Send pictures to us
Send us your pictures and video by text, email or by uploading. Click here to find out how. »
|
|
|
|
Former department store to become a park
12:11pm Wednesday 23rd July 2008
Comments (54)
By Gareth Lewis »
SOUTHAMPTON'S landmark Tyrrell and Green store is to be torn down and the site turned into a park, the Daily Echo can reveal.
Long dubbed an eyesore, the boarded up former department store is to be removed so as not to spoil the look of new developments springing up nearby.
The wrecking ball will bring to end Tyrrell and Green's association with the site, which stretches back to the 19th Century.
City bosses are pushing ahead with plans for the arts quarter despite one of the key developers behind the scheme pulling out as a result of financial difficulties.
It is hoped a cleared site will be more appealing and help lure new developers to take on the scheme.
They plan to take advantage of the demolition team booked to knock down the former C&A building on Guildhall Square to make way for a newbuilding for business services firm Capita, which was given the go-ahead by council planners yesterday.
Once the team has finished on that site, they will cross the road to flatten the former Tyrrell and Green store, which has been boarded up since it closed in September 2000. Both sites are expected to be demolished by January next year.
The £500,000 costs of knocking down the Tyrrell and Green building will be recouped from the sale of the land to a developer in the future.
The two sites are cornerstones of a scheme to redevelop Northern Above Bar, including a multi-million pound plan to redesign Guildhall Square.
The council is anxious to proceed with the parts that are still possible after troubled developer City Lofts was found to be unlikely to be able to find the cash needed for its part of the deal - to build £50m 18-storey glass twin towers housing an arts complex and 282 flats.
Grants from SEEDA and the Arts Council towards the project are said to be safe, despite the question marks over the complex.
Despite the widespread difficulties in the housing market and a succession of dire results for developers, authorities are confident of finding replacement developers for City Lofts.
Councillor Royston Smith, cabinet member for economic development, said: "We have to demonstrate we are serious even though it looks unlikely City Loftswill proceed.
By Christmas or early January both the C&A building and Tyrrell and Green buildings will be down. Capita will be starting to build out its scheme and we'll be working on Guildhall Square.
"We will not dumb down but I don't think it is going to be easy to find another developer but the ones suffering now are the small to medium-sized ones. There are plenty of large players out there that have their own money. They will be interested in the prime site in Southampton. It's right in the centre, it's got access to everything and it overlooks the park. We own the plans, so we can pick them up and give them to a developer and say crack on. We couldn't be in a better position."
Your Say YourEcho
jimbo, soton says...
8:30am Wed 23 Jul 08
Pity it will probably (eventually be built on). Although that will take another 8 years I bet!
Cecil Ramsbottom IV, On the Soapbox says...
8:47am Wed 23 Jul 08
C-boy, soton says...
8:48am Wed 23 Jul 08
Steve, Bedford Place says...
8:48am Wed 23 Jul 08
£500,000 to knock it down is a big punt as many developers do know what a site looks like. It will take more than a demolished builidng to lure someone to this site which is and will be a blot for a long time to come. The site is worth half of the 13m now, if that .
If the land is used as a park this will be a great improvement short term.
reader, says...
8:54am Wed 23 Jul 08
He acknowledges: "it looks unlikely City Lofts will proceed . . . . . don't think it is going to be easy to find another developer"
He then finishes with: "We couldn't be in a better position."
All rather wooly, wishful thinking?
hulla, baloo says...
9:00am Wed 23 Jul 08
Just saved the purchaser the cost of demolishing and clearing the site, at the expense of the tax payer.
c, says...
9:05am Wed 23 Jul 08
Tyrrell & Green Building, Town says...
9:26am Wed 23 Jul 08
Wrecking Ball, Eastleigh says...
9:31am Wed 23 Jul 08
Tyrrell & Green Building wrote:IM A WRECKING MACHINE!! AND IM COMING FOR YOU TYRELL AND GREEN!! FEEL MY BALLS OF FURY BABY!!
Dont tear me down, there was a time when you people loved me!
Tyrrell & Green Buidling, Town says...
9:37am Wed 23 Jul 08
Wrecking Ball wrote:You dont scare me! Your balls of steel are no match for my brick walls and steel girders! Bring it on!
Tyrrell & Green Building wrote: Dont tear me down, there was a time when you people loved me!IM A WRECKING MACHINE!! AND IM COMING FOR YOU TYRELL AND GREEN!! FEEL MY BALLS OF FURY BABY!!
Pete Simmist, says...
9:38am Wed 23 Jul 08
Tylenol, Eastleigh says...
9:41am Wed 23 Jul 08
Pete Simmist wrote:Probably as soon as you get there buddy!
How long before it's a no-go area?
ron westcott, bassett says...
9:42am Wed 23 Jul 08
Parks and refuse collection are the 2 things the Council do well.
With regard to the future development as an Arts complex what a total waste of public money whether local, Central Government grants under any name or the Lottery.OUR money.
We don't need to expand the Art Gallery. Are Portsmouth, Brighton, Bournemouth or any other sensible local authority wasting public money on such unused projects?
Keep the parks and build the Spitfire memorial on it. Much better than being stuck down by the Mayflower Park where the locals can't see it.
A little bit of common sense from the Council at last.
seagull, Totton says...
9:45am Wed 23 Jul 08
I'd love to say "meet you in the square", although it would probably be full of Starbucks and Costas.
*Sigh* I want to live in a city with cafe culture.
Nutter, soton says...
9:54am Wed 23 Jul 08
Family Man, Bitterne says...
10:14am Wed 23 Jul 08
You mean the nice new council/out sourced services office block...so they have a nice view!!
My suspicion is that the area will be cleared at taxpayer expense, until such time as the market frees up and they can build more flats/luxury apartments to add to the apparently half a million (I read recently) that remain unsold in the country, perhaps with some "arty-farty" complex that appeals only to minorities and has to be subsidised at tax payer expense and few actually want or will use!
Once again I have to ask, what is this council going to do for families who are constantly ignored in terms of leisure provision and places to go!!! This is another oportunity that I suspect will be frittered.
I suppose for a temporary period they might be able to use the open space ....and a bit of "cafe culture" would also be nice, weather permitting (and seating permitting given the preponderence of students in the locality).
cafe culture, southampton says...
10:54am Wed 23 Jul 08
Iain, Lordshill says...
11:10am Wed 23 Jul 08
fred, Bristol says...
11:21am Wed 23 Jul 08
My suspicion is that the area will be cleared at taxpayer expense, until such time as the market frees up and they can build more flats/luxury apartments
Err thats exactly what the article says.
It will be a park only long enough for the council to sell the land.
gorf, soton says...
11:23am Wed 23 Jul 08
more parks....more space to rape young girls
DelgadosKnee, Brighton says...
11:27am Wed 23 Jul 08
hulla wrote:Development Finance 101:
Well done council. Just saved the purchaser the cost of demolishing and clearing the site, at the expense of the tax payer.
Demolition is a development cost. The final value of the finished building minus the combined development costs equals the residual land value.
Ergo, removing half a million pounds in development costs increases the value of the land by half a million pounds. The only cost to the taxpayer is therefore a cash-flow one.
Bob Simmons, Southampton says...
11:37am Wed 23 Jul 08
gorf off, says...
11:39am Wed 23 Jul 08
gorf wrote:The glass sure is half-empty isn't it, gorf. Looking forward to the first "girl raped in new city park" story, and your ensuing lecture on the dangers of walking in parks
the rapist's are giong to love it....
more parks....more space to rape young girls
I like it, says...
11:43am Wed 23 Jul 08
cafe culture wrote:here here bring on the parks and culture,some cafes and a nice benched seating area,maybe some local music but not too rowdy. Yeh more parks!!
At last.. a park.. and a great idea to allow a cafe culture to take hold.. surely in the summer this could be possible.. with temporary cafe's errected.. lets knock down all the vacant buildings and turn all the areas into temporary parks, the vospers site, ocean village, queensway.. lets go park crazy
Paramjit Bahia, Southampton says...
11:56am Wed 23 Jul 08
Family Man wrote:Family Man as always your analysis is excellent. But I hope you won't mind me suggesting a small factual correction.
\"Long dubbed an eyesore, the boarded up former department store is to be removed so as not to spoil the look of new developments springing up nearby.\" You mean the nice new council/out sourced services office block...so they have a nice view!! My suspicion is that the area will be cleared at taxpayer expense, until such time as the market frees up and they can build more flats/luxury apartments to add to the apparently half a million (I read recently) that remain unsold in the country, perhaps with some \"arty-farty\" complex that appeals only to minorities and has to be subsidised at tax payer expense and few actually want or will use! Once again I have to ask, what is this council going to do for families who are constantly ignored in terms of leisure provision and places to go!!! This is another oportunity that I suspect will be frittered. I suppose for a temporary period they might be able to use the open space ....and a bit of \"cafe culture\" would also be nice, weather permitting (and seating permitting given the preponderence of students in the locality).
Rather than saying
perhaps with some "arty-farty" complex that appeals only to minorities and has to be subsidised at tax payer expense and few actually want or will use! You should have said 'Complex that appeals to few friends (A... Lickers to be exact) of some councillors (mainly New Labour ones) within the so called minorities .'
Kind regards
Denzil, Chilworth says...
12:16pm Wed 23 Jul 08
Paramjit Bahia wrote:Shut up you're boring.
Family Man wrote: \"Long dubbed an eyesore, the boarded up former department store is to be removed so as not to spoil the look of new developments springing up nearby.\" You mean the nice new council/out sourced services office block...so they have a nice view!! My suspicion is that the area will be cleared at taxpayer expense, until such time as the market frees up and they can build more flats/luxury apartments to add to the apparently half a million (I read recently) that remain unsold in the country, perhaps with some \"arty-farty\" complex that appeals only to minorities and has to be subsidised at tax payer expense and few actually want or will use! Once again I have to ask, what is this council going to do for families who are constantly ignored in terms of leisure provision and places to go!!! This is another oportunity that I suspect will be frittered. I suppose for a temporary period they might be able to use the open space ....and a bit of \"cafe culture\" would also be nice, weather permitting (and seating permitting given the preponderence of students in the locality).Family Man as always your analysis is excellent. But I hope you won't mind me suggesting a small factual correction. Rather than saying perhaps with some "arty-farty" complex that appeals only to minorities and has to be subsidised at tax payer expense and few actually want or will use! You should have said 'Complex that appeals to few friends (A... Lickers to be exact) of some councillors (mainly New Labour ones) within the so called minorities .' Kind regards
Paramjit Bahia, Southampton says...
12:18pm Wed 23 Jul 08
The arrogant man did not listen to any common sense argument in Labour Group and had argued that it will not cost the Council even a penny. His foolish theory was that Council can buy this building and then sell it to the Institute, which is now Solent University. The mad monk of economics thought because at that time Alan Whithead was teaching there he will use his influence with his employers. But I doubt if Alan Whitehead was even consulted about of this shady thinking. Because Alan never mixed his employment with political grafting.
allsaintsnocurves, southampton says...
12:27pm Wed 23 Jul 08
Beer Monster, Hythe says...
12:40pm Wed 23 Jul 08
DelgadosKnee wrote:Also, I'm not sure how much by, but I presume that the temporoay cost is smaller than it would have been because the council are taking "advantage of the demolition team booked to knock down the former C&A building on Guildhall Square to make way for a newbuilding for business services firm Capita"
hulla wrote: Well done council. Just saved the purchaser the cost of demolishing and clearing the site, at the expense of the tax payer.Development Finance 101: Demolition is a development cost. The final value of the finished building minus the combined development costs equals the residual land value. Ergo, removing half a million pounds in development costs increases the value of the land by half a million pounds. The only cost to the taxpayer is therefore a cash-flow one.
I'm with Ron Wescott on this - if the land is going to be dormant for the time being, we may as well do something good with it.
As for council resources, would it be too much to start making the Southampton skyline a bit more aesthetically pleasing? Currently the only building that conjures a lasting impression in the minds of visitors to the city is Marchwood incinerator
Paramjit Bahia, Southampton says...
12:46pm Wed 23 Jul 08
Sadly somebody has put up lots of posts on this forum using my name. This person with weird sense of humour and language used may offend people or give wrong impression about my own views.
As fairly frequent contributor to this site, as a matter of principle I always use my real name and do not ever use abusive or insulting language for others. So any such thing under my name should be regarded as fake.
P.Bahia
Jamie, Southampton says...
12:59pm Wed 23 Jul 08
No name though fear of being abused, Southampton says...
1:08pm Wed 23 Jul 08
Gilmore, Shirley, Southampton says...
1:31pm Wed 23 Jul 08
The last I have to say on this matter ;)
Dee, hampshire says...
1:32pm Wed 23 Jul 08
dangerousMike, Under your stairs!!! says...
1:46pm Wed 23 Jul 08
southy, redbridge says...
2:31pm Wed 23 Jul 08
Cecil Ramsbottom IV, I'm Behind You says...
2:31pm Wed 23 Jul 08
Gilmore, Shirley, Southampton says...
3:01pm Wed 23 Jul 08
ex so'ton, Abingdon says...
3:15pm Wed 23 Jul 08
goard, Tyrrell & Green says...
3:53pm Wed 23 Jul 08
goard
cafe culture, southampton says...
4:14pm Wed 23 Jul 08
Dave, Central says...
4:39pm Wed 23 Jul 08
With a market tumbling in Southampton centre. With all the big developers struggling. With banks not lending on flatted projects in Southampton.
Why waste £500,000 more of our already wasted tax payers money. No developer would pick this up under the principle it cannot make money as build prices have now outstripped the prices of city centre flats. So back to the drawing board I think.
Iain, Lordshill says...
4:53pm Wed 23 Jul 08
southy wrote:Well, technically that's what taxes are meant to be. Not sure the council would agree with me though...
why dont we all club together and buy the land of the council,then dictate to them what go's there
southy, redbridge says...
5:19pm Wed 23 Jul 08
me, bursledon says...
5:48pm Wed 23 Jul 08
Jim, Southampton says...
8:27pm Wed 23 Jul 08
Just wonder if they will put a pâtisserie on it.
Ahh this is Southampton, it will never happen.
Paramjit Bahia, Southampton says...
10:22pm Wed 23 Jul 08
United Southampton Skaters wrote:Hello United Soton Skaters, I beg to differ with part of your statement saying "Its 20 years since they stole our ice rink" because it is not factually correct.
Ciaran wrote:Nope, probably not big enough, who cares, we want an ice rink wherever we can get one. The planned multi-use arena in West Quay was abandoned because IKEA wanted the space for thier crappy flat pack furniture shop. That is all the council are interested in. Now the housing market has collapsed we will all need to keep ourselves busy keeping fit. Its 20 years since they stole our ice rink and we want it back. Join the petition signing and the commemoration/protes t march in the 22nd of August. Give us want we want, and then we\'ll go away!! ice ice ice ice rinkkkkkkk NOWUnited Southampton Skaters wrote: No contest really -Build an ice rink on the site. Sign the petition www.southampton-viki ngs.co.uk/petition.h tmlIt\'s hardly big enough is it? An ice-rink is just part of the multi-use arena the city had been planning. There\'s no-way an arena for eight to ten thousand people would fit on that site. And it hardly lends itself to the ideal of Northern Above Bar being the cultural quarter, does it?
Ice Rink was owned and run by private enterprise, although it was feasible business they closed it because they could make more profit by selling the land it stood on.
Basically it had nothing to do with the local Council, but because at that time there was plenty of opposition to the closure led by the Echo, most local councillors jumped on the band on your bandwagon and promised what they have failed to deliver. Personally I have the feeling that all you will keep on getting is support of sound bites. But what you need is a real action, and sadly I can't see it coming soon.
Let us face the facts, our local Council is more interested in keeping businesses of booze gambling and retail happy, more than they are interested in sports. Local people and their concerns do not seem to register of the radar of most of the Councillors.
fluffy duck, top rank says...
11:44pm Wed 23 Jul 08
Lowe and Behold, St Marys hotseat says...
12:58am Thu 24 Jul 08
DONT WALK ALONE IN PARKS
United Southampton Skaters, Southampton says...
8:03am Thu 24 Jul 08
Paramjit Bahia wrote:Didn't say the council stole it and I am VERY factually correct. It will be 20 years on the 22nd of August this year. As for your defeatest attitude, you may as well not bother trying to do anything in our so-called democratic society then. 20 years is too long and you should be applauding the efforts of the USS for taking on the council who hold the land and the planning policies that prevent developers even beginning to look at ways of providing Southampton with this missing facility. Your comments are correct, the old rink site was sold off by a greedy corporate leisure giant, but the council did nothing to prevent them building houses on what was a site that was in the local plan as leisure use only. Don't argue about planning, you may not have the full facts, or knowledge to make any further comment.
United Southampton Skaters wrote:Hello United Soton Skaters, I beg to differ with part of your statement saying "Its 20 years since they stole our ice rink" because it is not factually correct. Ice Rink was owned and run by private enterprise, although it was feasible business they closed it because they could make more profit by selling the land it stood on. Basically it had nothing to do with the local Council, but because at that time there was plenty of opposition to the closure led by the Echo, most local councillors jumped on the band on your bandwagon and promised what they have failed to deliver. Personally I have the feeling that all you will keep on getting is support of sound bites. But what you need is a real action, and sadly I can't see it coming soon. Let us face the facts, our local Council is more interested in keeping businesses of booze gambling and retail happy, more than they are interested in sports. Local people and their concerns do not seem to register of the radar of most of the Councillors.Ciaran wrote:Nope, probably not big enough, who cares, we want an ice rink wherever we can get one. The planned multi-use arena in West Quay was abandoned because IKEA wanted the space for thier crappy flat pack furniture shop. That is all the council are interested in. Now the housing market has collapsed we will all need to keep ourselves busy keeping fit. Its 20 years since they stole our ice rink and we want it back. Join the petition signing and the commemoration/protes t march in the 22nd of August. Give us want we want, and then we\'ll go away!! ice ice ice ice rinkkkkkkk NOWUnited Southampton Skaters wrote: No contest really -Build an ice rink on the site. Sign the petition www.southampton-viki ngs.co.uk/petition.h tmlIt\'s hardly big enough is it? An ice-rink is just part of the multi-use arena the city had been planning. There\'s no-way an arena for eight to ten thousand people would fit on that site. And it hardly lends itself to the ideal of Northern Above Bar being the cultural quarter, does it?
Paramjit Bahia, Southampton says...
4:52pm Thu 24 Jul 08
United Southampton Skaters wrote:Hi, Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding, I thought you were pointing the finger at Council for stealing your ice rink. But if you want to be pedantic the operators of that site did not 'steal' in legal terms either. We may not like their morality but can't challenge legality.
Paramjit Bahia wrote:Didn't say the council stole it and I am VERY factually correct. It will be 20 years on the 22nd of August this year. As for your defeatest attitude, you may as well not bother trying to do anything in our so-called democratic society then. 20 years is too long and you should be applauding the efforts of the USS for taking on the council who hold the land and the planning policies that prevent developers even beginning to look at ways of providing Southampton with this missing facility. Your comments are correct, the old rink site was sold off by a greedy corporate leisure giant, but the council did nothing to prevent them building houses on what was a site that was in the local plan as leisure use only. Don't argue about planning, you may not have the full facts, or knowledge to make any further comment.United Southampton Skaters wrote:Hello United Soton Skaters, I beg to differ with part of your statement saying "Its 20 years since they stole our ice rink" because it is not factually correct. Ice Rink was owned and run by private enterprise, although it was feasible business they closed it because they could make more profit by selling the land it stood on. Basically it had nothing to do with the local Council, but because at that time there was plenty of opposition to the closure led by the Echo, most local councillors jumped on the band on your bandwagon and promised what they have failed to deliver. Personally I have the feeling that all you will keep on getting is support of sound bites. But what you need is a real action, and sadly I can't see it coming soon. Let us face the facts, our local Council is more interested in keeping businesses of booze gambling and retail happy, more than they are interested in sports. Local people and their concerns do not seem to register of the radar of most of the Councillors.Ciaran wrote:Nope, probably not big enough, who cares, we want an ice rink wherever we can get one. The planned multi-use arena in West Quay was abandoned because IKEA wanted the space for thier crappy flat pack furniture shop. That is all the council are interested in. Now the housing market has collapsed we will all need to keep ourselves busy keeping fit. Its 20 years since they stole our ice rink and we want it back. Join the petition signing and the commemoration/protes t march in the 22nd of August. Give us want we want, and then we\'ll go away!! ice ice ice ice rinkkkkkkk NOWUnited Southampton Skaters wrote: No contest really -Build an ice rink on the site. Sign the petition www.southampton-viki ngs.co.uk/petition.h tmlIt\'s hardly big enough is it? An ice-rink is just part of the multi-use arena the city had been planning. There\'s no-way an arena for eight to ten thousand people would fit on that site. And it hardly lends itself to the ideal of Northern Above Bar being the cultural quarter, does it?
As I WAS one of the very few Councillors who were opposed to giving planning permission for housing on that site, and managed to upset some of my colleagues, I find it strange to be under attack from you.
No I am not expert in planning law, but as ordinary working class citizen of this city I admit to working with purely lay person's knowledge. Nothing more than that.
Yes I admire you people for keep on campaigning for such a long time, and I wish you success. But I am also mindful that so far your 20 years hard work has not produced any result. Considering if it keep on going like this, and I have no reason to believe that it won't, soon you will have spent more time, without reaching your goal than Mahatma Gandhi did to undo the British Empire.
So my suggestion will be to have another look at what you have done and try to re-**** your strategy. Picking on whoever try to be helpful to you isn't exactly the best strategy. Hardly surprising this Council has been successful in taking you for a ride for such a long time.
United Southampton Skaters, Southampton says...
6:54pm Thu 24 Jul 08
USS are not attacking you...but as you appear to be a knowledgable person about such matters your negativity was not appreciated. I am sorry if the posting gave you the wrong impression. Because of the way the council have prevaricated for so long, we are doing our best to whip up as much support as possible, and we do have a lot of support from the people of Southampton, and through the online petition from around the world. Any campaign based on around pessimism would fail and this campaign is becoming more successfull each day that passes. Even if at the end of it we are still faced with a council that encourages the building of facilities that people don't want or need, the people who took part and had their say will show the council that democracy is not dead. One day the tide will turn and the men and women we have voted for in the past to represent us will be shown to be the greedy self centred charlatan's they really are.
Gilmore, Southampton says...
8:27am Wed 23 Jul 08