Discussion in 'Brixton' started by ricbake, Mar 25, 2017.
Let's put up some high rise blocks in Squire's garden. See how he likes it.
Have you not been looking at the interesting data that has been posted?
You need to develop a more nuanced way of looking at things.
Oh good god. An exclusive space for rebel creatives.
So just to get this clear: you're still standing by your claim that "London does have very low density housing."
Very low, you said. Where is that shown in the 'interesting data'?
What doesn't get talked about enough in all this is transport policy. Not that you'd expect me to start banging on about cars, but private car use is a cause and result of sprawl. And transport congestion is part of what drives up the demand for central location living. And there's space that's currently used to facilitate things like car parking which could be used for housing without affecting anyone's light or privacy. Especially when you get outside of zone 2/3.
'From the start we challenged convention, broke rules, and helped create an entire youth culture," The Ministry's creative director Simon Moore told Dezee".
wtf is this bollocks.....
But he doesn’t make any reference to poor people, he doesn’t say that anybody has to put up with dark shitholes or that they need to be overlooked by everybody else (a physical impossibility by the way) does he? He just says we need to be “less obsessed” with it.
And if you want decent housing at affordable prices he’s fully correct in my view.
I'm sure the space-hogging super-luxury housing he's designing for overseas investors is doing wonders for the housing crisis.
His company is part of the problem, not the solution.
But thanks for your sage input, as ever.
"Less obsessed" could mean a number of things.
He talks about an automatic right to add storeys to C20 buildings. I don't think that would work as an automatic principle. He says some stuff about the 21m rule. He's basically asking for a general relaxation in planning restrictions. Whatever that would actually translate into - it might allow inner parts of London to become a bit more densely populated. I don't buy it that this would make enough difference to bring prices down. Densification of the outer parts of London, and rules that apply to newbuild and/or brownfield sites...maybe that could have a bit more of an effect. I think there are bigger things that would need to be changed though, to really make housing more affordable. Fiddling around with planning rules in already built-up areas - seems a bit simplistic to me.
As far as the work the firm does is concerned - like most architects they'll take on the work that people will pay them for. No-one's paying architects to design mass social housing schemes at the moment. This has all already been gone over earlier in the thread.
I noticed they did design a trade union HQ relatively recently btw.
UNISON • Sustainability • Practice • Squire and Partners
Tired of you now
I thought that the example he used of a development which would have been improved by relaxing light and overlooking principles was Battersea Power Station. That's hardly telling the poor to suck it up.
61 weeks since this thread was created and more than 400 posts later, I still haven’t read anything remotely objectionable or wrong about Squire & Partners moving their HQ to Brixton.
Not even this?
Bottoms up! Raa raa!
Outside investment comes to Brixton! Is that a 'good or bad thing'? There sometimes is an option it's not good.
Comes across as a bit of a shit to me.
I was at Loughborough Junction planning forum last night and co incidentally several of the issues he talks about came up.
I must say his comments " I don't care about conservation areas" "I don't care about the man next door" are pretty crap.
Why did he bring his practice to Brixton? A conservation area with an active Brixton Society that's spent years on protecting Brixton using planning.
Which his article shows a contempt for.
Overlooking and light are important elements in planning applications as the end result of a finished building is something that people have to live with. It's not something that is just put into planning to give architects a hard time.
Im a layman who takes active interest in planning issues and this article really angers me.
If all he said he wants in the article is put into planning guidelines that would be the end result.
He says " you can draw the curtains" . Shows a contempt for people ( rich or poor) who would have to live in buildings designed under planning guidelines he is suggesting in his article.
If people are concerned about density of housing needed a start could be made by doing something about underused buildings in central London.
I see regularly whole buildings in West end/ central London just the housekeeper living there. Homes only used on irregular basis by the rich.
I notice that's not something Squires brings up in his Sunday Times article.
And if housing is to be more affordable rent controls on landlords and secure tenancies need to be brought back.
Also the Mayor is making moves to stop sales of homes to overseas investors. Good idea.
Lack of affordable housing isn't just down to density.
He's too busy making money out of designing such homes for the disgustingly rich and foreign investors.
Still we have to thank them for graciously 'bringing life to Stockwell Ave'
*doffs cap in gratitude to millionaire life-bringer of Brixton
Thing about Squires is the defence here is that he is just a hired hand. He doesn't make the rules. Just gets on with his job.The Sunday Times article shows him pontificating on how the planning system gets in the way. Incidentally a common complaint from some sections of Tories who are chummy with property developers. Though not all as "relaxation" of planning guidelines hits some Tory voters.
Imagine how many people could be housed - or workspaces created - in their opulent, private bar and rooftop-equipped, extraordinarily spacious Brixton showcase offices:
The Department Store | Architecture Today
Michael Squires has lived in Clapham nearly 35 years - one of his reasons for moving the office to Brixton -
A home fit for an architect | Great . British . Design
No mention of that in his interview.
His Clapham luxury residence is worth around £7m.
Well, that's nice.
Lots of light too, I bet. Oh yes indeed:
Especially this. Do you harbour so much hatred towards the social group you think the individuals shown in that photograph belong to that you object to their very presence in Brixton?
I don't hate anyone in that picture, so why make up such nonsense? However, I am not keen on the gentrification, privilege, exclusivity and displacement that comes in the wake of such upmarket developments, especially when it's taking place in one of the poorest areas of London. Doesn't it bother you in the slightest?
A business renovating a semi delerict building and move its HQ together with hundreds of employees to a poor area is, by any concieveable measure, something good not bad
As for the hatred part, your post #403 certainly suggests that you seem to dislike people of a certain appearance enough to suggest that if a company opening premises in Brixton is likely to attract such people, those are good grounds for opposing the said company moving in.
Reverse snobbery at its grandest.
Several people have shown a similar lack of enthusiasm for how that strip has changed here, but strangely you've not seen fit to comment when they posted.
But you're OK with gentrification and all the inequalities that follow in its wake, yes? Because this strip of freshly imported Clapham street culture is a shining example.
Oh and what benefits do the poor people of Brixton directly enjoy from hundreds of employees being shipped in from Kings Cross (apart from an increased squeeze on rent in the area)? I'm struggling to think of any, unless you own a trendy bar or restaurant.
The fact that you think the employees of S&P would only considering visiting 'trendy' bars and restaurants in Brixton says it all, really...
I'm sure they'll visit all manner of shops and businesses (TK Maxx, H&M, Village and Pop etc), but the vast majority will be chains because they have no long term connections to the area, so I can't see then queuing up to spend their money in some of the lesser-known, traditional small businesses in the area.
But you didn't answer my question: what direct benefits do you think this influx of architects will bring to the poorer residents of the area?
Whereas I can see them being every last ounce as likely to as anybody else who works in Brixton. Why wouldn't they be?
But if your opinion is that chain shops and businesses are of no benefit to the local economy or Brixton as a whole, why restrict your protestations to S&P? Imagine how many homeless people we could house at M&S or Tesco; how many local community space for local street projects and artists could be made available at the many chain mobile phone shops or fast food joints.
The same one as any other company that moves its HQ here and brings hundreds of employees to the area, of course
Separate names with a comma.