Tate Gardens/Brixton Central Square

[lang rabbie]

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.

haven't the foggiest...

Sorry, but you seem to be the resident expert on these matters

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]

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

 

[pooka]

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]

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.

 

[pooka]

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. 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?

 

[Gramsci]

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?

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).

 

[Gramsci]

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

 

[Gramsci]

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"

 

[pooka]

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, 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.

 

[Gramsci]

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.

 

[Gramsci]

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]

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.

 

[editor]

Brixton Society.....
www.brixtonsociety.org.uk

Arrgh! My eyes! MY EYES!!!

When will they get rid of that eye-popping, headache-inducing, hideous colour scheme?!

 

[Gramsci]

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]

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

IIRC, the current abomination was reputedly designed by a professional - generously funded from the various grants that also paid for the hard copy town trails!

 

[editor]

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]

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

 

[lang rabbie]

A new vision for Brixton...

"News" story on Lambeth council website

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?

 

[pooka]

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]

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 by "magazine architecture" favourite Tadao Ando

 

[pooka]

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]

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.

 

[pooka]

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]

oops sorry didnt realise he was talking about the Brixton Society

 

[lang rabbie]

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

Have hassled BrixSoc man in pub - need to e-mail some other people responsible for the current set-up.

 

[lang rabbie]

"New vision for Brixton"

Getting back to the thread...

"News" story on Lambeth council website

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...)

 

[hatboy]

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.

 

[pooka]

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.