Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James B on May 22, 2011 at 19:50

Just looking this up as I noticed it on the north facing facade as well. I'm new here but has anyone heard from the gle office?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Bojkowski on May 23, 2011 at 23:32

They seem more intent on tidying up the paths around Basterfield Lawn at the moment. :(

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Lincoln on May 24, 2011 at 8:16

Why is it possible to add graffiti to the roof garden of Great Arthur House but not just go and sit there?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John on May 24, 2011 at 9:06

There's also a giant silver tag on the top of the YMCA that's been there for a while too (not visible from the ground)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BARBICAN POLICE TEAM on May 24, 2011 at 17:07

We are aware of the grafitti on YMCA that was placed by the same person as Great Arthur House.  I believe the Estate Office have obtained a quotation from a specialist company to clean the grafitti, although not sure when it will be completed.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James B on May 24, 2011 at 17:11

Are we able to know what the outcome was with the person who did this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BARBICAN POLICE TEAM on May 24, 2011 at 17:16

One who was only responsible for Great Arthur House received a juvenile reprimand.  The second responsible for both buildings is currently on police bail and I will try to remember to update you with the result when I get it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian David Dowsett on May 25, 2011 at 6:49

With respect to the above, I don't know why people always assume that when something such as this or a repair is not made good within a couple of days, that the City is not taking any action.  In this particular instance, I had to obtain two seperate quotes to get the graffiti removed due to the exorbitant cost of the first quote, the second being less than half of the original.  Also, company reps are rarely prepared to drop everything and turn up on the day that you call them, so appointments have to be made to arrange a site visit.  There is also always a delay between when the rep visits and when they submit their quote, and an order then has to be raised by me on the computer and then approved by a senior manager.   Even when this is done, I have to rely on the company in question.to give me a date when their operatives can carry out the work.  So as you can see, this process is not as straight forward as it may seem.  This process also appies to some communal repairs which may be in the hands of external contractors or departments e.g. the alderman's sign outside the Shakespeare pub which falls under the remit of the highways section who in turn have to raise an order for a seperate contractor. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on June 30, 2011 at 20:36

Well said Tracy!!!! 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John on May 25, 2011 at 10:19

Tracy, please follow this link to view a response from the Barbican Police Team in an earlier thread  http://goldenlane.ning.com/forum/topics/graffiti-on-gah?commentId=2...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BARBICAN POLICE TEAM on May 25, 2011 at 17:49

A few points in support of Estate Staff who appear to be getting a bit of a bashing:

The culprits had no connection with the estate and admitted that they tailgated their way into the building during interview. 

The gate to the roof is locked and the manner in which the youths gained access to the roof climbing between the gate and stairwell was very dangerous. 

The paint that was used and material of the building requires specialist cleaning companies and the first quotation obtained by Ian Dowsett was much higher than expected and the reason that he got a second cheaper quotation, hence the delay in cleaning.

You may not be aware that whenever graffiti is found on the estate in accesible places photos are taken and forwarded to police for investigation and attempts made to clean it by staff on the estate. Unfortunately people who place graffiti like to use products that cannot be removed!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Bojkowski on May 25, 2011 at 23:09

I think it's particular sore point because many of us would like to see it open to all residents to use as was the original intent of the architects in the first place. To have someone gain access and then proceed to deface it seems to be rubbing residents noses in it.

I can't help thinking too that if residents were allowed access to the roof and were using the space on a regular basis is wouldn't have been allowed to happen. Outsiders to the Estate just see it as derelict property and they're kind of right.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page