# Should Windrush Square be renamed Ritzy Square?



## editor (Jul 5, 2011)

Judging by the ever increasing area in the square being claimed by the Ritzy and the relentless branding they've slapped all over the place, it's being to look like the Ritzy's very own annexe!


----------



## Kanda (Jul 5, 2011)

Are they licensed?? 

(I think you have to post a licensing certificate somewhere that says exactly how many seats you are allowed outside)


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2011)

They seem to have recently thrust their branded area far further in the direction of Coldharbour Lane (see middle pic).


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 5, 2011)

I did get slightly peeved the other day at the lack of access to the slopes down to the pedestrian crossing now that they "own" so much of the square (when pushing a pram) - it's a bit of a silly thing to get annoyed about but I was mildly irritated for a while.


----------



## gabi (Jul 5, 2011)

i assume they're paying lambeth a hefty price for all those seats blocking the main square. they should be able to given how much they charge to see a film these days.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 5, 2011)

Can't believe how cheaply the council rent our space to this mob.  

It might not be quite so irritating if this cheap space was being shared by some of the smaller traders in Brixton.  I wouldn't mind seeing something resembling a summer market with a choice of stalls selling food/drink, clothes/jewelry, postcards or such.

The Ritzy presence is just so bland and corporate.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 5, 2011)

Btw, it should be 'City Screen Square', it might tout itself as our old favourite Ritzy but its all just smoke and mirrors.



> City Screen is a limited company registered in England as company number 2310403 and its registered office is 16-18 Beak St, London, W1F 9RD


----------



## TruXta (Jul 5, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Can't believe how cheaply the council rent our space to this mob.
> 
> It might not be quite so irritating if this cheap space was being shared by some of the smaller traders in Brixton.  I wouldn't mind seeing something resembling a summer market with a choice of stalls selling food/drink, clothes/jewelry, postcards or such.
> 
> The Ritzy presence is just so bland and corporate.


 
Nail on fucking head.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 5, 2011)

A summer market would be lovely!


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 5, 2011)

And probably getting their loyal customers in before the BCA opens its cafe less than fifty yards away...


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2011)

It would be nice to see another independent cafe there too, along with small local traders getting a slice of the square.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 5, 2011)

What's the BCA? Yes to trader's and more indy caffs on the square too.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 5, 2011)

Yeah, more coffee shops, we don't have enough of them.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 5, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Yeah, more coffee shops, we don't have enough of them.


 
Not good ones anyway.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 5, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Not good ones anyway.


 
Wouldn't know. I don't get the idea of 'going out' for coffee...


----------



## TruXta (Jul 5, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Wouldn't know. I don't get the idea of 'going out' for coffee...


 
And that's a peculiarly British trait, albeit one that is slowly eroding. You have the best pubs in the world, but you cannot get your heads around cafes. There are of course honourable exceptions. Note I'm not talking about greasy spoons here.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 5, 2011)

The square itself has provision in the design for a cafe booth, subject to future planning application. Unfortunately, the plans in the 2007 application are so badly scanned, it's impossible make out exactly where this is


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Wouldn't know. I don't get the idea of 'going out' for coffee...


If you work from home, it's a way of maintaining sanity and getting to chat to other sanity-concerned freelancers.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 5, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And that's a peculiarly British trait, albeit one that is slowly eroding


 
Yeah, I guess it is.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 5, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What's the BCA? Yes to trader's and more indy caffs on the square too.


 
Black Cultural Archives - they're refurbishing and extending Raleigh Hall at the southeast corner of the square. Thread: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/258163-New-home-for-Black-Cultural-Archives-Raleigh-Hall


----------



## TruXta (Jul 5, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Black Cultural Archives - they're refurbishing and extending Raleigh Hall at the southeast corner of the square. Thread: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/258163-New-home-for-Black-Cultural-Archives-Raleigh-Hall


 
Oh cool! For my shame I've yet to be inside the library....


----------



## Rushy (Jul 5, 2011)

My understanding is that the space wasn't offered up to The Ritzy. They approached Lambeth and made them an offer which was accepted. Obviously Ritzy are in a better position to take advantage of the square than other businesses but that on its own shouldn't preclude them from being allowed to do so. 

Similarly, a business group approached the council about setting up the small market outside KFC a couple of years back. Anyone could have asked to do this but the group that did it got the pitch. Then local businesses complained that it was unfair competition and the licence was withdrawn.  (Not sure if there wasn't more to it than that).

If businesses want to use the spaces I guess they should put forward a proposal. If you don't ask...


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 5, 2011)

No matter what they do it will always be Bovril Square to me.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 5, 2011)

Rushy said:


> My understanding is that the space wasn't offered up to The Ritzy. They approached Lambeth and made them an offer which was accepted. Obviously Ritzy are in a better position to take advantage of the square than other businesses but that on its own shouldn't preclude them from being allowed to do so.
> 
> Similarly, a business group approached the council about setting up the small market outside KFC a couple of years back. Anyone could have asked to do this but the group that did it got the pitch. Then local businesses complained that it was unfair competition and the licence was withdrawn.  (Not sure if there wasn't more to it than that).
> 
> If businesses want to use the spaces I guess they should put forward a proposal. If you don't ask...


Recently there was a link posted to a document outlining the pricing structure for seats in the square which implied that perhaps a policy exists.

Even if someone asks/proposes it shouldn't mean that the council just give to they that ask.  Something like the commercialisation of a very expensive public square should have had at least a little consultation attached to it.  What if McDonald's had asked first?


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 5, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Recently there was a link posted to a document outlining the pricing structure for seats in the square which implied that perhaps a policy exists.


...


> "But the plans were on display ..."
> "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
> "That's the display department."
> "With a flashlight."
> ...


----------



## Rushy (Jul 5, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Recently there was a link posted to a document outlining the pricing structure for seats in the square which implied that perhaps a policy exists.
> 
> Even if someone asks/proposes it shouldn't mean that the council just give to they that ask.  Something like the commercialisation of a very expensive public square should have had at least a little consultation attached to it.  What if McDonald's had asked first?


 
I guess if the new square was directly outside McD's they might have been allowed to although I know that not all offers are accepted. I wonder what they'd do? Personally I'd not like that. I was more responding to the suggestion that smaller businesses should be allowed some of the space. Maybe they would be if they made a viable proposal - like the markets I referred to. IIRC the outline price structure was not for the square per se but for allowing use of Lambeth owned outside space in general, e.g. SW9 bar maybe, or San Marino's. (It may be that in those particular cases they own the outside space - I'm not entirely sure - but there will be other instances where the council let neighbouring businesses use parts of the street).

IMO it would be a shame if Ritzy (or whosoever happened to be adjacent to the square) was not allowed to come to an arrangement to serve in it. Although I agree with Ed's comments that it is a pretty imposing setup.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 5, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2011)

Rushy said:


> My understanding is that the space wasn't offered up to The Ritzy. They approached Lambeth and made them an offer which was accepted. Obviously Ritzy are in a better position to take advantage of the square than other businesses but that on its own shouldn't preclude them from being allowed to do so.
> 
> Similarly, a business group approached the council about setting up the small market outside KFC a couple of years back. Anyone could have asked to do this but the group that did it got the pitch. Then local businesses complained that it was unfair competition and the licence was withdrawn.  (Not sure if there wasn't more to it than that).
> 
> If businesses want to use the spaces I guess they should put forward a proposal. If you don't ask...


I don't recall any of the proposals for Windrush Square featuring a vast chunk of the area being taken over by a private company. 

As it is, vast pots of public money appear to have just funded a nice al fresco new dining/cafe area for the Ritzy.


----------



## Ms T (Jul 5, 2011)

I thought there was going to be a market in the square?  What happened to that idea?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 5, 2011)

editor said:


> I don't recall any of the proposals for Windrush Square featuring a vast chunk of the area being taken over by a private company.
> 
> As it is, vast pots of public money appear to have just funded a nice al fresco new dining/cafe area for the Ritzy.


 
Ritzy has certainly benefited from it. There was always an express intention to allow forms of private economic activity on parts of the site in the form of a coffee shop and also markets. I agree that this particular use was not discussed.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Ritzy has certainly benefited from it. There was always an express intention to allow forms of private economic activity on parts of the site in the form of a coffee shop and also markets. I agree that this particular use was not discussed.


 I'm all for the Ritzy being able to serve coffees in the square - it helps bring the place alive.

It's just that their sealed enclosures seem to be growing at a rather troubling rate while enthusiastically branding a sizeable chunk of what is supposed to be a public square.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Jul 5, 2011)

Well I'd rather it was the ritzy than McDonalds, or Vue or Odeon. My experience of the Ritzy or City Screen has been pretty good. They support lots of film festivals, promote local film makers and from reports are flexible with staff who are working in arts. I've a few friends that have worked there while trying to make their way as actors/directors/similar and all tell fairly good stories


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

I guess uses of the space will be an evolutionary process, early days, much to play for. Big enough for various uses.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 5, 2011)

bluestreak said:


> No matter what they do it will always be Bovril Square to me.


Thumbs up, hugs etc etc


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 5, 2011)

Let the old drinkers back.  It's full of drinkers now anyway


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Ritzy has certainly benefited from it. There was always an express intention to allow forms of private economic activity on parts of the site in the form of a coffee shop and also markets. I agree that this particular use was not discussed.


 
There were discussions about putting the market that was outside KFC there. However the Square is part of the Rush common so this was not agreed.

I have put in query into planning about this issue as this seems to be permanent use of the square. The square is a public space and this use stops the public using a part of square unless they are Ritzy customers.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 6, 2011)

We have a market. I don't need one on the square too. 

I'd maybe like to see a cabin type coffee snack newsagent type thing and more public seating.  

In the absence of these the Ritzy situation seems sensible enough. The demand is certainly there. It's not Ritzy's fault they so happen to be well placed to benefit.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 6, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> In the absence of these the Ritzy situation seems sensible enough. The demand is certainly there. It's not Ritzy's fault they so happen to be well placed to benefit.


Don't think anyone is saying that it is the Ritzy's fault.  I most certainly lay the blame with the council who haven't been at all transparent about this arrangement.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 6, 2011)

What is the big conspiracy??


----------



## Belushi (Jul 6, 2011)

I'm glad to hear the BCA will be having a cafe as well; I'd like more tables and chairs out on the square, just not all belonging to the Ritzy.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 6, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> What is the big conspiracy??


...


Gramsci said:


> The square is a public space and this use stops the public using a part of square unless they are Ritzy customers.


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> I'd maybe like to see a cabin type coffee snack newsagent type thing and more public seating.


Definitely. It would be lovely if you could buy a drink and a newspaper and relax in the square, and not be hemmed into an advertising-laden private zone.


quimcunx said:


> In the absence of these the Ritzy situation seems sensible enough. The demand is certainly there. It's not Ritzy's fault they so happen to be well placed to benefit.


I don't blame the Ritzy at all. Seeing as they've been given the opportunity, you can't blame them for turning Windrush Square into their own al fresco, corporate-branded cafe area.


----------



## twistedAM (Jul 6, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> We have a market. I don't need one on the square too.



Too right.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> We have a market. I don't need one on the square too.


 


twistedAM said:


> Too right.



I think one of the ideas was to move the long standing weekend craft market currently on Tunstall Road over to the square so that it could have a few more stalls. I reckon they would probably prefer to have the passing trade in their current location.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 6, 2011)

A market makes the sq less useable in summer. Shit idea. Maybe ok in winter. 

Again what conspiracy?  Have other parties been denied seating opportunities? Anyone else interested?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 6, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> A market makes the sq less useable in summer. Shit idea. Maybe ok in winter.
> 
> Again what conspiracy?  Have other parties been denied seating opportunities? Anyone else interested?


 
What about all the other original drinkers who have been resident there for years eh?


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 6, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> A market makes the sq less useable in summer. Shit idea. Maybe ok in winter.
> 
> Again what conspiracy?  Have other parties been denied seating opportunities? Anyone else interested?


Who has claimed conspiracy? It looks like normal council ineptitude to me.

Public square, tax-payers money, council sells space to a single non-local chain of cinemas.  Could be conspiracy but more likely just idiots at the helm.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2011)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What about all the other original drinkers who have been resident there for years eh?


 
Still see them about fairly often. They just don't dominate it like they used to and the more antisocial behaviour that used to attach itself to the street drinkers appears to have moved on. I don't miss that.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Who has claimed conspiracy? It looks like normal council ineptitude to me.
> 
> Public square, tax-payers money, council sells space to a single non-local chain of cinemas.  Could be conspiracy but more likely just idiots at the helm.


 
Public squares the whole world over allow cafes and bars to put seats on the street / square. I doubt many enter into public consultation about it. If lots of people object then I guess they will withdraw permission. But I doubt that all that many people object.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 6, 2011)

What's the use of a public square if you can't do stuff in it? And by that I mean eat, drink and make merry.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Public squares the whole world over allow cafes and bars to put seats on the street / square. I doubt many enter into public consultation about it. If lots of people object then I guess they will withdraw permission. But I doubt that all that many people object.


In many cities customers pay a surcharge to sit outside in a public area owing to the tax due to the local authority for private use of public property.  Lambeth appear to be charging very little for the space - as far as we know, because its all a bit opaque.  Are the Ritzy surcharging for the outdoor area?  

With or without public consultation there is normally at least a policy, which Lambeth haven't produced.

Anyway, will be interesting to see if Gramsci's enquiry gets a response.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> In many cities customers pay a surcharge to sit outside in a public area owing to the tax due to the local authority for private use of public property.


 
I've only ever encountered that in the very busiest tourist areas. And never in the UK. Let the Ritzy decide how they recover whatever the council deem fit to charge them. Charging people extra to sit outside would be objectionable.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I've only ever encountered that in the very busiest tourist areas. And never in the UK. Let the Ritzy decide how they recover whatever the council deem fit to charge them. Charging people extra to sit outside would be objectionable.


I hope the council have pegged the rental charges adequately to cover the maintenance of the areas that they are renting out.  This is my whole point, we don't know do we?

For all we know it could be council tax payers footing the bill to clean a public square that is used for commercial purposes and excludes some of the public (the ones who can't afford to eat/drink at the Ritzy), and we might be expected to pay for repairs and refurbishment... if the charges levied to the Ritzy don't cover it.  Further more, with services being cut, why shouldn't the council profit from this successful commercial chain operation?


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What's the use of a public square if you can't do stuff in it? And by that I mean eat, drink and make merry.


It's a Nu-Public Square!


----------



## TruXta (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> It's a Nu-Public Square!


 
Look, but don't touch?


----------



## Londonfarmers (Jul 6, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Recently there was a link posted to a document outlining the pricing structure for seats in the square which implied that perhaps a policy exists.
> 
> Even if someone asks/proposes it shouldn't mean that the council just give to they that ask.  Something like the commercialisation of a very expensive public square should have had at least a little consultation attached to it.  What if McDonald's had asked first?



FYI we (Brixton Farmers Market) were shown round the site by the town centre manager before it was opened, but were then told in January 2010 that -
'this proposal has been shelved for the foreseeable future, following consultation. This was primarily due to concerns about the legality of a market on rush common land, in addition to other issues raised through the consultation process.'
There have since been events on the square. I don't know what difference there is between a market and a coffee shop in terms of use for rush common land! This is from Lambeth's website; http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...-AC1E-3F1E73EB6CBD/0/RushCommonNewsletter.pdf


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2011)

Londonfarmers said:


> FYI we (Brixton Farmers Market) were shown round the site by the town centre manager before it was opened, but were then told in January 2010 that -
> 'this proposal has been shelved for the foreseeable future, following consultation. This was primarily due to concerns about the legality of a market on rush common land, in addition to other issues raised through the consultation process.'
> There have since been events on the square. I don't know what difference there is between a market and a coffee shop in terms of use for rush common land! This is from Lambeth's website; http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...-AC1E-3F1E73EB6CBD/0/RushCommonNewsletter.pdf


 
Worth chatting to the lady who runs the Rush Common Scrutiny Commission for a clearer picture. Have PM's you details of main contact.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> If you work from home, it's a way of maintaining sanity and getting to chat to other sanity-concerned freelancers.


 
Ah, I am guessing this is why I am going insane.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> .
> 
> Anyway, will be interesting to see if Gramsci's enquiry gets a response.



Thanks for actually reading my post.

I put query into planning enforcement a few weeks ago

The issue in planning terms is that this is part of Rush Common. Its a public space and there are limitations on its use.

Ive had no reply from planning to say if im correct or not. 

I did get a call from someone from Environmental services who told me that the Parks Dept had given Ritzy permission. I told her that was not the issue. I said i had put a query into planning so how did she get my number. She said she didnt know. My details had been passed onto her. I said this was planning issue and could she tell me if the Council can grant this use on Rush Common land. She agreed she could not.

Not happy about this. I was quite clear in my query to planning and they must have passed my details onto completely different department. If planning think its acceptable in planning terms for Council to grant permission then I want that clearly in writing. 

Ive had this before from Council. Makes me think I must be on the right track.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2011)

Londonfarmers said:


> FYI we (Brixton Farmers Market) were shown round the site by the town centre manager before it was opened, but were then told in January 2010 that -
> 'this proposal has been shelved for the foreseeable future, following consultation. This was primarily due to concerns about the legality of a market on rush common land, in addition to other issues raised through the consultation process.'
> There have since been events on the square. I don't know what difference there is between a market and a coffee shop in terms of use for rush common land! This is from Lambeth's website; http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...-AC1E-3F1E73EB6CBD/0/RushCommonNewsletter.pdf



My understanding was that the old toilet was the bit to be used for coffee shop.

That was my understanding why the market could not be on square- that this was on Rush Common. Thanks for the post . I will tell planning about this when i next (try) to get in touch.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 6, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> My understanding was that the old toilet was the bit to be used for coffee shop.


 
Makes sense in terms of access to plumbing. They'd have trouble getting planning permission for one though wouldn't they? For the exact same Rush Common reasons...


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> My understanding was that the old toilet was the bit to be used for coffee shop.


 


Crispy said:


> Makes sense in terms of access to plumbing. They'd have trouble getting planning permission for one though wouldn't they? For the exact same Rush Common reasons...


 
AFAIR the coffee stall was separate. There was a public competition to come up with alternative uses for the old toilets. No idea what came of that.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 6, 2011)

There was a feasability study done by Urban Slplash (IIRC) with all sorts of wild ideas for the toilets. All of which would require fairly hefty £££ to make work. Gross Max's planning application for the square has a "possible location for kiosk and toilets, which will be subject to future planning application" - the actual kiosk was probably removed from the scheme du to either budget cuts or advice from lambeth planning re: rush common land

EDIT: It was _make_ not urban splash: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EC3CA0C8-D02A-49C9-A4A7-F58AF66093B9/0/BCSMAKEReport.pdf


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for actually reading my post.
> 
> I put query into planning enforcement a few weeks ago
> 
> ...


 
What was your actual query? 

Rush Common Consent is separate from planning consent (although much of the intentions of the Rush Common Act is also included in planning policy). As far as Rush Common Consent is concerned they would look at it like this:

20.  When considering applications for Rush Common Consent proposals will 
 be tested against the purpose of the  Act, which is to keep its open 
 character. Generally the Council will prohibit new buildings, extensions or 
 structures although there maybe some exceptions where the open 
 character is not compromised. 

Boundary Enclosures 
22.  The provision of all new boundary enclosures (such as walls, fences, and 
 other means of enclosure) requires Rush Common Consent. Proposals 
 should take the opportunity of opening up of Rush Common, reflect the 
 need to retain the open character, maintain and enhance views. In 
 general, solid boundaries should be a maximum of 1 metre high, a higher 
 means of enclosure with railings or combination of brick and railings to a 
 maximum height of 2 metres may be allowed. Other means of enclosure 
 may be allowed on areas of Rush Common so long as it would not affect 
 views and open character of​the Common.

It also makes reference to temporary hoardings but only really in the context of building works.

The definition of Open Character is confusing since the Rush Common Act does not preserve *access *- much of Rush Common land is privately owned with privately controlled access. But the open / undeveloped character of that land is still considered important for the community.

I imagine the Ritzy setup requires permission under the act but it is not at all inconceivable that it could be granted.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 6, 2011)

Londonfarmers said:


> FYI we (Brixton Farmers Market) were shown round the site by the town centre manager before it was opened, but were then told in January 2010 that -
> 'this proposal has been shelved for the foreseeable future, following consultation. This was primarily due to concerns about the legality of a market on rush common land, in addition to other issues raised through the consultation process.'
> There have since been events on the square. I don't know what difference there is between a market and a coffee shop in terms of use for rush common land! This is from Lambeth's website; http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...-AC1E-3F1E73EB6CBD/0/RushCommonNewsletter.pdf


Thanks for that.  So, consultation of some sort has apparently taken place.



> Signs / advert hoardings / lighting columns / street furniture and utility undertakings
> • Rush Common consent is required for temporary advert hoardings to enclose building sites.
> • Signs, lighting columns street furniture and play equipment fall into the category of “structures above the
> surface of the earth” and therefore require Rush Common consent.
> ...


I wonder if the branded enclosure constitutes an 'advert hoarding'.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Thanks for that.  So, consultation of some sort has apparently taken place.
> 
> 
> I wonder if the branded enclosure constitutes an 'advert hoarding'.


 
What's your angle? Is it that you would rather there was no privately serviced seating areas on the square?


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> What's your angle? Is it that you would rather there was no privately serviced seating areas on the square?


I think I explained my pov on page 1.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> I think I explained my pov on page 1.


 
Sorry - I am obviously not entirely clear. Above you say that your whole point is that the Ritzy is (probably) not paying enough to cover maintenance of they area they use. But then you seem to be suggesting that their use of the area is against the Rush Common Act. Hence I asked what your angle is and whether you would rather there was no privately serviced seating areas on the square? No worries though.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Sorry - I am obviously not entirely clear. Above you say that your whole point is that the Ritzy is (probably) not paying enough to cover maintenance of they area they use. But then you seem to be suggesting that their use of the area is against the Rush Common Act. Hence I asked what your angle is and whether you would rather there was no privately serviced seating areas on the square? No worries though.


My first post on this thread:


miss minnie said:


> Can't believe how cheaply the council rent our space to this mob.
> 
> It might not be quite so irritating if this cheap space was being shared by some of the smaller traders in Brixton.  I wouldn't mind seeing something resembling a summer market with a choice of stalls selling food/drink, clothes/jewelry, postcards or such.
> 
> The Ritzy presence is just so bland and corporate.


Bland, corporate, using up public space and quite possibly not paying enough for that privilege, plus the council being opaque about stuff as usual.

Is that enough of "my angle" for you?


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> I wonder if the branded enclosure constitutes an 'advert hoarding'.


I'd say it's certainly advertising. The 'Ritzy' branding must appear at least 12-15 times over the square in large letters - and it's not just the cafe that gets advertised either (e.g. Ritzy Upstairs).


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> My first post on this thread:
> 
> Bland, corporate, using up public space and quite possibly not paying enough for that privilege, plus the council being opaque about stuff as usual.
> 
> Is that enough of "my angle" for you?



Yes. Quite enough thanks.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> What was your actual query?
> 
> Rush Common Consent is separate from planning consent (although much of the intentions of the Rush Common Act is also included in planning policy). As far as Rush Common Consent is concerned they would look at it like this:
> 
> ...



My query was that the square was set up as public open space and the Ritzy use of it stops a section of it being open to the public. It is also part of Rush Common.  Whatever the arguments for and against are there is a planning issue here. It looks to me that permission to use it was given by Parks Dept without referance to Planning Dept. 

I ought to get an answer from planning either saying this use is acceptable or not and the reasons for it. The fact that I havent and that it appears my query was passed onto other non planning department make me think there is a planning issue here.

I will persevere with this to get an answer.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Makes sense in terms of access to plumbing. They'd have trouble getting planning permission for one though wouldn't they? For the exact same Rush Common reasons...


 
I think ur right on that there might be problems with planning permission.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> I don't recall any of the proposals for Windrush Square featuring a vast chunk of the area being taken over by a private company.
> 
> As it is, vast pots of public money appear to have just funded a nice al fresco new dining/cafe area for the Ritzy.


 
Nail on Head


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm all for the Ritzy being able to serve coffees in the square - it helps bring the place alive.
> 
> It's just that their sealed enclosures seem to be growing at a rather troubling rate while enthusiastically branding a sizeable chunk of what is supposed to be a public square.



When the person from Environmental services rang me she said that the seating directly outside Ritzy was given permission by Streetcare.

The more new seating area on actual Square was with permission of Parks Dept. So the new seating is on actual the public Square which is what I am taking issue with.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 7, 2011)

I don't like the Ritzy branding. 

But I do like the square being used in such a manner.

It looks Continental ... almost.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 7, 2011)

If only they would knock down the KFC building and make that into a square... now we're talking plaza! With the footfall you get in Brixton it'd be fantastic to have a big space bang in the middle of town.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 7, 2011)

editor said:


> I don't recall any of the proposals for Windrush Square featuring a vast chunk of the area being taken over by a private company.
> 
> As it is, vast pots of public money appear to have just funded a nice al fresco new dining/cafe area for the Ritzy.



That's the issue. On the plus side, the Ritzy staff don't seem to care whether you spend money in the Ritzy.  Sometimes you see schoolkids sitting there, not eating or drinking anything. You can bring your own food and drink, get a free glass of tap water from the Ritzy bar, and use the free wi-fi from the Ritzy or McDonalds. (This may require a wi-fi booster.) The shade from the tree keeps the sun off your laptop screen.  It's a useful free public amenity at the Ritzy's expense. The seating is much better than the official Windrush Sq. chairs. Or the turd.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 7, 2011)

nick h. said:


> That's the issue. On the plus side, the Ritzy staff don't seem to care whether you spend money in the Ritzy.  Sometimes you see schoolkids sitting there, not eating or drinking anything. You can bring your own food and drink, get a free glass of tap water from the Ritzy bar, and use the free wi-fi from the Ritzy or McDonalds. (This may require a wi-fi booster.) The shade from the tree keeps the sun off your laptop screen.  It's a useful free public amenity at the Ritzy's expense. The seating is much better than the official Windrush Sq. chairs. Or the turd.


Hehe, excellent!


----------



## colacubes (Jul 7, 2011)

nick h. said:


> That's the issue. On the plus side, the Ritzy staff don't seem to care whether you spend money in the Ritzy.  Sometimes you see schoolkids sitting there, not eating or drinking anything. You can bring your own food and drink, get a free glass of tap water from the Ritzy bar, and use the free wi-fi from the Ritzy or McDonalds. (This may require a wi-fi booster.) The shade from the tree keeps the sun off your laptop screen.  It's a useful free public amenity at the Ritzy's expense. The seating is much better than the official Windrush Sq. chairs. Or the turd.


 
I was turfed off one of the chairs outside the ritzy with my own coffee by a security guard while I was waiting for some friends.  They weren't quite open yet either.


----------



## innit (Jul 7, 2011)

nipsla said:


> I was turfed off one of the chairs outside the ritzy with my own coffee by a security guard while I was waiting for some friends.  They weren't quite open yet either.


 
Boo to that.

It looks from editor's pictures as though the Ritzy 'compound' by the tree has got bigger?


----------



## nick h. (Jul 7, 2011)

nipsla said:


> I was turfed off one of the chairs outside the ritzy with my own coffee by a security guard while I was waiting for some friends.  They weren't quite open yet either.



You need to be discreet! Were you in the square or next to the Ritzy? Presumably the latter, as the Ritzy wasn't quite open. When the chairs in the square are busy there's far too much going on for one security guard to notice where you got your coffee from.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2011)

I want to know how the Ritzy gets to bag the nicest part of the square (under the big tree) for the sole use of their customers.

I've seen people turfed out for having their own food/drink too.


----------



## Winot (Jul 7, 2011)

editor said:


> I want to know how the Ritzy gets to bag the nicest part of the square (under the big tree) for the sole use of their customers.
> 
> I've seen people turfed out for having their own food/drink too.


 
It would be interesting to know the legality of ejecting people from a public space.  Of course, you might have to bring your own chair too.  I seem to remember a chapter about this in No Logo re. leafleters being ejected from shopping centres which were built on public space.  I have also seen beggars being asked to leave the space in front of the Royal Festival Hall, although I'm not sure if that's public or owned by the Southbank Centre.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 7, 2011)

Ive also seen people told to leave the Ritzy seating on the square.

I was told the one of the reasons the Parks dept gave it to Ritzy is to stop other people using square who were considered to be a nuisiance. It also seems to mean that the Ritzys security polices the square for Council


----------



## B-Town (Jul 8, 2011)

Isn't it nice though that Brixton has a decent place to drink in the Sun looking over the Town Centre and the beautiful area that is the square/town hall. 

There is plenty more space available beyond the Ritzy, from what I can see is the seating just makes the square more accesable - giving people who want to buy a drink (i.e. not drink out a can) can do, whilst sitting on chairs. 

If an independent business is allowed to thrive in Brixton, then for me that is a good thing and shouldn't be shot down. When I moved to Brixton that area/tree was full of Winos and I believe the developments and new seating have opened up a space previously denied to me. 

If you want to use the square, but without having to sit/pay in a Ritzy seat - why not use a public chair, or sit on the grass?


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2011)

B-Town said:


> If you want to use the square, but without having to sit/pay in a Ritzy seat - why not use a public chair, or sit on the grass?


1. Because there's only a handful of public seats in the square 
2. Grass can be wet and sitting on the floor isn't always a practical option for old/disabled folks
3. Call me crazy, but I reckon some old fashioned folks just like sitting around a table and eating their lunch

Now tell me why you think a private enterprise should be allowed to stick their corporate branding all over the best part of a publicly funded square for its own private use and profit please?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 8, 2011)

The best part?   I've spent maybe 50/ 60 hours sat in Windrush sq in the last year or so. (compared to no more than an hour total in the previous 20 years) can't say I've ever seen anyone sat on the ground where the Ritzy seats now are.  On the steps yes. Ive never wanted to sit in that  area.  I regularly use and enjoy the sq space. I haven't been impeded in the slightest by Ritzy chairs.  It has just expanded my options. 

NB of those 55 hours fewer than 2 have been in Ritzy chairs, less than 40% of visits have involved giving Ritzy any business at all. But more than 50% have involved using their toilets. 

Are there cafes or restaurants nearby who want to use the sq for tables?


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2011)

Don't get me wrong: I think it's great that the Ritzy has helped open up the square, but it's just the increasingly spreading mass of branded, private areas that concern me.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 8, 2011)

So if the fabric barriers were unbranded, you'd be happy?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Winot said:


> It would be interesting to know the legality of ejecting people from a public space.  Of course, you might have to bring your own chair too.


You have to go back to ownership - and on that I have a vague memory of the space being donated to the public by someone like Mr Tate... It's only a vauge memory though.

If that is the case, obv. the council still have some legal rights as well as obligations, but quite the extent of them.....

It would be interesting to know. As for some heavy from the Ritzy moving me on, no chance without the manager of the Ritzy attending and explaining  the legal position as has as he understands it.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 8, 2011)

B-Town said:


> If an independent business is allowed to thrive in Brixton, then for me that is a good thing and shouldn't be shot down.


The Ritzy isn't a local 'independent' business, its part of a national chain of cinemas with at least 20 branches and who knows what other holdings.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 8, 2011)

I can't really see the great harm. There is plenty of square to go round.

I'd like to see some more cafes there. God knows we love coffee in SW2/9


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 8, 2011)

If there so happened to be 4 independent cafe type establishments round the sq they would quite probably all want a bit if that juicy w sq  action. And overall more sq would be given over to private seating. But it isn't that  sort of sq.  it is set out how it is and there is one cafeish thing. The seating demand is therefore being supplied where it is.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 8, 2011)

It's not perfect, but it's great that the square is a bit of destination for consumers on a sunny Saturday. It must be good news for other traders too. If it weren't for the Ritzy the square would just go back to being the haunt of addicts and plastic police.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

I think it's quite interesting given this is still new and evolving. Made a note (to self) to make a FOI request to Lambeth BC next week asking about ownership and who is leasing/allowed space in the square.

If nothing else, it'll be interesting to see how Lambeth perform their legal obligations...

And to see if the Rizty are making an early land grab off their own bat.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2011)

Crispy said:


> So if the fabric barriers were unbranded, you'd be happy?


Not really no. It's fair enough having the space outside the cinema, but I don't understand why they can bagsy the nicest part of the square and stop people sheltering under the one remaining big tree in that sea of concrete.

If they let non customers use the seats that would be a different story, of course. But they don't.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 8, 2011)

I don't think it's the end of the world and I do like to see the square being used but I would like to see other businesses/organisations using it and I hope that we have more events there this summer.  I've been to some lovely events in the library - it would be great to see them using it in some way too.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 8, 2011)

It's a fucking pisstake and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.


----------



## Ol Nick (Jul 8, 2011)

Let's see someone else take them on then. There's worse in this world than the Ritzy coffee bar.


----------



## bosie (Jul 9, 2011)

Lambeth libraries at risk of cuts + brixon library located on a busy and popular square next to a thriving cafe = brixton library opening an outdoor cafe and generating extra income to help subsidise the library. No brainer, surely?

It seems like a wasted opportunity, they could throw in wi-fi and library members could read books in the outside seating.


----------



## bosie (Jul 9, 2011)

Oh and get rid of that horrible blue and yellow signage and replace it with something that acutally fits in with the building while they are at it.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 9, 2011)

bosie said:


> Lambeth libraries at risk of cuts + brixon library located on a busy and popular square next to a thriving cafe = brixton library opening an outdoor cafe and generating extra income to help subsidise the library. No brainer, surely?
> 
> It seems like a wasted opportunity, they could throw in wi-fi and library members could read books in the outside seating.


 
Great idea


----------



## Rushy (Jul 9, 2011)

bosie said:


> Lambeth libraries at risk of cuts + brixon library located on a busy and popular square next to a thriving cafe = brixton library opening an outdoor cafe and generating extra income to help subsidise the library. No brainer, surely?
> 
> It seems like a wasted opportunity, they could throw in wi-fi and library members could read books in the outside seating.


 
Nice in principle but not sure that's how things work in the council? I doubt the library would set up a coffee shop itself. It would be outsourced so profit would go to the service provider and some kind of rent for the space would get paid to the council. Which is not a million miles from what is happening now.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Nice in principle but not sure that's how things work in the council? I doubt the library would set up a coffee shop itself. It would be outsourced so profit would go to the service provider and some kind of rent for the space would get paid to the council. Which is not a million miles from what is happening now.


How much money are the Ritzy currently paying to take over (and brand) a prime chunk of the public square?


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 9, 2011)

Thought I'd try to find the pdf that listed the charges...
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/



> Service unavailable due to essential maintenance
> 
> Due to planned essential maintenance work to improve our computer network, some council services will be affected this weekend.
> 
> ...


----------



## leanderman (Jul 9, 2011)

bosie said:


> Oh and get rid of that horrible blue and yellow signage and replace it with something that acutally fits in with the building while they are at it.


 
It's not just me then that's annoyed by that hideous, out of date and useless signage.

It must be a listed building, so is it even legal?

Is there any way it can be got rid of?


----------



## IamSnakes (Jul 9, 2011)

+1 Great building horrible plastic signs.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 9, 2011)

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/HousingPlanning/Planning/RushCommonland.htm

Found this on Lambeth website re Rush Common. Its a webpage with pdfs for policies on Rush Common. It includes copy of the original act , a map and newer guidelines for Rush Common. 

Thought there must be something as i was looking for what Rushy posted up earlier. Its is an arguable case and as Rushy said its possible the Council could allow it . But also as Rushy says, and it looks to me as well, its likely to need Rush Common consent.

Thought id email "planning  implementation" on this which is listed on this webpage. As ive had no reply from Planning enforcement (see previous posts) So far drafted this:


The use by the Ritzy cordons off part of the square on a permanent basis every day. This means that part of the square is no longer part of the public open space. Also the barriers advertise the Ritzy.

Does this use , which is every day, count as an "erection above the surface of the earth" and therefore need Rush Common Consent?

If so has this been obtained?

Did the Parks Dept obtain advice from the planning section of Council before allowing this use of square? 

If so was there consultation with local community?

Is Conservation area consent required?

The barriers have advertising on them. Does this require consent? Both Rush Common consent and Advertising consent. 

Do the enclosures the Ritzy use count as a boundary enclosure? Thus needing Rush Common consent?

The recently finished square was designed and built with consultation of the local community. It was to be a new public space. This use goes against the the public nature of the square.


Rush Common Policy and Guidance notes say:

 "Therefore any “erections or buildings above the surface of the earth” will require consent from Lambeth Council  even if planning permission is not required..


Examples of works requiring Rush Common consent may include extensions, freestanding buildings, new building, replacement buildings,  garages, temporary structures, play equipment, garages, fencing, walls, railings, garden structures (such as pergolas and dustbin stores), hardstandings / paving and lighting columns."

31. Consent under the Advertisement Regulations as well as Rush Common Consent would be required for temporary advert hoardings to enclose building sites. Signs, lighting columns street furniture and play equipment fall into the category “erection above the surface of the earth” and therefore will require Rush Common Consent. Advertisement consent may also be required depending on the nature of the sign. It should also be noted that only a single estate agents board or two joined together may be displayed on the premises under the Town and Country Planning (Control  of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. "

The provision of all new boundary enclosures (such as walls, fences, and other means of enclosure) requires Rush Common Consent.

There is a presumption against buildings or erections above the surface on Rush Common Land. When considering applications for Rush Common Consent proposals will be tested against the purpose of the Act, which is to maintain its open character.


The Council will consider ways in which the private and public land can be maintained and enhanced with the involvement of the local community. 
 Council officers and ward members will seek to ensure that decisions that effect Rush Common land ensure better use to the benefit of the whole community.


----------



## B-Town (Jul 10, 2011)

editor said:


> 1. Because there's only a handful of public seats in the square
> 2. Grass can be wet and sitting on the floor isn't always a practical option for old/disabled folks
> 3. Call me crazy, but I reckon some old fashioned folks just like sitting around a table and eating their lunch
> 
> Now tell me why you think a private enterprise should be allowed to stick their corporate branding all over the best part of a publicly funded square for its own private use and profit please?


 
Because if it wasnt for the private enterprise there would be no table for the old fashioned folk - or do you not remember what it was like before the Ritzy added to the square?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2011)

got back from being away today.  Noticed that the extra bit of Ritzy seating was not there.  No one was sat on the prime chunk of the best part of the square.  On the steps in the vicinity there was same as used to happen before.


----------



## nick h. (Jul 10, 2011)

Probably because today was a bit dead. Not enough punters to justify putting the chairs out?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Because if it wasnt for the private enterprise there would be no table for the old fashioned folk - or do you not remember what it was like before the Ritzy added to the square?


 
The reason there is little seating is because it was designed that way. Specifically to stop people hanging around the new square. Police like it that way as it makes it easier for them. Means less people to keep an eye on. Its called Secured by Design. On large projects like this the Police are consulted.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> got back from being away today.  Noticed that the extra bit of Ritzy seating was not there.  No one was sat on the prime chunk of the best part of the square.  On the steps in the vicinity there was same as used to happen before.


 
I noticed that as well. I was going to take a few photos of it. The seating was all still inside the Ritzy. Be interesting to know why.


----------



## B-Town (Jul 10, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> The reason there is little seating is because it was designed that way. Specifically to stop people hanging around the new square. Police like it that way as it makes it easier for them. Means less people to keep an eye on. Its called Secured by Design. On large projects like this the Police are consulted.


 
You seem to be missing the point... I was replying to a thread, where Editor was saying the old fashion type want to sit in that area with chairs and tables. 

As you point out, with out the ritzy there would be not chairs and tables 

So Ritzy = good for respectable brixtonians (i.e. non tramps)


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> I noticed that as well. I was going to take a few photos of it. The seating was all still inside the Ritzy. Be interesting to know why.


 
When did you say you sent that email.....?


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2011)

B-Town said:


> You seem to be missing the point... I was replying to a thread, where Editor was saying the old fashion type want to sit in that area with chairs and tables.
> 
> As you point out, with out the ritzy there would be not chairs and tables
> 
> So Ritzy = good for respectable brixtonians (i.e. non tramps)


But not so good for people wanting to sit down in the shade of the tree if they've brought their own packed lunch along.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 10, 2011)

editor said:


> But not so good for people wanting to sit down in the shade of the tree if they've brought their own packed lunch along.


 
To be fair, after you said this before I took a look at it and the Ritzy enclosure only takes up about a quarter of the area under the tree. On Saturday the Ritzy bit was full of people and the rest was fairly sparse. Only about half the fixed seats on the entire square were in use. No idea what the legal position is but I don't think anyone is really being put out by it.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2011)

Rushy said:


> To be fair, after you said this before I took a look at it and the Ritzy enclosure only takes up about a quarter of the area under the tree.


This looks to be a very big 'quarter' to my eyes:


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Btw, it should be 'City Screen Square', it might tout itself as our old favourite Ritzy but its all just smoke and mirrors.


 
As a slight aside I was going to ask about this before but typing on the phone and going on non-bookmarked sites is a pain.  _In my head_ the Ritzy and Clapham picturehouse were both independents and then I noticed you could book tickets for both on the same site and that there were other cinemas which sounded independent on the same site.  My minute's thought on the matter led me to the conclusion that independents were pooling resources in some way.  Anyway I've now had a look and this is what they have to say for themselves.  Their own blurb of course, but. 

http://www.picturehouses.co.uk/About_Us/City_Screen/



> City Screen was formed in 1989 to provide cinemas that serve their communities in city centre locations. We are now the leading independent cinema operator in the UK.
> Independent, art-house and foreign-language films have always been central to our profile. Equally, each of our cinemas is programmed in response to its local audience, and most of our venues have mainstream blockbusters and quality crossover titles in the mix.
> Our first cinema was the Phoenix in Oxford which was bought as a going concern when the previous owners retired. In 1992 we opened our first custom-built cinema, Clapham Picturehouse, and since then we have grown steadily through a mixture of new builds and acquisitions, particularly in university cities such as Oxford, Cambridge, London, Brighton and York.
> Our philosophy includes:
> ...



Doesn't sound like the worst.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2011)

B-Town said:


> You seem to be missing the point... I was replying to a thread, where Editor was saying the old fashion type want to sit in that area with chairs and tables.
> 
> As you point out, with out the ritzy there would be not chairs and tables
> 
> So Ritzy = good for respectable brixtonians (i.e. non tramps)


 
No im not missing the point. 

The chairs and tables are for Ritzy customers only.

The Ed was pointing  out that there is not much public seating.

The Ritzy seating is not for public use.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> When did you say you sent that email.....?


 
Not yet. Ive only posted up what ive drafted for peoples general interest. Also i may be incorrect with some of it. I need to check it over later. 

I was going to take some photos as well to attach to it today. But the seating was not there today.

So looks like next week ill send it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2011)

B-Town said:


> So Ritzy = good for respectable brixtonians (i.e. non tramps)



Tramps can be Brixtonians as well.  As long as they dont bother people then they have there place here ( and in London as well).


----------



## Rushy (Jul 10, 2011)

editor said:


> This looks to be a very big 'quarter' to my eyes:


 
It is. But still only about one third of the size of the even bigger three quarters not covered by the Ritzy enclosure. 

Given that the enclosure is a square shape and has one corner roughly in the centre of the tree by its trunk  (as your photo shows) it simply cannot be taking up much more than about 25% (unless the tree has a particularly funny canopy shape - which it doesn't).


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2011)

Thing is the square was built using whatever money (tfl?).  The council aren't going to put up public seating.  There isn't going to be any budget for that, certainly not now.  There probably isn't a decent council budget to maintain it.    The square is what it is.  As it stands people are not using that patch to sit on.  They sit on the steps but not on the paving under the tree.  There are no seats there.  Putting aside the Rush Common useage issues and levels of charges made it's hard to see a better use of that space than the use the Ritzy has put it to.  It's not going to be council provided seating, it's going to be bare paving that no one sits on, seats provided by Ritzy renting the space or seats provided by some other commercial venture renting the space. The only other option is seating paid for by a commercial venture with the proviso by the council that non-customers can also make use of them.  If that is a feasible option then I'd be quite happy with that.  The only inconvenience of there being a cordoned seating area to me, you and any other general public, that I can see is that people wishing to cross that segment of the square will have to walk round instead of through.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Tramps can be Brixtonians as well.  As long as they dont bother people then they have there place here ( and in London as well).


 
Yep.  When I've used the square, and I have a lot, they have still been around much of the time.  Mostly without any bother. Occasionally with a little.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Thing is the square was built using whatever money (tfl?).  The council aren't going to put up public seating.  There isn't going to be any budget for that, certainly not now.  There probably isn't a decent council budget to maintain it.    The square is what it is.  As it stands people are not using that patch to sit on.  They sit on the steps but not on the paving under the tree.  There are no seats there.  Putting aside the Rush Common useage issues and levels of charges made it's hard to see a better use of that space than the use the Ritzy has put it to.  It's not going to be council provided seating, it's going to be bare paving that no one sits on, seats provided by Ritzy renting the space or seats provided by some other commercial venture renting the space. The only other option is seating paid for by a commercial venture with the proviso by the council that non-customers can also make use of them.  If that is a feasible option then I'd be quite happy with that.  The only inconvenience of there being a cordoned seating area to me, you and any other general public, that I can see is that people wishing to cross that segment of the square will have to walk round instead of through.



Ive said it before and I will say it again the lack of public seating in the square was not due to lack of money. It was designed to have limited seating to make sure people didnt hang around there.

If its ended up as "windswept square" that due to how its been designed. 

If the Council wanted to have a commercial enterprise having a section of the square then I dont remember being consulted about it when the squares plans first came out.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2011)

It hasn't ended up windswept though. It's brought in the grassy bit which was previously sectioned off by road and railings and rarely used and is, overall far more used than previously from what I can see.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 10, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Ive said it before and I will say it again the lack of public seating in the square was not due to lack of money. It was designed to have limited seating to make sure people didnt hang around there.
> 
> If its ended up as "windswept square" that due to how its been designed.
> 
> If the Council wanted to have a commercial enterprise having a section of the square then I dont remember being consulted about it when the squares plans first came out.


 
But the enclosure isn't preventing people from making use of the square. In fact, it is allowing a lot of people to use it in the way they would like. If someone has really been inconvenienced by it then by all means let's hear about it. But by challenging them just on principle the best you are gong to achieve here is stopping a large number from enjoying the square the way they want to and without inconveniencing anyone.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2011)

Rushy said:


> But the enclosure isn't preventing people from making use of the square. In fact, it is allowing a lot of people to use it in the way they would like. If someone has really been inconvenienced by it then by all means let's hear about it. But by challenging them just on principle the best you are gong to achieve here is stopping a large number from enjoying the square the way they want to and without inconveniencing anyone.


 
Good point.  Without the enclosure there are x number of people using the square. When the enclosure is there there are x number of people using the square, plus  y number of people using the square as ritzy patrons.  Not x people plus y people minus z number of people for whom the square experience has been ruined by the enclosure and have gone off in the huff.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 10, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Good point.  Without the enclosure there are x number of people using the square. When the enclosure is there there are x number of people using the square, plus  y number of people using the square as ritzy patrons.  Not x people plus y people minus z number of people for whom the square experience has been ruined by the enclosure and have gone off in the huff.


 
A fine algorithm indeed, if ever I saw one.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 10, 2011)

Speaking only for myself, I am quite happy to sit on paved floors, bt not at the foot of trees because that's where people wee at night. I could see myself happily sitting on the ground elsewhere in the square, but under the tree, i'd want a chair.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 10, 2011)

on the broader issue, the ritzy seating and hoardings look exactly like the usage of public spaces in paris, barcelona, rome, florence, venice and just about every other european city i've been to. I've always thought cafe culture was a good thing.  

there is still tonnes of space left - under the tree, and also on the grass - which is the area people mostly seem to want to hang out.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 11, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> Speaking only for myself, I am quite happy to sit on paved floors, bt not at the foot of trees because that's where people wee at night. I could see myself happily sitting on the ground elsewhere in the square, but under the tree, i'd want a chair.


 
I don't find it as comfortable as a step.  

for certain values of comfortable.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2011)

Rushy said:


> But the enclosure isn't preventing people from making use of the square. In fact, it is allowing a lot of people to use it in the way they would like. If someone has really been inconvenienced by it then by all means let's hear about it. But by challenging them just on principle the best you are gong to achieve here is stopping a large number from enjoying the square the way they want to and without inconveniencing anyone.


 
Thats your opinion and ur entitled to it. Its not mine. 

Nor has anyone as far as I can see been given the chance to have a say on it except on these boards. If the Council want to change the use of the square they could consult people first.

It would be simple to allow both patrons of Ritzy and those who wish to use the square to enjoy it. Put in some chairs in the square for people to sit on. Its not rocket science.

The principle is that Common Land is now being used for commercial purposes indefinitely as far as I can see.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 11, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Thats your opinion and ur entitled to it. Its not mine.



Which bit of my opinion do you not agree with?

That the enclosure is not preventing people from making use of the square? 
That it is allowing a lot of people to use part of it in a way that they would like? 
That no one has really been inconvenienced? 
That by challenging the use on principle will be hollow because the most your challenge will achieve is stopping a large number of people using the square in a way that they want and in a way that does not preclude others using the square?



> Nor has anyone as far as I can see been given the chance to have a say on it except on these boards. If the Council want to change the use of the square they could consult people first.



Have you actually looked into this in any detail?

The published consultation results conclude that: 

_Consultees have suggested a number of possible uses for Brixton Central 
Square. In particular, it is recognised that the Square should work to attract 
visitors day and night, with, for example, coffee shops and restaurants acting 
as a draw._​
This conclusion is based on surveys in which people were asked for _unprompted _suggestions of what they wanted to see on the square. The #1 most popular response was  "Cafe/open air cafe/eating place" (23%). This suggestion was way ahead of anything else. 

"Market stalls" ranked 4th with 14%, just behind "more seating" in third on 15%.



> The principle is that Common Land is now being used for commercial purposes indefinitely as far as I can see.



I think that the title Rush Common is confusing you. _Common Land_ which you refer to is something very specific. Rush Common ceased to be _Common Land_ after the enclosures Acts in 1806 (and 1821) which bear its name. Plot 1641 for instance was given to the Archbishop of Canterbury on which he built St Matthews Church (Lambeth has since leased back the gardens). The plot on which the Ritzy plane tree stands was transferred under award number 1461. It passed through several hands and ended up back in the ownership of the council.

This land is just council owned land. They are entitled to make commercial arrangements on it. Particularly since they have consulted and people have said that is what they want. I doubt the arrangements are indefinite but regularly renewable.



> It would be simple to allow both patrons of Ritzy and those who wish to use the square to enjoy it. Put in some chairs in the square for people to sit on. Its not rocket science.



Challenging the Ritzy's enclosure isn't going to provide more seating.
But go for it. Maybe you can make them get rid of the Ritzy chairs on a technicality.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2011)

Its not a technicality. If its correct and Rush Common Consent is required part of the procedure to get Rush Common consent is consultation.

I would be quite happy to see that. Everyone can have there say in that case. Hopefully.

Its not just Council owned land. If u look at link I put up from Lambeth website special provisions apply as it part of Rush Common.

As for detail I was involved in some of the early consultation of the plans for a square. The consultation was labyrinthine. In the end it was Council project that was officer led with some consultation of local community.

imo the Council decided to go for low maintenance "secured by design" square. Possibly with kiosk/ coffee bar. Seating was kept down to stop people hanging about.

As ive said before my preferred option is to increase public seating in the square. Not to cordon off one area for use of patrons of Ritzy only. Seems reasonable option to me.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 11, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> > Its not a technicality. If its correct and Rush Common Consent is required part of the procedure to get Rush Common consent is consultation. I would be quite happy to see that. Everyone can have there say in that case. Hopefully.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Crispy (Jul 11, 2011)

Not quite sure what harm the ritzy seating is doing tbf


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2011)

Rushy;11925363][QUOTE=Gramsci said:


> I think they would agree with you. The demand for safety from local residents had enormous influence on the plans, even leading to Effra Road not being closed as originally  intended because people felt safer with a main road running through the square. That was the demand of the Effra Road Resident's group (a huge shame IMO).
> 
> That's great - ask for more seating.  But it is a shame you feel the need to stir things up when what is there fits in with what was the main requirement of those who expressed a view during the consultation. Most people seem to be enjoying it.


 
I never said I agreed with the Council.

Im not opposing the Ritzy seating directly outside cinema.

I also said there was proposal to build some kind of kiosk. Dont have problem with that.

The consultation was to say the least tortuous. Many people got consultation "fatigue". 

"Stir things up"? All I have done is look at the planning issues and raise them. If the Council planners think Ive got it wrong that's up to them.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Not quite sure what harm the ritzy seating is doing tbf


 
it used to be a public area, used by people chilling out, skateboarders, performers etc. now its effectively been privatised. u have to buy a drink to sit there. which is a bit shit.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Not quite sure what harm the ritzy seating is doing tbf


How do you feel about large amounts of branded advertising and private areas in the middle of a public square?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2011)

editor said:


> How do you feel about large amounts of branded advertising and private areas in the middle of a public square?


 
Ask a less loaded question please


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Ask a less loaded question please


It's not loaded. It's what the _entire thread_ has been about since the start.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2011)

My opinion of the current situation in the square is that no public seating is being taken away by the ritzy's area. The ritzy's area takes up about 1/4 of the space under the tree, leaving plenty of room for the rest of the square. Public use of the square is not impeded in any significant way, in my opinion. If their area went right up to the pavement on all sides of the tree, that would be too much. I couldn't really care less about the branding, seeing as it's the ritzy, a local name, and the graphics are tasteful.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

But is it legit; what are they paying - contributing to the community - for the land grab, or is it opportunism? What about competition and prices in what should be a community attraction? What are Lambeth BCs rules/guidelines on advertising there?

How do wheelchairs, mobility whatsits and buggies get along CHL safely with the Ritzy spilling down the side?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> But is it legit; what are they paying - contributing to the community - for the land grab, or is it opportunism, what about competition and prices?


 
What competition? No other business fronts onto the square. I would be interested to know what compensation the council is getting, but I don't think the area should be removed. It's nice, it creates a use in the square and is exactly how cities on the continent use their public space.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Crispy said:


> What competition?


Exactly. 


Crispy said:


> I would be interested to know what compensation the council is getting, but I don't think the area should be removed. It's nice, it creates a use in the square and is exactly how cities on the continent use their public space.


I'd agree it's a start. An attraction. Surely though it needs to be done right, just accepting something - this - because it's an improvement on nothing is quite possibly Lambeth's answer,  but it's under-selling, under utilising the potential.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2011)

When BCA opens, things will be different again - although their cafe/bar is very small.


----------



## saltounpepper (Jul 14, 2011)

I am forced to stroll through the two seating areas every day on my way home from the tube.  I feel like I'm being watched on a catwalk or something.

For the record I'm pretty short and fat, so I would have no idea what this feels like.

Personally though I don't mind the branding.  I wonder what the residents made of the Bovril ad when that was first painted on...


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 14, 2011)

MOAR to the point what are they paying for it now?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 14, 2011)

excellent username


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2011)

saltounpepper said:


> Personally though I don't mind the branding.  I wonder what the residents made of the Bovril ad when that was first painted on...


The'd probably be too distracted by the lovely gardens that used to be there to notice. 












http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/theatre.html


----------



## saltounpepper (Jul 14, 2011)

It's all about the subliminal messages


----------



## Crispy (Jul 15, 2011)

Look at all the space thats fenced off in those gardens. Why, you can only walk on the paths! Barely any seating either.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 15, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Not quite sure what harm the ritzy seating is doing tbf


 
I tripped over one of them last month


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Look at all the space thats fenced off in those gardens. Why, you can only walk on the paths! Barely any seating either.


Perhaps you prefer the _moderne_ sea of concrete, but I rather like old fashioned things like trees, grass, plants and flowers.  

Even this comparatively bleak 1960s view reminds me of how much grass (and trees) have been lost.






Stick some benches around this Victorian view and we'd be sorted:


----------



## Crispy (Jul 15, 2011)

I prefer public space that can be used for things, rather than fenced off and looked at.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I prefer public space that can be used for things, rather than fenced off and looked at.


So do you prefer the current concrete-tastic, grass-untroubled vista of Tate Gardens to the 1960s view?

Apart from being an extension to the Ritzy's private business, could you remind me what the square's being used for?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 15, 2011)

editor said:


> So do you prefer the current concrete-tastic, grass-untroubled vista of Tate Gardens to the 1960s view?



The current space is paved with Quite Nice Stone, and there's grass troubling the vista. There are lots of trees in the south side of the space.

The 1960's view has some inaccessible grass, some flowers, and passage across the square is blocked by the raised walls. Rushcroft road cuts it in half.



> Apart from being an extension to the Ritzy's private business, could you remind me what the square's being used for?



I have seen: Old boys sitting in the public seats with their guinness. Kids playing. People riding bikes and skateboards. People sitting on the grass in the sun. Various information/market/council etc. gazebos. I'm sure that Brixton Splash will make excellent use of the space this year. It's a vast improvement.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 15, 2011)

Even if the BCA has only a small cafe, there is nothing to stop them appropriating a part of the square, a la Ritzy.

Just spotted the pix of the BCA building on their website. Looks good.


----------



## saltounpepper (Jul 21, 2011)

Incidentally, what's going on with the BCA?  This may have been covered elsewhere on U75 but there seems to be a lack of activity at the moment.  Funds dried up?  Unexpected structural problems with the building?  

Maybe they've read this thread and are having second thoughts about their plans for an outside seating area?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 21, 2011)

Well their funding is secure, so the relative quiet on site is probably due to the preliminaries going on inside. Maybe they found asbestos. Maybe they found some structural instability. Hard to know, unless you see a builder and press them for info.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 21, 2011)

That sort of survey would have been done prior to lottery funders (& Boris House et al) agreeing it wouldn't it? Can't believe they'd have been offered that amount without a Schedule D or whatever it's called, as well as a surveyors report etc.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Well their funding is secure, so the relative quiet on site is probably due to the preliminaries going on inside. Maybe they found asbestos. Maybe they found some structural instability. Hard to know, unless you see a builder and press them for info.


It's pretty much totally trashed inside.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 21, 2011)

snowy_again said:


> That sort of survey would have been done prior to lottery funders (& Boris House et al) agreeing it wouldn't it? Can't believe they'd have been offered that amount without a Schedule D or whatever it's called, as well as a surveyors report etc.


 
I'd have thought so. Doesn't prevent surprises (or accidents) though.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 21, 2011)

Maybe they did provisional surveys and its out to tender for some bits then? Not looked on the BCA site for a while.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 24, 2011)

Reigned it in this weekend.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 25, 2011)

I noticed that too, but assumed it was because other people were paying to use the square (the Oval Playhouse Routemaster).


----------



## RubyToogood (Jul 28, 2011)

I saw a bat there last night, flying across from the library side into the trees by the church.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2011)

RubyToogood said:


> I saw a bat there last night, flying across from the library side into the trees by the church.


Was it pulling a "COME TO THE RITZY" banner?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 29, 2011)

snowy_again said:


> I noticed that too, but assumed it was because other people were paying to use the square (the Oval Playhouse Routemaster).


 
The Playhouse Routemaster was a temporary use of square. Which is appropriate use of a public square.

Ive noticed the Ritzy encampment has gone. Hasnt been there when ive been past in the last week.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 29, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> The Playhouse Routemaster was a temporary use of square. Which is appropriate use of a public square.
> 
> Ive noticed the Ritzy encampment has gone. Hasnt been there when ive been past in the last week.


 
Yeah, I pointed that out a couple of weeks ago and someone said maybe the weather wasn't good (it was one of the nicest days of the year).  Maybe they, or Lambeth Council saw this thread


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2011)

Seats are back.

Ive emailed planning in more detail with photos and referances to Rush Common policies from Council website.

The email address on the Rush Common website page on the Lambeth website does not work. So Ive emailed planning directly this time.

Also put in the reference number for my previous query about this as they never got back to me. They are supposed to. Either to say its not a planning issue or it is.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 31, 2011)

Weren't there yesterday, were there today.  Maybe it depends on if they have enough staff in or not.


----------



## newbie (Jul 31, 2011)

My rummage around the Lambeth website for what the Ritzy is paying only comes up with this scale.  Do they really  only pay a few hundred quid a year for what must be a goldmine?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2011)

The chairs out the front of Ritzy come under Streetcare. The ones on the Square under the tree come under Parks department. But i would guess it would be similar amount.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 17, 2011)

someone flaunting an iPad2 in the Ritzy outer compound this afternoon, and taking pix with it. Brave.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 12, 2012)

Someone at the residents meeting tonight was complaining about the Ritzy using part of the square and "pushing out" the local community etc. There's a bit of a minor bunfight on Twitter about it. I can't say I object to the Ritzy using their bit of space but since the summer has come (sort of!!) it's a real reminder there isn't enough seating in the square for it to be truly used and enjoyed by all locals.


----------



## editor (Jun 12, 2012)

The chairs are all back out again:


----------



## fjydj (Jun 12, 2012)

was sat out there last saturday, thought it was great… real change for the better


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 12, 2012)

fjydj said:


> was sat out there last saturday, thought it was great… real change for the better


 
I bet the people who used to be able to sit there don't think so


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 12, 2012)

fjydj said:


> was sat out there last saturday, thought it was great… real change for the better


I cant disagree that it's pleasant to sit out in the square with a beer. But if you don't want to patronise the Ritzy, you don't really have any other choice.

Isn't the square an alcohol control zone (or whatever they're called) - I can't remember?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 12, 2012)

How would people feel if other businesses did the same? KFC spread out on their corner? 

It is great to have a picture house cinema but the food there is shit and expensive by local standards. It is not fair on other local eateries for them to sprawl like that. 

I assume they pay for all the space used?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Isn't the square an alcohol control zone (or whatever they're called) - I can't remember?


I think the whole of Central Brixton is.


----------



## colacubes (Jun 12, 2012)

nipsla said:


> I was turfed off one of the chairs outside the ritzy with my own coffee by a security guard while I was waiting for some friends. They weren't quite open yet either.


 
I've been moderately resentful of the place ever since this happened ^^


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 12, 2012)

I've spent shitloads of time sitting on the square and mostly my patronage of the Ritzy only runs to using their loo.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 12, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I bet the people who used to be able to sit there don't think so


I used to sit on the grassy bit with my kids.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 12, 2012)

nipsla said:


> I've been moderately resentful of the place ever since this happened ^^


Don't blame you.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 12, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I used to sit on the grassy bit with my kids.


 
that's where I sit, very happily, for hours at a time.  

Never once used windrush sqaure for fuck all before.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 12, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I used to sit on the grassy bit with my kids.


 
Well you'll have to move further up the road or go and plonk yourself on Editor's bit of green while it's still there


----------



## RaverDrew (Jun 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I cant disagree that it's pleasant to sit out in the square with a beer. But if you don't want to patronise the Ritzy, you don't really have any other choice.
> 
> Isn't the square an alcohol control zone (or whatever they're called) - I can't remember?


I've never had any bother drinking the odd k cider out there with friends.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 12, 2012)

Badgers said:
			
		

> I assume they pay for all the space used?



Do they? Anyone know?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 12, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Do they? Anyone know?


i think they have to pay the council a small amount per square foot - it was further up this thread somewhere IIRC


----------



## Badgers (Jun 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> i think they have to pay the council a small amount per square foot - it was further up this thread somewhere IIRC



Ah. I guess that anyone can pay a small amount and set up shop then? 

You, me, a BBQ and some cheap burgers one day? We will do well


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 12, 2012)

If I had the money, I'd convert the old Victorian toilets in the square into a scrumpy cider bar, put loads of chairs and tables around the square, and put all the profits into the server fund


----------



## RaverDrew (Jun 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> If I had the money, I'd convert the old Victorian toilets in the square into a scrumpy cider bar, put loads of chairs and tables around the square, and put all the profits into the server fund


I don't think I've ever liked a post on urban this much


----------



## Belushi (Jun 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> If I had the money, I'd convert the old Victorian toilets in the square into a scrumpy cider bar, put loads of chairs and tables around the square, and put all the profits into the server fund


 
Badgers Den 

Please do this!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 12, 2012)

Belushi said:


> Badgers Den
> 
> Please do this!


Ok, if we can 'crowd source' the funds, we'll do it!

We could carpet the drinking area with this:


----------



## Badgers (Jun 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> Ok, if we can 'crowd source' the funds, we'll do it!



I will flip burgers, you pull pints.... This time next year Rodders


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 12, 2012)

Badgers said:


> I will flip burgers, you pull pints.... This time next year Rodders


we'll put the Crown & Anchor and Honest Burgers out of business within _weeks_


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 12, 2012)

Badgers said:


> I assume they pay for all the space used?


the price are here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/Business/LicencesStreetTrading/StreetTradingLicences_EXTRA.htm

It looks like they pay £976 for getting the licence plus £22 for each hour they want to use the space after 7pm.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 13, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Someone at the residents meeting tonight was complaining about the Ritzy using part of the square and "pushing out" the local community etc. There's a bit of a minor bunfight on Twitter about it. I can't say I object to the Ritzy using their bit of space but since the summer has come (sort of!!) it's a real reminder there isn't enough seating in the square for it to be truly used and enjoyed by all locals.


Just for the record Mr Linskey responded that BS had taken this up but been told that this land is vested with "parks", being officially Rush Common. And Parks gave the Ritzy permission in the first place. And parks don't charge. Parks also gave Brixton Society permission to co-ordinate occasional community/arts events there - free - provided they have insurance in case of some public liability occurring.
I bet former Cllr R*e (the one who facilitated Windrush Square in the first place - thinking it would look like your earlier Victorian/Edwardian views) is gutted at what's going on - he used to say it was "pleasant" sitting with the street drinkers.
Personally I don't really like sitting with drinkers at all when they are pissed - whether they are paying £1.10 a can or £5 a pint!


----------



## CH1 (Jun 13, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> the price are here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/Business/LicencesStreetTrading/StreetTradingLicences_EXTRA.htm
> It looks like they pay £976 for getting the licence plus £22 for each hour they want to use the space after 7pm.


see #203


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2012)

There's been some debate on Twitter about the way that the Ritzy is helping itself to the space in Windrush Square. 

Cue one king size facepakm-inducing tweet from 
Alex Bolton
@KentishTownie 'NW5 residing, marathon running BBC journalist whose opinions are entirely his own.'



Yes, that's right mate. It was full of savages before the Ritzy commercialised the space.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 13, 2012)

editor said:


> There's been some debate on Twitter about the way that the Ritzy is helping itself to the space in Windrush Square.
> Cue one king size facepakm-inducing tweet from
> Alex Bolton
> @KentishTownie 'NW5 residing, marathon running BBC journalist whose opinions are entirely his own.'
> ...


You have him wrong Ed - HE means he wants it like Paris or Athens - well he may get his wish there in the summer!


----------



## newbie (Jun 13, 2012)

last night, when it was raining, suppoorters of the womens centre were by the tree banging saucepan lids and holding a banner about the closure.  Where are they to go if today stays sunny and that space is filled with tables and people paying for a peaceful evening?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 13, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> Someone at the residents meeting tonight was complaining about the Ritzy using part of the square and "pushing out" the local community etc. There's a bit of a minor bunfight on Twitter about it. I can't say I object to the Ritzy using their bit of space but since the summer has come (sort of!!) it's a real reminder there isn't enough seating in the square for it to be truly used and enjoyed by all locals.



Out of interest did you get the feeling anything would be done about it?


----------



## CH1 (Jun 13, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Out of interest did you get the feeling anything would be done about it?


I can confidently predict that nothing will be done about that issue.
Meanwhile my own view of the meeting was that the New Labour apparatchiks are corrupted from top to bottom - by money.
Most people at the meeting seemed unaware that the star speaker - Sue Foster - Director of Housing, Regeneration and Planning - has a salary of AT LEAST £152,000 p.a.
_The salient matter in THEIR thinking was there were apparently only four grants of £20,000 available for "community organisations" to assist and co-operate with the Cooperative Council in this third re-run of the Brixton Master plan consultation. (How do we get our hands on THAT? - I could hear them thinking)._
Of course if they had been diligent in their Maths lessons at school they could have appreciated that if the Director halved her salary voluntarily there could have been EIGHT grants. And the director would still have been earning THREE TIMES the average worker's salary in Lambeth.
_As a diligent student of mediaeval history I despair of current Lambeth "activists". Consider the case of King John and the Barons. The Barons wanted their fair share of the action - so they introduced Magna Carta. Peeved at this King John went on a progress - meaning that said Barons would have to provide him with free food and accommodation on his travels. A bit like Invalidity Benefit is now. Unluckily for King John he failed to notice the tide of history at King's Lynn and lost all his money and jewels in a marshy area subject to flooding now known as "The Wash"_
Tootle pip!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 13, 2012)

editor said:


> There's been some debate on Twitter about the way that the Ritzy is helping itself to the space in Windrush Square.
> 
> Cue one king size facepakm-inducing tweet from
> Alex Bolton
> ...


Yeah I saw that on Twitter last night but I couldn't be arsed to respond to it. There were loads of similar tweets - all along the lines of "but what's wrong with the ritzy seating, it's lovely" - mostly from professional people who look like they've only lived here for a short time and probably don't remember the old Square.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 13, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Meanwhile my own view of the meeting was that the New Labour apparatchiks are corrupted from top to bottom - by money. Most people at the meeting seemed unaware that the star speaker - Sue Foster - Director of Housing, Regeneration and Planning - has a salary of AT LEAST £152,000 p.a.
> _The salient matter in THEIR thinking was there were apparently only four grants of £20,000 available for "community organisations" to assist and co-operate with the Cooperative Council in this third re-run of the Brixton Master plan consultation. (How do we get our hands on THAT? - I could hear them thinking)._
> Of course if they had been diligent in their Maths lessons at school they could have appreciated that if the Director halved her salary voluntarily there could have been EIGHT grants. And the director would still have been earning THREE TIMES the average worker's salary in Lambeth.


 
Allow me to quote the comment of an esteemed former "Old Labour" colleague in the Grand Coalition of 1994-98, when I emailed her my account of this BNF meeting:
_"Like you David I have been trawling around the various 'consultation' events our Cooperative Council have been holding. This, of course follows the 78 meetings they held in 2010/11. The final straw for me was when they decided to throw £5000.00 a piece at groups who had to participate in a Dragons Den exercise. A bit like feeding the seals at the zoo."_

*Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Leader Comrade Steve Reed!*


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 13, 2012)

newbie said:


> last night, when it was raining, suppoorters of the womens centre were by the tree banging saucepan lids and holding a banner about the closure. Where are they to go if today stays sunny and that space is filled with tables and people paying for a peaceful evening?


 
Bang louder!


----------



## leanderman (Jun 13, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah I saw that on Twitter last night but I couldn't be arsed to respond to it. There were loads of similar tweets - all along the lines of "but what's wrong with the ritzy seating, it's lovely" - mostly from professional people who look like they've only lived here for a short time and probably don't remember the old Square.


 
Certainly, estate agents cite the square as the chief reason for Brixton's apparent property price surge.

My (young) kids love playing in the new square ... when there are no devil dogs about.


----------



## fjydj (Jun 13, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah I saw that on Twitter last night but I couldn't be arsed to respond to it. There were loads of similar tweets - all along the lines of "but what's wrong with the ritzy seating, it's lovely" - mostly from professional people who look like they've only lived here for a short time and probably don't remember the old Square.


not so, i/m mid 40's lived in camberwell, battersea and brixton all my life… you are very wrong I used to really hate the atmosphere around there and hurried past up brixton Hill… I am very pleasantly surprised by whats happened to the centre of Brixton and think its amazing, if you want old brixton just head off to the delights of thornton heath


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 13, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah I saw that on Twitter last night but I couldn't be arsed to respond to it. There were loads of similar tweets - all along the lines of "but what's wrong with the ritzy seating, it's lovely" - mostly from professional people who look like they've only lived here for a short time and probably don't remember the old Square.


 
It was a twatty tweet but I prefer the new set up. It pisses me off that the domino players aren't there any longer but apart from that I never used it, now I do.  It's one of my favourite places to be and I've lived in Brixton 20 years.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 13, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> IIt pisses me off that the domino players aren't there any longer


...and the chess players too. I could walk round the market doing my shopping and see at least three games in progress.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 13, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> It was a twatty tweet but I prefer the new set up. It pisses me off that the domino players aren't there any longer but apart from that I never used it, now I do. It's one of my favourite places to be and I've lived in Brixton 20 years.


 
Well I think it's quite right that the domino players are gone.  All that slamming of dominos would probably upset the Ritzy regulars


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 13, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...and the chess players too. I could walk round the market doing my shopping and see at least three games in progress.


 
dominoes, chess, whatever I didn't really pay much attention but I liked seeing them on the occasions I did see them outside the Ritzy and it's a shame it doesn't seem to have remained.  Not sure what Windrush sq has to do with you not seeing them round the market any more though.   Can't say I'd ever noticed them, apart from outside a shop on Coldharbour lane the other day.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 13, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well I think it's quite right that the domino players are gone. All that slamming of dominos would probably upset the Ritzy regulars


 
chess, if not dominoes, seems to be one of those things that people like to see about the place.

Plenty of old man's pubs have banned domino playing.  I remember years back my ex's dad and his mates being banned from some pub round Tooting.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 13, 2012)

I don't know what did for the chess players. New market regs? They were in Granville Arcade mostly.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 13, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> chess, if not dominoes, seems to be one of those things that people like to see about the place.
> 
> Plenty of old man's pubs have banned domino playing. I remember years back my ex's dad and his mates being banned from some pub round Tooting.


 
Chess is more acceptable as it's quieter and doesn't disturb the afternoon Pimms


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 13, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Chess is more acceptable as it's quieter and doesn't disturb the afternoon Pimms


 
Or the old men who run the old men pubs and so have been banning dominoes for years before hipsters were invented.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 13, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Or the old men who run the old men pubs and so have been banning dominoes for years before hipsters were invented.


 
Disturbing their pint of stout


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 13, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Plenty of old man's pubs have banned domino playing. I remember years back my ex's dad and his mates being banned from some pub round Tooting.


Signs in pub windows saying 'No dominoes' used to be code for 'whites only' in a lot of pubs round here. They've all gone bust and are now flats.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 13, 2012)

Not saying all pubs that are now flats were dens of bigotry though. eg The Wickwood, which was a lovely pub, just too far off the beaten track.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 13, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Signs in pub windows saying 'No dominoes' used to be code for 'whites only' in a lot of pubs round here. They've all gone bust and are now flats.


 
I was going to ask Quimmy if the pub her father drank in was a white or black pub


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 13, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Signs in pub windows saying 'No dominoes' used to be code for 'whites only' in a lot of pubs round here. They've all gone bust and are now flats.


 
I think his mum used to ban them too.  I'm fairly sure their house wasn't whites only.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 13, 2012)

Also, white dominoes players wouldn't realise it was code for whites only...a bit like years ago when The Hero of Switzerland had a coachload of Swiss here in London for some sporting event. They pulled up outside, saw the note in the window saying 'No Travellers' and promptly drove off. That was the best laugh I had that year


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 13, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I think his mum used to ban them too. I'm fairly sure their house wasn't whites only.


 
Well she probably wanted peace in her own house


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 13, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Also, white dominoes players wouldn't realise it was code for whites only...a bit like years ago when The Hero of Switzerland had a coachload of Swiss here in London for some sporting event. They pulled up outside, saw the note in the window saying 'No Travellers' and promptly drove off. That was the best laugh I had that year


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 13, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


>


I did actually phrase that really badly. I think the Swiss just happened to be driving by, saw the Swiss flag and William Tell pub sign, handy parking space and just pulled up there. The landlord wasn't expecting them. I just witnessed this because I was posting a letter by the pub.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 14, 2012)

fjydj said:


> not so, i/m mid 40's lived in camberwell, battersea and brixton all my life… you are very wrong I used to really hate the atmosphere around there and hurried past up brixton Hill… I am very pleasantly surprised by whats happened to the centre of Brixton and think its amazing, if you want old brixton just head off to the delights of thornton heath


Maybe we just have different experiences then. I used to sit there to meet mates/girlfriends, to drink a few cans before going out somewhere; there was preachers, domino players, drinkers (the Tate Gardens Drinking Advisory Group!), weed smokers, people listening to radios, whatever - I just thought it was a general mix of people and another piece of Brixton. I know that might have intimdated some people.

When the benches and walls were removed, a lot of seating was lost. There's a few of those new chairs, but they're just in twos and threes. As Gramsci said further up the thread, the intention was to 'design out' perceived anti-social behaviour.

I actually don't think it's a massive problem, given that you still get a mix of people congregating there - there's just less opportunity for a mix of people to enjoy the square. More benches/chairs would solve the problem.

This whole debate (re)started because someone at the residents meeting claimed the Ritzy was 'pushing out' the community. I think you can understand how some long-standing residents (who probably don't frequent the Ritzy, or Brixton Village) have come to this point of view given the changes to the square. They've probably also noticed the changes to the market/Granville Arcade, and the fact they are full of young kids with cameras, treating the place like a tourist destination then going to do their shopping in Sainsburys. They may have family/friends who can't afford to live here any more and resent the changes they can see.

Brixton Blog have skim-written a piece about it - which spectacularly misses the wider point.

http://www.brixtonblog.com/ritzy-becomes-focus-of-gentrification-debate/5427


----------



## CH1 (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Disturbing their pint of stout


How about the old men who rant and rave and fall over and have to be stretchered out of the Beehive?


----------



## CH1 (Jun 14, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Brixton Blog have skim-written a piece about it - which spectacularly misses the wider point.http://www.brixtonblog.com/ritzy-becomes-focus-of-gentrification-debate/5427


They certainly haven't reported ALL of what I said! Nothing about Social Cleansing - nothing about the Guinness Trust redevelopment against residents wishes - nothing about who made the profit from the shenanigans around "Brixton Square"'s planning permission.
If they can't tell the whole story - surely they're doctors of spin?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 14, 2012)

CH1 said:


> If they can't tell the whole story - surely they're doctors of spin?


They're actually the vanguard of gentrification...


----------



## CH1 (Jun 14, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> They're actually the vanguard of gentrification...


Let's see how the BNF minutes report things. As a solid non-attending member of the Church of England Alan Piper may come up trumps..........


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 14, 2012)

Slight diversion, but there's a great little booklet/pamphlet available in Lambeth libraries called "Windrush Square" by Alan Piper of the Brixton Society. Only 16 pages and has the history of the square and the buildings around it, as well as some great photos of the square in previous incarnations. You can get it from Minet library (and possibly other Lambeth libraries - ref 942.165 in the local history section)....as soon as I return it later today, that is. 

A few interesting snippets from it:



> The water feature is controlled by an anemometer on one of the lighting masts, to switch it off if the wind is too strong.


 


> The railings and gates [around the original, formal layout of the garden, as seen in Ed's pics earlier in the thread] were removed for scrap metal during the Second World War.


 



> The Brixton theatre, which was between the original cinema and library, was destroyed by a high explosive bomb on 8 November 1940. You can still see the foundation stone, which was incorporated into the new square layout, opposite the Ritzy. It was laid in 1894 by Henry Irvine, a leading actor of the time. (paraphrased)


 


> Brixton has had a number of cinemas over the past century, including the Astoria (now the Academy) and the Palladium (now the Fridge/Electric.).....The Ritzy was previously known as the Brixton Pavillion, Pullman, Classic and Little Bit Ritzy.


 
Alan Piper has also written a short pamphlet on the history of the name "Brixton", which is worth a read. Also available in Lambeth libraries.

[/geeky history diversion]


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 14, 2012)

You should post your comments to the blog.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 14, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> You should post your comments to the blog.


Do you mean to the Brixton Blog?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 14, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Slight diversion, but there's a great little booklet/pamphlet available in Lambeth libraries called "Windrush Square" by Alan Piper of the Brixton Society. Only 16 pages and has the history of the square and the buildings around it, as well as some great photos of the square in previous incarnations. You can get it from Minet library (and possibly other Lambeth libraries - ref 942.165 in the local history section)....as soon as I return it later today, that is.
> 
> A few interesting snippets from it:
> 
> The water feature is controlled by an anemometer on one of the lighting masts, to switch it off if the wind is too strong.


 
That's good. Would hate to be shot to the other side of Brixton by the _*water feature*_ if the wind picked up a bit


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> You should post your comments to the blog.


Why? The debate's taking place here.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 14, 2012)

editor said:


> Why? The debate's taking place here.


 
Wut?   Someone has written a blog.  Some people have some criticisms about the blog but you think they should only post their criticism on an unrelated website and not at the blogger on the blogger's blog where the blogger's readers can see it?


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Wut? Someone has written a blog. Some people have some criticisms about the blog but you think they should only post their criticism on an unrelated website and not at the blogger on the blogger's blog where the blogger's readers can see it?


How is this site unrelated to the topic? It's where all the discussion has been going on for months!


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 14, 2012)

editor said:


> How is this site unrelated to the topic? It's where all the discussion has been going on for months!


 
I'm not saying it's unrelated to the topic. It's unrelated to the blog. Someone has blogged on a blog. It makes sense to put your comments about the blog on the blog so that the blogger can read them and the people who read the blog can see them.

If the council have got my name wrong on my council tax bill should I just mention it on here or should I tell the council?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 14, 2012)

To be fair, there's probably loads of people that read Brixton Blog who don't know about Urban and could probably benefit from some different views...


----------



## RaverDrew (Jun 14, 2012)

CH1 said:


> How about the old men who rant and rave and fall over and have to be stretchered out of the Beehive?


 
Oi, less of the "old" please


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> If the council have got my name wrong on my council tax bill should I just mention it on here or should I tell the council?


I think you should knit a pair of panties with the message inside and send them that.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 14, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> To be fair, there's probably loads of people that read Brixton Blog who don't know about Urban and could probably benefit from some different views...


 
Well exactly.  If they have stuff wrong on their blog, correct it on their blog otherwise the people who read the blog won't know there are errors or omissions.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 14, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Oi, less of the "old" please


 
I was under the impression you tended to be 'thrown' out rather than 'stretchered.'


----------



## CH1 (Jun 14, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I was under the impression you tended to be 'thrown' out rather than 'stretchered.'


Sorry I got confused - still reminiscing about Lembit Öpik's recent wrestling bout! - check it on Youtube - it's horrific.  Can't understand why the LDs didn't run him against Boris. He's the only one who could out-Boris Boris.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Someone at the residents meeting tonight was complaining about the Ritzy using part of the square and "pushing out" the local community etc. There's a bit of a minor bunfight on Twitter about it. I can't say I object to the Ritzy using their bit of space but since the summer has come (sort of!!) it's a real reminder there isn't enough seating in the square for it to be truly used and enjoyed by all locals.


 
Her point at meeting was that the square was a public space for everybody. So why is one bit cordoned off? Also she was using it as example of how these improvements to Brixton are not helping those who have been around a long time. It was pushing them out. Also meant that it was excluding those with little money. It was all part of gentrification of area.

See Brixton Blog have piece on it.

It was not the main topic of the meeting. The meeting was about Planning and Regeneration of Brixton. Might sound boring but it was not. Her point needs to be seen in context of the other discussions that evening. Which were about how people have a say in developing and improving there area. Without this ending up as a place Barrats can make a mint out of building luxury flats.

She also asked earlier in meeting about how social and economic issues could be included in Planning. And asked if Barratts were employing local people.

So she was voicing concerns about the direction Brixton was moving in. How she felt people like her were not having much influence.

Also how the Council was not answering needs of local people from long standing communities like hers.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Well exactly. If they have stuff wrong on their blog, correct it on their blog otherwise the people who read the blog won't know there are errors or omissions.


 
The Brixton Bloggers lurk here a lot.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2012)

editor said:


> There's been some debate on Twitter about the way that the Ritzy is helping itself to the space in Windrush Square.
> 
> Cue one king size facepakm-inducing tweet from
> Alex Bolton
> ...


 
It is also leaves a bad taste as the lady who brought up the issue at the meeting was Black (youngish) . Also it was an issue to her as Windrush square was set up as asset for local people and to commemorate the Windrush generation. Which she clearly felt strongly about.

All Alex Bolton needs is a Pith Helmet


----------



## CH1 (Jun 18, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Her point at meeting was that the square was a public space for everybody. So why is one bit cordoned off?


And my point is that Brixton Hatter is quoting (elsewhere on these forums) the Environmental Services rates for pavement cafés, and yet Herr Linskey maintains that these do not apply in this case because Windrush Square is a "Park" and "Parks" have an informal agreement with the Ritzy to allow them to use the space free.
Which is correct? FOI anybody?


----------



## newbie (Jun 18, 2012)

there was a cider van selling on the square the other evening, but it was a bit unclear whether it was a part of the Ritzy effort or in competition to it.  Anyone know?


----------



## Alo Licentia! (Jun 18, 2012)

CH1 said:


> And my point is that Brixton Hatter is quoting (elsewhere on these forums) the Environmental Services rates for pavement cafés, and yet Herr Linskey maintains that these do not apply in this case because Windrush Square is a "Park" and "Parks" have an informal agreement with the Ritzy to allow them to use the space free.
> Which is correct? FOI anybody?


 
It's an open space. It comes under the Lambeth bylaws for open spaces, commons and parks, the same as the cafe in Brockwell Hall.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 18, 2012)

Alo Licentia! said:


> It's an open space. It comes under the Lambeth bylaws for open spaces, commons and parks, the same as the cafe in Brockwell Hall.


Trading
38. No person shall without the consent of the Council
provide or offer to provide any service for which a
charge is made.

*So the council must have "given consent"*
*Does not say "the Council will charge" though, does it? *


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 18, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> The Brixton Bloggers lurk here a lot.


 
But do their readers?


----------



## gabi (Jun 18, 2012)

their reader's what?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 18, 2012)

*cough*  now edited.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 18, 2012)

newbie said:


> there was a cider van selling on the square the other evening, but it was a bit unclear whether it was a part of the Ritzy effort or in competition to it. Anyone know?


yeah I saw that too - it was on Friday. Normally I'd be in there like a shot, but it was that crappy Swedish Rekorderlig cider, which is nearly as bad as Magners, so I gave it a wide berth. I assumed it was just a promotion for Rekorderlig, but given the whole of the town centre is an alcohol control zone, you'd only be able to legally drink the cider if you were inside the Ritzy's licensed area. So I guess it must have been connected to the Ritzy somehow.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 18, 2012)

CH1 said:


> And my point is that Brixton Hatter is quoting (elsewhere on these forums) the Environmental Services rates for pavement cafés, and yet Herr Linskey maintains that these do not apply in this case because Windrush Square is a "Park" and "Parks" have an informal agreement with the Ritzy to allow them to use the space free.
> Which is correct? FOI anybody?


I happen to know an FOI request has been submitted. So we will find out soon (within 28 days I guess!)


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 18, 2012)

CH1 said:


> And my point is that Brixton Hatter is quoting (elsewhere on these forums) the Environmental Services rates for pavement cafés, and yet Herr Linskey maintains that these do not apply in this case because Windrush Square is a "Park" and "Parks" have an informal agreement with the Ritzy to allow them to use the space free.
> Which is correct? FOI anybody?


 
So if they've been given permission to put their chairs out, does that automatically come with the authority to exclude non-paying members of the public from the space? If so on what basis?

Could be another angle worth looking at.


----------



## twistedAM (Jun 18, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> So if they've been given permission to put their chairs out, does that automatically come with the authority to exclude non-paying members of the public from the space? If so on what basis?
> 
> Could be another angle worth looking at.


 
I had a meeting there the other week. It was quite mid-afternoon time but I had my own bottle of water and no staff approached me.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> I had a meeting there the other week. It was quite mid-afternoon time but I had my own bottle of water and no staff approached me.


 
Maybe there were plenty of chairs available and they therefore didn't need to turf you out to make space for paying customers?


----------



## boohoo (Jun 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> But do their readers?


 
I agree with you quimmy. Posts on here which are part of the debate about the Ritzy or anything else would be useful to appear on the brixton blog. As mentioned, how many people who follow the blog, post or lurk on here. Especially if met with the usual welcome...


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2012)

boohoo said:


> I agree with you quimmy. Posts on here which are part of the debate about the Ritzy or anything else would be useful to appear on the brixton blog.


It would be even more useful if those stores also linked back to the original debate, no?


----------



## twistedAM (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Maybe there were plenty of chairs available and they therefore didn't need to turf you out to make space for paying customers?


 
Yeah probably. There was no one around. About two other tables taken.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

> So if something is not sorted out, I promise you that I WILL get some sheep and form a
> deputation of shepherds, with the Sun, the Mirror, the SLP etc. And your drunken toffs will
> find themselves featured in the media in a way they may not like.
> Might I suggest peace talks


  (from Brixton Blog)



That's someone from here yes?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 18, 2012)

editor said:


> It would be even more useful if those stores also linked back to the original debate, no?


 

If one cares about an issue then one wants the word to be spread as widely as possible using all available methods, no?  I think it's more important, to the service of the _issue_, to comment on the actual blog in question rather than to just get the blog to link back to a thread.  



Cheers, Brixton Hatter. Just saw your comment on the blog.  With a link back to here!


----------



## boohoo (Jun 18, 2012)

editor said:


> It would be even more useful if those stores also linked back to the original debate, no?


Yes.. have you talked to them about this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2012)

editor said:


> It would be even more useful if those stores also linked back to the original debate, no?


 
That'd point up that Mr. nice-but-dim sources a load of his content from here, though, wouldn't it?
I suspect he'd much prefer to keep things the way they are, with him looking (to anyone who doesn't read Urban) like he's got his finger on the pulse of the area.
We'll see a lot more of it if his paper gets off the ground, too.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> If one cares about an issue then one wants the word to be spread as widely as possible using all available methods, no? I think it's more important, to the service of the _issue_, to comment on the actual blog in question rather than to just get the blog to link back to a thread.


I'm happy for people to share content from these boards as wide and as far as possible but I'm never happy when - and please note I'm making a _general_ point here - commercial entities use uncredited urban content as a means of furthering their own ventures.

Crediting the source of your stories is always good journalistic practice and good for the credibility of the site/business using it too.


----------



## Brixton Blog (Jun 18, 2012)

Hi all, the original article was reporting specifically on the debate in the neighbourhood planning meeting. You're right though - it's always good to link to more debate so I've now updated the article with a link to urban. Z


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 18, 2012)

In case anyone missed it, the Ritzy have written a response to the debate, saying they pay for the space (but now how much):



> We would like to respond to the interesting debate that has been happening about our use of the space on Windrush Square.
> We appreciate the concerns being raised by residents, and of course, as a public space there is plenty of room for debate and comment as to its use. To clarify briefly, we have a licence agreement with Lambeth Council which we apply and pay for annually. This has appropriate caveats to preserve the space, access through it, and its availability for community use, which we are committed to.
> Our attitude to the agreement goes beyond the mere logistics and legalities however, and we feel that, as a thriving, integrated and wholly accessible part of the Brixton community, we have much to offer. We provide a clean, safe and serviced seating area for customers, local people and families. We feel that this is a positive contribution (and many of our customers agree), particularly in light of the square’s history where a small minority had something of a negative effect on the space. We aim to serve the community and have a remit to engage with local talent in our film, music and events programming, as well as offering a wide range of entertainment for the public to enjoy – our café-bars providing free wifi and a pressure-free work and meeting space for local freelancers and businesses seven days a week. Fulfilling this remit is a source of great personal pride to our staff, the majority of whom are local residents.
> We lease a small part of a large space. The square is open to all and the council are no doubt open to suggestions and applications for use of the majority which remains unoccupied. We would love to see more businesses and community groups using the space, helping to build and contribute to a lively, diverse, open public arena that offers something to local residents, visitors, businesses, charities and other organisations alike.
> Going forward, we definitely aim to remain (as a Twitter user so aptly said) “a respectful and family/community cinema. This is what we all want and love”.


Originally published on the Brixton Blog.

And Devon Thomas has written a good piece in response too:



> Many in that community now feel that their needs are not being sufficiently considered in the developing new Brixton... Our area has become increasingly affluent and I don’t have any problems with that. Indeed, three generations of my family have now grown up in the area, with my granddaughter recently going off to university, but not all boats are rising and those that are not get more dependent on the use of public spaces such as libraries and open spaces to make their lives liveable. Let’s see how those who are the haves can contribute to those who have not in these difficult times, and let Lambeth Council address specifically how those who fought to sustain the community in early more difficult times can have their presence acknowledged and their needs catered for.


 
Full article here:
http://www.brixtonblog.com/comment-not-all-boats-are-rising-in-the-new-brixton/5481


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

> particularly in light of the square’s history where a small minority had something of a negative effect on the space.


 
Are they talking about the old regular drinkers?


----------



## CH1 (Jun 18, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> In case anyone missed it, the Ritzy have written a response to the debate, saying they pay for the space (but now how much):
> Originally published on the Brixton Blog.
> And Devon Thomas has written a good piece in response too:
> Full article here:
> http://www.brixtonblog.com/comment-not-all-boats-are-rising-in-the-new-brixton/5481


I prefer Devon's approach - compassionate and liberal rather than the defensive nimby stuff from the Ritzy.
And please remember I opposed all this non-drinking zone stuff in the first place. The Brew drinkers just go round with their Brews in can-sized paper or plastic bags now.
Not only that - the police said at the time that they would not enforce this by-law - and they don't.
What's the point of having an un-enforcable law? Makes the law even more of an ass.
And where ARE the alkies supposed to go? I suggested at the time changing the top floor of the Popes Road car park into a managed alcoholic drop-in. Fat chance of that now - thanks to Tescos and Lambeth's section 419 - oops 106 (sorry!)


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

I'm about to get the bus down.

I'll take photos.

e2a: How much of the square is taken over?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

CH1 said:


> And where ARE the alkies supposed to go? I suggested at the time changing the top floor of the Popes Road car park into a managed alcoholic drop-in. (sorry!)


 
St Matthew's Church


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> St Matthew's Church


 
I'm not stopping there. Not this time.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2012)

paolo said:


> I'm about to get the bus down.
> 
> I'll take photos.
> 
> e2a: How much of the square is taken over?


Last time I looked it was this much:


----------



## CH1 (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> St Matthew's Church


That is complicated for the following reasons:
Rev Bob Nind (for it was he) decided his church was too big & wanted to help the community.
Set up a trust - the trustees were Alan Piper and Rev Ivelaw Bowman.
Mega work was done without the architects realising (or perhaps worrying) that, as a church, they needed a "faculty" - that is planning permission from the Diocese of Southwark.
They went ahead anyway and let the theatre at the top to some progressive Black drama outfit (Shaw Theatre?) who never paid any rent.
The rest of the "community spaces" were also disastrously mismanaged + the acoustics were not good for meetings etc.
It went bust - and Alan and Ivelaw nearly lost their homes since they were trustees.
Panicking the CofE got in a consultant - also a Deaconess as it was then - who also happened to be in with marketing at Nestlés plc of Croydon.
A new strategy was developed, involving going way down market and commercial.
A building manager was appointed (from the Estate Agent's opposite the town hall) and then you had the policy of letting to The Bug Bar, the Mass etc etc. Gross in my opinion, but seemingly unavoidable financially, and no doubt much to the delight of "you lot" on these boards.
The issue of drink therapy at St Matthews might be one to raise. I am planning on attending a Church Urban Fund meeting tomorrow, but this is not to do with St Matthews. I'll see if such things are on the agenda (I am simply a parishoner of another church - St John's Angell Town, so have been invited as a courtesy to me, not as an active participant).
Sorry to bore you with all that - but you need to understand that St Matthews has had a bad financial history and has really lost control of its building - all with the best possible intentions.


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

Editor: That does look like alot. I expect it will the same today? About 5 mins away.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2012)

CH1 said:


> They went ahead anyway and let the theatre at the top to some progressive Black drama outfit (Shaw Theatre?) who never paid any rent.


I did a poster for one of their plays. I don't think they paid me either!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2012)

boohoo said:


> I agree with you quimmy. Posts on here which are part of the debate about the Ritzy or anything else would be useful to appear on the brixton blog. As mentioned, how many people who follow the blog, post or lurk on here. Especially if met with the usual welcome...


 
Read Brixton Blog piece on square by Devon Thomas which was quite good. It got pretty hostile comment. Blogs/ Social Networks the same everywhere. U75 is not more or less hostile than anywhere else.


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

Nearly there. Will try to take a picture from the same position.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2012)

editor said:


> It would be even more useful if those stores also linked back to the original debate, no?


 
Good point. Im not sure how happy BB would be if people kept putting up links to here on BB. U75 often has been debating issues before they get taken up elsewhere.


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

There are precisely fuck all tables in Windrush Square. The sun is out, the bike racks are full, and everyone's enjoying the space.

What day / time / full moon do I need to attend to be angry?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

I've never quite figured out how the outside seating works.  I've seen seats out there when it's not particularly nice weather, but not there when it's sunny?  Maybe they were expecting rain today so didn't bother? 

Anyone know how it works?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

paolo said:


> There are precisely fuck all tables in Windrush Square. The sun is out, the bike racks are full, and everyone's enjoying the space.
> 
> What day / time / full moon do I need to attend to be angry?


 
You should take a picture anyway, so people can decide which looks better, with seats or without seats


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2012)

CH1 said:


> And my point is that Brixton Hatter is quoting (elsewhere on these forums) the Environmental Services rates for pavement cafés, and yet Herr Linskey maintains that these do not apply in this case because Windrush Square is a "Park" and "Parks" have an informal agreement with the Ritzy to allow them to use the space free.
> Which is correct? FOI anybody?


 
The chairs directly outside the Ritzy come under Streetcare for which Ritzy has a permit.

The ones under the tree come under parks.

 Planning Enforcement say it not there issue as it is not fixed and is temporary structure.


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

I'm sure it *has* happened. Editor's photos prove that.

But how is it that, I pop down randomly, and the blight has magicked itself away?

It'll take alot more samples to prove this is cherry picking an argument, but right now the evidence around me is less than convincing.

Not One Single Table


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 18, 2012)

paolo said:


> I'm sure it *has* happened. Editor's photos prove that.
> 
> But how is it that, I pop down randomly, and the blight has magicked itself away?
> 
> ...


 
they're reading this thread.


----------



## Winot (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've never quite figured out how the outside seating works. I've seen seats out there when it's not particularly nice weather, but not there when it's sunny? Maybe they were expecting rain today so didn't bother?
> 
> Anyone know how it works?


 
They read Urban75 and if there is insufficient anger that day they put out more chairs.


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

They're fucking quicker than serving, then


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

Right, I fancy a beer. See if I can stay here. Who blinks first.

Let the table face-off begin!


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

Off for a beer. Table count zero. More exciting updates to follow!


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2012)

paolo said:


> I'm sure it *has* happened. Editor's photos prove that.
> 
> But how is it that, I pop down randomly, and the blight has magicked itself away?
> 
> ...


The heard you were coming with your camera and packed them all away quickly.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2012)

Can I just say that I like the Ritzy cafe. Sure, the staff can be a bit erratic, but I've always found them really friendly, lovely people and the coffee's not too bad either.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 18, 2012)

One thing I really didn't like last summer was the Ritzy's pavement grab at the side - the CHL end. Their little barrier thing somehow keeps getting 'pushed' further out so narrowing the pavement width and sometimes forcing people with buggies and pushchairs onto the road itself in order to get around it.

But you sense there's a fair amount of intentional 'mission creep' generally about the space they occupy.

I bet they pay peanuts for it, as well.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I bet they pay peanuts for it, as well.


 
More likely popcorn


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

Right. I surveyed a couple of people in the square.

I'll wind my neck in slightly. They said the tables come out into the square nearing/in weekends.

But they weren't too bothered about that.

Their main beef was the distinction between 'approved' (commercial) drinking and 'unauthorised' (street) drinking.

That's a contradiction. If it's a booze free zone, it should be a booze free zone. Or a booze ok zone. Commercial distinction is rotten.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

Who


paolo said:


> Right. I surveyed a couple of people in the square.
> 
> I'll wind my neck in slightly. They said the tables come out into the square nearing/in weekends.
> 
> ...


 
Whose main beef?  The Ritzy?


----------



## boohoo (Jun 18, 2012)

They had tons of table when the sun was out the other week but couldn't meet demand and had to stop the kitchen for 20 mins...


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

@Minnie... Eh? No, some randoms. They looked like locals, people who used the square a bit.

They didn't like the idea of people being chucked out for drinking, when the 'pay' people would be untouched. One of the two guys said he didn't drink himself.

Neither were fringe - not kids or weirdos. One about my age (40s), the other I'd say 50s.

Statistically poor sample I know, but it did give credence to some things on this thread.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

paolo said:


> @Minnie... Eh? No, some randoms. They looked like locals, people who used the square a bit.
> 
> They didn't like the idea of people being chucked out for drinking, when the 'pay' people would be untouched. One of the two guys said he didn't drink himself.
> 
> ...


 
Ah... thought you were talking to Ritzy staff so couldn't understand their comments


----------



## Brixton Blog (Jun 18, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Good point. Im not sure how happy BB would be if people kept putting up links to here on BB. U75 often has been debating issues before they get taken up elsewhere.



Hi gramsci - chuck up as many links as you like and we will where relevant too. It's useful for readers to see fuller debates. We Like U75 - it's a Brixton institution!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> One thing I really didn't like last summer was the Ritzy's pavement grab at the side - the CHL end. Their little barrier thing somehow keeps getting 'pushed' further out so narrowing the pavement width and sometimes forcing people with buggies and pushchairs onto the road itself in order to get around it.
> 
> But you sense there's a fair amount of intentional 'mission creep' generally about the space they occupy.
> 
> I bet they pay peanuts for it, as well.


 
They have license from Streetcare for tables and chairs directly outside cinema. Which is where I think you mean. This should be set so there is no obstruction to pavement. You would be in your rights to comment on this to Streetcare. 

see here

"A licence can be withdrawn if valid complaints are received after the licence has been granted, or if you breach the terms and conditions of the licence"

There is telephone number on the webpage.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2012)

editor said:


> Can I just say that I like the Ritzy cafe. Sure, the staff can be a bit erratic, but I've always found them really friendly, lovely people and the coffee's not too bad either.


 
Yes I agree and I think the Picture House mge have been pissing people of a bit with there clear emphasis in raking it in from the outside seating. Rather than concentrating on the film side of things.

This has caused more work for the security staff and general staff at Ritzy. No thought was put in by mge when they decided to put in downstairs bar where the old ticket office was.

I liked the old upstairs bar the way it was. Now its closed most of the time except for events.


----------



## Winot (Jun 18, 2012)

Brixton Blog said:


> Hi gramsci - chuck up as many links as you like and we will where relevant too. It's useful for readers to see fuller debates. We Like U75 - it's a Brixton institution!



But who wants to live in an institution? (boom-tish, thank you Groucho Marx)


----------



## newbie (Jun 18, 2012)

There are regularly large vehicles outside the Ritzy, on the fancy (and expensive) paving. A few of the stones are already cracked where they drive.

Who pays for the upkeep, repair and inevitable replacement of the paving, will the Ritzy be billed for the damage their delivery vehicles cause?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I liked the old upstairs bar the way it was. Now its closed most of the time except for events.


yeh, it was a good bar


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 19, 2012)

paolo said:


> I'm sure it *has* happened. Editor's photos prove that.
> 
> But how is it that, I pop down randomly, and the blight has magicked itself away?
> 
> ...


Yes, I noticed the chairs and tables weren't out yesterday morning - perhaps cos the weather didn't look great in the morning, so they didn't bother. On other days, the tables are out well before 10am. I assume that, if the Ritzy pay (like they say they do) they don't want to pay for every single day, especially if the weather looks crap and people wouldn't bother sitting there. Perhaps Monday is a particularly slow day for the Ritzy cafe too.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 19, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yes, I noticed the chairs and tables weren't out yesterday morning - perhaps cos the weather didn't look great in the morning, so they didn't bother. On other days, the tables are out well before 10am. I assume that, if the Ritzy pay (like they say they do) they don't want to pay for every single day, especially if the weather looks crap and people wouldn't bother sitting there. Perhaps Monday is a particularly slow day for the Ritzy cafe too.


 
Nice day today and tomorrow, then it's going to piss down, so they may not be there for too long


----------



## A realist (Jun 20, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Nice day today and tomorrow, then it's going to piss down, so they may not be there for too long


have people got bad memories or have nothing to do but moan, it was only a few years ago the area out side the Ritzy was full of drunks ,beggars and druggies  and one of these bastards was nice enough to mug me in broad day light. Now the Ritzy by the looks of it have cleaned up the area with staff and security regularly patrolling the area. Last weekend i saw every table and chairs full of happy people enjoying the area so perhaps the poor memories of the people slagging off the Ritzy should think back and start supporting the cinema who i think are doing a great job. wELL DONE rITZY


----------



## Badgers (Jun 20, 2012)

A realist speaks


----------



## colacubes (Jun 20, 2012)

The blinkers have dropped from my eyes


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 20, 2012)

Crime has ceased in Brixton. Hurrah for the chairs against crime initiative!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 20, 2012)

A realist, I think you missed the irony, I'd unlike that post as I was ripping the piss out of you.


----------



## A realist (Jun 20, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> A realist, I think you missed the irony, I'd unlike that post as I was ripping the piss out of you.


obviously the thought of someone being mugged is something you like to take the piss out of.....i hope you never have to go through something like that and then have someone take the piss out of it. You must truly be a lovely person. If the table and chairs help it make it safer in the square then as i said well done Ritzy


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 20, 2012)

It doesn't though, and I've lived here a very long time and don't think crime is a joke.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 20, 2012)

I've long heard that having bustling commercial premises reduces crime, but if that's the case, why has Oxford Street got the worst crime statistics for a London shopping/leisure area? Windrush Square didn't even have the highest crime in Brixton before the great chair creep.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 20, 2012)

It wasn't dangerous


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 20, 2012)

Crispy said:


> It wasn't dangerous


Exactly.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 20, 2012)

Crispy said:


> It wasn't dangerous


 
It was though as a realist got mugged there!  Only person I know that was mugged there


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 20, 2012)

In fact, when Clueless Twat Macintyre was desperately trying to get mugged in that area for his sensationalist exposé of Brixton crime it was largely the street drinkers and addicts who did their level best to protect him, which is why it took him several days of reckless behaviour to actually succeed in being robbed.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 20, 2012)

...although it actually happened on an estate in the end, after waiting alone in the dark for several hours [_stop fucking around, just give me the laptop_] although I think he got relieved of a mobile on Atlantic or Railton road after waving it under a kid on a bike's nose.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 20, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> In fact, when Clueless Twat Macintyre was desperately trying to get mugged in that area for his sensationalist exposé of Brixton crime it was largely the street drinkers and addicts who did their level best to protect him, which is why it took him several days of reckless behaviour to actually succeed in being robbed.


 
A classic bit of tv twattery that was


----------



## Badgers (Jun 20, 2012)

Update for people who like realistic data. Sunny day lunchtime in Brixton town. 

Outside space next to the Ritzy:
17 tables
60 chairs
15 people 

Public space 'put to good use' by the Ritzy:
18 tables
72 chairs
6 people 

This post was correct as at 12:35


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2012)

Could we have GPS locations for each chair please?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

A realist said:


> have people got bad memories or have nothing to do but moan, it was only a few years ago the area out side the Ritzy was full of drunks ,beggars and druggies and one of these bastards was nice enough to mug me in broad day light. Now the Ritzy by the looks of it have cleaned up the area with staff and security regularly patrolling the area. Last weekend i saw every table and chairs full of happy people enjoying the area so perhaps the poor memories of the people slagging off the Ritzy should think back and start supporting the cinema who i think are doing a great job. wELL DONE rITZY


 
And speaking of having nothing to do but moan, here's some muppet giving a prime example...

By the way, a realist, if you'd pulled your thumb out of your arse and read the thread, you'd see that people aren't "slagging off the Ritzy", they're mostly questioning what sort of deal was done between the Ritzy and the council, and whether it entitles the Ritzy to retain such a large section of a public square for what is essentially private use, you muppet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

A realist said:


> obviously the thought of someone being mugged is something you like to take the piss out of.....


 
Yeah, because that's what the poster you're replying to did, isn't it, they took the piss out of you having been mugged! The bastard!

Oh, wait, they didn't do that at all, they pointed up your connection of the arrival of tables and chairs in Windrush Square with a new crime-free Windrush Square!

So, not the same thing at all!



> i hope you never have to go through something like that and then have someone take the piss out of it.


 
Been through worse, and I've just got on with my life, so have many other Brixton residents I know. Perhaps you're one of those naturally-sensitive people who takes everything personally?



> You must truly be a lovely person.


 
She is. She's also probably done more for Brixton than any gross of whiny incomers.



> If the table and chairs help it make it safer in the square then as i said well done Ritzy


 
But they don't. They substitute one crime issue (anti-social behaviour and occasional street robbery) with another. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, mosey on over to the Ritzy and ask them about the rate of bag-snatching and other street robbery in the immediate vicinity. The tables and chairs make a lovely open-air pick-your-own enclosure for the local ne'er-do-wells.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I've long heard that having bustling commercial premises reduces crime, but if that's the case, why has Oxford Street got the worst crime statistics for a London shopping/leisure area? Windrush Square didn't even have the highest crime in Brixton before the great chair creep.


 
I'll answer the question about Oxford Street first: Concentration allied to local geography - All those purveyors of consumer goods cheek-by-jowl make Oxford Street perfect for the jobbing shoplifter, and the many side roads/back alleys/mews in the area, as well as public transport, mean that a getaway is easier than from a standard High Street. Oxford Street is catnip for tea-leafs. 

Bustling commercial premises: You hear this one trotted out a lot, but it only really applies to premises where the layout has been designed with minimising crime in mind. This happens a lot more now (saw some excellent examples in Berlin last year, with clear sight-lines in all directions from every cash desk and from atrategic shopfloor vantage points), but an old Woolworths-style layout actually *suffered* if busy, because the movement of so many people *masked* shoplifting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> In fact, when Clueless Twat Macintyre was desperately trying to get mugged in that area for his sensationalist exposé of Brixton crime it was largely the street drinkers and addicts who did their level best to protect him, which is why it took him several days of reckless behaviour to actually succeed in being robbed.


 
Evem then the daft sod had to virtually beg someone to rob him.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Evem then the daft sod had to virtually beg someone to rob him.


I got a black eye from an aggressive beggar dressed in military fatigues at the Lambeth Accord pelican crossing near where Macintyre was complaining about - would have been around 2009 I think.
There were 3 CCTVs trained on the spot, and when the police eventually "investigated" about 2 weeks later they said the cameras were turned off.
Maybe the culprit was the son of Paul Boateng or something like that - that would make a good "story" wouldn't it!
BTW the beggar was just punching me for the disrespect (or impertinence) of saying NO!
He did NOT rob me oddly enough.   
Then again p'raps he just stopped taking his medication - happens to a lot of us these days.
Nice gear he was wearing though - someone on the boards here was requesting such an outfit the other day.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

CH1 said:


> I got a black eye from an aggressive beggar dressed in military fatigues at the Lambeth Accord pelican crossing near where Macintyre was complaining about - would have been around 2009 I think.
> There were 3 CCTVs trained on the spot, and when the police eventually "investigated" about 2 weeks later they said the cameras were turned off.
> Maybe the culprit was the son of Paul Boateng or something like that - that would make a good "story" wouldn't it!
> BTW the beggar was just punching me for the disrespect (or impertinence) of saying NO!
> ...


 
The beggar could've been the ghost of Rudy Narayan. I'm sure the old bastard haunts Brixton!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The beggar could've been the ghost of Rudy Narayan. I'm sure the old bastard haunts Brixton!


 
I know/knew him.  He tried to get me to work for him.  His chambers used to be next door to my workplace in Chancery Lane.   Told him he couldn't pay his rent on time so why would I want to work for him and risk not getting paid


----------



## CH1 (Jun 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The beggar could've been the ghost of Rudy Narayan. I'm sure the old bastard haunts Brixton!


Not - the guy was tall as me - or taller 6 foot- 6 ft 2.
And half or more Afro caribbean
Lean and muscular - not roly poly.
No sign of being drunk either.
Sorry


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Not - the guy was tall as me - or taller 6 foot- 6 ft 2.
> And half or more Afro caribbean
> Lean and muscular - not roly poly.
> No sign of being drunk either.
> Sorry


 
Ah, but ghosts are often shaped as the deceased saw themselves, you see!
And one thing Rudy had in spades was a fine self-image! 

And Rudy wasn't a drunk, he was obviously just "high on life" most of the time after midday. Pure coincidence that he appeared drunk from the time the boozers opened!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 20, 2012)




----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, but ghosts are often shaped as the deceased saw themselves, you see!
> And one thing Rudy had in spades was a fine self-image!
> 
> And Rudy wasn't a drunk, he was obviously just "high on life" most of the time after midday. Pure coincidence that he appeared drunk from the time the boozers opened!


 
He did seem to like to do the rounds of the Brixton pubs.  I met him in the White Horse, George Canning, Coach and Horses etc. 

Maybe that says something about me 

(Must have been on annual leave)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> He did seem to like to do the rounds of the Brixton pubs. I met him in the White Horse, George Canning, Coach and Horses etc.
> 
> Maybe that says something about me
> 
> (Must have been on annual leave)


 
Nah, he did love his sauce, and he did a lot of his political "networking" in the boozers and shebeens.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, he did love his sauce, and he did a lot of his political "networking" in the boozers and shebeens.


NOT Pearl's (again!)


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, he did love his sauce, and he did a lot of his political "networking" in the boozers and shebeens.


 
He took his whole chambers out for a birthday dinner at a curry house once (I was invited as well) and it was all going swimmingly until a rather loud conversation went mental and he threw a glass down on the floor and started ranting at a junior barrister who had bought their dog into chambers at some stage, left and Rudy had arrived to find dog shit on the floor and had to clear it up. All the waiters were rushing over and trying to calm him down. I got the impression he was a regular there as they seemed to know him 

Think he had had quite a few glasses of wine by the time this all kicked off


----------



## CH1 (Jun 20, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Think he had had quite a few glasses of wine by the time this all kicked off


Not on the 12 step programme then


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 20, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Not on the 12 step programme then


 
This was early 80s (maybe 1982ish) so not sure what stage his drinking was at then


----------



## CH1 (Jun 20, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> This was early 80s (maybe 1982ish) so not sure what stage his drinking was at then


Before or after he was "disbarred"?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 20, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Before or after he was "disbarred"?


 
Well he was still in chambers in Chancery Lane and I think I moved to London in 1981/82 so must have been shortly before he was disbarred.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 20, 2012)

Although I remember him giving me a copy of his book, _Barrister for the Defence _and that was obviously after, so maybe he was coming back to visit chambers or something 

Don't remember much about the book though so can't have been that interesting.  Then I think he went on to do that series based on himself:  _Black Silk.  _I remember that being a bit of a disappointment as well


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 20, 2012)

hm, _Barrister for the Defence _was 1986.  Maybe he couldn't flog the book so carried spares to give away 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/BARRISTER-FOR-THE-DEFENCE-Survive/dp/0950666424


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> He took his whole chambers out for a birthday dinner at a curry house once (I was invited as well) and it was all going swimmingly until a rather loud conversation went mental and he threw a glass down on the floor and started ranting at a junior barrister who had bought their dog into chambers at some stage, left and Rudy had arrived to find dog shit on the floor and had to clear it up. All the waiters were rushing over and trying to calm him down. I got the impression he was a regular there as they seemed to know him
> 
> Think he had had quite a few glasses of wine by the time this all kicked off


 
He called me a racist in the George Canning once, after I said "people like you should be shot, Mr. Narayan".

He choked on his drink laughing when I said "no, not black people, lawyers".


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He called me a racist in the George Canning once, after I said "people like you should be shot, Mr. Narayan".
> 
> He choked on his drink laughing when I said "no, not black people, lawyers".


 


I've got no beef with him. He was alright in a different sort of way 

I think he signed my first passport photos as well


----------



## Badgers (Jun 20, 2012)

editor said:
			
		

> Could we have GPS locations for each chair please?



I will get on that


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've got no beef with him. He was alright in a different sort of way
> 
> I think he signed my first passport photos as well


 
I had a few issues with his bandwagon-jumping, but to be fair, he worked hard for the people he represented.
The only member of his "circle" I didn't like was Paul Boateng, who always came across like he was on the make.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 21, 2012)

I wrote his wife Janet a letter when Lambeth wanted to stop paying my rent when I was due to leave care and got a 6-month extension 

Seems they've been involved in a bit of controversy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...gated-for-allegedly-bullying-black-staff.html


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 21, 2012)

A realist said:


> have people got bad memories or have nothing to do but moan, it was only a few years ago the area out side the Ritzy was full of drunks ,beggars and druggies and one of these bastards was nice enough to mug me in broad day light. Now the Ritzy by the looks of it have cleaned up the area with staff and security regularly patrolling the area. Last weekend i saw every table and chairs full of happy people enjoying the area so perhaps the poor memories of the people slagging off the Ritzy should think back and start supporting the cinema who i think are doing a great job. wELL DONE rITZY


I totally missed the fact that the Ritzy rebuilt the square - fairplay to them. I didn't realise they were property developers as well. Thanks for the info.


----------



## beareis (Jun 21, 2012)

What happened to the chairs near the 37 bus stop in Windrush Square?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 21, 2012)

beareis said:
			
		

> What happened to the chairs near the 37 bus stop in Windrush Square?



Dunno? 

When chair counting yesterday I did notice that almost every public chair was full. Some people had brought their own camping chairs down too.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 21, 2012)

I was going to ask about the missing chairs too... must be a quite recent removal; they've just gone and the holes filled with unmatching tarmac.


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2012)

snowy_again said:


> I was going to ask about the missing chairs too... must be a quite recent removal; they've just gone and the holes filled with unmatching tarmac.


Wrong kind of sitters.
Off message sitters.


----------



## beareis (Jun 21, 2012)

If I'm not mistaken, they were there on Sunday and not there anymore on Tuesday.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 21, 2012)

beareis said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, they were there on Sunday and not there anymore on Tuesday.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 21, 2012)

metal theft


----------



## Crispy (Jun 21, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> metal theft





nipsla said:


> Dear annoying twat with an anglegrinder a few doors up. it's 11.15 so please shut the fuck up


----------



## colacubes (Jun 21, 2012)

Crispy said:


>


 


I could see him in the road opposite me so it wasn't in the square.  Unless he was a diversion


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 1, 2012)

A freedom of information request has revealed that the Ritzy pays £2,500 per year for the use of Windrush Square. This is managed by the Parks Department.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 1, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> A freedom of information request has revealed that the Ritzy pays £2,500 per year for the use of Windrush Square. This is managed by the Parks Department.



That is a bloody bargain. Just over £200 a month for that many covers. Assume £500 per month with rain they only need to make about £15 per table or 50p a day. 

This workings are guesstimated


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 1, 2012)

Badgers said:


> That is a bloody bargain. Just over £200 a month for that many covers. Assume £500 per month with rain they only need to make about £15 per table or 50p a day.
> 
> This workings are guesstimated


Our cider and burger bar is still a possibility then....!


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2012)

I must admit to finding this annoying the other day when wanting to have a quick sit down in Brixton with a sandwich before going to an appointment, I found that all the shady space was taken by the Ritzy.


----------



## A realist (Aug 2, 2012)

nagapie said:


> I must admit to finding this annoying the other day when wanting to have a quick sit down in Brixton with a sandwich before going to an appointment, I found that all the shady space was taken by the Ritzy.


Oh my god only one tree in Brixton....some one call the Green Party


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2012)

A realist said:


> Oh my god only one tree in Brixton....some one call the Green Party


You don't think people should have free access to the one large tree in the centre of a public square?
Why ever not?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 2, 2012)

A realist said:


> Oh my god only one tree in Brixton....some one call the Green Party


 
I didn't have much time and it is the only tree in the square.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 2, 2012)

A realist said:


> Oh my god only one tree in Brixton....some one call the Green Party


 
Fuck off, you gibbering spunkmonkey.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2012)

I'm slightly surprised by this thread.  They may not be truly 'independent', but that's because the studios have made that pretty much impossible with the way they offer their films (I used to be a cinema manager - I can explain if you like, but it's quite dull).  And if it was my local cinema, I'd far rather have the Ritzy than yet another bloody Odeon.

We've got our own faux-independent cinema down here, also part of the City Screen group.  If they needed to take over part of the marina with seating in order to continue showing the odd arthouse film and letting community groups (book clubs, green, palestinian solidarity and socialist groups) use their space for free, I'd be welcoming it.

Not saying reasonable objections shouldn't be raised - but the tone of the parts of the thread I've read surprised me by its hostility.

Isn't there a whopping great KFC opposite it?  I'd find that far more objectionable.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 2, 2012)

i think you may have missed the point by quite some considerable distance.  i'd advise re-reading the thread again, paying attention to the words that were actually written.

HTH


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2012)

Thanks for your reply.  Go blow a goat.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> Thanks for your reply. Go blow a goat.


'Rax I hate to do it, but for once I agree with el-ahrairah.  

It's less about whether the cinema is a chain or an independant, more about the way that it's encroached onto what has been widely regarded as public space (as far back as anyone can remember), and very popular public space at that.  As for the customer service etc quality of the Ritzy, let's just say that AFAIK it leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> 'Rax I hate to do it, but for once I agree with el-ahrairah.
> 
> It's less about whether the cinema is a chain or an independant, more about the way that it's encroached onto what has been widely regarded as public space (as far back as anyone can remember), and very popular public space at that. As for the customer service etc quality of the Ritzy, let's just say that AFAIK it leaves a lot to be desired.


Look back over some of the posts, and you'll find a fair few that are disproportionately hostile, and some that used their non-independence as a justification for that.

I didn't make it through the entire thread to be honest with you - has anyone approached them, or their parent company, over their use of public space?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> Look back over some of the posts, and you'll find a fair few that are disproportionately hostile, and some that used their non-independence as a justification for that.<snip>


No, sorry, you've lost me there.  ritzy wasn't great before, and AFAIK it was bought up about a year before work on the square was completed.  Teh encroachment began last summer, and would have been just as bad and just as resented no matter who'd done it.



Corax said:


> <snip>I didn't make it through the entire thread to be honest with you - has anyone approached them, or their parent company, over their use of public space?


This is Lambeth.  Normal channels seldom work.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2012)

As I said before, most cinemas have been taken over and rebranded in Odeon's gloriously homogenous neon.  It could be a hell of a lot worse is what I'm saying.

How does it being Lambeth impact on communications with City Screen btw?  I'm suggesting talking to the company as a first step, not the council.  The logical thing to do when you've got a problem with someone is to talk to them about it, no?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> As I said before, most cinemas have been taken over and rebranded in Odeon's gloriously homogenous neon. It could be a hell of a lot worse is what I'm saying.


And it could be a lot better. If you were mugged, would you appreciate being told to be thankful that you hadn't been murdered?


Corax said:


> How does it being Lambeth impact on communications with City Screen btw? I'm suggesting talking to the company as a first step, not the council. The logical thing to do when you've got a problem with someone is to talk to them about it, no?


It just does - I know, it's illogical, but once within Lambeth's borders few things seem to work in the way you'd like to take for granted.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> And it could be a lot better. If you were mugged, would you appreciate being told to be thankful that you hadn't been murdered?
> 
> It just does - I know, it's illogical, but once within Lambeth's borders few things seem to work in the way you'd like to take for granted.


I'm still curious to know if anyone's tried.

It's likely to have more impact than simply posting about it on here isn't it?

Re: the first bit - Sure.  So what is anyone doing to try and change it?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> I'm still curious to know if anyone's tried.<snip>


Just.  Read.  The.  Entire.  Thread.  Sweetie.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Just. Read. The. Entire. Thread. Sweetie.


Can't be arsed.  Why can't you just tell me.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> Can't be arsed. Why can't you just tell me.


Because I'd get RSI typing the whole damn lot out.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Because I'd get RSI typing the whole damn lot out.


Lazy bugger.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> Lazy bugger.


Lazy is it when I have this kerazy wish to be able to brush my own teeth or do up my own bra, sweetie?  

BTW in the time you've been arguing with me, you could have read the thread instead.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Lazy is it when I have this kerazy wish to be able to brush my own teeth or do up my own bra, sweetie?


When I ask you to summarise for me, you should just buckle down and damn well summarise.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> When I ask you to summarise for me, you should just buckle down and damn well summarise.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> BTW in the time you've been arguing with me, you could have read the thread instead.


Arguing with you is less dull though.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> 'Rax I hate to do it, but for once I agree with el-ahrairah.


----------

