iwca article on brixton [Archive]

fanta

02-12-2005, 13:34

It is good and will no doubt ruffle some feathers as intended.

But I'm not sure about the idea that '...certainly Brixton used to be a place where you didn't have to be either wealthy or conventional to live… to count.' is entirely accurate.

If you're not wealthy, ie poor, then surely that has always meant that you just don't 'count' in the same way wherever you might live?

Is it the case that being poor in Brixton was somehow uniquely better or easier than being poor in areas in other cities like Liverpool, Belfast, Birmingham etc?

Being poor means usually living a harder, shorter and less satisfied life wherever you are?!

Nevertheless - good for Mr Bakalite!

Minnie_the_Minx

02-12-2005, 13:37

is Harmonys what used to be Mingles? :confused:

tarannau

02-12-2005, 13:39

Well he's spot on as far as I'm concerned

Have you checked the name of the writer btw? Good to see someone familiar back on form and doing something constructive.
;)

I'd agree with the basic sentiment of much of the article. But I also suspect that we always tend to have rose-tinted visions of our impact on the area. Just as the West Indian influx changed the area, as did the 'liberal colonisers' who harnessed the low property values to move in and guide the character of the area again. That generation's mostly grown up and moved on - witness the 'flight' of the West Indian community further out to more family friendly and cheaper areas, or the number of places in central Brixton now rented out by those early 'liberal' colonisers.

I also think it's unfair to place most of the blame on the young influx (Yuppies whatever) for the changing character. It's a different property market now - many previous Brixton residents have benefitted from that development, for better or worse. Similarly IME many of those moving in, even those oft maligned middle-class kids, have largely left-leaning sympathies and an appreciation of Brixton's vitality - that's what attracted them there in the first place, just as the generation before.

It's a different world now though, different expectations, less parties and squats to unite, less social housing, entertainment more specialised and polarised, everything cleaned up and 'officially' licensed around the country. And those at different life stages may have different priorities now - not everyone can stay young, child-untroubled and tolerant of the 'edgy' environment forever. Some of the loudest and least tolerant voices are from older Brixtonians.

Minnie_the_Minx

02-12-2005, 13:42

Have you checked the name of the writer btw? Good to see someone familiar back on form and doing something constructive.
;)

Ah, is that HB? :confused:

tarannau

02-12-2005, 13:43

Ah, is that HB? :confused:

Yes indeed.

Brixton Hatter

02-12-2005, 13:43

An excellent article, well done HB. :)

Wonder if it's worth sending it to the council to see what their response is?

On another point, i think it's important that people respond to council's latest "revitalise" booklet and tell them exactly what they think of it.

editor

02-12-2005, 14:06

And he only managed to mention “hip” and “edgy” twice!

It's a good article although I can't see how gentrification can be blamed for the demise of Harmony/Mingles. Every time I've gone past it's been near-empty and the airport-type security was hardly a welcoming introduction to the place.

The sad fact is that traditional, old-school pubs are shutting down at a rate of knots everywhere ("26 every month") (http://www.newstatesman.com/People/200511070019), and are coming under an attack of changing tastes, health fads, the growth of corporate drinking sheds and the rise of licensed lounge/cafes.

wurlycurly

02-12-2005, 14:31

Essentially excellent! Hats of to Hatboy!!!!! ;)

Bob

02-12-2005, 16:23

I'd agree with the basic sentiment of much of the article. But I also suspect that we always tend to have rose-tinted visions of our impact on the area. Just as the West Indian influx changed the area, as did the 'liberal colonisers' who harnessed the low property values to move in and guide the character of the area again. That generation's mostly grown up and moved on - witness the 'flight' of the West Indian community further out to more family friendly and cheaper areas, or the number of places in central Brixton now rented out by those early 'liberal' colonisers.

So much so that marketing people have a specific category - quite big slightly south of Brixton in areas like Tulse Hill 'settled minorities' is what Experian/Mosaic call it.

Mr Retro

02-12-2005, 16:59

linerider

02-12-2005, 17:03

If you're not wealthy, ie poor, then surely that has always meant that you just don't 'count' in the same way wherever you might live?

Is it the case that being poor in Brixton was somehow uniquely better or easier than being poor in areas in other cities like Liverpool, Belfast, Birmingham etc?

i don't think living here was easier,but people had/have a pride is saying they come from Brixton that i have never come across anywhere else in the country.in most places,people who are born in a place are proud to come from that place.for me and many like me Brixton took me in and gave me a sense of identity.

Mrs Magpie

02-12-2005, 17:05

What looks like the same article is also in this month's New Internationalist.

tarannau

02-12-2005, 17:07

Agree or disagree with Hatboy at least he is consistant and strongly believes in what he says.

As he is banned from this site and doesn't have right of reply I think we should not debate his views and try and pick holes in them.

He's had an article published, so I believe it's fair to comment on the content. HB has, unfortunately, lost the right to reply on this forum, but unless we start widening the discussion or start 'playing the man' I reckon it's fair to comment on the article itself.

More positively I reckon it's been quite an decent set of constructive posts all round. And I suspect there's nothing there that anyone wouldn't say to HB face to face. Good on him for his efforts as well - he's writing well and has obciously got a good run on.

:)

Mr Retro

02-12-2005, 17:13

He's had an article published, so I believe it's fair to comment on the content. HB has, unfortunately, lost the right to reply on this forum, but unless we start widening the discussion or start 'playing the man' I reckon it's fair to comment on the article itself.

More positively I reckon it's been quite an decent set of constructive posts all round. And I suspect there's nothing there that anyone wouldn't say to HB face to face. Good on him for his efforts as well - he's writing well and has obciously got a good run on.

:)

I agree tarannau but just making the point.

editor

02-12-2005, 17:20

As he is banned from this site and doesn't have right of reply I think we should not debate his views and try and pick holes in them.We're discussing an article which he elected to publish so I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be discussed here - like any other published article.

Personal attacks on hatboy are, however, a different matter of course. They will be removed.

Mr Retro

02-12-2005, 17:27

We're discussing an article which he elected to publish so I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be discussed here - like any other published article.

Personal attacks on hatboy are, however, a different matter of course. They will be removed.

Ya, I'm wrong to say we shouldn't debate his views but people commenting about Hatboy when they know more about him than the article reveals isn't fair.

But you've made it clear above so thanks.

newbie

02-12-2005, 17:43

i don't think living here was easier,but people had/have a pride is saying they come from Brixton that i have never come across anywhere else in the country.in most places,people who are born in a place are proud to come from that place.for me and many like me Brixton took me in and gave me a sense of identity.

tbh I think that's a rather recent phenomenon. It's not so many years ago that Brixton almost didn't exist because its reputation was so bad, and so widespread, that admitting an association with the place would always lead to the same boring discussion about mugging, race, riots and so on. And very suspicious looks. That, coupled with the East Clapham, North Streatham stuff from estate agents and redlining by insurance companies, marginalised the place and the people who lived here.

Mrs Magpie

02-12-2005, 17:45

I agree newbie, when I first came here, my postcode was enough to rule me out of job shortlists.

Ms T

02-12-2005, 18:02

tbh I think that's a rather recent phenomenon. It's not so many years ago that Brixton almost didn't exist because its reputation was so bad, and so widespread, that admitting an association with the place would always lead to the same boring discussion about mugging, race, riots and so on. And very suspicious looks. That, coupled with the East Clapham, North Streatham stuff from estate agents and redlining by insurance companies, marginalised the place and the people who lived here.

I still get some of this shit from my colleagues -- usually the ones that live in the Home Counties.

Donna Ferentes

02-12-2005, 18:07

I think everybody does.

My ex-landlady had an experience not long ago involving her being in a pub on Coldharbour Lane (not that one) and running into somebody she hadn't seen since school. (Said individual was later at university with me - it's a small world.) She asked "what are you doing here?" and they told her they were going to the Academy - they asked her "what are you doing here?" and she told them "I live here". They looked at her as if she were kidding. And we all know that look, I think.

newbie

02-12-2005, 18:18

Yes, that look. But there's another, newer, one which is I think what linerider was on about: 'wow, that's cool, edgy, vibrant....'. It's almost impossible not to respond with ... is pride the right word?, something positive anyway.

It's almost always accompanied by "... sounds great but I couldn't afford to live there..." I'm never sure if that's genuine or camouflage for race/drugs/mugging. Maybe it's just me being over sensitive, of course.

I still just wave generally and mumble Sarf Lunnon to deflect some conversations.

marty21

02-12-2005, 18:21

They looked at her as if she were kidding. And we all know that look, I think.

i get a similar look when i tell people i live in hackney

memespring

02-12-2005, 18:30

Trendy bars and gated-developments do not a happy community make.

Hard to disagree with that.

linerider

02-12-2005, 19:08

tbh I think that's a rather recent phenomenon. It's not so many years ago that Brixton almost didn't exist because its reputation was so bad, and so widespread, that admitting an association with the place would always lead to the same boring discussion about mugging, race, riots and so on. And very suspicious looks. That, coupled with the East Clapham, North Streatham stuff from estate agents and redlining by insurance companies, marginalised the place and the people who lived here.

i've been round this area on and off for over 20 years and it's always felt like that to me.i think that the repution was one of the reasons that people moved here.it kept the yuppies out and allowed more freedom to create things outside the mainstream than anywhere else i've been. this is something that the council seem to want to stamp out.

articletwo

02-12-2005, 21:18

That article wouldn't have looked out of place in Little-Marsh-Under-The-Wold Parish Recorder (motto "You b'aint be a local 'til you have lived here for 30 years").
One of the great things about living London (as opposed to the sticks) is the dynamism of a big city - things change, develop, people come and go. Brixton is a good example: wealthy at the end of the C19th then becoming progressively poorer through to the mid-C20th century - which must be a reason that immigrants with little money came here, in the search for cheap housing. Things move on, the immigrants who came in the 1950s and 60s have retired, maybe made some money on their homes if they were able to buy, some decide to move on, and new people move in. It is the eternal cycle of the metropolis, and it would ruin London if any group (rich, poor, black, white) were able to stop the clock at any point in time and say that from now on the tides of change were halted.

Mr Retro

02-12-2005, 21:58

I think everybody does.

She asked "what are you doing here?" and they told her they were going to the Academy - they asked her "what are you doing here?" and she told them "I live here". They looked at her as if she were kidding. And we all know that look, I think.

Or as a friend of mine says (only half joking):

"I live in Brixton when I'm trying to pull a bird. I live in Clapham North when I'm at a job interview".

Donna Ferentes

02-12-2005, 22:02

It is the eternal cycle of the metropolis, and it would ruin London if any group (rich, poor, black, white) were able to stop the clock at any point in time and say that from now on the tides of change were halted.In fact, wealthy people spend a great deal of time preventing change happening to them, while engineering it, adversely, against the poor.

Whenever you see rich and poor equated, there's a splendid chance that you're looking at a specious argument.

Mr Retro

02-12-2005, 22:19

In fact, wealthy people spend a great deal of time preventing change happening to them, while engineering it, adversely, against the poor.

Every time I hear or read something likethat I think of the Thames Walkway along by Bermondsey.

Here there are new houses on the river for the rich. These houses were built long after the council houses that are a bit bit off the river. Now the new houses block off the poors view of the river. In many cases even the access to the walkway along the river is (probably illegally) blocked.

So nothing changes for the rich in that they still live in the best houses but they have pushed the poor down a bit further by making their livng conditions a bit worse.

butchersapron

02-12-2005, 22:22

butchersapron

02-12-2005, 22:23

I'm going to burn your developement down you arrogant cunt. Better rack up your security rates.

brix

02-12-2005, 23:45

I'm going to burn your developement down you arrogant cunt. Better rack up your security rates.

That's offensive.

rednblack

03-12-2005, 00:33

That's offensive.

not as offensive as the rich parasites who think they have the moral right to deny the working class the right to live in decent communities

butchersapron

03-12-2005, 00:37

That's offensive.
Is it? to who? And what er..are...you going to do when it happens?

That's offensive - fuck me. You're offensive. Fuck off you stupid yuppie bitch. Don't pay for it yet though. You never know.

I might get wind of your other place and burn that too. These lower classes do blab. Or your parents.

butchersapron

03-12-2005, 00:39

That's offensive.
Tell me why though.

rednblack

03-12-2005, 00:44

is this mark e smith's ex ? :confused:

articletwo

03-12-2005, 12:19

In fact, wealthy people spend a great deal of time preventing change happening to them, while engineering it, adversely, against the poor.

Whenever you see rich and poor equated, there's a splendid chance that you're looking at a specious argument.

And it is just as wrong when the wealthy do it as when the poor do it. Closing off the riverside, mentioned in a later post, is truly outrageous.

Whenever you see an argument that says that it is okay for the poor/working class/downtrodden masses do something that it it wrong for the well-off to do, you know you are seeing hollow dogma.

butchersapron

03-12-2005, 12:30

If you live in a world entirely free of material context and differing conditons, not to mention unsupportable variations in power and ignorance of just how that power came to be accumulated in one groups hands and how it's sustained today, then yes, i suppose you are correct.

newbie

03-12-2005, 13:10

That article wouldn't have looked out of place in Little-Marsh-Under-The-Wold Parish Recorder (motto "You b'aint be a local 'til you have lived here for 30 years").

The author is arguing in favour of diversity, tolerance and inclusiveness which centrally includes the long term residents who are predominantly poor. His objection is to an influx of the well-off who want to erode that.

There was desparate poverty/decay in the 70s & 80s, accompanied by an influx of young outsiders making use of the vast amounts of abandoned housing. The area had, at one point, a huge squatting presence and included (what was said to be) the biggest gay concentration in Europe, the biggest lesbian separatist area in the world and provided an almost unparalleled opportunity to reinvent and experiment without the straightjacket of social democratic conformity. That was the starting point for regeneration.

That's what is under threat as the area gradually resumes its longterm position as dormitary for well off West End workers. That diversity, the opportunity to be whoever you want to be, is far less pronounced in otherwise comparable local areas. That's what drives the position Hatboy articulates (if I understand what he's said, and I really don't want to misrepresent him. I wish he was here to say it himself).

Stopping the tides of history isn't the point- because to do so would be to freeze the poorest into poverty and deprivation levels from which the area has only recently begun to emerge. But the interests of the poorest, and those with the fewest choices, runs alongside those of the diverse, because it's all being smothered by well-off, smug, individualistic conformity.

And experience indicates that most of the incoming conformists will leave within just a few years, taking their housing profits with them, and selling to someone just like them.

articletwo

04-12-2005, 10:49

The author is arguing in favour of diversity, tolerance and inclusiveness which centrally includes the long term residents who are predominantly poor. His objection is to an influx of the well-off who want to erode that.

Do the "well-off" really want to erode that? What real evidence is there for that, other than some anecdotes?

Stopping the tides of history isn't the point- because to do so would be to freeze the poorest into poverty and deprivation levels from which the area has only recently begun to emerge. But the interests of the poorest, and those with the fewest choices, runs alongside those of the diverse, because it's all being smothered by well-off, smug, individualistic conformity.

Again, what evidence is there for that? I see a lot of live-and-let-live: people here generally tolerating whatever others want to do, as long as they don't shove any illegal elements of it in their faces (pace drug sellers outside the Tube).

And experience indicates that most of the incoming conformists will leave within just a few years

Really, who knows: I see a lot of families with young children in the area that I live, who look as if they are going to be here for a while. That is certainly our intention - after having a typical peripatetic and isolated flat-dweller life across London for more than ten years, we have moved here to have a family and put down some roots.

What surprises me about this thread is the visceral prejudice of those who haven't met me, know nothing about me or my views, simply because I am a member of a hated group - "incomers". Obviously I know prejudice exists in our society, and I have previously experienced very small amounts of it as a Catholic (yes, there is still some anti-Catholicism left in the UK, although more in the north than the south), but to come up against in its rawest form is rather saddening.

editor

04-12-2005, 12:52

Fuck off you stupid yuppie bitch.

I might get wind of your other place and burn that too. Congratulations! You've managed to spurn a regular poster into making their first ever reported post with that abusive post.

Seeing as it contains personal abuse and a deeply unpleasant threat to burn down property, I'm putting you on a 48hr ban to cool down.

It is not acceptable to post up such threats on these boards. Ever. Even if you later claim you don't really mean it.

hendo

04-12-2005, 12:59

I am one of the incomers into Brixton, having moved here a few years ago. Perhaps I should feel guilty. But on consideration, I salve my conscience with the following thoughts.

I spend money round here in local businesses, and pay the council tax. That means jobs.

Brixton was not paradise before I arrived. It is not now that I am here, and will have problems when and if I ever leave.

Hb's article seems to focus on changes apparently wrought by the middle class influx into Brixton, but the big problems in Lambeth have little to do with my arrival. It's true that I own a house, but the council didn't sell it to me. The run down in local authority stock has to do with Right to Buy legislation, embraced by many residents, and the decision by central government not to allow councils to reinvest the cash from sales in housing.

The shortage of housing and the forcing up of prices is a national problem, not one simply found here in Brixton, and the failure of successive governments to deal with it may cost future generations dearly.

Neither had I anything to do with the local authority's disastrous education policy, which has led to school closures and the area's children having to leave the borough to receive secondary education, or reportedly having no school to go to at all.

The drug problem in Brixton is widely written about on this forum, but suffice it to say the availability of (what was then) affordable housing, and its proximity to my workplace, was a much bigger factor in my decision to come here than the availability of skunk/weed. One factor that draws many people like me to move to Brixton is the fact that its on the Victoria line tube, for example.

I admit that I'm white, and earn decent money. But despite my arrival Brixton seems pretty diverse to me, and is changing all the time. Since I got to London in the mid nineties, thousands of Poles and other Eastern Europeans from the new EU states have arrived, and some of them have popped up in local businesses.

And I notice that my recently opened local off licence is run by two West African men, and I read in The Economist that infact the African community in London now outnumbers the West Indian one.

So the changes here have many dimensions, and its wrong to characterise them as simply being from black to white.

The fact is London's health as a city is linked with dynamic social change, with ethnicities and classes moving in and out faster than almost anywhere else in the UK. It's a big pot of people and money, and authors from Dickens onwards have been noting how cruel London, and cities in general can be, to those who aren't numbered among society's winners.

I think hatboy ought to be invited back to defend his article; my criticism of it would be that Brixton's problems are wider than the piece appreciates, and can't really be blamed on one social group.

What's to be done? In my opinion the government needs to re-invigorate investment in social housing, put some more muscle into its efforts to provide education to the borough's children and firmly back the police in their efforts to provide the area with a good quality of law and order.

But its pointless trying to get me on a guilt trip for moving to Brixton; it'll never happen. Neither will I move out in the face of threats. Better to urge me and the rest of my kind to lend support to constructive things going on in our community, rather than attack us for daring to arrive here.

editor

04-12-2005, 13:02

I think hatboy ought to be invited back to defend his article;Unfortunately, his totally unacceptable, serial abuse of the PM facility (which we can not monitor) means that's not going to happen.

hendo

04-12-2005, 13:17

I'll PM you, since by discussing it here we're compounding the problem.

newbie

04-12-2005, 13:35

Do the "well-off" really want to erode that? What real evidence is there for that, other than some anecdotes?

'want' is the wrong word- me bad, I can't speak to the motivation behind the effect. But the effect is apparent.

Does anyone have the URL for the study that was done a year or two back- here, Telegraph Hill, couple of other places?

I see a lot of families with young children in the area that I live, who look as if they are going to be here for a while. That is certainly our intention - after having a typical peripatetic and isolated flat-dweller life across London for more than ten years, we have moved here to have a family and put down some roots.

Young children yes, mostly queueing to get into Sudbourne but wait until you have to select a secondary school. You'll have difficulties, which I'm sure your intentions and determination will overcome. Then look around you and watch the others in your position either leave the area or scramble to get their kids into somewhere like Alleyns. That's anecdotal, but also bourne out by the study above and the census info- look it up, there's a major shortfall of teenagers in the area, but not of the equivalent primary age kids.

What surprises me about this thread is the visceral prejudice of those who haven't met me, know nothing about me or my views, simply because I am a member of a hated group - "incomers".

Why do you think it's prejudice against you personally? This isn't personal, but you're as much responsible for your effect on the area in which you live as anyone else. Statistically, and anecdotally, the effect recent incomers are having on the area has been to price out the kids brought up here and the longterm residents, to replace the useful shops with bars and clubs, and to turn the area into a playground for 20- and 30-somethings with disposable West End incomes. If that's not applicable to you personally then don't take it so. If it is, then forgive me for pointing it out, but actually there are those of us that find it more than a little concern.

And yes, nobody is stupid enough to want to pickle the area in the poverty and disadvantage of a few years ago. The influx of money has had positive effects, of course.

memespring

04-12-2005, 13:49

Someone gave me this article a couple of months back, and as a new mortgaged-up arrival to Brixton (although not to Lambeth) I felt some initial guilt on reading it.

But I came to terms with it because I don't live here because its trendy, or want to make money out of living here. It is the same sense of cohesion and inclusion that HB notes in his article, that make me want to live here. Brixton seems to be one of the few places in London that have survived the Thatcher mantra of No such thing as society where everything has a price (assuming you can pay).

That private ownership of new arrivals is going to increase is almost inevitable. None of the main parties have a viable social housing policy and are all relying on the market to provide housing for people (even affordable housing only remains so for one generation of ownership). The option of mass council housing and long term renting (on fair terms) that was avaliable to my parents generation just dont exist any more.

The question is how can it be managed to maintain what makes Brixton special? As long as people from all backgrounds keep on coming to Brixton for what it and a mix of housing is maintained (owned, rented, council, squatted) I think it can.

The trouble is the council's approach doesn't seem to bode well for this. It seems to be focused people on attracting people onthe back of a trendy night time economy that increasingly doesnt cater for those who live here; St Agnes shows they have little interest in the value of a community vs its capital value; whist their continued sale of every property they can get their off their hands (including many low rent and council places) threatens the cultural mix that could end up in monoculture.

editor

04-12-2005, 14:33

I'll PM you, since by discussing it here we're compounding the problem.Indeed. It's not fair to discuss it publicly but I do hope that people realise that the mods were given no choice in this particular situation.

easy g

04-12-2005, 15:34

Congratulations! You've managed to spurn a regular poster into making their first ever reported post with that abusive post.

Seeing as it contains personal abuse and a deeply unpleasant threat to burn down property, I'm putting you on a 48hr ban to cool down.

It is not acceptable to post up such threats on these boards. Ever. Even if you later claim you don't really mean it.

regular poster?
been here since July...made 22 posts?

some people are too fucking precious....

nice to see you act so promptly though when some people bark for attention...

editor

04-12-2005, 15:38

nice to see you act so promptly though when some people bark for attention...So you think it's OK to call women "birtches" and threaten to burn down their houses, then?

:rolleyes:

Anyone acting like that can expect to be banned so you can shove your "ooooh the mods are soooooo unfair" bullshit where the sun don't shine.

Oh, and you've got completely the wrong reporting poster, btw, but I'm sure you won't let that trifling fact get in the way of your stirring.

easy g

04-12-2005, 15:43

So you think it's OK to call women "birtches" and threaten to burn down their houses, then?

:rolleyes:

Anyone acting like that can expect to be banned so you can shove your "ooooh the mods are soooooo unfair" bullshit where the sun don't shine.

Oh, and you've got completely the wrong reporting poster, btw, but I'm sure you won't let that trifling fact get in the way of your stirring.

I thought the guidelines about abuse were if the person being abused found it offensive....

no stirring...you just didn't make it clear...

and I'll call women birtches if I want to...

easy g

04-12-2005, 15:48

so you can shove your "ooooh the mods are soooooo unfair" bullshit where the sun don't shine.

I don't think "the mods are so unfair"

but I don't suppose you'll let that stop you peddling yr bullshit will it....

thanks awfully in advance though

newbie

04-12-2005, 18:18

Brixton seems to be one of the few places in London that have survived the Thatcher mantra of No such thing as society where everything has a price (assuming you can pay).

I seriously doubt that's true, there are plenty of other places which have community, many without disfunctionality. But there have been a combination of factors over many years that seem to have made Brixton seem more desirable, to specific groups, than other places. Pretty obvious examples of that might include Jayday and Urban75. The profile has been higher than other places, and somehow what used to be crime n grime has been rebranded as edgy & vibrant. GOK how.

Ryazan

04-12-2005, 19:32

What is edgy and vibrant?

editor

04-12-2005, 19:36

I thought the guidelines about abuse were if the person being abused found it offensive....If you think that this board is a place where posters can call women "bitches" and threaten to burn their houses down just because they disagree with their opinion, you're in the wrong place.

People who do that get banned, whoever they are.

But seeing as you've (predictably) waded in again, perhaps you might explain your specific complaint in this instance. Exactly what are you whining about?

Or do you think we should let people make such threats and call women bitches if they're your friends?

Is that what you want here?

memespring

04-12-2005, 19:44

What is edgy and vibrant?
An electric kitchen knife?

shit, thats vibrates isnt it :o

articletwo

04-12-2005, 20:02

Young children yes, mostly queueing to get into Sudbourne but wait until you have to select a secondary school. You'll have difficulties, which I'm sure your intentions and determination will overcome. Then look around you and watch the others in your position either leave the area or scramble to get their kids into somewhere like Alleyns. That's anecdotal, but also bourne out by the study above and the census info- look it up, there's a major shortfall of teenagers in the area, but not of the equivalent primary age kids.
Fair point, and indeed we bought our house from people for whom that was one of the reasons they left. However, surely the solution is to get a new secondary school here in Brixton - I know there is a campaign to do that, and it deserves support. The fact that over in Clapham they got the new academy shows what can be done.

Why do you think it's prejudice against you personally? This isn't personal, but you're as much responsible for your effect on the area in which you live as anyone else.
Whether or not it is meant personally, if someone attacks a group that I de facto belong to, in this case "incomers", of course I am going to take it personally.

Statistically, and anecdotally, the effect recent incomers are having on the area has been to price out the kids brought up here and the longterm residents, to replace the useful shops with bars and clubs, and to turn the area into a playground for 20- and 30-somethings with disposable West End incomes. If that's not applicable to you personally then don't take it so. If it is, then forgive me for pointing it out, but actually there are those of us that find it more than a little concern
I am no fan either of the town centre being full of bars that serve a kiddie market that likes to stand up in crowded loud bars and drink gassy lager. But I am not sure that has very much to do with the incomers who come to live in Brixton - judging by how busy the Tube is, a lot of people come to Brixton from elsewhere for a night out. And hey, if Brixton is good at that, why not let it expand - it creates jobs and puts money into the local economy (albeit late at night). As long as some kind of reasonable balance can be achieved with those of us locals who are less interested in the throbbing nightlife.

But this is London, and those kind of trade-offs have to be made all over the place. And they are best made by communities collectively, rather than different bits pointing the finger at one another.

Ryazan

04-12-2005, 20:10

An electric kitchen knife?

shit, thats vibrates isnt it :o

Middle classness? Searching for something that doesn't really exist, and that pushes out that which already does?

This all so very edgy.

newbie

04-12-2005, 21:01

What is edgy and vibrant?

running joke really. 'Vibrant' is endemic in almost every Sunday glossy article about Brixton; 'edgy' is perhaps a bit more youthful. Both are intended to convey how exciting it is to rub shoulders with a slice of real ghetto that has fame worldwide. :rolleyes:

Chuck Wilson

04-12-2005, 21:30

Is 'quaffing' a local term or has that been imported and forced upon the locals by some of this new influx?

editor

04-12-2005, 21:33

Is 'quaffing' a local term or has that been imported and forced upon the locals by some of this new influx?Who's "forced" the term on who, exactly? What are you on about?

Is there a point to your post or are you only here to disrupt and act like an attention-seeking twat?

newbie

04-12-2005, 21:37

Fair point, and indeed we bought our house from people for whom that was one of the reasons they left. However, surely the solution is to get a new secondary school here in Brixton - I know there is a campaign to do that, and it deserves support. The fact that over in Clapham they got the new academy shows what can be done.

no, a new school won't solve the problems. Not that much has changed since they closed down Dick Sheppard & Tulse Hill. The fundamental problem is that your peers won't want to send their offspring to secondary with local kids. They deserve 'better'. You'll understand why when you've done a few years of standing in the primary school playground.

Yes, that's me being cynical.

Whether or not it is meant personally, if someone attacks a group that I de facto belong to, in this case "incomers", of course I am going to take it personally.

There's no reason to, unless you reckon your own personal actions are entirely stereotypical of the identified problems. You looked at the options in front of you, and decided what you wanted to do. No problem, and no criticism.

You're part of a trend. That trend has origins and consequences. Local people are seeking to understand what's occuring, to describe the effects of the trend, to draw attention to how that affects those who have few choices. Because let's face it, there are plenty of people who can't move when their kids hit 11, whose view of the area doesn't include 'vibrant' or 'edgy', whose experience of gentrification is almost wholly negative.

And arising from that understanding might come some inkling as to how to respond: eg opposing planning applications for yet another bar or another gated luxury development. Personalising the discussions just gets in the way of that.

Chuck Wilson

04-12-2005, 21:41

Who's "forced" the term on who, exactly?

Is there a point to your post?

I'm not sure, perhaps you can help but I hadn't heard this term until I joined up on these boards and was wondering why it has become almost de riguer in the Albert.

BTW Did you edit your original post to add the abusive bit?

editor

04-12-2005, 21:57

I'm not sure, perhaps you can help but I hadn't heard this term until I joined up on these boards and was wondering why it has become almost de riguer in the Albert.So you really are being a smart arse wanker whose sole interest in this thread is to cause disruption then?

When was the last time you were in the Albert?
Who did you hear use the term? How often?
And, finally, what relevant point are you trying to make, if any?

Chuck Wilson

04-12-2005, 22:14

So you really are being a smart arse wanker whose sole interest in this thread is to cause disruption then?

When was the last time you were in the Albert?
Who did you hear use the term? How often?
And, finally, what relevant point are you trying to make, if any?

Stop shining that angle poised light in my face and don't be so rude. If I used the same language that you have ( and Dubversion ) to me I would think that I would have been banned by now.

The phrase 'quaffing ' is one I haven't heard used in London apart from here.I am familair with 'on the soup, on the lash, a couple of refreshers, a couple of jars, on the piss, a swift thirst, on the steam, chucking it down the neck, a few sherberts etc but not 'quaffing' Is it an indigenous phrase or has it been introduced by non Londoners

memespring

04-12-2005, 22:19

There's a [shit] bar in Balham that has the word Quaff sandblasted into the window.

editor

04-12-2005, 22:21

Stop shining that angle poised light in my face and don't be so rude. If I used the same language that you have ( and Dubversion ) to me I would think that I would have been banned by now. You've contributed nothing even remotely on topic to this thread.

We both know that I'm just about the only person here who reguarly uses the word 'quaff' in relation to having a drink in the Albert, so it's obvious you're trying to score cheap points by referring to the word as being "...forced upon the locals by some of this new influx" [into Brixton.]

You then claimed that the term is "almost de riguer in the Albert", so I'll ask you again: When was the last time you were in the Albert? Who did you hear use the term? How often?

Or maybe you'll just come clean and admit that you're being a pathetic little trollboy here and by bringing up Dubversion (what's he got to do with this thread?!) your real intentions have been exposed.

linerider

04-12-2005, 22:29

The phrase 'quaffing ' is one I haven't heard used in London apart from here.I am familair with 'on the soup, on the lash, a couple of refreshers, a couple of jars, on the piss, a swift thirst, on the steam, chucking it down the neck, a few sherberts etc but not 'quaffing' Is it an indigenous phrase or has it been introduced by non Londoners

Terry Pratchett describes quaffing as "like drinking but you spill more" :rolleyes:

editor

04-12-2005, 22:31

Terry Pratchett describes quaffing as "like drinking but you spill more" :rolleyes:I picked it up from a Spitting Image sketch of Oliver Reed where he always going on about, "we'll quaff, quaff and quaff again!"
http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/30/35/22m.jpg

(I do hope that answers any future Qs from Chuck on the subject. Perhaps he'll answer mine now)

hibee

04-12-2005, 22:32

There's a [shit] bar in Balham that has the word Quaff sandblasted into the window.

Venue for the next Offline, celebrating this word which has arisen from south west London's unique social melting pot?

editor

04-12-2005, 22:33

Venue for the next Offline, celebrating this word which has arisen from south west London's unique social melting pot?Why would I move the night to a shit bar in Balham?

:confused:

hibee

04-12-2005, 22:35

Just a joke, sir. Trying to spread some sunshine.

editor

04-12-2005, 22:42

Just a joke, sir. Trying to spread some sunshine.Unfortunately your timing was off because my sense of humour has been somewhat soured in this thread by Chuck Wilson's feeble trolling.

But apols anyway.

linerider

04-12-2005, 22:50

Just a joke, sir. Trying to spread some sunshine.
the editor takes his quaffing very seriously
:D

Chuck Wilson

05-12-2005, 00:00

I hadn't thought of any future questions but thank you for answering ones that you thought I might ask in a reply to someone else. I think you'll find that there are quite a lot of people who post on here who use the phrase quaffing not just you or are you claiming now to have started the whole trend off? . When I last drank in the Albert is irrelevant, you wouldn't know me from adam anyway. But those who I am in contact with who do pop in have pointed out about the uniqueness of the term to the Albert.

Why bring Dubversion into it? Because both him and you don't play by the rules that you have set for this board. Would it be ok if I called him a cunt and you a twat?

editor

05-12-2005, 00:29

When I last drank in the Albert is irrelevantSo you definitely were trolling then - why else would you bring it up?

Shame for you it backfired so spectacularly.

And if Dub or anyone else started calling female posters "bitches" and threatened to burn down their houses, they'd be banned too.

rednblack

05-12-2005, 00:51

Just a joke, sir. Trying to spread some sunshine.

http://www.phpbb.com/styles/screenshots/smilies_eusasmiles2.gif

FridgeMagnet

05-12-2005, 00:54

rednblack

05-12-2005, 00:57

63 posts with quaffing, 51 quaffage, 30 quaff. 144 quaff related posts

FridgeMagnet

05-12-2005, 01:00

Seems rather low really, for Urban.

Anyway, back to the thread topic.

editor

05-12-2005, 01:03

63 posts with quaffing, 51 quaffage, 30 quaff. 144 quaff related postsFascinating.

And your, point, if you have one, is what exactly?

Chuck Wilson

05-12-2005, 01:12

And if Dub or anyone else started calling female posters "bitches" and threatened to burn down their houses, they'd be banned too.

But calling me a cunt and a twat is ok?

Chuck Wilson

05-12-2005, 01:16

oh shut up, Chuck, you're blatantly trolling, stop it

it's like people don't think we've got a brain between us sometimes

Well at least you're polite. OK. I'll leave it for tonite.

rednblack

05-12-2005, 01:16

Fascinating.

And your, point, if you have one, is what exactly?

that it is not as commonly used a term on urban as some may think

editor

05-12-2005, 01:20

But calling me a cunt and a twat is ok?I'm afraid your trolling isn't working, is it?

You've been well and truly rumbled - and going on and on about entirely different, unrelated comments made by posters who haven't even contributed to this thread isn't going to help you either.

hayduke

05-12-2005, 03:08

I still get some of this shit from my colleagues -- usually the ones that live in the Home Counties.

Fugg them

Ryazan

05-12-2005, 07:05

:D :cool:

Bottoms up Chuck and rednblack!

Donna Ferentes

05-12-2005, 12:37

Back on topic - my small quarrel with hendo's post (and more so with articletwo) is that - as I seem to remember saying on a previous long gentrification thread - there's no way you can discuss these issues without some degree of discussion of the attitudes and effects of people with god incomes moving into the area. Some of this discussion will be unfair, some will take a rosier view of the past than is justifiable and some will fail to acknowledge that having new people in, including those on decent incomes, can be a very good thing.

Nevertheless it has to happen - you can't expect people just to say "well, just in case anybody's offended we won't broach the subject". Nor can it be denied that in certain respects - schools, gated developments, the winnowing out of locals' pubs in favour of bars, the undertones of the council's advertising policy - there is a process going on in which certain types of people are seen to be more welcome and certain other types are not. If some people feel they are among the first kind and feel they are resented for it, then, to some degree - well, you've got to take the rough with the smooth, I'm afraid.

And if I had a good income I might very well be tempted to buy a place in Brixton myself.

William of Walworth

05-12-2005, 12:43

One of the great things about living London (as opposed to the sticks) is the dynamism of a big city - things change, develop, people come and go. Brixton is a good example: wealthy at the end of the C19th then becoming progressively poorer through to the mid-C20th century - which must be a reason that immigrants with little money came here, in the search for cheap housing. Things move on, the immigrants who came in the 1950s and 60s have retired, maybe made some money on their homes if they were able to buy, some decide to move on, and new people move in. It is the eternal cycle of the metropolis, and it would ruin London if any group (rich, poor, black, white) were able to stop the clock at any point in time and say that from now on the tides of change were halted.

You talk as if it's a historical cycle of rich to poor to rich, with the implication that at some stage in the future, Brixton will become poor again.

I'm willing to bet though, that you can't point to ANY London area (inside zone 3, at least) that has become MORE affordable to those on low to ordinary incomes, within the last 25 years.

Donna Ferentes

05-12-2005, 13:13

as I seem to remember saying on a previous long gentrification thread This (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2575696&postcount=194)

easy g

05-12-2005, 15:31

If you think that this board is a place where posters can call women "bitches" and threaten to burn their houses down just because they disagree with their opinion, you're in the wrong place.

People who do that get banned, whoever they are.

But seeing as you've (predictably) waded in again, perhaps you might explain your specific complaint in this instance. Exactly what are you whining about?

Or do you think we should let people make such threats and call women bitches if they're your friends?

Is that what you want here?

http://www.wrcc.coop/SimplyFineWineLogo.gif
first class....

won't someone think of the birtches though.... :(

Dubversion

05-12-2005, 15:33

But calling me a cunt and a twat is ok?

i reckon so :)

editor

05-12-2005, 15:48

http://www.wrcc.coop/SimplyFineWineLogo.gif
first class....If you're incapable of conducting an intelligent conversation or addressing any of the points, there's really not much point you posting here, you know.

easy g

05-12-2005, 15:56

If you're incapable of conducting an intelligent conversation or addressing any of the points, there's really not much point you posting here, you know.

well you chose to ignore some of my post....but of course that's different isn't it, my apologies.... :)

IntoStella

05-12-2005, 16:03

going on and on about entirely different, unrelated comments made by posters who haven't even contributed to this thread isn't going to help you either.
How does that compare with, oooh, let's see, you calling fanta a "disgusting bigot" on an entirely unrelated thread? :confused:

ViolentPanda

05-12-2005, 18:59

You talk as if it's a historical cycle of rich to poor to rich, with the implication that at some stage in the future, Brixton will become poor again.
Funnily enough (given that Donna has just mentioned the previous epic-length gentrification thread) I recall mentioning that there actually is a historical cycle where the moneyed circulate from periphery (the suburbs) to centre and back again. Gerry White (former journo who wrote a book on London and its people) mentioned some research (from Middx uni??) about it.

I'm willing to bet though, that you can't point to ANY London area (inside zone 3, at least) that has become MORE affordable to those on low to ordinary incomes, within the last 25 years.
If the poster can point out such an area, could they also please tell me the winning numbers for the lottery on saturday, please (via PM, pbviously! :p )?.

newbie

05-12-2005, 19:50

editor

05-12-2005, 19:56

How does that compare with, oooh, let's see, you calling fanta a "disgusting bigot" on an entirely unrelated thread? :confused:You've got that arse about tit again, but no matter - it's got absolutely nothing to do with this thread and seeing as I've no interest in whatever it is you're going to start whining on about, you may as well keep it to yourself.

Better all round, that way.

articletwo

05-12-2005, 20:16

...with god incomes moving into the area ... Who has the divine income, I wish I did .... ;)

Nevertheless it has to happen - you can't expect people just to say "well, just in case anybody's offended we won't broach the subject".I agree, and I don't mind being offended. What I object to is the way that the article played the men not the ball (as it were). If there are specific complaints :
[QUOTE=Donna Ferentes] schools, gated developments, the winnowing out of locals' pubs in favour of bars, the undertones of the council's advertising policy [QUOTE] then tackle those specifically.

[QUOTE=Donna Ferentes] there is a process going on in which certain types of people are seen to be more welcome and certain other types are not. If some people feel they are among the first kind and feel they are resented for it, then, to some degree - well, you've got to take the rough with the smooth, I'm afraid.QUOTE]
A "process" makes it sound organised and deliberate, I am not sure that is the case: other than maybe the council (and many residents) would like it if there were more businesses based here, and hence more jobs, and that the instictive reaction of most non-residents to the word "Brixton" is not "drugs". I haven't felt "more welcome" than anyone else seems to feel.

articletwo

05-12-2005, 20:34

You talk as if it's a historical cycle of rich to poor to rich, with the implication that at some stage in the future, Brixton will become poor again.

I'm willing to bet though, that you can't point to ANY London area (inside zone 3, at least) that has become MORE affordable to those on low to ordinary incomes, within the last 25 years.
Maybe it will become poorer. Maybe it will become richer. Maybe a flourishing set of creative industries will develop that employ local people. Who knows? You don't, I don't.
You may well be right that in the last 25 years nowhere in London has become realtively cheaper: the economy here has boomed for almost 15 years, which has been very good in some ways - unemployment down to about 3% - but bad in other ways - it has created huge pressures on affordable housing. So there has to be some compromise solution - like insisting developers make 25% - 40% of any new housing stock affordable.

catch

06-12-2005, 01:23

like insisting developers make 25% - 40% of any new housing stock affordable.

affordable to who?

fela fan

06-12-2005, 08:16

Please excuse me for coming in here, for i don't even live in the country any more, but i've just read the article that this thread was started over, and i also remember hatboy on urban75, and i would just like to offer my commiserations to those who live in brixton and feel their way of life is being cancelled out by the 'progress' that the writer talks about.

Anywhere that allows those who are different, or who want to be different, is a good place in my book, and when i hear about such places being attacked by marketing people and marketing speak and all that other fucking tosh, then i can only commiserate.

That council woman sounds like a complete wanker to me. 25 quid a ticket and fenced off replacing a fun free day for all says a lot about how i perceive britain to be heading.

I hope brixton folk are able to keep the town the way they want it. I am now determined to pop in and see the place on my next trip back to england.

Great article that, hope it makes a difference.

Donna Ferentes

06-12-2005, 08:43

A "process" makes it sound organised and deliberateWell first, no it doesn't. Second, while not being organised or deliberate as such, I'm not convinced that the basic reaction of a lot of better-off residents (and the council) to the worse-off residents is anything more than "who cares?" Oh, everybody will say in theory that the latter shouldn't be elbowed out: but when it comes to specifics, it always turns out that this is just the way things are. And - pace yourself - we can't have the poor people imposing on the better-off, can we?

newbie

06-12-2005, 10:22

A "process" makes it sound organised and deliberate, I am not sure that is the case:
Do you think that knocking down schools while granting planning permission to all these bars and clubs isn't part of a broad strategy?

Look at the population bulge (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00ay.asp).

Suggestions you've made on this thread, as possibilities for improving the area, have included expanding the night economy which caters for young people who "come to Brixton from elsewhere for a night out", building "a flourishing set of creative industries" and increasing the supply of so-called 'affordable housing' (which will be snapped up by the 20s/30s that can best afford it, the ones with decent West End media jobs, not the 50% of kids who don't get 5 A-C grades at GCSE and don't have either a high asset or high income background).

No disrespect, because I don't think this stuff needs personalising, but you've recently arrived and now you're handing out demands which will all contribute to creating a Brixton in the image of you and your peers, precisely the bulge group in the population. They have little or nothing to do with addressing the problems gentrification has wrought.

Chuck Wilson

06-12-2005, 10:38

Do you think that knocking down schools while granting planning permission to all these bars and clubs isn't part of a broad strategy?

Look at the population bulge (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00ay.asp).

Suggestions you've made on this thread, as possibilities for improving the area, have included expanding the night economy which caters for young people who "come to Brixton from elsewhere for a night out", building "a flourishing set of creative industries" and increasing the supply of so-called 'affordable housing' (which will be snapped up by the 20s/30s that can best afford it, the ones with decent West End media jobs, not the 50% of kids who don't get 5 A-C grades at GCSE and don't have either a high asset or high income background).

No disrespect, because I don't think this stuff needs personalising, but you've recently arrived and now you're handing out demands which will all contribute to creating a Brixton in the image of you and your peers, precisely the bulge group in the population. They have little or nothing to do with addressing the problems gentrification has wrought.

Good post newbie. I had the misfortune to attend an area committee meeting of my local council last night to hear a council official say that to give additional housing points to the immediate relatives of those that live in an area was discriminatory.

pooka

06-12-2005, 10:39

I'm not convinced that the basic reaction of a lot of better-off residents (and the council) to the worse-off residents is anything more than "who cares?"

This really is perniciously simplistic, Donna.

As far as I know, most councillors spend 80% of their surgery time dealing with the problems of 'worse off people' (housing benefit, council tax benefit, and so on) and their are certainly plenty of council officials engaged in the same areas. The biggest net expenditure head, after education, is social services.

Donna Ferentes

06-12-2005, 10:46

It is, but I'm thinking of the direction of council policy and the reshaping of Lambeth it envisages.

It's quite possible for an autority to not give a stuff about the poor and yet spend much actual time and money on them. Think for instance of the Conservative Government - loathed the poor (or loved them so much, it created a millions more of them) and yet of course spent billions of pounds on their health, education and social support.

It's not just simplifications that are pernicious.

newbie

06-12-2005, 10:56

Good post newbie. I had the misfortune to attend an area committee meeting of my local council last night to hear a council official say that to give additional housing points to the immediate relatives of those that live in an area was discriminatory.

You'll lose all credibility around here if you compliment my posts :)

I'm not a big fan of 'sons & daughters' policies (there was a big P&P IWCA thread about this a while back, possibly before you joined us), but I sure see why they're a demand.

At least they promote something relevent, which makes a whole lot more sense than expecting everybody to be able to work in some form of 'creative' industry.

Chuck Wilson

06-12-2005, 10:59

You'll lose all credibility around here if you compliment my posts :)

I'm not a big fan of 'sons & daughters' policies (there was a big P&P IWCA thread about this a while back, possibly before you joined us), but I sure see why they're a demand.

At least they promote something relevent, which makes a whole lot more sense than expecting everybody to be able to work in some form of 'creative' industry.

Lose?? I was trying to gain some!!!

newbie

06-12-2005, 11:05

William of Walworth

06-12-2005, 11:15

You talk as if it's a historical cycle of rich to poor to rich, with the implication that at some stage in the future, Brixton will become poor again.

I'm willing to bet though, that you can't point to ANY London area (inside zone 3, at least) that has become MORE affordable to those on low to ordinary incomes, within the last 25 years.

Were there not plenty in the previous 25 years? Postwar London depopulated not because it wasn't affordable but because life was better outside. Least, that's my understanding.

I don't think it's impossible to imagine that happening again.

I think it is. Well maybe not impossible, but very, very unlikely, given population demographics (more households, more demand), predominant property price trends in London particularly, etc

William of Walworth

06-12-2005, 11:22

Maybe it will become poorer. Maybe it will become richer. Maybe a flourishing set of creative industries will develop that employ local people. Who knows? You don't, I don't.
You may well be right that in the last 25 years nowhere in London has become realtively cheaper: the economy here has boomed for almost 15 years, which has been very good in some ways - unemployment down to about 3% - but bad in other ways - it has created huge pressures on affordable housing. So there has to be some compromise solution - like insisting developers make 25% - 40% of any new housing stock affordable.

I stand by my earlier prediction about the extreme unlikelihood (OK not impossibility maybe) of housing/inner London areas becoming affordable to those on low to medium incomes, as many areas were in the past.

Why are all the 'affordable' housing expansions planned for the Thames Gateway, expansion of Ashford, etc.? (OK there are various reasons for that, but the era of new social housing being built in inner city areas is well and truly gone).

Very little for us planned for round here, beyond the bare mimimum of replacing existing social housing (eg at the Elephant) with some housing association properties, as part of a larger, more private development.

I do think this is one case where you can't extrapolate the future from what happened back in the immediate post war period.

Chuck Wilson

06-12-2005, 11:30

I'm just pointing out that your strategy is flawed. :p

You're oop norf somewhere aren't you? Is yours one of the areas that shows the opposite population profile to Lambeth, with too few 20/30s, where 'sons & daughters' might help to stop the brain drain?

It's more to do with the lack of afforable housing (both rented and mortgaged) for that age group and where there are strong familiy connections and a sense of community cohesion.

newbie

06-12-2005, 12:04

cheers Chuck, just curious really.

William, think back to pre- Congestion Charge, pre-TfL London. It was becoming somewhere that exasperated people to the extent that they were considering their quality of life being better elsewhere, even if they didn't have access to the same levels of buzz. A few years of transport chaos- say, Oxford Circus tube station, or maybe the Circle Line was closed for whatever reason, would see a lot of people looking to get out. As would a significant amount of innercity rioting, or a major increase in crime, or a progressive collapse of overstretched GP services, or... Maybe even simple economic recession.

Or- and this is the real challenge the government won't address seriously- policies designed to move jobs, opportunities and prosperity back to the old heavy industrial areas, and to regenerate the countryside so that it offers more than retirement and second homes.

Cities are fragile, living organisms and the overheated popularity London has experienced for the past decade or so is built on the premise that the streets are paved with gold, that life is better here. I'd like to see it made sufficiently better elsewhere that London isn't so attractive to young singles and dinkies.

Donna Ferentes

06-12-2005, 12:08

In order to do that, you'd have to have a regional policy.

In order to have a regional policy, influential people would have to be aware of the existence of the world outside London.

newbie

06-12-2005, 12:35

To be fair I get the impression Prescott is, but he loses most of the battles with Brown.

JTG

06-12-2005, 13:04

In order to do that, you'd have to have a regional policy.

In order to have a regional policy, influential people would have to be aware of the existence of the world outside London.

Spot on.

Some day somebody somewhere will decide to develop the country outside of SE England. But not before most of it is underwater..

grosun

06-12-2005, 13:40

In order to do that, you'd have to have a regional policy.

In order to have a regional policy, influential people would have to be aware of the existence of the world outside London.

Hmpff.. I think many of them are.. a lot of 'em grew up elsewhere, & there have been numerous "regional development" initiatives over the years... but the trouble is, people in certain industries want to be physically close to others in the same business, or their clients. These happen to, for the most part, be overwhelmingly concentrated in London. I thought the internet revolution would change that, but people still seem to like face-to-face contact. I can't really see *any* viable strategy a government could adopt in order to shift things out of London, apart from say, deliberately fucking the transport up, or imposing a "London tax", both of which might be as likely to shift business out of the country as they would to move it to Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow or Newcastle.

It's easy to go "rah rah, why don't the government *do* something", but what do you want them to do?

Sorry to be so negative, it just bugs me.. I used to think the same way, but now I'm not sure there's any point, as I really can't see any way the government can exert sufficient influence, apart from adopting severely authoritarian & business-fucking-up policies.

Donna Ferentes

06-12-2005, 13:42

newbie

06-12-2005, 13:47

Sorry to be so negative, it just bugs me.. I used to think the same way, but now I'm not sure there's any point, as I really can't see any way the government can exert sufficient influence, apart from adopting severely authoritarian & business-fucking-up policies.

I've heard it suggested that your postcode affects your life chances more than any single other factor- certainly far more precisely than generalised concepts like class or race. If that's the case, directing planning initiatives and targetting investment should be doable, given sufficient will.

grosun

06-12-2005, 13:50

When you say "authoritarian", do you mean "taxes"?

Nah.. sorry; should've said "and/or" rather than "and". I don't consider taxation authoritarian, though I don't really like the idea of the govt. deliberately trying to move people anywhere around the country... not very into deliberate social engineering by anyone, I'm afraid, however well-motivated.

ViolentPanda

06-12-2005, 15:03

Well first, no it doesn't. Second, while not being organised or deliberate as such, I'm not convinced that the basic reaction of a lot of better-off residents (and the council) to the worse-off residents is anything more than "who cares?" Oh, everybody will say in theory that the latter shouldn't be elbowed out: but when it comes to specifics, it always turns out that this is just the way things are. And - pace yourself - we can't have the poor people imposing on the better-off, can we?

I saw this attitude very much at work in the borough of Wandsworth from the mid 1970s onward. Once "gentrification" started then the needs of council tenants became very much subordinate to the desires of homeowners, including prioritising of re-surfacing of roads (told to me by family member who worked in the borough as a highways inspector), street litter collection (info from a former classmate who became a roadsweeper) and other rate-funded activities in areas of high-density owner-occupation over areas with "social housing". The councillors didn't drive the problem so much as the senior council officers.

As for the attitude of "gentrifiers" (I differentiate them from "incomers", who may very well be in a similar situation to myself), I experienced different attitudes ranging from animosity (to social housing tenants) to indifference, but very little positive engagement except (in a couple of hilarious cases) of the "missionary" sort.

I also remember moorings on the Thames waterfront at Battersea being moved/removed at the behest of the owner occupiers of the renovated ex-council estate on Vicarage Crescent (Archer Hse?), so that they didn't have to look out on the barge hulks etc.

Personally I don't look for compassion and positive engagement from "gentrifiers", that way I;m seldom disappointed by the mass standoffishness they demonstrate when not among others of their ilk.

grosun

06-12-2005, 15:23

I saw this attitude very much at work in the borough of Wandsworth from the mid 1970s onward. Once "gentrification" started then the needs of council tenants became very much subordinate to the desires of homeowners, including prioritising of re-surfacing of roads (told to me by family member who worked in the borough as a highways inspector), street litter collection (info from a former classmate who became a roadsweeper) and other rate-funded activities in areas of high-density owner-occupation over areas with "social housing". The councillors didn't drive the problem so much as the senior council officers.

Yeah, I've noticed this numerous times; the way you can have streets of privately owned Victorian terraces with nicely surfaced, clean pavements a couple of streets away from an estate where the paving's uneven & there's rubbish in the undergrowth. Never been sure if it's just 'cos the owner-occupier types are more likely to complain due to higher expectations (or low expectations on the part of those in social housing making them less likely to complain), or if there's someone in the council looking out for the better off. Either way, 'tis a fucked up situation & no mistake.

William of Walworth

06-12-2005, 15:53

William, think back to pre- Congestion Charge, pre-TfL London. It was becoming somewhere that exasperated people to the extent that they were considering their quality of life being better elsewhere, even if they didn't have access to the same levels of buzz. A few years of transport chaos- say, Oxford Circus tube station, or maybe the Circle Line was closed for whatever reason, would see a lot of people looking to get out. As would a significant amount of innercity rioting, or a major increase in crime, or a progressive collapse of overstretched GP services, or... Maybe even simple economic recession.

Or- and this is the real challenge the government won't address seriously- policies designed to move jobs, opportunities and prosperity back to the old heavy industrial areas, and to regenerate the countryside so that it offers more than retirement and second homes.

Cities are fragile, living organisms and the overheated popularity London has experienced for the past decade or so is built on the premise that the streets are paved with gold, that life is better here. I'd like to see it made sufficiently better elsewhere that London isn't so attractive to young singles and dinkies.

These desireable policies to encourage people to look elsewhere to live, are not going to happen any time soon, are they?

Your argument about pre-Congestion Charge London is flawed. Yes, people were exasperated and impatient, but were they moving away in any significant numbers, enough to drag prices down again?

The ONLY time property prices have dropped in London since 1970 (at the latest!!) was for a brief period in the early nineties, for special reasons. All that repossession crisis may have affected a significant number of overextended mortgage holders, but did actual prices fall to any significant extent?

I don't think so, not enough to make many places genuinely affordable, even then, to people on low to average incomes. As far as I'm concerned a large flat or small house at £180,000 is as unaffordable in practical terms as one at £230,000, £280,000, or £300,000, or £500,000!! :mad:

It would take a property price collapse of monumental proportions to make anywhere round here even slightly affordable for me or for those on the same OK but modest money (let alone the genuinely low paid), and for me to have any hope whatsoever of even thinking of 'buying' a place, any place.

Not that I particularly want to, as I'm lucky enough to be securely and pleasantly housed :)

But any talk of cyclical rises and falls in propery prices, includes a deeply flawed assumption. Such talk argues on the back of changes having happened in the past. Changes in both directions did happen in the past, but a fall that anyone will notice is nowhere near as likely as all the rises we've consistently seen for the last 30 plus years. So such airy talk -- from you and article two -- of ups and downs, swings and roundaouts, as well as being flawed anyway, rings very hollow to all those priced, and increasingly so, out of this insane but highly unlikely to change 'market'.

editor

06-12-2005, 16:15

Yeah, I've noticed this numerous times; the way you can have streets of privately owned Victorian terraces with nicely surfaced, clean pavements a couple of streets away from an estate where the paving's uneven & there's rubbish in the undergrowth. When you're cycling across London you can sometimes feel the difference from poor area to rich!

William of Walworth

06-12-2005, 16:26

When you're cycling across London you can sometimes feel the difference from poor area to rich!

Well I cycle from Walworth/Elephant to South Kensington via Belgravia, so thats definitely true!! :eek:

lang rabbie

06-12-2005, 16:31

But any talk of cyclical rises and falls in propery prices, includes a deeply flawed assumption. Such talk argues on the back of changes having happened in the past. Changes in both directions did happen in the past, but a fall that anyone will notice is nowhere near as likely as all the rises we've consistently seen for the last 30 plus years.

A lapsed economist writes...

That is revisionist history, which I don't think would be recognised by any of the Brixton Hill residents (many of them on modest "blue collar" or public or third sector incomes) who were stuck with "negative equity" when the value of their one or two bedroom flats in local mansion blocks plummetted between 1989 and 1992 to way below the value of their mortgages.

When the next property crash comes, as it inevitably will, I will have rather less sympathy with people on City/media salaries buying at the current crazily inflated prices for the same flats

agricola

06-12-2005, 16:41

Communities always change over time though; fifty years ago Brixton would have been a radically different place to what it is now, and fifty years from now the same will apply. "Dissident minds" have almost always had to go where the cost of living is cheapest, and anyway doesnt something lose its "hip, vibrant edge" over a while?

I disagree with the comments on Lambeth Council - the author could be much more vehement and highlight their incompetence as well as that which was found in the Oluwade cases - as the recent Central Heating fraud highlighted.

g force

06-12-2005, 16:44

Out of interest, what is a city/media salary exactly?

I work in the media and earn £21k. Obviosuly i'm luckier than most in that I have a full-time job paying that amount, but I'm not exactly minted and couldn't afford a flat in Brixton.

If you're talking about peeps buying flats in the new developments as buy-to-let, then I agree it's hard to have sympathyu for people making losses on second or even third properties. I saw soem recently - one beds advertised at "from "175k" :eek:

William of Walworth

06-12-2005, 17:55

A lapsed economist writes...

That is revisionist history, which I don't think would be recognised by any of the Brixton Hill residents (many of them on modest "blue collar" or public or third sector incomes) who were stuck with "negative equity" when the value of their one or two bedroom flats in local mansion blocks plummetted between 1989 and 1992 to way below the value of their mortgages.

When the next property crash comes, as it inevitably will, I will have rather less sympathy with people on City/media salaries buying at the current crazily inflated prices for the same flats

I do take that point, and yes, maybe I didn't notice the impact on those at the sharp end of the 1989-1991 blip, because all prices were seriously unaffordable to me, 1987 inflated or 1992 'dropped'

But you take my wider point I'm sure, that 'falls' of that kind have in the last thirty years been exceptional. 'Slowing down in rate of increase' has been somewhat more common, and thats what I'd predict to happen next time, rather than any discernable drop of any significance.

I dispute that a 'crash' is inevitible. Except what the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Standard labels a 'crash', which is different

A slow down in increase, or utterly miniscule** falls in prices of SOME properties in SOME areas, will no doubt be trumpeted in the media as a catastrophic and horrendous crash and coillapse, though ...

**ie unrecogniseable as anything remotely affordable to any normally paid person. How many people do YOU know who cannot afford a £290,000 flat but could afford one at £270,000? I would think that for most Urbanites, the 'differences' between those two prices, in practical terms, is negligible.

Anyone who can currently afford, at current prices, to first time buy a flat/house ANYWHERE within Zone 3 is, as far as I'm concerned, either very fortunate with a windfall, or (to my perception) rich.

I know a large number of buyers have something to sell already, but I've had that 'unaffordable' perception of first time buying since the 1980s, a period within which very many of the curent first or second time buyers first got on the 'ladder'.

Housing inside Zone 3 (and probably outside it, too) is simply unaffordable in buying terms to any normally-paid person, yet more recently at least, my wages have not been shit.

It's not ME who's 'out of touch' in thinking like that ....

articletwo

06-12-2005, 18:41

Suggestions you've made on this thread, as possibilities for improving the area,
Not suggestions for "improvement", merely responses to changes that might enable some benefit to be shared more widely.

No disrespect, because I don't think this stuff needs personalising, but you've recently arrived and now you're handing out demands which will all contribute to creating a Brixton in the image of you and your peers, precisely the bulge group in the population. They have little or nothing to do with addressing the problems gentrification has wrought.
Not demands. Not at all. Just ideas for how things could be changed for the better.

articletwo

06-12-2005, 18:47

Very little for us planned for round here, beyond the bare mimimum of replacing existing social housing (eg at the Elephant) with some housing association properties, as part of a larger, more private development.

I do think this is one case where you can't extrapolate the future from what happened back in the immediate post war period.

Incorrect. Check the Unitary Development Plan (http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/wps/portal/?PpAction=select_document&select_type_id=120&select_object_id=1094490229292&text_category=P2). The forecast is for approx 20k new housing units 'til 2016 in Lambeth, of which about 8k are affordable. So, a preponderance of market-priced housing, but more than "very little" of social housing.

articletwo

06-12-2005, 18:50

In order to do that, you'd have to have a regional policy.

In order to have a regional policy, influential people would have to be aware of the existence of the world outside London.

It is known as the Lyons Review, the movement of 20k civil servants to the regions, leading ultimately to "a radical new approach to shaping the future pattern of services, with the retention in
London of only slimmed-down headquarters functions for the main departments of government"
(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legislation/lyons/consult_lyons_index.cfm)

butchersapron

06-12-2005, 19:41

"of which about 8k are affordable"

shandy

06-12-2005, 20:08

It is known as the Lyons Review, the movement of 20k civil servants to the regions, leading ultimately to "a radical new approach to shaping the future pattern of services, with the retention in
London of only slimmed-down headquarters functions for the main departments of government"
(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legislation/lyons/consult_lyons_index.cfm)

I reckon that's mainly window dressing. They talked about 100k for a while and it may now officially be 20k but I bet far fewer jobs have actually been transferred. I know of major government agencies who have got away with simply rationalising their offices in London and not one of their employees has gone outside London.

And the government's housing policy of developing all over the growth corridors in the South East whilst selectively demolishing social housing in the North doesn't suggest they have a regional strategy or policy other than 'stick with London'.

ViolentPanda

06-12-2005, 20:12

Incorrect. Check the Unitary Development Plan (http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/wps/portal/?PpAction=select_document&select_type_id=120&select_object_id=1094490229292&text_category=P2). The forecast is for approx 20k new housing units 'til 2016 in Lambeth, of which about 8k are affordable. So, a preponderance of market-priced housing, but more than "very little" of social housing.

You're conflating social housing with "affordable" private housing.

The two are not the same thing.

William of Walworth

06-12-2005, 20:28

"of which about 8k are affordable"

The term 'affordable' has very 'flexible' definitions ....

William of Walworth

06-12-2005, 20:32

And the government's housing policy of developing all over the growth corridors in the South East whilst selectively demolishing social housing in the North doesn't suggest they have a regional strategy or policy other than 'stick with London'.

And replacing it with what?

Not straightforward Council Housing, I'm sure ....

And thats the North. Even less (as in not at all) likely that actual council housing in/around London will be replaced by more council housing.

You only have to see whats happening at the Elephant** (Heygate Estate) and the Aylesbury** to see that ...

(** See relevant Elephant and Aylesbury threads on London Forum for detail .... )

newbie

06-12-2005, 22:10

Good posts William :) I appreciate you're not looking to move, but there are plenty of others in your position who might be. The home truths you're pointing out apply, one way or other, to about 2/3 of the households in Lambeth.

Anyone who can currently afford, at current prices, to first time buy a flat/house ANYWHERE within Zone 3 is, as far as I'm concerned, either very fortunate with a windfall, or (to my perception) rich.

For completeness it should be pointed out that many, many people took the discount and bought their council flat. The wider effect of that has been a massive lack of social housing, but it has enabled people in your position to join the asset-rich.

I know a few who've done it. On a political level I've always opposed the sell-offs and it saddens me that they should do so; on a personal level their opportunities have improved and, as they're my mates, I'm glad for them.

You're realistic, though, in stressing that the overheating of London housing isn't going to change any time soon. Without an injection of substantial funds from somewhere the asset poor are unlikely to be able to buy, which broadens an ever increasing disadvantage.

Even if it was on the agenda, providing more social housing won't change that, although it's clearly urgently required for people in real housing need. It's a solution to one set of problems, but not to the one you've outlined. Nor, in the short term, will a regional policy, especially given what shandy posted, while making London ever more attractive to live in only increases the problems. Nor will 180k 'affordable' housing, nor keyworker schemes and so on. What will?

reubeness

07-12-2005, 11:37

As a council tenant of twenty-odd years I understand what people say about social housing and the right to buy but wonder if you all know that the discount in London has been capped now at £16,000. As I live in a very beautiful three storey listed building I have always wanted to buy it - not to make a profit but to keep it in our family - my last two children were born there, I've lovingly looked after it and planted the massive garden. twenty odd years of rent should count for something.
Anyway I've had the house valued three times now and have never been able to afford it, even though, now, my salary is reasonable - the first valuation was in 1985 - £55,000, the second in 1995 £150,000 - next door just sold for £560,000 and has no garden.
I am surrounded by 'city' bods, they are the only people who can afford to buy on this street - they come for a couple of years, then sell at a profit, they rarely want to get involved in the community but will fight tooth and nail if something 'local' affects house prices. The 'couples' usually have children then move out very quickly to take advantage of better schools and surroundings for their offspring.
The last three house sales on the road (£720,000 and rising) have been bought by gay couples who are staying around longer. This group seem to have a lot of clout financially at the moment for obvious reasons.
So, the £16,000 cap will keep expensive property within the council and will stop people like me getting anywhere near the property ladder.

newbie

07-12-2005, 17:45

twenty odd years of rent should count for something.

Absolutely, because you might want to move, and without a housing asset to sell the options are limited.

It sounds as though you don't and, as with William, you're ok with what you've got. I hope so, there are far too many people in who would love to live somewhere else and... what? Especially those in overcrowded, badly repaired flats on sink estates can be trapped: their options amount, at best, to taking the 16 thousand and buying a place they don't like and won't be able to easily sell, or sitting on a waiting list. :(

So, the £16,000 cap will keep expensive property within the council and will stop people like me getting anywhere near the property ladder.

I can't remember what the maximum discount was, before it was capped- quite high I think, 35% :confused: maybe a couple of hundred grand in your case? :eek:

It's hard to see why the public should hand over a phenomenal sum like that to an individual when the effect is to remove a nice house from the pool of those available to people based on need.

It's equally hard to see why people should be trapped, when they look around at plenty who aren't. It spells misery.

ViolentPanda

07-12-2005, 18:34

I can't remember what the maximum discount was, before it was capped- quite high I think, 35% :confused: maybe a couple of hundred grand in your case? :eek:
At its highest I believe it was 60% maximum, but that was based on 30+ years of council tenancy.

It's hard to see why the public should hand over a phenomenal sum like that to an individual when the effect is to remove a nice house from the pool of those available to people based on need.

It's equally hard to see why people should be trapped, when they look around at plenty who aren't. It spells misery.
Yet another quandary made worse by the miniscule volume of social housing development.

newbie

07-12-2005, 19:10

yes because there are plenty of people for whom decent social housing is a salvation. It may turn into a trap, long term, but it's the only way to satisfy the immediate needs of (in a lot of cases) desparate people.

But the trap, and the quandry, was there before the sell-offs. Indeed they were a response to the trap not its cause.

Taking the housing out of the social pool was stupid then and it's stupid now, That's why the discounts are capped.

William of Walworth

20-12-2005, 15:05

I'm in a bit of a rush right now ....

Just bumping this, because there was an excellent expose by Andrew Gilligan** in last night's Substandard** (Monday 19th) of the scam and the con that is so-called 'affordable' housing, contained within bigger, profiteering property schemes.

**Normally have little time for Gilligan and even less for the Substandard, but this particular piece was surprisingly good ..

The article went into some good revealing detail about the absence of control over what is allowed (by developers) to be called 'affordable' :mad:

But I can't find the text online, if anyone else with a bit more time, is able to find it and post a link here, I'd be obliged ... :)