Coldharbour Lane, Brixton - news and updates

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by editor, Jul 22, 2014.

  1. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    But Minton's article has no real basis in anything. She simply asks people if they'd like something back that they had 10 years ago. You could ask the same of daily mail readers.
    You can't pass it off as relevant - we are all programmed to be conservative and resistant to aspects of change that we deem to be less good than we're used to, which is backwards. As I said earlier a lot of people would love servants as long as they didn't have to pay for them.

    It comes down to whether prevention is better than cure, and where prevention starts and ends.
  2. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    She is saying that prevention is better than cure. Preventing social problems by, as you say going back ten years, by funding youth workers and caretakers is about prevention.

    The other thing Anna Minton is saying is that Secured by Design has a history. Which is a right wing/ conservative one.

    So its not that people are inherently conservative. Its the opposite. When asked in Mintons research the reply is that preventation is better.

    So you are wrong.

    Saying that people who want caretakers and youth workers in the area the live in are conservative/ Daily Mail readers is getting it totally the wrong way around.

    Its people like you who are the conservative who can't see why sensible suggestion from residents should not be dismissed as Daily Mail viewpoint.

    Sounds like the kind of thing Council officers/ housing association officers would think.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2019
  3. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Noticed that the marketing suite at "The Edge" was in darkness this afternoon.
    Sign in the window said all flats now sold - and referred interested parties on to another Taylor Wimpey development (Osiers Point Wandsworth SW18).

    Seems a bit early to have sold everything off, given its only half built?

    Surely Anthea can't be right that they've been advertising these flats in the Far East???
    The edge-sold out.JPG
    Gramsci likes this.
  4. editor

    editor Forked with electrons

    These kind of shitty profiteering landgrabs are all about gifting greedy landlords the chance to acquire more property and squeeze out locals and what better way to do that than invite foreign investment - because they really won't give a shit about the local community.
    Gramsci likes this.
  5. thebackrow

    thebackrow Member

    I'm pretty sure that's not correct. The block at the western end was definitely not sold on the open market - I don't know whether it qualifies as social or affordable but it's one or the other.

    Secured by Design is a weird one. Traditional back alleys and the like made housing estates easy to walk or cycle around - "permeable". The police then spent a while arguing against that sort of design - it gave criminals easy access to the back of houses, dark alleyways are unsafe due to mugging risk. As a result you get these large suburban housing estates from the 80's onwards that are impossible to walk around, so everyone drives.

    Lambeth's policy document seems to be (although this is dated 2008 - may have been updated since).

    I think we'd all agree with this statement from Lambeth's doc "A combination of good design, encouraging pedestrian activity, "eyes on the street" and community involvement is a much more effective way of making the Borough safer, than the negativity of shutters, barbed wire, gated developments and other physical crime prevention methods. These may provide well fortified private spaces, but they result in very hostile public spaces."
  6. editor

    editor Forked with electrons

    It's definitely not social housing. Brixton Buzz and Brixton Blog teamed up to oppose the change at the time.
  7. thebackrow

    thebackrow Member

    and you may well have been successful - there are a number of flats let by a housing association to families but I have no idea of the lease terms.

    There may well be far fewer than originally proposed but there is still a non-private element in there.
  8. editor

    editor Forked with electrons

    We were unsuccessful. Look up the original articles on those sites which documented the wriggling changes that Barretts got away with.

    Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition.
    Gramsci likes this.
  9. editor

    editor Forked with electrons

  10. thebackrow

    thebackrow Member

    Got you. So there are 13 housing association properties, with secure lifetime tenancies, but they are now at 'affordable (55% of mkt value) and not 'social' rents. Understandably people aren't that precise (or don't understand the difference) and it just gets referred to as 'social housing'.
  11. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    I think that more people are now realising/understanding that 'affordable' doesn't mean the equivalent of social rent and that it can be up 80% of market rate, which is still unaffordable for many people. Developers (and maybe even councils) are quite deliberate in not being precise, because saying that a development is 30% affordable rent sounds rather better than what it means in reality.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice