View Full Version : Tate Gardens/Brixton Central Square
lang rabbie
11-03-2004, 12:40
I had a very interesting conversation over a beer earlier in the week.
My source claims that a project to do basic works to reclaim Tate Gardens this spring has been stalled by a senior officer in Lambeth Regeneration, who seem to be concerned that their "grand project" for a Brixton Central Square would be stymied, even though it isn't deliverable until 2007-08 at the earliest. There have apparently been masive rows between various officers, but so far as I can tell administration Councillors know nothing.
The smaller scale project, led by the Friends of Brixton Library (?) was backed by the Parks Department, has been supported by the local police crime reduction officer, and had funding lined up from Western Riverside Environment Fund. It would cost about £30,000 (?) and appears deliverable. It involves taking out the raised planters etc. that provide some cover for anti-social activity, and they are also looking at options for putting in a superloo.
The people involved are aware that they can't just bulldoze the street-drinkers away and are talking to St Mungo's about running a project out of local voluntary sector premises (don't know if they've talked to the neighbours yet)
One officer told my source that the senior officer is a Labour Party stalwart and is working on an assumption that the current administration will be gone in 2006, and is determined the whole Central Square/Raleigh Hall/Black Cultural Centre shebang will only be unveiled by a newly victorious Labour Lambeth. :eek: :mad: My source would prefer not to believe this, believing, as I normally do, that cock-up rather than conspiracy theories are the norm in Lambeth.
So why is a leading officer of the regeneration team, with Brixton links, reportedly determined to stop a scheme that could help bring money into Central Brixton? :confused:
Is there a meeting of the Brixton Forum central square working party later in the month (22nd?) [Can't get access to the Lambeth diary function from office PC]
And has anyone else heard anything?
Well I want the "grand scheme". But I don't care about the infighting, I just want them to get on with it!
Maybe a little tidying-up beforehand wouldn't go amiss, but if the "grand scheme" for Raleigh Hall and Tate/Windrush doesn't happen that would be utterly shit. It could be wonderful as a new useable, landscaped space with "The Windrush Centre" opening on to it.
Sick of all this really - how many years of planning and squabbling does it take to get any environmental improvements round here?
Delays on Windrush - will Raleigh Hall become the community space/cafe/black cultural centre? For fuck's sake get on with it Lambeth!!!
Electric Avenue - historic, famous, falling apart!
LAMBETH - FUCKING GET ON WITH IT!!!
Anna Key
11-03-2004, 13:17
And has anyone else heard anything?
All I've heard is that on 18th February a "planning day" was held "to decide on actions that could be taken to reduce drug-dealing, drug misuse and street drinking on the Brixton Oval" (to quote my source).
I didn't know about this meeting and haven't trawled the Lambeth website for minutes. Being only a close local neighbour I'm obviously never told about such meetings or informed of their outcomes.
aurora green
11-03-2004, 13:23
For fuck's sake get on with it Lambeth!
Couldn't agree more!
Good idea. Clear away the street drinkers and other riffraff in the name of yet another grand design. Make another bit of the area nice, squeeze the undesirables out.
Then, when that's been done, go back to complaining about gentrification.
No Newbie - this is different. If the Raleigh Hall/Windrush project is done right it will be a wonderful thing for everybody. That's not gentrification, that is genuine inclusive regeneration - not the same thing.
A few drunks will be displaced. Possibly only temporarily anyway. I can live with that in exchange for a landscaped park with facilities and a new cultural centre/museum of British black culture which could be of international renown*.
*But probably won't be.... hoping tho. :) Also I think under the "black" umbrella it will be a place that celibrates the diverse mixture of people here. I'm told by the Black Cultural Archives that is the intention. But Brixton is the right place anyway for a centre that celebrates Windrush and the history of black Britons.
I've no strong feelings either way. A few years back when the street drinkers moved from outside what is currently Sainsburys to Tate Gardens I thought it was a good thing. Since then they've caused me no problems at all and I'm personally entirely happy about them being there. Other people may have different experiences, but I'm not really aware of any serious complaints about the drinkers. For the last couple of months there have been a lot of dealers there, but they seem to be moving back to the busstops now anyway. Come the summer I expect that space to be much the same as ever- strange, slightly edgy, occasionally very funny, mostly ignorable and generally safe enough to walk through with a toddler without any worries at all.
Displacing those 'drunks' implies them either moving back onto the High St, where they were in the way which caused unnecessary confrontation, or them and their community evaporating completely, which seems both unlikely and unfair.
But really, my point was harking back to the gentrification threads, where I've said that the only way to prevent it is to stop Brixton being so popular. Clearing away what some Home Counties types might think of as an anti-social eyesore will not reduce popularity. Nor will turning a deadish zone in to a thriving chunk of world heritage. I just thought it was quite funny that the most vocal anti-gentrifiers were in favour of tarting up another bit of oldstyle Brixton. :p
For the record I've no problem at all with the BCA, except that it involves: a) Lambeth Council; b) a community group; and c) public money. You'll forgive me if I don't have immensely great expectations.
I'd like to see Raleigh Hall sorted out, but I've never really seen any point in Windrush Gds and wouldn't worry if it got turned into something else.
lang rabbie
12-03-2004, 13:10
The practical question is that, unlike most other libraries in Lambeth which are increasingly popular now that there are new books/DVDs/web access, visits to Brixton Tate Library are apparently static/marginally down, because many parents/carers/older people now have a perception that Brixton Oval isn't a safe place to walk through.
Ah. Is this a longterm trend or recent, and is it a preception gained by someone with a vested interest in town planning or via genuine public survey? Is the Ritzy also noticing the same brake on growth?
It's not about "tarting up". In this case I don't give a shit about "gentrification" OK. I want to see a fantastic, useful space and a brilliant museum.
:)
lang rabbie
12-03-2004, 13:38
Ah. Is this a longterm trend or recent, and is it a preception gained by someone with a vested interest in town planning or via genuine public survey? Is the Ritzy also noticing the same brake on growth?
Read my original post again - the impetus for a quick and dirty project is coming from library staff and those library users in the Friends of Brixton Library. The latter group may be disproportionately white, and disproportionately articulate/middle class, compared to the totality of readers/visitors - but that is sadly true of many groups fighting for better facilities for kids in Lambeth. They are ranged against those people who believe regeneration = prestige architect-designed project.
"...better facilities for kids in Lambeth. They are ranged against those people who believe regeneration = prestige architect-designed project".
Brixton deserves both great facilities and great architecture. We do not have any flagship new buildings of exceptional quality. We should.
:)
lang rabbie
12-03-2004, 14:17
"...better facilities for kids in Lambeth. They are ranged against those people who believe regeneration = prestige architect-designed project".
Brixton deserves both great facilities and great architecture. We do not have any flagship new buildings of exceptional quality. We should.
:)
Sorry, should have written "those who believe regeneration is exclusively about delivering prestigious 'magazine architecture' (http://www.human.cornell.edu/dea/extension/docs/sum96/bookrev.htm) in "socially excluded" areas (cf graffiti covered Peckham Arch), rather than a design process that genuinely engages with the potential users."
I'd like to see Raleigh Hall sorted out, but I've never really seen any point in Windrush Gds and wouldn't worry if it got turned into something else.
Completely with you on this - what's the point of yet another bit of green space that nobody uses? Lambeth is full of places that have waited for years if not decades for the 'perfect' solution - lets go for quick and dirty things that make the place a bit better...
Can't you see it's not Windrush being a "space" that's the problem. It's the empty, bad design/landscaping of the place that makes it shit. Imagine Windrush/Tate as one space with a small stage or concert bowl thing, a cafe, seating, band playing in the summer, a big glass conservatory on the new Raleigh Museum.
It could be so different. :)
Can't you see it's not Windrush being a "space" that's the problem. It's the empty, bad design/landscaping of the place that makes it shit. Imagine Windrush/Tate as one space with a small stage or concert bowl thing, a cafe, seating, band playing in the summer, a big glass conservatory on the new Raleigh Museum.
It could be so different. :)
That's the point though isn't it? It's the Raleigh that needs sorting out... if there was anything in or next to Windrush then it would be fine - nobody goes there because there's no point...
aurora green
12-03-2004, 15:00
I'd be happy if the loos opened really.
I'd be happy if the loos opened really.
absolutely; far better than having a superloo. Specially as the ones in the market are being reconstructed (or whatever).
LR, sorry. I've reread your root post and realise I'd misinterpereted what you said. None the less, those seeking this quick & dirty have a vested interest, and I assume have not done any form of consultation to find out if the drinkers really are the reason for the poor library performance.
I very seriously doubt that they've sought the views of the section of the Lambeth population who currently use a public space but who they, the worthies, want to shuffle off into some St Mungos 'project'.
Once the planters have gone, and the drinkers have been airbrushed out, what's left. A completely empty space that no-one will use at all. Great.
HB
Yeah, an outdoor stage and cafe (ie a private facility in what is now public space) right next to the noisiest roundabout in the area... what use is that on a Tuesday in February? The drinkers are there pretty much every day of the year. They use the space, but they're not, IME, particularly exclusive about it. A world class museum, with dead municiple space outside to conform to some grand vision thing...oh, and a road closure as well... and you say this isn't contributing to gentrification...
Like I say, I don't have any particularly strong felings either way, but those who want change, either short term quick & dirty or longer term grand vision, need to put forward a better case than so far. Right now I think the drinkers deserve to be left in peace to get on with their lives. aurora is the only one proposing anything that makes sense.
lang rabbie
12-03-2004, 16:11
absolutely; far better than having a superloo. Specially as the ones in the market are being reconstructed (or whatever).
Minor refurbishment of one of loos in Streatham cost £30,000+. The staff costs to ensure that it doesn't just turn into a 'shooting gallery' would probably be not much short of £50,000 a year. (I think that is what Lambeth currently spend that sort of sum running Popes Road)
After 20 years(?) closure, bringing the Tate Oval loos back into use would be regarded as new provision - as such it would be subject to the Disability Discrimination Act. Underground loos down 15 steps would not be compliant!!! Building a new DDA compliant loo on its own would probably cost £250,000. Surely it makes sense to put in a superloo for now and look at some sort of cafe/pavilion for the longer term.
I very seriously doubt that they've sought the views of the section of the Lambeth population who currently use a public space but who they, the worthies, want to shuffle off into some St Mungos 'project'.
I don't think its the drinkers that are the issue for library (non) users - it's the dealers who've moved in on the space. However, people involved at the library have recognised that there would be an impact on the drinkers. And the issue is that at present there seems to be FA support from any agency for the drinkers.
Support? they seem happy enough. Just because their lifestyle isn't exemplary doesn't mean they need a social worker.
I take your point about the costs of providing public toilets, and in particular about the DDA. Not convinced about a superloo though. Part time street urinals might be more use. Dunno.
Newbie said:
"Yeah, an outdoor stage and cafe (ie a private facility in what is now public space) right next to the noisiest roundabout in the area... what use is that on a Tuesday in February? The drinkers are there pretty much every day of the year. They use the space, but they're not, IME, particularly exclusive about it. A world class museum, with dead municiple space outside to conform to some grand vision thing...oh, and a road closure as well... and you say this isn't contributing to gentrification..."
Look, whatever. I can't be arsed arguing about it. I'm saying this isn't the same as an expensive exclusive restaurant or something. A well designed park would be for everyone, including the drinkers. As it happens knowing something about alcohol abuse myself, I reckon some of those people might be grateful for help breaking their addictions and cleaning up anyway. St Mungo's has got some of the rough sleepers places to live. That is great. Not because I want them moved on, but because people deserve better lives.
Does anyone have any solid news on what's happening to Raleigh Hall? I heard that if the black cultural project doesn't come right by April the council will simply sell the building. If it becomes private flats or something because of incompetence or red-tape that really will be so depressing. After all this time and money, if Lambeth can't deliver this it is a scandal and just so damn crap I'd be tempted to go set the stupid fucking thing on fire myself and have done with it.
:mad: :rolleyes:
aurora green
12-03-2004, 17:50
Part time street urinals might be more use. Dunno.
only if you happen to be a bloke. :confused:
Anna Key
13-03-2004, 08:49
I use the Tate Labrary a lot and it's normally packed. So I'd be interested to see the evidence for any alleged punter downturn. I don't believe it.
The whole Tate Gardens drinkers saga makes me laugh. These poor buggers were booted out of the Atlantic when Merrett got his hands on it (working class black pub made safe for white yuppies). Then out of Brady's (permanently closed - the area being made safe for Argos) then out of the Coach and Horses (working class black pub made safe for white yuppies by Merrett).
I say leave them alone. Sure, send the police in and arrest the crack dealers. But leave the drinkers alone. And give them a portaloo.
Quick note hatboy: could you please give a reason when you edit other people's posts as it may appear to others that something 'fishy' is going on!
lang rabbie
13-03-2004, 09:39
I use the Tate Library a lot and it's normally packed.
Lambeth libraries still have one of the lowest levels of use in the country. (They are no longer bottom of the league, and they are improving, helped by extended opening hours.) Compared with libraries in other town centres of equivalent size across London, the Tate Brixton is as busy as a mausoleum.
From the Department for Culture's Public Library Standards (http://www.culture.gov.uk/PDF/Library_standards_text.pdf)
Use of the library service
41. Active library borrowers in an authority should equal or exceed 45% of the higher of resident or enhanced populations. The DCMS Intervention Point will be 30% of the relevant population figure. (PLS 10)
Lambeth just avoids Government intervention on this one - 30% of residents use the Libraries.
42. The number of library visits per 1000 population will be (PLS 11):
...............................Resident Population..........Enhanced Population
Inner London ..............7,650 [6,200]................... 6,800 [5,800]
Outer London................8,600 [7,300].................... 8,700 [7,500]
Metropolitan Districts .....6,000 [5,200]................... 5,900 [5,700]
Unitaries ......................6,300 [5,000]....................6,200 [5,000]
Counties ......................6,600 [5,900]....................6,600 [5,900]
The figures in [square brackets] represent the DCMS Intervention Points.
From Lambeth Libraries' September 2003 Annual Library Plan (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/report/023166.pdf)
Increasing and sustaining the active use of library services is the service’s overall aim, ... Stretching targets have been set aiming to achieve a 10% increase in visitors year on year to 2006, and aiming to meet PLS11 in the longer term.
Total Number of visitors per 1000 population
.........2003 3982
.........2004 4474
.........2005 4921
.........2006 5413
and remember that these figures are skewed by the Streatham Tate, which somehow - despite various cuts to opening hours and the bookfund over the years - maintained a culture of regular library going much closer to the London average. The Brixton attendances are proportionately lower.
IMO we ought to be aiming for a library busy enough that there is pressure to reclaim the reading room space currently occupied by the commerical IT training centre for a properly resourced children's library.
Anna Key
13-03-2004, 09:46
we ought to be aiming for a library busy enough that there is pressure to reclaim the reading room space currently occupied by the commerical IT training centre for a properly resourced children's library.
Amen to that.
Quick note hatboy: could you please give a reason when you edit other people's posts as it may appear to others that something 'fishy' is going on!
Sure. If there is a very clear mistake, usually where someone is quoting someone else and the code for the quote hasn't worked. ie if the above appeared like this:
[QUOTE=editorQuick note hatboy: could you please give a reason when you edit other people's posts as it may appear to others that something 'fishy' is going on![/QUOTE]
:)
It would be good if you could give a reason for editing threads and then locking them so nobody can get a word in too, in the interests of fairness.
:cool:
miss minnie
13-03-2004, 11:34
the kennington thread has been re-opened and now lives in the london forum, for those who may be interested. :)
It would be good if you could give a reason for editing threads and then locking them so nobody can get a word in too, in the interests of fairness.
:cool:
That is made quite clear on the thread "McBrixton75Land". Where your negative stereotyping of Brixton and tacky joke about Winston Silcott (neither guilty of PC Blakelock's killing nor anything to do with Brixton) have been edited... in the interests of fairness. Thankyou.
only if you happen to be a bloke. :confused:
Confess I was thinking about the drinkers, most of whom are blokes. But you're right and AKs portaloo suggestion is better.
That is merely one other of your questionable opinions, not an action befitting a moderator of discussion.
IMHO
:p
That is made quite clear on the thread "McBrixton75Land". Where your negative stereotyping of Brixton and tacky joke about Winston Silcott (neither guilty of PC Blakelock's killing nor anything to do with Brixton) have been edited... in the interests of fairness. Thankyou.
I agree with most of what Lang Rabbie has posted.It seems that LR is arguing for "regeneration" or development that is small scale and related to peoples needs.Rather than the "prestiguous" type developments that are beloved of some local authorities/governments.Top down "Stalinist" style with loads of "consultation" thats ignored if it doesnt fit the "plan".
It rings true that a pro Labour officer could be holding it up.Labour will get back in and people are thinking about their future careers.Bootlicking their way up the promotion ladder.
The money involved in doing up the Gardens is relatively small compared to the grandiose scheme dreamt up by Brixton Town Centre Mge.I agree with Lang Rabbie it will be done quicker.
If the LibDem council try and sell the Raleigh Hall their will be a lot of complaints.It was the Labour council who wanted the big scheme to go ahead.Though their was no funding-even less now Kens ploughing money into an Olympic bid.I expect the Brixton Area committee will kick up a fuss.
The Raleigh Hall was put forward by the Labour Council as a community asset to be saved to IMO stop complaints about selling schools,libraries and housing.It was in the words of the Council to get people to focus on something "positive".
lang rabbie
23-04-2004, 16:29
The Brixton Town Centre Team's latest Design Brief (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/report/025358.pdf) will apparently be presented to the Brixton Area Committee on 4 May
1.0 Vision
1.1 The vision for Brixton Central Square is to create a safe, high quality public space of local, national and international importance that expresses the significance of Brixton for multi-cultural Londoners and Britons through commemoration of past events and celebration of its present vitality. This is to be achieved through a related series of architectural, streetscape and landscape interventions that form the backdrop to an allied social, economic and cultural programme.
Interesting claims in an annex towards the end of the document:
Crime
Coldharbour Lane and St Matthew's Peace Garden are concentrated crime areas for drug and alcohol related incidents, which commonly include muggings, drug pushing and robbery. In terms of the public spaces and streets forming Brixton Central Square, one of the most problematic effects on the general public's use and engagement with the area is the constant presence of intimidating/threatening behaviour and the perception of crime. The street drinking in Tate Library Gardens is mainly by old Brixtonians and is relatively harmless, although it contributes directly to the sense of unease and intimidation felt within this space.
Anna Key
24-04-2004, 08:55
The street drinking in Tate Library Gardens is mainly by old Brixtonians and is relatively harmless, although it contributes directly to the sense of unease and intimidation felt within this space.
That's quite funny. I bet that sentence went through several drafts.
How concerned should we be about the sense of unease and intimidation felt within this space caused, in part, by a relatively harmless activity?
Mrs Bucket feels unease and intimidation when she visits her council estate sister (who not only is relatively harmless but quite charming and certainly has better manners than Mrs Bucket).
Should the Mrs Buckets of Brixton be permitted to determine public policy? I think not but Sophie and Amy may disagree.
Perhaps the Tate Gardens drinkers should be sent to Cuba?
I think this whole grand vision lark will prove to be the biggest gentrification driver of the lot. There's nothing in it for local people, but major incentives of professional advancement and awards for architects, planners and councillors.
How concerned should we be about the sense of unease and intimidation felt within this space caused, in part, by a relatively harmless activity?
I think that sentence is really quite good precisely because it does suggest the question you've just asked. Lots of relatively harmless activities can make me uneasy. For instance I wasn't too comfortable with the number of drunks and junkies that came out to sleep on the ground around the centre of Brixton this weekend. Of course they were pretty harmless (being unconscious and all) so maybe I should get on with it and just respect their choices.
I wish I lived in Godalming or Tunbridge Wells where the secret police death squads would take care of this kind of problem on my behalf.
lang rabbie
11-05-2004, 21:07
Forgot to post, following last week's Brixton Area Committee, that there now appears to be a firm proposal for a "drink control area" covering the central Brixton parks, to replace the unenforceable current drinking bye-law.
The recommendation was that it would be introduced "in time for the late summer Bank Holiday (May 28th) The grounds for urgency were:
Last summer there was public disorder in Brixton Oval. It is the firm view of the police that street drinking was a significant factor in causing this disorder. They would like to see the Drinking Control Area implemented before the summer.
I had to leave before BAC got around to discussing it.
(The document was sent out with the BAC's second despatch and it still don't appear on the Lambeth website :mad: :mad: :mad: )
What I have found on the Lambeth website today is:
Evaluation of the Waterloo Drinking Control Area pilot (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/report/025501.pdf)
People may want to discuss this at the Brixton Forum meeting.
This is very current, I hope councillors are reading this.
Brixton Hatter
12-05-2004, 13:02
interesting to read the report about Waterloo, which paints a very rosy picture with absolutely no negative effects mentioned. It all sounds very good but I can't help but think that there would be some unintended consequences - from displacement through to people losing what might be their only support network.
Why are they so threatened by "entrenched groups of street drinkers" that they feel they have to break them up?
Anna Key
12-05-2004, 14:02
Why are they so threatened by "entrenched groups of street drinkers" that they feel they have to break them up?
Good question.
lang rabbie
12-05-2004, 14:18
I'm not sure anyone in authority felt "threatened"...
2.3 Waterloo is still regarded as a popular destination for the homeless and rough sleepers and even though this scheme was directed in the main towards street drinkers it did seem beneficial to individuals who may have be in need of outreach services. The ability to break up entrenched groups of street drinkers allowed people access to these services which may not have been so easy to attain due to the peer pressure that was in existence.
You could pose a legitimate libertarian argument against the public authorities' paternalistic view on alcohol abuse and harm reduction.
Having seen lives destroyed by alcoholism, I'm inclined to a more interventionist approach. The key issue IMO is that such schemes should not be driven primarily by a "clean up the streets" agenda, which seemed to be the basis of the previous Brixton bye-law, but should have sufficient funding to focus on sorting out the wider problems that lead people to chronic alcoholism.
Lang Rabbie
edgarlesty
12-05-2004, 15:22
[QUOTE=lang rabbie]The people involved are aware that they can't just bulldoze the street-drinkers away and are talking to St Mungo's about running a project out of local voluntary sector premises (don't know if they've talked to the neighbours yet)QUOTE]
...whether this could actually become the Tate Gardens Drinking Advisory Group of U75 folklore?!
:p
Mr Retro
12-05-2004, 16:05
I haven't read the whole thread again or the waterloo link (sorry) so tell me shut up if I'm drawing the wrong conclusion.
Isin't there a huge difference between breaking up entrenched drinkers who are in distress from alcoholism and need help, and, putting a blanket ban on drinking in public?
Will this really compell people who need it to seek help?
Or is this whole thing just to stop the mostly black people from meeting up for a few Guinnesses in Windrush Square when the weather permits?
This kind of thing will bring about the gentrification of Brixton faster than 10 Brixton Bars, IMO.
..in Scotland, in Lincolnshire, even in bloody genteel Cheltenham, there have always been bunches of old piss heads in parks.
Personally I'd rather have them where they are then all hanging about in Brockwell Park, the Herne Hill gate is awful as it is, imagine the numbers up by a factor of five or so and the fucking park is ruined-far better a shite stretch of concrete with one tree in it as a base.
If there is a new influx of dealers, well what are the fucking cops playing at?
With all those cameras they must have a very good idea of who's who by now, if not then they are an even bigger bunch of fuckwitz than I had thought!
Get in there arrest them you spineless twats, thats what you are paid for, not ;lounging round in groups of 15 harassing beggars.
The cameras are only some kind of deterent if people get busted because of them- I dont see that, I see it all getting done very blantantly every day, even at 7-30 in the fucking its "hey, what you looking for?"
The old piss heads are not intimidating, but in so far as the act as camoflage/hiding place for the "Bad Boys" they will be treated as part of the problem.
Come down heavy on the street dealers, a lot of the beggars will vanish cos they want to be near where they score, they are also part of this street drinking culture, no need for any extra Draconian powers, just need the cops to enforce the laws that already exist.
lang rabbie
12-05-2004, 16:35
Don't shoot the messenger!
I don't have a hard copy of the report that went to the Area Committee with me, so can't answer on any matters of detail.
I certainly think that questions should be posed at the Forum tomorrow on:
1. Why is there an apparent inconsistency between the sudden claimed need for urgent action to implement the and the earlier statements in the crime section of the Central Square "design brief" (post 34 above)that street drinking
is mainly by old Brixtonians and is relatively harmless, although it contributes directly to the sense of unease and intimidation felt within this space
2. What is known about what proportion of street drinkers in Brixton have other problems such as homelessness, hard drug habits etc. How does this compare to Waterloo?
3. Are St Mungos and other agencies adequately staffed/resourced to deal with the proposed Brixton scheme as well as the ongoing work in North Lambeth?
Brixton Hatter
12-05-2004, 17:29
Isin't there a huge difference between breaking up entrenched drinkers who are in distress from alcoholism and need help, and, putting a blanket ban on drinking in public? Absolutely!
Or is this whole thing just to stop the mostly black people from meeting up for a few Guinnesses in Windrush Square when the weather permits? That might be a reasonable assumption to some people.
This kind of thing will bring about the gentrification of Brixton faster than 10 Brixton Bars, IMO. This is a legitimate worry and goes back to the first point I've quoted above. Is this about helping people? Or is it about "cleaning up" the streets so they look acceptable to visitors/yuppies/whoever. I agree that getting the crack-dealing scum out of Brixton is far more of a priority than a few drinkers in the square.
[QUOTE=Brixton Hatter]Or is it about "cleaning up" the streets so they look acceptable to visitors/yuppies/whoever. QUOTE]
Tate Gardens belongs to all of us. Can we have it back please?
Brixton Hatter
13-05-2004, 13:35
Or is it about "cleaning up" the streets so they look acceptable to visitors/yuppies/whoever.
Tate Gardens belongs to all of us. Can we have it back please?
It's not been taken has it? :confused: If I want to go and sit in Tate Gardens, that's exactly what I'll do.
Ok - some people might be intimidated by the drinkers. I'm not. But if we had to please everyone..............
It's not been taken has it? :confused: If I want to go and sit in Tate Gardens, that's exactly what I'll do.
Ok - some people might be intimidated by the drinkers. I'm not. But if we had to please everyone..............
That's what I think. Often these days there's nobody there anyway. What's so very intimidating? I don't often want to sit there because its a crappy concrete landscape not so much cos of the piss heads. It's just people.
I don't often want to sit there because it's on the edge of one of the busiest roundabouts in South London. Unless the grand design forsees a considerable reduction the noise and pollution from all the traffic (which includes loads of buses) that space just isn't going to be pleasant to sit in without anaesthetic.
At the moment there's a ready supply of people who use that space as part of the public provision. If they're forced to evaporate no-one will use it. Occasional bunches of Xtians with horribly distorted PAs maybe, but otherwise it'll be as empty and useless as Windrush Square. If there was a demand for high quality public space around there surely the Peace Garden would be more used? Someone sleeping it off , and a couple of refugees from the Town Hall skiving is all I ever see there (though I do accept that the dodgy guys furtling in the bushes trying to remember where they stashed their hit could be seen as being a bit offputting).
A question has been hanging throughout this thread, asked by a number of people: has the behaviour of the people who spend their time there really upset anybody? Further up this thread I said I'd never had any hassle there. Has anybody else?
We do have the report LR quoted: " Last summer there was public disorder in Brixton Oval." Could anyone remind me about this cos it was obviously so traumatic I've blanked it out completely.
Anna Key
14-05-2004, 09:52
We do have the report LR quoted: " Last summer there was public disorder in Brixton Oval." Could anyone remind me about this cos it was obviously so traumatic I've blanked it out completely.
I'd also like to know more about the Great Brixton Oval Riot of 2003.
Was the Local State threatened with armed insurrection by the Tate Gardens Drinking Advisory Group? Were our esteemed politicians and senior bureaucrats obliged to retreat to their nuclear bunker beneath Windrush Square? Did Conservative, Liberal and New Labour Councillor alike shiver and comfort each other to the sound of a baying mob above their heads?
Was Cllr Janet Grigg
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/services/government-democracy/democracy/images/grigg2.jpg
obliged to clutch a weeping Cllr Jonathan Myerson
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/services/government-democracy/democracy/images/myers.jpg
to her bosom?
IntoStella
14-05-2004, 10:51
We do have the report LR quoted: " Last summer there was public disorder in Brixton Oval." Could anyone remind me about this cos it was obviously so traumatic I've blanked it out completely. Indeed. Does the much-loved Tate institution Mr Faaaaarrrrk Ooooorrrrff really constitute a public disorder? Where are we? Hampstead Garden Suburb?
I recall having a very nice drink with Anna Key on the Ritzy balcony one hot night last summer and being serenaded by one of the TGDAG delivering a lusty and rather soulful rendition of Cum By Ah, accompanied by a compadre on the bongos. Does this amount to public disorder? I thought it was sweet. It made me smile and is a ''Brixton moment'' I remember fondly.
[Wavy special effects. Cut to Brixton 10 years in the future]
A Brixton moment, 2014
I was in Starbucks yesterday and the woman in front of me forgot to ask for skimmed milk in her latte!
I mean! Like, we all just gasped in shock.
It wasn't long before the armed clean-up squad arrived to cart her off to the correctional facility, but really! I think I've got post-traumatic stress!
[Wavy special effects. Back to the present. Thank fuck] ...........
lang rabbie
14-05-2004, 12:23
Minutes of last week's meeting of Brixton Area Committee (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/minutes/025729.pdf) have now arrived on the Lambeth website:
10(b) Drinking Control Area in Brixton’s Town Centre (558/03-04)
MOVED and RESOLVED that the report be withdrawn from the agenda.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
There is also a lengthy note of the "grand plan" for the central square at agenda item 6.
Minutes of last week's meeting of Brixton Area Committee (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/minutes/025729.pdf) have now arrived on the Lambeth website:
There is also a lengthy note of the "grand plan" for the central square at agenda item 6.
As informative as minutes of this sort of meeting usually are! One bit of the minutes though says that the members of the Committee agreed to lobby against 'this borough wide approach' to creative & cultural industries. The implication in the text (page 3) is that they want everything in Brixton - or am I misunderstanding it?
lang rabbie
14-05-2004, 13:50
One bit of the minutes though says that the members of the Committee agreed to lobby against 'this borough wide approach' to creative & cultural industries. The implication in the text (page 3) is that they want everything in Brixton - or am I misunderstanding it?
Doesn't seem to quite match what I heard during the meeting.
The London Development Agency (controlled by Ken, funded by us) which had funded a short term post in Brixton Town Centreand the Arup Consultancy Report (still not available on the web???) has now turned down Brixton's bid for more resources. LDA are apparently only interested in a scheme for creative industries use of some space they are developing at Kennington.
Lambeth is apparently planning a borough wide creative industries strategy.
lang rabbie
14-05-2004, 13:51
Was the central square/drinking control zone mentioned at last night's forum meeting?
Did anyone go???
There was a brief summary of the position with Central Square; nothing about Drinking Zone.
Being an AGM, most of the time was given up to reports of teh year, elections type stuff.
I was looking through the SLP website and found that the Raliegh Hall is a possible contender for a list of Council owned properties to be sold.Properties that are "surplus to requirements".
Cllr Jackie Meldrum(Lab) said that ,
"We need schools,buildings for community hubs and GPs need surgeries-where are they all going to go if these are sold off"
Check here on SLP website for "£20million sell off of buildings" and "Booze crusade is streets ahead".
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0400lambeth/
lang rabbie
14-05-2004, 15:30
I was looking through the SLP website and found that the Raliegh Hall is a possible contender for a list of Council owned properties to be sold.
The potential sale of Raleigh hall was discussed briefly on this neglected thread (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=75389)
I read that report on Waterloo and found it disturbing.It seems to me the first step towards whats been happening in Westminster.They are not just stopping street drinkers but are attempting a zero tolerance policy on the people who live on the streets.Whether the are a disturabnce or not.This includes using ASBOs on beggars stopping them from begging on the streets.
It concerns me that a charity St Mungos are colluding in this punitive approach.They are getting the police to break up existing communities of street drinkers as this makes it more "manageable" for them deal with them.Seems to me that Charities should provide services on the basis of no compulsion.Punitive measures are the province of the state.Call me nieve but I dont think this is a road charities should go down.
Though thinking about it theres a history of charities doing this.St Barnardos notoriously sent kids to Australia who were born "out of wedlock".So perhaps thiere is a section of the charity sector who are still Victorian paternalistic bastards like St Mungos-I just thought that had gone now.
The potential sale of Raleigh hall was discussed briefly on this neglected thread (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=75389)
I do miss stuff as im not here everyday :)
Though thinking about it theres a history of charities doing this.St Barnardos notoriously sent kids to Australia who were born "out of wedlock".So perhaps thiere is a section of the charity sector who are just Victorian paternalistic bastards like St Mungos-I just thought that had gone now.
Interesting observations Gramsci. Does it have a basis in experience (of being a street drinker or working with street drinkers/homeless) or more of a theoretical muse?
lang rabbie
14-05-2004, 16:05
There was a brief summary of the position with Central Square; nothing about Drinking Zone.
May I ask who gave this summary? Attitudes to the project seem to range between the messianic zeal of promotion and frosty scepticism that it will ever happen, depending on which council officer you are speaking to.
Interesting observations Gramsci. Does it have a basis in experience (of being a street drinker or working with street drinkers/homeless) or more of a theoretical muse?
Just say it Pooka-if you want to dismiss what i say put it in plain language.For someone who complains about the tone of recent posting you certainly know how to do it yourself.What HB observed as being mealy mouthed.
What Im saying is quite simple.Charities IMO should keep themselves separate from the State.They are often the only organisations who can lobby and apeak on behalf of less powerful groups in society.Working with the police in "Drinking Control Areas" is IMO crossing the line to colluding.
I was also pointing out that historically this has happened before.
May I ask who gave this summary?
Diane Burridge, the Town Centre Manager.
Just say it Pooka-if you want to dismiss what i say put it in plain language.
No, I don't want to dismiss what you're saying. I want to know on what basis I should weigh it. I know very little of your background/experience. I don't know but that you've a fair expererience of this area of life. If you have, and are arguing from that position, then I'd give particular weight to what you have to say. Alternatively you may be adopting a view consistent with some broader, theoretical or value driven, view of what the relationship between charities and the state should be,
So I asked a simple question to establish which.
All I'd say is I have seen first hand the real challange that's involved in supporting people who are dealing with both street homelessness and alcohol addiction, albeit for a short time. But enough to respect the views of people fulfill that role all the time. They may have got it wrong, but I'd be loathe to castigate them on the back of a neat and tidy theoretical analysis. Sometimes the world is a bit messier than just white hats and black hats.
Now, where did I put my nosebag full of meal?
The problem is that Charities are getting drawn into service provision.More so if New Labour has its way.The danger is seen in how the Government is dealing with homelessness on the streets.The rough sleeper initiative led by Casey warned that charities that did not sign up would have their funding from Central government reviewed.As Ms Ghosh(from Crisis),
"Charites in a sense are the conscience of the nation and we must be allowed to follow our consciences"
see here:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,381794,00.html
Ive looked up St Mungos and they recieve 8% of their income from Central Government.See page 30 of their Annual Report,
http://www.mungos.org/about/Annual_Review_2003.pdf
Diane Burridge, the Town Centre Manager.
So I asked a simple question to establish which.
but I'd be loathe to castigate them on the back of a neat and tidy theoretical analysis. Sometimes the world is a bit messier than just white hats and black hats.
I didnt like the tone from someone whose being complaining about how people post up on the Brixton forum.
The implication is that anything thats based on "theoretical analysis" is not to be given credence.
I dont live in Iraq but I can have an opinion on the War there.
IntoStella
14-05-2004, 17:07
Interesting observations Gramsci. Does it have a basis in experience (of being a street drinker or working with street drinkers/homeless) or more of a theoretical muse?Ah, is this the new editorial line we have all been waiting for to replace the ''tonally challenged'' old one?
Posters may only express opinions on a subject about which they can demonstrate a significant degree of personal experience.
This will be interesting.
So, for instance, nobody would be able to express an opinion about the conduct of Blair or Bush, because they had never been PM or US president.
Almost no one would be permitted to pass comment on the affairs of Lambeth council because (with a few notable exceptions), no one is, or has been, a Lambeth councillor or officer.
Only serving or former police officers or members of the community police consultative group -- like pooka, in fact -- will be allowed to pass comment on the police, in Lambeth or elsewhere.
Fed up with corporate giants like Tesco's? You're not on their boards of directors, so shut up!
Sick of the way the education system is failing your kids? Are you a qualified teacher? No? Then zip it.
All posters must be force fed foie gras before they can opine on whether its production is cruel.
Despite the gentlemen's agreements and calls for amnesty, I see no end in sight to the scary Animal Farm ambience.
Remember: some posters are more equal than others.
:eek: :eek:
The problem is that Charities are getting drawn into service provision.More so if New Labour has its way.The danger is seen in how the Government is dealing with homelessness on the streets.The rough sleeper initiative led by Casey warned that charities that did not sign up would have their funding from Central government reviewed.As Ms Ghosh(from Crisis),
"Charites in a sense are the conscience of the nation and we must be allowed to follow our consciences"
see here:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,381794,00.html
Ive looked up St Mungos and they recieve 8% of their income from Central Government.See page 30 of their Annual Report,
http://www.mungos.org/about/Annual_Review_2003.pdf
Actually, its nearer 30% (£8m out of £29m). The argument about about charity independence and the 'contract culture' is one that has rumbled on for the past decade at least. But people often forget that before Govt was contracting with charities to provide services and paying fees, it was giving grants. I'm not sure there was ever a golden age when charities were entirely independent of the state. Charities have always taken money from the state and (mostly) managed to maintain an independent voice.
There was a dust up between Shaks Gosh and Loise Casey. I'm always a little wary when charities adopt this holier than thou bit ('the concience of the nation'). Very easy for them to get bound up with themselves because, ironically, they don't have the same pressures to perform as statutory or commercial organisations.
Crisis started out with a simple, clearly stated mission "To end street homelessness". Three years ago they agreed, with Casey, that street homelessness was so-reduced as to be effectively ended, but didn't wrap themselves up, simply redefined their mission. A mission (in substance) indestinguishable from Shelter's. But Crisis spectacularly failed to merge with Shelter. No conscience is without blemish, perhaps.
But coming back to the case in point, are you saying that you think St Mungo's are failing to give the most useful, practical service they're capable off, to the street drinkers in Waterloo, because they receive Government funding? And if so, what should they be doing instead, again in practical terms?
Posters may only express opinions on a subject about which they can demonstrate a significant degree of personal experience.
Not at all what I'm saying. I simply asked where Gramsci was coming from - a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given I don't know much of his background.
I'm sorry if Gramsci thought I was having a go at him; I wasn't: I was just seeking some clarification. Though having got it, I will now say that I do indeed think that experience, where available, is the better instructor than theory. ;)
But seriously Intostella, in what way do you feel that your interjection has benefitted the exchange that was going on between myself and Gramsci? In what way are any of us better informed or enlightened as a result of it? If you need to interject, wouldn't some comment on the issue be a better contribution?
Do we really want to go through all that bollox again?
lang rabbie
14-05-2004, 17:18
Gramsci
St Mungo's exists to deal with homlelessness. Alcohohol abuse is a major cause of homelessness. Read the rest of their report rather than selecting one figure on funding. :mad:
There has been a history of completely inadequate statutory provision in this field.
I don't suppose that you ever visited one of the former Department for Social Security resettlement centres. These, along with some mental hospitals, were truly a cinderella services of the welfare state - direct descendants of workhouses and the Camberwell "Spike" mentioned by Orwell in Down and Out in London and Paris.
Recognition of the inappropriateness of large institutional forms of hostels was reflected in central government’s 1985 policy to replace the reception or resettlement centres run by the (then) Department of Health and Social Security, with smaller less institutional accommodation to be managed by local authorities or voluntary agencies. (Anderson et al, 1993). In fact the closure of all resettlement centres was never completed, and in 1992 plans were announced to refurbish those resettlement units in reasonably good physical condition and transfer them to the voluntary sector
St Mungo's have taken over the management of Cedar's Road in Clapham, which was one of the former resettlement centres.
Gramsci
St Mungo's exists to deal with homlelessness. Alcohohol abuse is a major cause of homelessness. Read the rest of their report rather than selecting one figure on funding. :mad:
There has been a history of completely inadequate statutory provision in this field.
I don't suppose that you ever visited one of the former Department for Social Security resettlement centres. These, along with some mental hospitals, were truly a cinderella services of the welfare state - direct descendants of workhouses and the Camberwell "Spike" mentioned by Orwell in Down and Out in London and Paris.
Back to me not speaking from personal experience again i see :rolleyes:I agree with Intostella on this.A new stick to beat the lefties with on BB.
I will reiterate the simple point i was making.On reading the report about the Waterloo DCA i was concerned that St Mungos were seemed to think it was good that the police had broken up drinking groups as this made it "easier" for them to be "helped".The clear implication is that the street drinkers were given no choice in the matter of when they should be helped and how.
Personal Experience:
I was talking to a homeless(drug user) up in Soho.He said what the police did their was stop u give you a list of hostels and said if they caught u again u would be arrested.As he said a lot of homeless dont like the hostels and there are not enough beds.His opinion was that Westminster just wanted to get the homeless out of their borough."Outreach" workers in Westminster now work on the punitive-if u wont less us help u we will report u to the police-model of charity.(I think St Mungos are involved).
Another homeless I know in Soho(a regular well known street drinker)justs wants to be left alone as hes not bothering anyone.True as the local shopkeepers know him and I do and accept him as part of life in London.
Ive also talked to an outreach worker in another borough.At the moment hes still doing outreach work on the basis of getting to know people on the street and giving advice and support if they want it.He still works in a non compulsory way.He was concerned at developments in some areas of London. Westminster where a if u dont accept help we will report u to the police model was starting to be used.
I dont like having to put "personal experience" in under pressure to validate what ive already posted.It does not change my previous posts on this subject.
I also used to now someone who worked in Crisis.The thing about Crisis is that they dont depend on Government funds and could be more outspoken.The point Ms Ghosh was making IMO is that Charities are independant advocates for the groups the lobby for and that debate should not be stifled.Its well known the Casey was armtwisting Charities who got Central Government funding to sign up to the rough sleepers intitiative.
It seems to me that the initiatve like that at Waterloo and Westminster dont take into account either the opinions of those on the street or those who work directly with.This is top down from Central Government/Councils and the Fat Cats who run some of these Charities.
Theory versus Personal Experience.
Ive seen a fair amount of life in London.I use both.My life history informs what im into reading as far as theory goes.Theory helps me to see things in new waits-like art(another interest of mine).In this Country any kind of theory is treated as suspect.The two are not that separate as people might think.
I think Charities can fulfil a useful function as part of Civil society.At the moment they are more popular than the main Political parties.Campaigning groups like Oxfam provide useful bulwark against Government waffle and inaction.
However I reserve my right to criticise them as well-whatever good works they do in other areas.I dont think its an appropriate role for the Voluntary sector to have such a close relationship with the State as seem in Westminster and Waterloo.They lose their independance and ability to criticise.In the end they will be absorbed into the State as just another outsourced service provider.
As for the square development-i am largely in agreement with Newbies post on this.Also I remember the original "consultation exercise" on it.The consultants were OK.It was just that they didnt come up with the answer the Brixton Town Centre Mge wanted so they ignored it.
The issue of street drinkers did come up.To my surprise most people wanted to make sure they would be consulted and were not going to be just got rid off in an effort to "clean" Brixton up.
lang rabbie
15-05-2004, 12:37
Gramsci, what got my goat (and may well also have also ruffled pooka's feathers?) was the sheer offensiveness of your post ("Victorian paternalistic bastards") to many of those in the charity sector who work with the homeless.
It concerns me that a charity St Mungos are colluding in this punitive approach.They are getting the police to break up existing communities of street drinkers as this makes it more "manageable" for them deal with them. Seems to me that Charities should provide services on the basis of no compulsion. Punitive measures are the province of the state.Call me nieve but I dont think this is a road charities should go down.
Though thinking about it theres a history of charities doing this.St Barnardos notoriously sent kids to Australia who were born "out of wedlock".So perhaps thiere is a section of the charity sector who are still Victorian paternalistic bastards like St Mungos-I just thought that had gone now.
My recent involvement has been even more tangential than pooka's, but my experience working alongside DHSS 15 years ago makes me think that the services provided by charities now with taxpayer support are one hell of a lot better than what the state used to provide.
You appear to have come to these conclusions only from a reading of the (appalling written) Lambeth officer's report on the Waterloo pilot, which may or may not be a fair reflection of the views of St Mungo's staff.
Oh, and I am fully aware that my views on this are somewhat less libertarian than John Stuart Mill (http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/tir72boire.pdf)
Gramsci, what got my goat (and may well also have also ruffled pooka's feathers?) was the sheer offensiveness of your post ("Victorian paternalistic bastards") to many of those in the charity sector who work with the homeless.
You appear to have come to these conclusions only from a reading of the (appalling written) Lambeth officer's report on the Waterloo pilot, which may or may not be a fair reflection of the views of St Mungo's staff.
John Stuart Mill (http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/tir72boire.pdf)
My conclusion are based on what Ive seen happening in London,pronouncemants by New Labour,local and national newspaper reports and-as Ive indicated in my posts not just the Waterloo report.It seems to me in that the Charity sector did go through a more radical period.ie the setting up of Shelter,War on Want etc which replaced the "Victorian paternalistc bastards".With the government trying to encourage the "voluntary sector" into service provision their could be a step back to Victorian values.
Didnt realise John Stuart Mill was so good on the idea of Liberty.Blunkett and Tony certainly havent read him.If he was alive today I wonder what he would say.The piece is correct the so called "War on Drugs" is run by people with the same kind of illiberal mentality as those Mill was castigating.
Particularly liked the way that Mill said Liberty was the freedom to do something.And that the puritanical notion was freedom from something-if Ive got it right.His critique of Protestant Christianity is spot on-its joyless and small minded.
I agree if people want to drink cans of special brew and they are not really bothering people let them do it.Their are plenty of laws already to deal with them if they become a nuisance.These Drinking Control Areas are something that the do gooders of the 19c Temperance movement would have supported.
Gramsci:
(1) The arguement about contracting jeapordising the independence of charities is a well established one; it's been around since c1990. And ultimately people will have different views.
(2) On balance I'd say there plenty of examples which demonstrate that:
charities are able to provide more effective, responsive and cost effective service than the state had;
charities are still able to campaign. Contracting started under Thatcher and in many areas of social policy charities were the only coherent voice of opposition;
charities have not been returning to paternalism, evidence the shifting of governence structures to beneficiaries;
charities are in a stronger position to campaign on the back of the direct experience service provision provides;
(3) I actually think that the bigger risk to charities is simply that the State is loath to pay the full price for the services they purchase and charities are faced with the choice of compromising on quality, or subsidising with their voluntary income.
(4) With regards to compulsion, it is (for me) a fine line how far you should go when dealing with something which is addictive and destroying people's lives. As far as public nuisance goes, I think its always been the case that people are wary of gatherings of people getting steadily pickled (or sustaining their pickledness) on booze - because invariably hurling abuse or pissing or fighting comes into it. Whilst you're right, they can be dealt with by as public order offences once they've happened, the Drinking Bans seek avoid them happening in the first place.
I don't think it's anything to do with New Labour or Gentrification. It may be that people are becoming more sensitised given that drink related public grossness seems to becoming more prevalent, in all sorts of contexts.
(5) Overall, I've an open mind and sufficient regard for the reputation and track record of St Mungo's to give them the benefit of any doubt.
I agree with Intostella on this.A new stick to beat the lefties with on BB.
Let's not turn it into another one of those theads, eh ? :)
IntoStella
17-05-2004, 14:31
Let's not turn it into another one of those theads, eh ? :) You mean let's not have a thread where people say things you don't agree with? My point is entirely valid: I am not comfortable with people stifling debate with self-righteousness (how dare you criticise the way charities are run, gramsci! How DARE you!) and anti-intellectualism. (No theory -- it puts people off.) :rolleyes:. Many charities do still cling to Victorian, paternalistic attitudes towards the people they are supposed to be helping. It's a big problem. Righteous indignation certainly won't solve it.
Minnie_the_Minx
18-05-2004, 14:49
Sorry, but I can't read all this thread at the moment, but just found this in SLP
Lambeth council started looking at the idea of a Brixton square in 2001. More recently, the transport arm of the Greater London Authority - Transport for London (TfL) - has been examining the 133 bus route and has mooted the idea of closing part of Effra Road and rerouting traffic around Brixton Hill. That closure would be a vital part of the square scheme, enabling the spaces to be joined up. TfL is due to consult next April and, if it went ahead, would carry out the plan in 2005/6.
What's the 133 bus route go to do with any of this? :confused:
IntoStella
18-05-2004, 14:56
What's the 133 bus route go to do with any of this? :confused:And why just the 133? Don't they all go round that bit, whether they go up Effra rd or the hill?
Sounds like a really good plan, though.
Minnie_the_Minx
18-05-2004, 14:59
And why just the 133? Don't they all go round that bit, whether they go up Effra rd or the hill?
Sounds like a really good plan, though.
The Nos. 45, 59, 109, 118, 133, 159, 333, 250 all go up the Hill. Very strange :confused:
And why just the 133? Don't they all go round that bit, whether they go up Effra rd or the hill?
Sounds like a really good plan, though.
Perhaps the paper/council got the wrong end of the stick. The problem would be the buses which go up Acre Lane, and which use the St Matthews loop to avoid making a right turn.
Minnie_the_Minx
18-05-2004, 15:03
Perhaps the paper/council got the wrong end of the stick. The problem would be the buses which go up Acre Lane, and which use the St Matthews loop to avoid making a right turn.
Pretty poor for a newspaper not to know the bus routes that go past their offices (almost) :rolleyes:
IntoStella
18-05-2004, 15:09
Pretty poor for a newspaper not to know the bus routes that go past their offices (almost) :rolleyes:The SLP obviously pays its staff so well that they never have to take the bus. ;)
The wheels on the 45, 59, 109, 118, 133, 159, 333 and 250 go round and round, round and round, round and round... :p .........
Minnie_the_Minx
18-05-2004, 15:13
Originally Posted by Minnie_the_Bus_Spotter
The wheels on the 45, 59, 109, 118, 133, 159, 333 and 250 go round and round, round and round, round and round...
Shut up woman. At least I know what buses go up the Hill :o
I'll have you know that the 109, 118 and 250 terminate at Brixton and therefore don't go round and round and round and round. They just stop :p
*Gets anorak*
lang rabbie
18-05-2004, 15:15
AFAIK...
The way that Transport for London Street Management work, purely environmental improvement projects s would seldom get through the budget setting process given the overspending on operating London Buses. Each local TfL officer has therefore started including paving improvements, street furniture, streetscape etc. in each bus priority or safety project they propose along each red route/major bus corridor.
The 133 was identified as a bus route for which bus priority measures would be useful - it is therefore the hook for these improvements.
The dates being quoted look optimistic, given the very limited amount of modelling that has been done so far.
I suspect that the scheme could fall, because displacing all the traffic from Effra Road will require roadspace in Brixton Hill currently used as bus stands for routes terminating in Brixton. And bus-stands are in short supply - no-one wants them outsside their own home.
(See also the rows going on in Streatham regarding the ice rink/pool site and London Buses' demands for bus stand space in the new development.)
Minnie_the_Minx
18-05-2004, 15:20
The 133 was identified as a bus route for which bus priority measures would be useful - it is therefore the hook for these improvements.
er, why that route?
Lang - I'm hoping you can explain TFL's logic in putting bus stop shelters in the MIDDLE of the pavement. :confused:
Sorry, but you seem to be the resident expert on these matters :D
I'll have you know that the 109, 118 and 250 terminate at Brixton and therefore don't go round and round and round and round. They just stop :p
But they must go somewhere. Do they get driven into the Stockwell Park Estate and burned out?
Minnie_the_Minx
18-05-2004, 15:40
But they must go somewhere. Do they get driven into the Stockwell Park Estate and burned out?
Yep, they turn around and start all over again. I suppose that DOES mean they go round and round :rolleyes: :p
Such a shame really, was much better when No. 109 went over Westminster Bridge.
Now everyone has to struggle onto the Nos. 3 and 159 :(
lang rabbie
18-05-2004, 15:47
er, why that route?
haven't the foggiest...
Lang - I'm hoping you can explain TFL's logic in putting bus stop shelters in the MIDDLE of the pavement. :confused:
haven't the foggiest...
Sorry, but you seem to be the resident expert on these matters :D
Sylvie Krin writes...
Minnie was distraught, her illusions of lang rabbie's infallibility shattered by his sudden cruel response to an honest girl's modest enquiries.
Minnie_the_Minx
18-05-2004, 16:36
haven't the foggiest...
haven't the foggiest...
Sylvie Krin writes...
Minnie was distraught, her illusions of lang rabbie's infallibility shattered by his sudden cruel response to an honest girl's modest enquiries.
You mean I've got you stumped :eek: :D
Many charities do still cling to Victorian, paternalistic attitudes towards the people they are supposed to be helping. It's a big problem. Righteous indignation certainly won't solve it.
Gramsci's point was that charities are reverting to Victorian paternalism; my point was that any trend is in the opposite direction, evidenced by engagement of beneficiaries through membership, elected Trustees and so forth.
Which charities did you see as being particularly part of the 'big problem'?
IntoStella
19-05-2004, 11:17
Which charities did you see as being particularly part of the 'big problem'? What is the point of naming specific charities and derailing a thread specifically about Brixton?
Do you categorically deny that it's still a problem? I expect you do, come to think of it. I suspect, unfortunately, that you don't actually see anything wrong with paternalistic attitudes towards vulnerable people.
The point is that gramsci expressed a reasonable opinion -- whether you like it or not -- and was met with a deluge of righteous indignation from you and rabbie. I know people who have worked for many charities in the past who would be the first to admit that there is a problem, so it is disingenuous to suggest your opinion is more valid than gramsci's because you've met some charity workers. It's still just your opinion and I know for sure that a lot of charity workers wouldn't agree with it.
What is the point of naming specific charities and derailing a thread specifically about Brixton?
Erm, I think this discussion started from report about a DCA in Waterloo. :confused: The purpose of my question was better to understand where you're coming from.
Do you categorically deny that it's still a problem?
I dare say there are still charities where Victorian paternalism persists, but I wouldn't say it's a burning issue. In some instances a kindoff 'professional' paternalism (in charities concerned with social welfare) can be problematic (doctors, nurses, social workers who 'know best') but that too is a lot less than it used to be, and generally a deal less than in state agencies.
The point is that gramsci expressed a reasonable opinion
So he did - which I acknowledged - but one with which I disagree, on balance, and set out why. I didn't say my opinion was more valid - I set out an argument. Why do you have a problem with that?
I suspect, unfortunately, that you don't actually see anything wrong with paternalistic attitudes towards vulnerable people.........because you've met some charity workers
Don't you think these boards work best when people argue the issues, not their unsubstantiated, wide-of-the mark and offensive suppositions about other posters? ;)
Sorry, but I can't read all this thread at the moment, but just found this in SLP
What's the 133 bus route go to do with any of this? :confused:
Funnily enough the idea of closing of part of Effra Rd was never agreed at Brixton Forum level.The Town Centre mge of that time decided it was the best option off their own bat.The consultation exercise resulted in various options not all including closing off the the road.
The road was closed off during the last "Car Free day" to see how it worked.After this their was no discussion.The Town Cntre manager was going around saying how great it was etc.It now seems to have become a firm part of the proposed plans.
Im not sure about jioning up the three open spaces(St Matthews,Tate Gdns and Windrush sq.They each have their own identities and uses.The Windrush sq is to commenorate "Windrush" generation,St Matthews was designated a "Peace Gdn" and Tate Gdns is part of the Library donated by Tate.
Joining up the squarea will IMO also lead to more problems not less.At least at the moment the street drinkers stay in one place.The dealers unfortunately also use it now.Joining up the spaces will only lead to this spilling out across the whole single space.It would be cheaper an easier to do up each of the 3 spaces separately keeping their purpose and identity.
Brixton Society are holding a meeting about it -ill post up dates(ive left them at home).
Brixton Society are holding their AGM on 10th June at 7.30pm.Venue the Vida Walsh centre 2b Saltoun Rd off Effra Rd.
Their will be a discussion on the Tate Gdns by "Friends of Brixton Library and Tate Gdns".
This is open to public as they have been putting fliers in the Library about it inviting people along.
www.brixtonsociety.org.uk
I dare say there are still charities where Victorian paternalism persists, but I wouldn't say it's a burning issue.
So he did - which I acknowledged - but one with which I disagree, on balance, and set out why. I didn't say my opinion was more valid - I set out an argument. Why do you have a problem with that?
You implied that "personal experience" was more valid than "theory".Therefore you were implying that your views were more valid.
I said with New Labours rediscovery of "Victorian values" (see todays Gaurdians)this new paternalism could be a problem.See this article from todays Guardian(supporting it):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1222345,00.html
Lang Rabbie would love this "revival" :)
You implied that "personal experience" was more valid than "theory".Therefore you were implying that your views were more valid.
I said with New Labours rediscovery of "Victorian values" (see todays Gaurdians)this new paternalism could be a problem.See this article from todays Guardian(supporting it):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1222345,00.html
Lang Rabbie would love this "revival" :)
(1) I think we're having a problem around 'valid'. I'd say (a) something is valid or it isn't, there's no more or less to it (b) I can recognise an arguement as being valid without agreeing with it, ie it has some basis in reason and fact. So yes, your opinion is valid.
(2) The Guardian article you refer to says:
Brown has criticised the postwar left for failing to appreciate the Victorian voluntary tradition and its rich social capital. "Instead of the man from Whitehall always knowing best," he recently told a conference of voluntary organisations, "it is the woman from the community service volunteers that knows better."
The implication is that Brown invoked a Victorian, paternalistic charity tradition. In fact, in his speech (http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/asp/search/ncvo/main.aspx?siteID=1&sID=18&subSID=206&documentID=1942), there was no reference to the Victorians. Brown did say:
In the past let us be honest that some on the left wrongly saw the voluntary sector as a threat to the things that they believed only government should be doing; while others on the right misused the goodwill of a caring voluntary sector as an excuse to relieve government of its proper responsibilities.
Which has some substance - the left has always been suspicious (if not downright hostile) to charity, partly for understandable reasons (paternalism, on teh cheap etc) but partly because of a belief that the state can and should do (and control) pretty much everything in the public domain. There have also been grubbier undertones of producer interests amongst public sector workers.
My sense was, from the language you used, that your objection to what St Mungo's are doing in Waterloo was based on such an ideological position rather than particular knowledge of the circumstances or the field. But, trying to be fair, I asked you which it was at the outset.
Catching up on threads saw the previous post linked into Anna community centre thread.Thing is Pooka I dont hold any remit for the State.Ive never been a member of the Labour Party.Im just as critical of aspects of State Socialism as Im of some Charities.Im more near to a libertarian Marxist position-like someone like Hilary Wainwright for example.
Also everyone is ideological-its just that people often think what they believe is commonsense.I have explained my relationship between persona experience and theory before.
Which has some substance - the left has always been suspicious (if not downright hostile) to charity, partly for understandable reasons (paternalism, on teh cheap etc) but partly because of a belief that the state can and should do (and control) pretty much everything in the public domain. There have also been grubbier undertones of producer interests amongst public sector workers.
My sense was, from the language you used, that your objection to what St Mungo's are doing in Waterloo was based on such an ideological position rather than particular knowledge of the circumstances or the field. But, trying to be fair, I asked you which it was at the outset.
You asked me what "personal" knowledge i had-I gave what I think are good examples of my knowledge.I read the report that Lang Rabbie put up.I based my objections on this as well as any "theory" I know.You dont seem to have followed my replies to you.
lang rabbie
01-06-2004, 19:13
Brixton Society are holding their AGM on 10th June at 7.30pm.Venue the Vida Walsh centre 2b Saltoun Rd off Effra Rd.
Their will be a discussion on the Tate Gdns by "Friends of Brixton Library and Tate Gdns".
This is open to public as they have been putting fliers in the Library about it inviting people along.
www.brixtonsociety.org.uk
So it sounds like BrixSoc are giving a voice to the do something achievable now camp, rather than the I have a dream lobby. My sources have gone very quiet on how the disagreement between various groups of officers has been going - think that a key meeting with elected members has been postponed until after June 10th, which is also election day.
Brixton Society.....
www.brixtonsociety.org.ukArrgh! My eyes! MY EYES!!!
When will they get rid of that eye-popping, headache-inducing, hideous colour scheme?!
Their are critiques of the top down welfare state from the left.Here is Hilary Wainwright:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/progressive/comment/0,13255,1000533,00.html
And Stuart Hall critique of New Labour:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,7884,1013219,00.html
lang rabbie
01-06-2004, 23:05
When will they get rid of that eye-popping, headache-inducing, hideous colour scheme?!
When one of the many Brixton-based website designers (forming part of our bustling creative industries hub) offers to redo it an easy to update version for them pro bono or at minimal cost :p
IIRC, the current abomination was reputedly designed by a professional :eek: - generously funded from the various grants that also paid for the hard copy town trails!
When one of the many Brixton-based website designers (forming part of our bustling creative industries hub) offers to redo it an easy to update version for them pro bono or at minimal cost
Already suggested, many many months ago to zero response.
I also suggested that I re-photograph one of their excellent walks, slap the finished article up on urban75 and then liberally scatter the feature with links back to their website, so they could benefit from lots of new traffic.
Response?
Err, I'm still waiting....
But seeing as it took them two years to even get around to mentioning urban75 on their site - despite a host of nagging emails - I don't imagine their website will be updated any time soon...
lang rabbie
01-06-2004, 23:30
Already suggested, many many months ago to zero response.
I also suggested that I re-photograph one of their excellent walks, slap the finished article up on urban75 and then liberally scatter the feature with links back to their website, so they could benefit from lots of new traffic.
Response?
Err, I'm still waiting....
But seeing as it took them two years to even get around to mentioning urban75 on their site - despite a host of nagging emails - I don't imagine their website will be updated any time soon...
I will hassle the man responsible for procuring the current abomination - it'll have to be a conversation over a pint - he doesn't have e-mail :eek:
lang rabbie
06-07-2004, 11:00
"News" story on Lambeth council website (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/news/news-050704.shtml)
A selection panel will meet on 28 July to decide on which firm, out of five shortlisted, will be chosen to design and progress the Central Square scheme.
Are we mere mortals allowed to know who the five shortlisted design firms were or to have sight of their design proposals?
I think there is planned to be some sort of meeting, exhibition whatever in the autumn - but I'm not sure it's any sort of consultation. It's considered that that was all done in arriving at the brief.
The selection panel is to involve people like Lord Rogers and the woman who designed the Eye - as well as people like Rachel Heywood.
lang rabbie
06-07-2004, 12:05
The selection panel is to involve people like Lord Rogers and the woman who designed the Eye - as well as people like Rachel Heywood.
Why do I have a suspicion that we'll end up with something depressingly like the redesign of Manchester's Piccadilly Gardens (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/027_piccgdns/index3.html) by "magazine architecture" favourite Tadao Ando :mad:
http://www.cabe.org.uk/library/images/header_images/PG01.jpg
Is that real or a montage - it's got an eerie quality to it. Good rule of thumb - anything that looks like a cool sketch on an architect's drawing pad from 200ft is usually crap at ground level!
Brixton Hatter
06-07-2004, 12:46
But seeing as it took them two years to even get around to mentioning urban75 on their site - despite a host of nagging emails - I don't imagine their website will be updated any time soon...
Well they bloody well should update their website soon, especially as they have recently recruited SIX new website managers.
Well they bloody well should update their website soon, especially as they have recently recruited SIX new website managers.
They were for the Council's website were they not? Ed's talking about Brixton Society, a local, not-for-profit civic society type thingy.
Brixton Hatter
06-07-2004, 16:24
oops sorry :o didnt realise he was talking about the Brixton Society
lang rabbie
06-07-2004, 16:50
I will hassle the man responsible for procuring the current abomination - it'll have to be a conversation over a pint - he doesn't have e-mail :eek:
Have hassled BrixSoc man in pub - need to e-mail some other people responsible for the current set-up.
lang rabbie
06-07-2004, 16:58
Getting back to the thread...
"News" story on Lambeth council website (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/news/news-050704.shtml)
Has anyone ever seen the design brief for the competition? I'm reasonably sure that it isn't on Lambeth's web site (famous last words...)
Yes, it's exciting and well researched. There's been plenty of public consultation, even duplicated over the last few years - you know what Lambeth are like for feasability studies and consultation - that's all they do most of the time!
The thing to ensure with this is that it goes ahead. Support it, but speak up about wanting the best. That's my take on it. Also please push for the Raleigh Hall project. This must not slip out of the public eye now that Lambeth have put the building back on the disposals register.
Some in this administration are getting a wage for what amounts to obstructing good ideas for the future of Brixton in my view.
Now you mention it, what's happening with Raleigh Hall? Last I knew the Council had bunged Black Cultural Archive some dosh to employ someone to develop a business plan. But I remember at a BAC meeting over the winter, Cllr Anglin saying that they had till April this year to come up with a credible proposal.
vBulletin® v3.6.10, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.