Jump to content


Photo

Victory Place MKIII


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#16 guineagirl

guineagirl

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 11:39 AM

CPAndy - I was at Greenwich at the weekend and whilst it will never be entirely possible to spoil Greenwich, in my view, it is a shadow of its former self...and as for Spitalfields market, I could cry every time I see what was done to it.

I would hate to see a mall full of Starbucks and the like, as that's clearly not in the spirit of Crystal Palace, and I suppose the idea of creating a courtyard space *behind* the main drag of Westow St will mean the focus of the Triangle will shift a bit and the main shopping streets look that bit less bustling and busy.

But as Misspoddy says, a courtyard space that children can run around in away from the traffic and some sympathetic planting, etc would be like a little oasis. It could be lovely.

As far as I know - the land being used here is industrial, isn't it? Nothing of architectural significance will be demolished...or am I wrong?

#17 wulfhound

wulfhound

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 214 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 02:20 PM

Isn't it the case that a fair few of the empty shops are because the landlord want either extortionate rent or that they are not bothered having an empty shop.


There's a bit more to it than that - a lot of commercial property is not owned by an individual landlord, very often they're owned by investment funds of one kind or another. This then gets packaged up and resold to other investors (pension funds etc.) in very much the same way as the dodgy mortgages that led to the credit crunch - with various financial promises and outcomes based on its rent yields.

So as a lot of this stuff was bought and sold based on wrong assumptions about the economy, the rents the properties are theoretically valed for and supposed to be let out for is way, way more than the market will sustain (read: way more than a typical shopkeeper can afford to pay in any given area, esp given the downturn & the increased cost of doing business); if it's empty, the portfolio managers can claim they're just "waiting for the right tenant" (even if it's generating zero money in the mean time and the right tenant never arrives), but if they have to cut the rent by 50% to get a tenant, they're basically admitting their portfolio isn't worth what they said it was (and of course, all the neighbouring tenants will try and negotiate for reductions as well - if there are empty units at lower rents, they have a strong bargaining hand). Depending on who you ask, it's either a second credit crunch waiting to happen, or the banks already saw the writing on the wall on this one and are quietly working out the bad debts to try & avoid a crisis.

The Govt has made some noises about breaking the deadlock on this one by putting pressure on landlords to make some empty units available for non-profits & social enterprises - it's a great move but doesn't really help shopkeepers.

#18 Norwood lad

Norwood lad

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 04:55 PM

Thats an interesting bit of info wulfhound.

Have you any idea how to find out if any of the local properties are tied up in any of these funds?

#19 Nanazola

Nanazola

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 06:14 PM

Sorry to butt in here but I've noticed a dirty great hole being excavated behind the guerilla garden next to the Royal Albert. Is this the Victory Place redevelopment? Have I missed something?

#20 St. Lukes Railings

St. Lukes Railings

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,771 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 06:18 PM

Sorry to butt in here but I've noticed a dirty great hole being excavated behind the guerilla garden next to the Royal Albert. Is this the Victory Place redevelopment? Have I missed something?

Nana

It's a residential development being built at the end of Paddock Gardens. It was mothballed a few years back (when I say few I mean 3 of course!) Lorries causing havoc 'round here at the moment

Edited by St. Lukes Railings, 10 February 2011 - 06:31 PM.


#21 Nanazola

Nanazola

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 06:24 PM

Ta for the speedy update SLR. And for your accurate use of the word few ;)

So much to learn, so little time...

#22 RetiredMember1

RetiredMember1

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,066 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 10:31 PM

Our band is called The Few and there are 13 of us! :blink: www.myspace.com/thefewproject

#23 wulfhound

wulfhound

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 214 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 04:34 PM

Thats an interesting bit of info wulfhound.

Have you any idea how to find out if any of the local properties are tied up in any of these funds?


Can approach the problem from either end:-

* if the space is to-let, there'll probably be a phone number for enquiries - but whether the estate agent / managing agent on the other end of the line will tell you who's actually leasing it out, I couldn't say.

* you can do a Land Registry search to find out who owns the freehold or long-leasehold on the property, but it's not free (couple of pounds per search, I think) and there may be other intermediaries who don't appear on the search (i.e. a property management fund sub-lets from the land owner for say 50 years and tries to make money off it in the interim).

Given their number, I'd be quite surprised if none of the empty units in CP were owned by banks or investment funds. Basically if, as a private individual or family, you own a commercial property you're not using yourself, your money is probably safer in some such fund (as you're not directly hit by the vagaries of whether your particular property is let in iany given year), so it kind of makes sense to sell it to a portfolio and invest the proceeds. This doesn't apply of course to those who are rich enough to own dozens or hundreds of units... Dukes, oligarchs and the occasional local Mr. (or Mrs.) Big.

#24 Norwood lad

Norwood lad

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 04 April 2011 - 07:35 PM

Well that didn't last long did it. Old plans ditched, new architects on board with an application in the next four months or so no new cinema in Victory place, instead boutique type retail units and a covered market.

More info on page ten

http://www.thetransmitter.co.uk/

So what of the brave new world of a cinema in CP? This plan cancelled, the G&G site too small and looks like its a non-starter and KICC busy doing lords knows what behind closed doors.

It would be a bit crap if the only cinema in CP is a one screen affair run by the good folks at KICC :(

Still covered market eh! Lets hope the developer doesn't waste more money on another planning application and actual saves some money for building this time ;)

#25 doowron

doowron

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts

Posted 05 April 2011 - 05:50 AM

Seeing is believing with this applicant! I expect there will be a few more ideas on paper before we see anything built at Victory Place. When are the council going to enforce the planning decision? I wonder?

#26 Norwood lad

Norwood lad

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 21 August 2011 - 09:52 AM

Well it looks like plans at VP have changed yet again.

An article in the excellent Transmitter mag has the latest.

http://blog.thetrans...-19-is-out.html

Posted Image

Posted Image

Bit of a shame they have dumped the cinema component.

#27 Summit Lover

Summit Lover

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 5,019 posts

Posted 21 August 2011 - 11:29 AM

Looks fine to me, although I agree a shame re the cinema addition. It could do with a bit more greenery around to soften the edges.

I hope they get cracking on it soon.

#28 Andy

Andy

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 21 August 2011 - 03:54 PM

Not sure if you are serious Hermit but that bit is the key.

Basically they are saying that they won't interfere with Los Toreros.


If you look closer it does appear that the large back area of Los Toreros will be removed, and only the front section will remain, when it gets 'integrated' with the never ending design/scheme for this site.

The cynic in me thinks people will get so fed up with the ever changing ideas, we will then just accept what ever they decide to build there, whenever it gets built just so something gets done!

#29 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 21 August 2011 - 04:05 PM

St Aidans=Don't hold you breath folks.

"This is what we find, this is what we find, the hope that springs eternal, springs right up your behind."

#30 Ziwa

Ziwa

    Member

  • Members 1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 21 August 2011 - 04:22 PM

What's the weird blister on the top of the building? Too unstructured a space to be used for anything sensible - the image is of something only about 2m tall with a few people strolling around.

We need a rooftop cafe, but on the other side of the Triangle with a view over the city.