Peckham..


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2016)

bimble said:


> But it says 97 % of first time buyers in Brixton bought flats. It has to be wrong somewhere.


Yes you're right. Maybe for every 97 FTBs who buy a £450,000 flat, there are 3 others who buy a £7 million mansion?


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2016)

I'd hate to work out the percentage for the rise in flat prices in my block. Sky high would probably cover it, though.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2016)

From an LJ thread...

regarding a proposal by this charity



Gramsci said:


> One person said to me that tennis is what the Council want as it will attract the well off to LJ.



I don't know anything about the charity. But it seems their aim is to allow as broad a mix of people as possible to play tennis. I wonder if the person who made the above comment to Gramsci made any effort to find out about them. Isn't this the problem with all this.... it ends up with any attempt to change things being written off as negative, in a kind of unthinking way? It's verging on conspiracy theory.


----------



## Winot (Oct 30, 2016)

Saw that post. Thought of this thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 30, 2016)

teuchter said:


> From an LJ thread...
> 
> regarding a proposal by this charity
> 
> ...



They were there at the event. So I assume they had found out about them.

Yes there is a general lack of trust on the estate with any improvements. A suspicion that this Council - run by New Labour - does not support them but wants the area "regenerated" to get the better off in. The example that gets used is what has happened to Brixton- Pop, the arches, etc. No need to get into complicated discussions about Pop as here on the Pop thread. They see it for what it is and what it represents to them. And they do not want it.

Also when I was at the Saturday event Cressingham was brought up (not by me I was just listening). Feeling that Council housing is under threat in the long term. That if it was not for LEMB running the estate the Council would be eyeing up there land for development. As they are with the Adventure playground.

There is also the feeling that things are done to them but they are not asked. This came out in the road closure issue but I think is something thats been festering for years.New Labour have run Lambeth for years and there is no real connection between the people on the estate - there core constituency- and the Labour party in Lambeth. Why Rachel broke ranks in the end with New Labour. Coldharbour is defined as a Ward  , despite changes in central Brixton ,  still working class. I dont like the word deprived.

I do not think its verging on conspiracy theory. The feeling I got , which I have a lot of sympathy for, is that there community is under threat in the long term. On that I think they are correct. Its imo a class issue. Though this being Brixton race and class are linked. Not surprising that a lot of the people in my photos of the event are black. So some will say race is bigger issue.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2016)

We know all this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> They were there at the event. So I assume they had found out about them.
> 
> Yes there is a general lack of trust on the estate with any improvements. A suspicion that this Council - run by New Labour - does not support them but wants the area "regenerated" to get the better off in. The example that gets used is what has happened to Brixton- Pop, the arches, etc. No need to get into complicated discussions about Pop as here on the Pop thread. They see it for what it is and what it represents to them. And they do not want it.
> 
> Also when I was at the Saturday event Cressingham was brought up (not by me I was just listening). Feeling that Council housing is under threat in the long term. That if it was not for LEMB running the estate the Council would be eyeing up there land for development. As they are with the Adventure playground.



It's a reasonable supposition, borne out by the various TMOs and RMOs I've been in contact with - external management makes pulling flankers a lot harder because it means having to appease a whole board, not just (possibly) a couple of ward Councillors. Cressingham are continuing to pursue Right to Manage and Right to Transfer partly for that reason, and because Right to Transfer would help facilitate The People's Plan.



> There is also the feeling that things are done to them but they are not asked. This came out in the road closure issue but I think is something thats been festering for years.New Labour have run Lambeth for years and there is no real connection between the people on the estate - there core constituency- and the Labour party in Lambeth. Why Rachel broke ranks in the end with New Labour. Coldharbour is defined as a Ward  , despite changes in central Brixton ,  still working class. I dont like the word deprived.



Residents of this borough *aren't* asked, they're "consulted". They're "heard", but they're not *listened to*. Lambeth Labour continue with their ill-judged plans in spite of opposition because these plans are only meant to - at the most - indirectly benefit the likes of you and me. They're to benefit the position and status of Councillors and officers, and facilitate their career development.



> I do not think its verging on conspiracy theory. The feeling I got , which I have a lot of sympathy for, is that there community is under threat in the long term. On that I think they are correct. Its imo a class issue. Though this being Brixton race and class are linked. Not surprising that a lot of the people in my photos of the event are black. So some will say race is bigger issue.



"Working class" is the largest constituent class for blacks in Britain. As you say, here - and in many inner cities - class and race have strong links, so it's unsurprising that some people detect an undercurrent of racism with regard to council policy and practice.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a reasonable supposition, borne out by the various TMOs and RMOs I've been in contact with - external management makes pulling flankers a lot harder because it means having to appease a whole board, not just (possibly) a couple of ward Councillors. Cressingham are continuing to pursue Right to Manage and Right to Transfer partly for that reason, and because Right to Transfer would help facilitate The People's Plan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agree with you on the estate mge in Lambeth. Its worth bearing in mind this is not the case elsewhere. Was talking to someone I know who used to work in Camden. For ideological reasons the Labour party in Camden did not support EMB or ALMOs. I noticed an old 60s estate on Yorkway near Kings Cross is being refurbished. My friend told me that the Camden Council are doing it with Council tenants staying on. I was amazed. Lambeth Labour is very Blairite/ Progress. This is not the same in other area.

So dont agree with you on its just about there careers. In Lambeth they are so Blairite that they never liked the working class and Council housing. Its ideological difference between them and Camden Labour. They really believe in what they are doing. They see Corbyn as a short term disaster who will fail for there "centre" politics to come back.Which of course are not centre politics. They are more like Cameronite Tories. "We" all know that there is deprivation and inequality." We" all know the issues. But we arent really going to do anything that upsets the "centre" ground voter. A few sops thats all.

Lambeth Labour are a party of the "centre" ground. Its the so called "centre" ground who drive there policies.

Pop is good example. Bars and eateries for the well off with , if your lucky , some projects for the deserving poor.

Projects like that are resented on the LJ Estate.

On race. Yes its interesting issue. What I see on the LJ estate and in Brixton is that people of Afro Caribbean descent see the gentrification of London as a class issue first. Well the people I bump into. Which I see as a positive thing. Whilst Brixton is becoming more white they see the difference between class and race. Not just blaming it on race.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2016)

Sorry to interject - but can anyone explain why for decades the council has provided basketball courts at the drop of a hat when the odd £10,000-£50,000 -or even more- had to be spent?

Back in the mid 1990s we had the "Save Kennington Lido" campaign. It turned out that the council had a grant to build basketball pitches which they couldn't use on Clapham Common - for fear of the wrath of the Clapham Society.

So the less dominant Kennington Lido lovers went for a burton - the lido was demolished and basketball won the day.

There are of course basketball pitches on Loughborough Estate, Angel Town and even Ruskin Park - probably many other places beside. And I have seldom seen any basket ball played on most of them. Only Kennington Park and Angell Town usually.

Has a message gone out from the cultural imperialists at the American Embassy that black people have to learn basketball, not soccer? 

I think we should be told.


----------

