London SE1 community website

One Blackfriars

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Monday 25 February 2019 5.07pm
Does anyone know why for weeks now workman have been crawling over the upper floors of One Blackfriars. It looks as if they are trying to seal the window panes which seems like a major design flaw.
Thursday 7 November 2019 9.41am
Reading the news of the sculpture at One Blackfriars being commissioned by the Borugh of Southwark and being paid for out of Section 106 payments poses problems for my simple mind.
Does it mean that Section 106 payments can be used for anything as well as the construction of public/social housing? If so can we the ratepayers suggest artists we know, and who need help, having their works commissioned by Southwark and paid for out of Section 106 payments? Or any other of our pet causes?

Of some import is the actual cost and therefore deficit to the Section 106 scheme.

I do hope I have not misread this payment and the reason d'ętre for Section 106
Thursday 7 November 2019 10.11am
Surely that can't be right? I had no idea S160 payments could be used for anything other than offsite housing. If that's the case, what else have the millions paid by developers been used for? I've never managed to find out what housing has been built with the S160 payments, but that's another issue.
Thursday 7 November 2019 12.25pm
Hmmmmmm. From the news story:

London SE1 wrote:
Southwark Council commissioned the work, titled 65,000 Photographs, on behalf of developer St George, who funded the sculpture through a section 106 agreement...
The towering sculpture is a product of Khan's personal archive of images from the past six years – some 65,000 images... The sculpture represents the volume of photography in the modern age and draws attention to the almost forgotten art of photographic printing, in our ever more digitised world... Cast in aluminium, the textured surface of the sculpture echoes the delicate edges of each photographic print.

And this explanation of a Section 106 Agreement, from Thomson Reuters (link):
Quote:
The agreement will... enable the local authority to secure, or the developer to offer, restrictions on the use of the land or the operation of the development or to make contributions towards the local infrastructure and facilities.

I'm quite a fan of photography and love to see a nice photographic print. However I don't get much from Mr Khan's tottering lump of aluminium, and don't see it detracting from the massive eyesore which is 'One Blackfriars'. Nor can you describe it as infrastructure or a facility. Who made this ridiculous decision and how much did it cost?
Thursday 7 November 2019 2.19pm
Thanks for that. I'm sure we're not the only people who would like an explanation of who made the decision and how much was spent - an eye watering sum I would guess.
Thursday 7 November 2019 5.12pm
Perhaps the decision maker(s) would like to explain themselves:
Who suggested the need for a piece of questionable art for One Blackfriars, developers or Southwark? Who within the council agreed to commission a statuesque upturned stack of children's bricks? Was the commission put out to tender? Was there any consultation with the council taxpayers? How much did it cost? Is the whole thing an abuse of Section 106 Payments?

There must have been a committee meeting where this item was nodded through, perhaps a councillor at that meeting will, as an act of good faith, explain to us how this came about.

Answers from Peter John, councillors and employees may help us understand this peculiar decision.

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions