1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by ringo, Apr 4, 2018.

  1. existentialist

    existentialist It could always be worse.

    Is there any kind of interest you'd like to declare at this point, to pre-empt the Big Reveal from someone, on about Page 10 of the thread...?
     
    editor and Gramsci like this.
  2. SpamMisery

    SpamMisery I bet you think this tagline's about you?

    Very clever. I'll concede the point :thumbs:

    Although I might call a technicality :hmm:
     
  3. existentialist

    existentialist It could always be worse.

    Nothing wrong with a finely-crafted technicality...
     
  4. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    So has anyone found a single shred of evidence to support the assertion that Squire & Partners have designed any actual social housing projects anywhere?

    Because, in the real world, this is what's happening while people like Squire get richer and richer while they're servicing their offshore chums who try and cheat London out of affordable homes : Number of social housing properties in England drops 11% in one year
     
  5. shakespearegirl

    shakespearegirl just worked out taglines


    The Department building isn't meant to be socially progressive, I don't think anyone has claimed it is. It is a private building developed by an architect.

    Would I love to see them open it up to community/educational groups to use the space, yes! Would I encourage all businesses to work to help improve communities around them, yes!

    Has anyone asked them directly about any opportunities for community use of the space? From earlier posts it seems they did open the space in the early days.

    Ultimately, the government/council should be ensuring there is adequate housing and social housing rules are implemented and if they aren't refusing planning. And not allowing retrospective reduction of social housing as schemes are 'no longer affordable'..
     
    Winot and Mr Retro like this.
  6. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    OK i'll play your game.

    UNISON head office, commissioned by UNISON. Comprises head office, 30 units for private sale, 14 for social rent, 3 for shared ownership.

    see building here: AJBL - Squire and Partners
    case officer's report here: http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/Record/3389957/file/document?inline
    section 106 here: http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/Record/3363345/file/document?inline

    Now please stop with the pre-conceptions and narrow minded prejudice. They are effing architects - they design loads of stuff.
     
  7. alcopop

    alcopop Well-Known Member

    This thread could get as ridiculous as the pop thread.

    Fingers crossed
     
  8. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    Seems daft blaming the architects for not designing social housing when the real problem is that the government/councils should be commissioning them, and they're not.
     
  9. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Seems even dafter to claim that they've been busy designing 'loads' of social housing when they clearly haven't.

    Twattor brought up the notion as some sort of strange defence for the company, as if to suggest that they're beyond criticism for working with offshore developers who want to cheat Londoners out of much needed affordable housing because they were involved in non existent large scale social housing projects .

    As I said earlier, people like Squires are part of the problem, not the solution, and whether they drop a few 'community' crumbs off their lavishly stocked table or not won't change that.
     
  10. Mr Retro

    Mr Retro Beware hedgehogs

    Agree. It’s a neat trick the government have pulled. Fooling some people into believing that firms that build houses for people who can afford them are to blame for not building houses for people who can’t. The government should be building these houses.
     
    friendofdorothy likes this.
  11. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Who the hell has made that claim here?

    But I do get fucked off when some shiny new luxury block looms up in Brixton and the developer triumphantly points out the fact that there is (the bare minimum) of affordable homes on site, safe in the knowledge that 'affordable' means that there's precious little chance any actual poor local people taking up residence.
     
  12. Reiabuzz

    Reiabuzz Well-Known Member

    I applaud your motives. What's the solution then?
     
  13. tripadvisah

    tripadvisah Banned Banned

    wow. Think you’re extrapalating a bit much out of that and exaggerating far beyond what is known. or are you saying there should be no developments in Brixton unless they’re social ones?
     
  14. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I've never made any such claim, as well you know.
    And you're criticising me for "extrapalating a bit much out of that and exaggerating far beyond what is known"? LOL.

    What's your opinion on architects who work with greedy offshore developers to minimise their affordable housing commitments? All OK with you?
     
  15. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    It's quite obvious that I believe that new social housing should be built, greedy parasitic landlords brought into check and controls introduced on offshore developers who are happy to leave properties vacant while they accrue value.

    Of course this isn't the the thread for such a discussion, but it should be pointed out that Twattor was the one who brought social housing into the debate, insisting that Squire & Partners had been responsible for designing 'loads' of social housing projects, which they quite clearly haven't. I've no idea why he made that up, or why he thought it was appropriate to bring it up in the discussion. You'll have to ask him.

    And I will repeat that I'm not going to cheer on - or feel grateful for - people like Squire who work with offshore developers on luxury residential projects with "appallingly low” levels of affordable homes.

     
  16. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    Interesting that on the officers report it emerges UNISON did not meet affordable targets on their swish flagship office; and argued that whilst it was physically possible it was not economically viable.
     
  17. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Oh and first against the wall when I take over: those loathsome scum who have made profitable businesses out of advising developers on ways to squirm out of their affordable housing commitments.
     
  18. tripadvisah

    tripadvisah Banned Banned

    actually I wasn’t suggesting you made that claim, it was a question (it even looks like a question if you reread my post).

    What, specifically are the architects doing to minimise the greedy offshore developers housing commitments?

    Just tyring to get some nuance out of all this spittle flecked zero sum nonsense that belittles any point that is being made
     
    Mr Retro, hungry_squirrel and alcopop like this.
  19. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    To state the obvious: Architects - especially super rich, super successful ones with palatial London showcase offices aren't compelled to take on every job offered. But if they do take on jobs like this one, then they are complicit in the process that is starving Londoners of affordable homes.

    I do hope that's not too 'spittle flecked' for you.
     
  20. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    They might not be compelled, but they'd probably find themselves out of business if they didn't.
     
  21. alcopop

    alcopop Well-Known Member

    This is not the time or the place for making reasonable points. :)
     
    Gleena and Harbourite like this.
  22. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Pretty sure loads of architects manage to get by just fine without having to work and assist offshore clients keen to wriggle out of their affordable housing commitments. Squire do it - presumably - because they want the big fat dosh and prestige contacts and showcase offices that come with it.

    And if that's the case, I'm at liberty to judge them accordingly.
     
  23. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    I'm not in the least interested in defending them, just pointing out that this is how the sector works.
     
  24. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    Name a few of these socially responsible firms then.
     
  25. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I really have better things to do, thanks.

    Can you find many others who have recently been personally namechecked by Sadiq Khan for their "appallingly low" provision of affordable homes?
     
  26. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    Not right now, but it stands to reason that given almost all new builds contain very few affordable units, that most architectural firms that design such buildings are similar. They all compete for the same business after all, and it's the client that specifies the mix in the last instance.
     
  27. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Which brings me to Gramsci's excellent post.
    Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)
     
  28. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    alcopop likes this.
  29. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    And mine too in that there is no reason why we should laud Squire and Partners for gracing Brixton with their presence, or feel grateful for them for opening up a swishy and highly exclusive restaurant to promote their own business with, or for hogging so much space for themselves.

    They're part of the problem and them throwing a few community baubles our way won't change that. As Gramsci says: they're not socially progressive,.
     
  30. Twattor

    Twattor Well-Known Member

    Could you please show exactly where Sadiq Khan laid the blame for the low provision at Squire's door. Reading the article it looks like he referred to the developer as being responsible.

    Do I need to find dictionary definitions of "developer" and "architect" for you as well?
     

Share This Page