Bargate Shopping Centre in Southampton boarded up and closed

City shopping centre boarded up

City shopping centre boarded up

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

A BELEAGUERED Southampton shopping centre has been closed after the receiver struggled to find a buyer.

The Bargate Shopping Centre, once the gleaming answer to transforming a neglected part of the city, has now become one of its worst eyesores after boards went up yesterday.

As previously reported, traders left after February after being given four weeks to leave.

Receivers BNP Paribas Real Estate are trying to sell the city centre complex after the owners went into liquidation more than a year ago.

Now shop keepers fear the boarded up centre will deter people from that part of town as well as blocking an important pedestrian access point.

The 25-year-old complex has been locked since Monday.

One former trader said “It is an important access point. I think there were talks about the site, they were obviously hoping that they could get a buyer but that doesn’t seem to have come off.

“It’s unclear, nobody knows exactly what’s happening there.

“It’s a shame it’s a good location in the centre of town and they haven’t spent money on it so it’s just decayed.

“We were forced to find a new premises quite quickly. It was all a bit rushed. We didn’t have much time to do anything.

“It was ‘here’s your two weeks’ notice and see you later’.

“Our new place is much more expensive – it’s about four or five times more than it was in the Bargate. I suppose the prices were cheap there to encourage businesses to set up there.”

A BNP Paribas Real Estate spokesman said last night: “Unfortunately, we cannot really comment. I can say that the receivers are actively seeking a sale of the shopping centre.”

The Bargate Centre was sold to European property giant Parkridge Holdings for £17.25m in February 2008, just as the credit crunch started to bite.

The firm set up to run the centre – Parkridge (Bargate) Ltd – was liquidated in late 2011 after running up major losses.

Earlier in the year 11 retailers still operating in the centre.

Traders said they were left in the dark over the plans for the complex and were shocked at being suddenly turfed out.

Comments (72)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:59pm Thu 13 Jun 13

What garbage says...

Yet building new cenre at West Quay???, get the ice rink in there.
Yet building new cenre at West Quay???, get the ice rink in there. What garbage
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Thu 13 Jun 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

When does the mysterious electrical fire happen?
When does the mysterious electrical fire happen? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 1

5:10pm Thu 13 Jun 13

sotonboy84 says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
When does the mysterious electrical fire happen?
That's usually reserved for listed buildings that are difficult to get permission to demolish!
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: When does the mysterious electrical fire happen?[/p][/quote]That's usually reserved for listed buildings that are difficult to get permission to demolish! sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Thu 13 Jun 13

Good Looking Man About Town. says...

Shame had some unique shops in there. Oh well we have West Quay which has a load of clothes shops with the same stuff but different labels in. I also feel sorry for the Goths the most where will they hang out now.
Shame had some unique shops in there. Oh well we have West Quay which has a load of clothes shops with the same stuff but different labels in. I also feel sorry for the Goths the most where will they hang out now. Good Looking Man About Town.
  • Score: 1

5:21pm Thu 13 Jun 13

loosehead says...

Had a good cyber cafe if I remember correctly but hey ho! more flats.
Rename the City Labours Apartment City soon
Had a good cyber cafe if I remember correctly but hey ho! more flats. Rename the City Labours Apartment City soon loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Thu 13 Jun 13

CrazyCatGirl1990 says...

this is silly, i used to LOVE going into bargate, PunkFish, Roxy, Sega park, shakeaway, rock bottom toystore. that was all fun. now it's all gone apart from Rockbottom as thats moved into the MArlands. i heard it was to be knocked down and changed into a morrisons or knocked down and left alone as no one uses it anymore. no one knows the future for the bulding
this is silly, i used to LOVE going into bargate, PunkFish, Roxy, Sega park, shakeaway, rock bottom toystore. that was all fun. now it's all gone apart from Rockbottom as thats moved into the MArlands. i heard it was to be knocked down and changed into a morrisons or knocked down and left alone as no one uses it anymore. no one knows the future for the bulding CrazyCatGirl1990
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Thu 13 Jun 13

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

A total blot on the lanscape no vision East Street is on its last Legs.
A total blot on the lanscape no vision East Street is on its last Legs. Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Thu 13 Jun 13

sotonbusdriver says...

Why don't they let them on penny leases to un-employed who are looking to set up a business..
It would be a big attraction, for all sorts of new, different and interesting business to start up. At least then there would be FOOT fall through, which if all the units were occupied would soon bring in new businesses, and a good spiral of rents could be achieved.
As always these centres charge un-reasonably high rent, just like the defunct and demolished Canutes Pavillion at Ocean Village.
As the businesses established sensible increases in rent could be negotiated and the centre wouldn't go to rack and ruin... The businesses my even want to offer free labour and skills to improve and maintain the building....
Shops that offer mainstream stuff is just not needed as the Internet offers better prices, but something that attracts passersbys eye and is unusual not easily found online would thrive
Why don't they let them on penny leases to un-employed who are looking to set up a business.. It would be a big attraction, for all sorts of new, different and interesting business to start up. At least then there would be FOOT fall through, which if all the units were occupied would soon bring in new businesses, and a good spiral of rents could be achieved. As always these centres charge un-reasonably high rent, just like the defunct and demolished Canutes Pavillion at Ocean Village. As the businesses established sensible increases in rent could be negotiated and the centre wouldn't go to rack and ruin... The businesses my even want to offer free labour and skills to improve and maintain the building.... Shops that offer mainstream stuff is just not needed as the Internet offers better prices, but something that attracts passersbys eye and is unusual not easily found online would thrive sotonbusdriver
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Thu 13 Jun 13

SouthamptonLegend says...

If they had decent shops in the first place they wouldn't be in this mess. Ah hindsight!
If they had decent shops in the first place they wouldn't be in this mess. Ah hindsight! SouthamptonLegend
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Thu 13 Jun 13

business-guru says...

simple reason why it closed. People only now want to pay to park in southampton when they KNOW exactly what they are in to buy and weigh up the costs... Southampton city council is run by morons who think £2M in parking revenue is more important than the £4M in business rates they loose. Not many people browse-shop anymore, its too expensive.... and the idiots are about to introduce evening car parking charges too which will see restaurants close as well.
simple reason why it closed. People only now want to pay to park in southampton when they KNOW exactly what they are in to buy and weigh up the costs... Southampton city council is run by morons who think £2M in parking revenue is more important than the £4M in business rates they loose. Not many people browse-shop anymore, its too expensive.... and the idiots are about to introduce evening car parking charges too which will see restaurants close as well. business-guru
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Thu 13 Jun 13

03alpe01 says...

Bring on the "luxury" city centre flats!
Bring on the "luxury" city centre flats! 03alpe01
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Thu 13 Jun 13

pollthom says...

Cheer up everyone, the next phase of West Quay, should start next year at the latest. More chain retailers, more restaurants, another cinema and more apartments! Southampton has become an awful city.
Cheer up everyone, the next phase of West Quay, should start next year at the latest. More chain retailers, more restaurants, another cinema and more apartments! Southampton has become an awful city. pollthom
  • Score: 1

6:35pm Thu 13 Jun 13

Gainer T Gopher says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
When does the mysterious electrical fire happen?
That's usually reserved for listed buildings that are difficult to get permission to demolish!
and pubs.....
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: When does the mysterious electrical fire happen?[/p][/quote]That's usually reserved for listed buildings that are difficult to get permission to demolish![/p][/quote]and pubs..... Gainer T Gopher
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Thu 13 Jun 13

03alpe01 says...

Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council! 03alpe01
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Thu 13 Jun 13

solomum says...

SouthamptonLegend wrote:
If they had decent shops in the first place they wouldn't be in this mess. Ah hindsight!
There were some decent shops in there. Wesley Owen, Rockbottom Toy Store, Route One. The problem was that a lot of people did not venture that far down town and did not even know these shops existed and with the birth of West Quay, The Bargate Centre could not compete. They needed something major in there like Lego Shop to get more footfall.
[quote][p][bold]SouthamptonLegend[/bold] wrote: If they had decent shops in the first place they wouldn't be in this mess. Ah hindsight![/p][/quote]There were some decent shops in there. Wesley Owen, Rockbottom Toy Store, Route One. The problem was that a lot of people did not venture that far down town and did not even know these shops existed and with the birth of West Quay, The Bargate Centre could not compete. They needed something major in there like Lego Shop to get more footfall. solomum
  • Score: 1

7:01pm Thu 13 Jun 13

MccSaint says...

Think they could fit a few Tesco expresses in there there is real shortage of those across the city! Mind you they would have to do something to ensure more grid lock.....
Think they could fit a few Tesco expresses in there there is real shortage of those across the city! Mind you they would have to do something to ensure more grid lock..... MccSaint
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Thu 13 Jun 13

Good Looking Man About Town. says...

I agree

simple reason why it closed. People only now want to pay to park in southampton when they KNOW exactly what they are in to buy and weigh up the costs... Southampton city council is run by morons who think £2M in parking revenue is more important than the £4M in business rates they loose. Not many people browse-shop anymore, its too expensive.... and the idiots are about to introduce evening car parking charges too which will see restaurants close as well.
I agree simple reason why it closed. People only now want to pay to park in southampton when they KNOW exactly what they are in to buy and weigh up the costs... Southampton city council is run by morons who think £2M in parking revenue is more important than the £4M in business rates they loose. Not many people browse-shop anymore, its too expensive.... and the idiots are about to introduce evening car parking charges too which will see restaurants close as well. Good Looking Man About Town.
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Thu 13 Jun 13

froots says...

I hate this country. Everyone who actually knows how to run a business, or a council, is too busy commenting on the Echo to actually do so.
I hate this country. Everyone who actually knows how to run a business, or a council, is too busy commenting on the Echo to actually do so. froots
  • Score: 0

7:48pm Thu 13 Jun 13

My-Voice... says...

They could have tried PopUpShops in The Bargate. Only there for a day or two. Internet traders/market traders/new business could have trialed them.
Plenty of ideas for what could have been...
They could have tried PopUpShops in The Bargate. Only there for a day or two. Internet traders/market traders/new business could have trialed them. Plenty of ideas for what could have been... My-Voice...
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Thu 13 Jun 13

Terry_Nutkins says...

froots wrote:
I hate this country. Everyone who actually knows how to run a business, or a council, is too busy commenting on the Echo to actually do so.
I hate this country. Too many trolls trying to evoke & chastise a response.

I wouldn't go as far as saying eyesore. A smidgen of sensationalism there. It's just another disused shopping centre; possibly part of Southampton Council's duplicate infrastructure mandate. Much like the final phase of West Quay (in a few years following completion).

I sadly feel West Quay's final phase, as the first did with The Bargate, will too eradicate a plethora of struggling businesses (bars & restaurants in this example) by adding excessive competition against an array of duplicated facilities during tough economic times. These developments which hypocritically purport to offer something 'new & exciting' do not despite the misguided views of town planners, much to the dismay of the existing businesses.

I'm unsurprised they have not found new investment for the Bargate Centre. Developers can't have any confidence with how the city is being developed & I entirely agree with them.

The overpriced parking policy of So'ton & the short-sighted, greedy desire to perpetuate that problem further by proposing to charge until 22:00 is/will keep people away & torment businesses even further. Short term gain for long term loss. There must be a filter upon entering any Southampton authority. Please leave logic at the door.
[quote][p][bold]froots[/bold] wrote: I hate this country. Everyone who actually knows how to run a business, or a council, is too busy commenting on the Echo to actually do so.[/p][/quote]I hate this country. Too many trolls trying to evoke & chastise a response. I wouldn't go as far as saying eyesore. A smidgen of sensationalism there. It's just another disused shopping centre; possibly part of Southampton Council's duplicate infrastructure mandate. Much like the final phase of West Quay (in a few years following completion). I sadly feel West Quay's final phase, as the first did with The Bargate, will too eradicate a plethora of struggling businesses (bars & restaurants in this example) by adding excessive competition against an array of duplicated facilities during tough economic times. These developments which hypocritically purport to offer something 'new & exciting' do not despite the misguided views of town planners, much to the dismay of the existing businesses. I'm unsurprised they have not found new investment for the Bargate Centre. Developers can't have any confidence with how the city is being developed & I entirely agree with them. The overpriced parking policy of So'ton & the short-sighted, greedy desire to perpetuate that problem further by proposing to charge until 22:00 is/will keep people away & torment businesses even further. Short term gain for long term loss. There must be a filter upon entering any Southampton authority. Please leave logic at the door. Terry_Nutkins
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Thu 13 Jun 13

SRH74 says...

Could Morrisons' change their plans and move in there instead or rebuilding East Street Shopping Centre ?? Better position and ready made car park too?
Could Morrisons' change their plans and move in there instead or rebuilding East Street Shopping Centre ?? Better position and ready made car park too? SRH74
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Thu 13 Jun 13

loosehead says...

The Tory blueprint for Southampton had a Fruit & vegetable Market behind the Red Lion opposite the DHSS building.
Why not move it to the Bargate Centre ?
we have stalls outside in front of it & the Bargate move them in as well & have an indoor market like many other good Cities have?
That's my idea what do you others think?
The Tory blueprint for Southampton had a Fruit & vegetable Market behind the Red Lion opposite the DHSS building. Why not move it to the Bargate Centre ? we have stalls outside in front of it & the Bargate move them in as well & have an indoor market like many other good Cities have? That's my idea what do you others think? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Thu 13 Jun 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
The Tory blueprint for Southampton had a Fruit & vegetable Market behind the Red Lion opposite the DHSS building.
Why not move it to the Bargate Centre ?
we have stalls outside in front of it & the Bargate move them in as well & have an indoor market like many other good Cities have?
That's my idea what do you others think?
not a blue print loose the fruit and market been at that location longer than i care to remember
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: The Tory blueprint for Southampton had a Fruit & vegetable Market behind the Red Lion opposite the DHSS building. Why not move it to the Bargate Centre ? we have stalls outside in front of it & the Bargate move them in as well & have an indoor market like many other good Cities have? That's my idea what do you others think?[/p][/quote]not a blue print loose the fruit and market been at that location longer than i care to remember southy
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Thu 13 Jun 13

The Phantomerer says...

This so called "Bargate" Centre has been on the decline since 1992. Indeed, I have been warning people that it would soon be closing since 1995, as I foretold: "There is no way it can compete with the East Street Shopping Centre; it will close down in the very near future, be warned." Back then I was poo-pooed, but just look who is doing the pooing now (me).
This so called "Bargate" Centre has been on the decline since 1992. Indeed, I have been warning people that it would soon be closing since 1995, as I foretold: "There is no way it can compete with the East Street Shopping Centre; it will close down in the very near future, be warned." Back then I was poo-pooed, but just look who is doing the pooing now (me). The Phantomerer
  • Score: 0

3:39am Fri 14 Jun 13

dolomiteman says...

Good Looking Man About Town. wrote:
I agree

simple reason why it closed. People only now want to pay to park in southampton when they KNOW exactly what they are in to buy and weigh up the costs... Southampton city council is run by morons who think £2M in parking revenue is more important than the £4M in business rates they loose. Not many people browse-shop anymore, its too expensive.... and the idiots are about to introduce evening car parking charges too which will see restaurants close as well.
People don't browse shops anymore because they can sit at home and do it on the internet.
[quote][p][bold]Good Looking Man About Town.[/bold] wrote: I agree simple reason why it closed. People only now want to pay to park in southampton when they KNOW exactly what they are in to buy and weigh up the costs... Southampton city council is run by morons who think £2M in parking revenue is more important than the £4M in business rates they loose. Not many people browse-shop anymore, its too expensive.... and the idiots are about to introduce evening car parking charges too which will see restaurants close as well.[/p][/quote]People don't browse shops anymore because they can sit at home and do it on the internet. dolomiteman
  • Score: 0

7:48am Fri 14 Jun 13

J.P.M... says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Why don't they let them on penny leases to un-employed who are looking to set up a business.. It would be a big attraction, for all sorts of new, different and interesting business to start up. At least then there would be FOOT fall through, which if all the units were occupied would soon bring in new businesses, and a good spiral of rents could be achieved. As always these centres charge un-reasonably high rent, just like the defunct and demolished Canutes Pavillion at Ocean Village. As the businesses established sensible increases in rent could be negotiated and the centre wouldn't go to rack and ruin... The businesses my even want to offer free labour and skills to improve and maintain the building.... Shops that offer mainstream stuff is just not needed as the Internet offers better prices, but something that attracts passersbys eye and is unusual not easily found online would thrive
Most of the tenants in their were paying no rent just rates and service charge to keep the lights on. No high rents. In fact no rent at all.
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Why don't they let them on penny leases to un-employed who are looking to set up a business.. It would be a big attraction, for all sorts of new, different and interesting business to start up. At least then there would be FOOT fall through, which if all the units were occupied would soon bring in new businesses, and a good spiral of rents could be achieved. As always these centres charge un-reasonably high rent, just like the defunct and demolished Canutes Pavillion at Ocean Village. As the businesses established sensible increases in rent could be negotiated and the centre wouldn't go to rack and ruin... The businesses my even want to offer free labour and skills to improve and maintain the building.... Shops that offer mainstream stuff is just not needed as the Internet offers better prices, but something that attracts passersbys eye and is unusual not easily found online would thrive[/p][/quote]Most of the tenants in their were paying no rent just rates and service charge to keep the lights on. No high rents. In fact no rent at all. J.P.M...
  • Score: 0

8:14am Fri 14 Jun 13

jonnyx says...

The Phantomerer wrote:
This so called "Bargate" Centre has been on the decline since 1992. Indeed, I have been warning people that it would soon be closing since 1995, as I foretold: "There is no way it can compete with the East Street Shopping Centre; it will close down in the very near future, be warned." Back then I was poo-pooed, but just look who is doing the pooing now (me).
wow. you really are a modern day nostradamus aren't you? it only took 18 years after your prediction for it to come true.
[quote][p][bold]The Phantomerer[/bold] wrote: This so called "Bargate" Centre has been on the decline since 1992. Indeed, I have been warning people that it would soon be closing since 1995, as I foretold: "There is no way it can compete with the East Street Shopping Centre; it will close down in the very near future, be warned." Back then I was poo-pooed, but just look who is doing the pooing now (me).[/p][/quote]wow. you really are a modern day nostradamus aren't you? it only took 18 years after your prediction for it to come true. jonnyx
  • Score: 2

8:24am Fri 14 Jun 13

elvisimo says...

loosehead wrote:
The Tory blueprint for Southampton had a Fruit & vegetable Market behind the Red Lion opposite the DHSS building.
Why not move it to the Bargate Centre ?
we have stalls outside in front of it & the Bargate move them in as well & have an indoor market like many other good Cities have?
That's my idea what do you others think?
markets "down south" don't seem to work. Head up north to the likes of Sheffield and Bury and they still trade very well.
Problem with the bargate is the configuration is a disaster. Historic wall one side and east street service yard the other.
The guys at parkridge had bought the investment of the Debenhams and their plan was for a new mall running down to a new anchor and a downsized Debenhams (they have 150,000 sq.ft.). Obviously they bought at the worse possible time.
Its with the administrators so the council will have no say, they are marketing it as three separate entities, bargate east, bargate west and the mall.
Problem with a market is firstly they could not afford the rates liability let alone service charge and some sort of rent and secondly, we have a generation of lazy moaners who complain about anything but do nothing, they are used to waddling off to the "evil" Tesco extra , parking as close to the door as possible and buying as many ready meals as they can. All the bluster about supporting local traders comes to nothing when compared with the inconvenience of having to go to more than one shop.
For a market (wherever) to succeed there would have to be a wholesale mindset change - very unlikely.

As for the future of Bargate, I cant see what anyone would do with it, it is the wrong configuration for retail, restaurants are coming in west quay and its not an ideal site for residential. That said you can pick the scheme up for sub £2m which is peanuts for a central development site of this size so someone may buy it and landbank it for a while.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: The Tory blueprint for Southampton had a Fruit & vegetable Market behind the Red Lion opposite the DHSS building. Why not move it to the Bargate Centre ? we have stalls outside in front of it & the Bargate move them in as well & have an indoor market like many other good Cities have? That's my idea what do you others think?[/p][/quote]markets "down south" don't seem to work. Head up north to the likes of Sheffield and Bury and they still trade very well. Problem with the bargate is the configuration is a disaster. Historic wall one side and east street service yard the other. The guys at parkridge had bought the investment of the Debenhams and their plan was for a new mall running down to a new anchor and a downsized Debenhams (they have 150,000 sq.ft.). Obviously they bought at the worse possible time. Its with the administrators so the council will have no say, they are marketing it as three separate entities, bargate east, bargate west and the mall. Problem with a market is firstly they could not afford the rates liability let alone service charge and some sort of rent and secondly, we have a generation of lazy moaners who complain about anything but do nothing, they are used to waddling off to the "evil" Tesco extra , parking as close to the door as possible and buying as many ready meals as they can. All the bluster about supporting local traders comes to nothing when compared with the inconvenience of having to go to more than one shop. For a market (wherever) to succeed there would have to be a wholesale mindset change - very unlikely. As for the future of Bargate, I cant see what anyone would do with it, it is the wrong configuration for retail, restaurants are coming in west quay and its not an ideal site for residential. That said you can pick the scheme up for sub £2m which is peanuts for a central development site of this size so someone may buy it and landbank it for a while. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

8:40am Fri 14 Jun 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

dolomiteman wrote:
Good Looking Man About Town. wrote:
I agree

simple reason why it closed. People only now want to pay to park in southampton when they KNOW exactly what they are in to buy and weigh up the costs... Southampton city council is run by morons who think £2M in parking revenue is more important than the £4M in business rates they loose. Not many people browse-shop anymore, its too expensive.... and the idiots are about to introduce evening car parking charges too which will see restaurants close as well.
People don't browse shops anymore because they can sit at home and do it on the internet.
Some people can do that but not all. Selfish attitude and ayway I sometimes like to see what I am buying before I decide to buy. Perhaps it could be turned into an Indoor Market, but no doubt the Traders would be priced out of it. Two major problems, high parking charges are driving customers elsewhere, deteriorating Public Transport is reducing the ability of alternative travel.
[quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Good Looking Man About Town.[/bold] wrote: I agree simple reason why it closed. People only now want to pay to park in southampton when they KNOW exactly what they are in to buy and weigh up the costs... Southampton city council is run by morons who think £2M in parking revenue is more important than the £4M in business rates they loose. Not many people browse-shop anymore, its too expensive.... and the idiots are about to introduce evening car parking charges too which will see restaurants close as well.[/p][/quote]People don't browse shops anymore because they can sit at home and do it on the internet.[/p][/quote]Some people can do that but not all. Selfish attitude and ayway I sometimes like to see what I am buying before I decide to buy. Perhaps it could be turned into an Indoor Market, but no doubt the Traders would be priced out of it. Two major problems, high parking charges are driving customers elsewhere, deteriorating Public Transport is reducing the ability of alternative travel. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

8:48am Fri 14 Jun 13

peachy1 says...

City has had it

Leisure world will be next to close
City has had it Leisure world will be next to close peachy1
  • Score: 0

11:27am Fri 14 Jun 13

one in a million says...

Sign of the times; Southampton is a nightmare to get into/ parking is expensive and doesn't have any unique selling points to encourage shoppers to visit. Wander round the same shops you can find in any other city or shop online? Hard one that.
Sign of the times; Southampton is a nightmare to get into/ parking is expensive and doesn't have any unique selling points to encourage shoppers to visit. Wander round the same shops you can find in any other city or shop online? Hard one that. one in a million
  • Score: 0

11:42am Fri 14 Jun 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Turn it into an entertainment center, give kids and young people somewhere to entertain themselves instead of causing trouble to entertain themselves.
Turn it into an entertainment center, give kids and young people somewhere to entertain themselves instead of causing trouble to entertain themselves. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:44am Fri 14 Jun 13

seven777. says...

For thousands of years society has been set up around local and city centres being the place where trade happens, live on the outskirts travel to the centre. In the last decade that has started to change and will continue at an unstoppable pace, city centres have yet to recognise nothing from a way of life we are used to will survive, city centres will become residential and trade will be in the ether not in the high street.
For thousands of years society has been set up around local and city centres being the place where trade happens, live on the outskirts travel to the centre. In the last decade that has started to change and will continue at an unstoppable pace, city centres have yet to recognise nothing from a way of life we are used to will survive, city centres will become residential and trade will be in the ether not in the high street. seven777.
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Fri 14 Jun 13

sarfhamton says...

Bring back Jongulers!
Bring back Jongulers! sarfhamton
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Fri 14 Jun 13

froots says...

The Phantomerer wrote:
This so called "Bargate" Centre has been on the decline since 1992. Indeed, I have been warning people that it would soon be closing since 1995, as I foretold: "There is no way it can compete with the East Street Shopping Centre; it will close down in the very near future, be warned." Back then I was poo-pooed, but just look who is doing the pooing now (me).
Why "so-called" Bargate? That's what it IS called.
[quote][p][bold]The Phantomerer[/bold] wrote: This so called "Bargate" Centre has been on the decline since 1992. Indeed, I have been warning people that it would soon be closing since 1995, as I foretold: "There is no way it can compete with the East Street Shopping Centre; it will close down in the very near future, be warned." Back then I was poo-pooed, but just look who is doing the pooing now (me).[/p][/quote]Why "so-called" Bargate? That's what it IS called. froots
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Fri 14 Jun 13

SPIKEISLANDTRADER says...

Ideal area for a indoor market , unique sellers not the chain s of usual highly priced wares , local talented traders , to sell direct . This could attract the wacky & weird but also not the norm of city shopping . Add a couple of bistro / cafe s not the usual chain of over priced tasteless venue s . Add a touch of DIFFERENT or another ghost town looms ever so closer . These work in the interesting city s and could be the savoir .
Ideal area for a indoor market , unique sellers not the chain s of usual highly priced wares , local talented traders , to sell direct . This could attract the wacky & weird but also not the norm of city shopping . Add a couple of bistro / cafe s not the usual chain of over priced tasteless venue s . Add a touch of DIFFERENT or another ghost town looms ever so closer . These work in the interesting city s and could be the savoir . SPIKEISLANDTRADER
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Fri 14 Jun 13

loosehead says...

elvisimo wrote:
loosehead wrote:
The Tory blueprint for Southampton had a Fruit & vegetable Market behind the Red Lion opposite the DHSS building.
Why not move it to the Bargate Centre ?
we have stalls outside in front of it & the Bargate move them in as well & have an indoor market like many other good Cities have?
That's my idea what do you others think?
markets "down south" don't seem to work. Head up north to the likes of Sheffield and Bury and they still trade very well.
Problem with the bargate is the configuration is a disaster. Historic wall one side and east street service yard the other.
The guys at parkridge had bought the investment of the Debenhams and their plan was for a new mall running down to a new anchor and a downsized Debenhams (they have 150,000 sq.ft.). Obviously they bought at the worse possible time.
Its with the administrators so the council will have no say, they are marketing it as three separate entities, bargate east, bargate west and the mall.
Problem with a market is firstly they could not afford the rates liability let alone service charge and some sort of rent and secondly, we have a generation of lazy moaners who complain about anything but do nothing, they are used to waddling off to the "evil" Tesco extra , parking as close to the door as possible and buying as many ready meals as they can. All the bluster about supporting local traders comes to nothing when compared with the inconvenience of having to go to more than one shop.
For a market (wherever) to succeed there would have to be a wholesale mindset change - very unlikely.

As for the future of Bargate, I cant see what anyone would do with it, it is the wrong configuration for retail, restaurants are coming in west quay and its not an ideal site for residential. That said you can pick the scheme up for sub £2m which is peanuts for a central development site of this size so someone may buy it and landbank it for a while.
Talking to a few traders this morning they would love a permanent under cover market in the Bargate
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: The Tory blueprint for Southampton had a Fruit & vegetable Market behind the Red Lion opposite the DHSS building. Why not move it to the Bargate Centre ? we have stalls outside in front of it & the Bargate move them in as well & have an indoor market like many other good Cities have? That's my idea what do you others think?[/p][/quote]markets "down south" don't seem to work. Head up north to the likes of Sheffield and Bury and they still trade very well. Problem with the bargate is the configuration is a disaster. Historic wall one side and east street service yard the other. The guys at parkridge had bought the investment of the Debenhams and their plan was for a new mall running down to a new anchor and a downsized Debenhams (they have 150,000 sq.ft.). Obviously they bought at the worse possible time. Its with the administrators so the council will have no say, they are marketing it as three separate entities, bargate east, bargate west and the mall. Problem with a market is firstly they could not afford the rates liability let alone service charge and some sort of rent and secondly, we have a generation of lazy moaners who complain about anything but do nothing, they are used to waddling off to the "evil" Tesco extra , parking as close to the door as possible and buying as many ready meals as they can. All the bluster about supporting local traders comes to nothing when compared with the inconvenience of having to go to more than one shop. For a market (wherever) to succeed there would have to be a wholesale mindset change - very unlikely. As for the future of Bargate, I cant see what anyone would do with it, it is the wrong configuration for retail, restaurants are coming in west quay and its not an ideal site for residential. That said you can pick the scheme up for sub £2m which is peanuts for a central development site of this size so someone may buy it and landbank it for a while.[/p][/quote]Talking to a few traders this morning they would love a permanent under cover market in the Bargate loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Fri 14 Jun 13

Ozmosis says...

The Phantomerer wrote:
This so called "Bargate" Centre has been on the decline since 1992. Indeed, I have been warning people that it would soon be closing since 1995, as I foretold: "There is no way it can compete with the East Street Shopping Centre; it will close down in the very near future, be warned." Back then I was poo-pooed, but just look who is doing the pooing now (me).
Yes, you're so full of your own self-importance that some is leaking out of your rectum... ;-)
[quote][p][bold]The Phantomerer[/bold] wrote: This so called "Bargate" Centre has been on the decline since 1992. Indeed, I have been warning people that it would soon be closing since 1995, as I foretold: "There is no way it can compete with the East Street Shopping Centre; it will close down in the very near future, be warned." Back then I was poo-pooed, but just look who is doing the pooing now (me).[/p][/quote]Yes, you're so full of your own self-importance that some is leaking out of your rectum... ;-) Ozmosis
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Fri 14 Jun 13

kingnotail says...

sarfhamton wrote:
Bring back Jongulers!
Bring back correct spelling!
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: Bring back Jongulers![/p][/quote]Bring back correct spelling! kingnotail
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Fri 14 Jun 13

kingnotail says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi
nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse
x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Fri 14 Jun 13

elvisimo says...

kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi

nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse

x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Fri 14 Jun 13

kingnotail says...

elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi


nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse


x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really.

Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication!
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.[/p][/quote]Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really. Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication! kingnotail
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Fri 14 Jun 13

kingnotail says...

PS cinemas, bars, restaurants, nightclubs etc make money. Ice rinks, fruit and veg markets etc simply don't.
PS cinemas, bars, restaurants, nightclubs etc make money. Ice rinks, fruit and veg markets etc simply don't. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Fri 14 Jun 13

elvisimo says...

kingnotail wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi



nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse



x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really.

Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication!
the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc

None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade.

All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.[/p][/quote]Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really. Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication![/p][/quote]the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade. All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Fri 14 Jun 13

owen_thesaints says...

Would be a good site for a musuem, perhaps a maritime museum, next to the iconic Bargate, maybe attract more visitors there. We could even call it Sea City Museum...

This has been failing for years, coudn't Royston have got it at a knock down price instead of extending the Civic Centre?
Would be a good site for a musuem, perhaps a maritime museum, next to the iconic Bargate, maybe attract more visitors there. We could even call it Sea City Museum... This has been failing for years, coudn't Royston have got it at a knock down price instead of extending the Civic Centre? owen_thesaints
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Fri 14 Jun 13

kingnotail says...

peachy1 wrote:
City has had it

Leisure world will be next to close
Good, the place is a sh1thole! Not even much there - a dated, run-down cinema, a casino, a tacky 'gentleman's club', a chav-fest nightclub and a small branch of Frankie and Benny's! All wrapped up in a big corrugated iron box. Ooh, I'm literally quivering with excitement. The derelict pub next door really adds to the stale atmosphere of disappointment too.

Hopefully Watermark will represent a better effort at an entertainment complex! We can only dream...
[quote][p][bold]peachy1[/bold] wrote: City has had it Leisure world will be next to close[/p][/quote]Good, the place is a sh1thole! Not even much there - a dated, run-down cinema, a casino, a tacky 'gentleman's club', a chav-fest nightclub and a small branch of Frankie and Benny's! All wrapped up in a big corrugated iron box. Ooh, I'm literally quivering with excitement. The derelict pub next door really adds to the stale atmosphere of disappointment too. Hopefully Watermark will represent a better effort at an entertainment complex! We can only dream... kingnotail
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Fri 14 Jun 13

230 repeat please says...

elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi




nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse




x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really.

Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication!
the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc

None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade.

All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.
People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.[/p][/quote]Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really. Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication![/p][/quote]the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade. All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.[/p][/quote]People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer. 230 repeat please
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Fri 14 Jun 13

230 repeat please says...

230 repeat please wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi





nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse





x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really.

Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication!
the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc

None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade.

All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.
People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.
Oops sorry, meant Hammersons
[quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.[/p][/quote]Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really. Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication![/p][/quote]the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade. All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.[/p][/quote]People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.[/p][/quote]Oops sorry, meant Hammersons 230 repeat please
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Fri 14 Jun 13

lowe esteem says...

Southampton used to be 'visitor friendly' -now it's a suicidal and dumbed down shopping town with low calibre drinking outlets.
You've got to start addressing the culture to arrest any decline.
Get the right mix of tasteful businesses that invite visitors (not all straightforward retail 'houses' ) and get a properly active tourist hub to generate and recycle a healthy footfall. Encourage your big blue chip and flagship players so they don't feel peripheral- embrace and include ABP, Saints De Vere Sunseeker Red Funnel and Festival for a starter.
Southampton used to be 'visitor friendly' -now it's a suicidal and dumbed down shopping town with low calibre drinking outlets. You've got to start addressing the culture to arrest any decline. Get the right mix of tasteful businesses that invite visitors (not all straightforward retail 'houses' ) and get a properly active tourist hub to generate and recycle a healthy footfall. Encourage your big blue chip and flagship players so they don't feel peripheral- embrace and include ABP, Saints De Vere Sunseeker Red Funnel and Festival for a starter. lowe esteem
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Fri 14 Jun 13

Dan Soton says...

What to do.. a neglected part of the City, less than a mile from the Civic Centre.


what a coincidence, the City Council just Ok'd Oxbow's new Sulphur (egg) plant, that also will be less than a mile from the Civic Centre..

got it, how about turning the old Bargate Centre into a Pig Slaughterhouse ( love the smell of ham and eggs ), putting ham back into Southampton, can't see how anyone could object to that...



read on if you think that's a load of old crap...



Oxbow probably spent years scaring this planet earth looking for a place mug enough to allow them the space to build their new Sulphur Plant, Southampton Ok'd it and its less than a 600m from the City's newest hotels and shops


Oxbow's HQ is on the outskirts of Houston, in a master-planned community called The Woodlands.

The Woodlands wouldn't allow Oxbow to build a Sulphur Plant within a 50 mile radius of their precious award winning Town Center.


---



http://www.thewoodla
nds.com/nature/envir
onment/awards.html


---



http://www.thewoodla
nds.com/
What to do.. a neglected part of the City, less than a mile from the Civic Centre. what a coincidence, the City Council just Ok'd Oxbow's new Sulphur (egg) plant, that also will be less than a mile from the Civic Centre.. got it, how about turning the old Bargate Centre into a Pig Slaughterhouse ( love the smell of ham and eggs ), putting ham back into Southampton, can't see how anyone could object to that... read on if you think that's a load of old crap... Oxbow probably spent years scaring this planet earth looking for a place mug enough to allow them the space to build their new Sulphur Plant, Southampton Ok'd it and its less than a 600m from the City's newest hotels and shops Oxbow's HQ is on the outskirts of Houston, in a master-planned community called The Woodlands. The Woodlands wouldn't allow Oxbow to build a Sulphur Plant within a 50 mile radius of their precious award winning Town Center. --- http://www.thewoodla nds.com/nature/envir onment/awards.html --- http://www.thewoodla nds.com/ Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Fri 14 Jun 13

J.P.M... says...

230 repeat please wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi






nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse






x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really.

Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication!
the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc

None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade.

All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.
People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.
Oops sorry, meant Hammersons
Hmm slightly different demographic in guildford I would suggest. We need to get into a level playing field to serve the people who live here. Don't run before you can walk. Not sure what you want, Gordon Ramsey ? Marco piere white? Remember some southampton residents can't use cutlery . What is planned is a massive step in the right direction
[quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.[/p][/quote]Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really. Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication![/p][/quote]the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade. All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.[/p][/quote]People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.[/p][/quote]Oops sorry, meant Hammersons[/p][/quote]Hmm slightly different demographic in guildford I would suggest. We need to get into a level playing field to serve the people who live here. Don't run before you can walk. Not sure what you want, Gordon Ramsey ? Marco piere white? Remember some southampton residents can't use cutlery . What is planned is a massive step in the right direction J.P.M...
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Fri 14 Jun 13

230 repeat please says...

J.P.M... wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi







nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse







x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really.

Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication!
the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc

None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade.

All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.
People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.
Oops sorry, meant Hammersons
Hmm slightly different demographic in guildford I would suggest. We need to get into a level playing field to serve the people who live here. Don't run before you can walk. Not sure what you want, Gordon Ramsey ? Marco piere white? Remember some southampton residents can't use cutlery . What is planned is a massive step in the right direction
What is wrong with wanting a better playing field from the outset, especially if it will then attract even better investment for the city in the future? For clarity, I don't want more of the same shopping and food outlets that are in every other town and city, but a different leisure attraction that will bring people in from other areas as well as providing an alternative for the residents of Southampton. The demographics are that many residents of Southampton these days are students and young people in further education. Their leisure is unlikely to include regular visits to luxury cinemas offering dining experiences, or the other planned restaurants of whatever quality, because of the cost. The same applies to families.
Shopping habits are changing, as people use the internet more, and to be sustainable a development needs to offer something different. I don't deny that something needs to be built to improve this derelict area, but the existing units in West Quay are not all full and the Bargate Centre has been boarded up, how can building more of the same be a massive step in the right direction?
[quote][p][bold]J.P.M...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.[/p][/quote]Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really. Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication![/p][/quote]the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade. All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.[/p][/quote]People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.[/p][/quote]Oops sorry, meant Hammersons[/p][/quote]Hmm slightly different demographic in guildford I would suggest. We need to get into a level playing field to serve the people who live here. Don't run before you can walk. Not sure what you want, Gordon Ramsey ? Marco piere white? Remember some southampton residents can't use cutlery . What is planned is a massive step in the right direction[/p][/quote]What is wrong with wanting a better playing field from the outset, especially if it will then attract even better investment for the city in the future? For clarity, I don't want more of the same shopping and food outlets that are in every other town and city, but a different leisure attraction that will bring people in from other areas as well as providing an alternative for the residents of Southampton. The demographics are that many residents of Southampton these days are students and young people in further education. Their leisure is unlikely to include regular visits to luxury cinemas offering dining experiences, or the other planned restaurants of whatever quality, because of the cost. The same applies to families. Shopping habits are changing, as people use the internet more, and to be sustainable a development needs to offer something different. I don't deny that something needs to be built to improve this derelict area, but the existing units in West Quay are not all full and the Bargate Centre has been boarded up, how can building more of the same be a massive step in the right direction? 230 repeat please
  • Score: 0

8:45am Sat 15 Jun 13

J.P.M... says...

230 repeat please wrote:
J.P.M... wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi








nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse








x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really.

Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication!
the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc

None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade.

All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.
People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.
Oops sorry, meant Hammersons
Hmm slightly different demographic in guildford I would suggest. We need to get into a level playing field to serve the people who live here. Don't run before you can walk. Not sure what you want, Gordon Ramsey ? Marco piere white? Remember some southampton residents can't use cutlery . What is planned is a massive step in the right direction
What is wrong with wanting a better playing field from the outset, especially if it will then attract even better investment for the city in the future? For clarity, I don't want more of the same shopping and food outlets that are in every other town and city, but a different leisure attraction that will bring people in from other areas as well as providing an alternative for the residents of Southampton. The demographics are that many residents of Southampton these days are students and young people in further education. Their leisure is unlikely to include regular visits to luxury cinemas offering dining experiences, or the other planned restaurants of whatever quality, because of the cost. The same applies to families.
Shopping habits are changing, as people use the internet more, and to be sustainable a development needs to offer something different. I don't deny that something needs to be built to improve this derelict area, but the existing units in West Quay are not all full and the Bargate Centre has been boarded up, how can building more of the same be a massive step in the right direction?
So you say what you don't want. What do you want and more importantly who is going to pay for it. Property development , whether west quay or bargate is only about making a sustainable property investment so no you can't have an ice rink, you can't have little local shops and restaurants (had them in the past and closed down) they don't make money and you can't finance them.
[quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.P.M...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.[/p][/quote]Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really. Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication![/p][/quote]the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade. All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.[/p][/quote]People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.[/p][/quote]Oops sorry, meant Hammersons[/p][/quote]Hmm slightly different demographic in guildford I would suggest. We need to get into a level playing field to serve the people who live here. Don't run before you can walk. Not sure what you want, Gordon Ramsey ? Marco piere white? Remember some southampton residents can't use cutlery . What is planned is a massive step in the right direction[/p][/quote]What is wrong with wanting a better playing field from the outset, especially if it will then attract even better investment for the city in the future? For clarity, I don't want more of the same shopping and food outlets that are in every other town and city, but a different leisure attraction that will bring people in from other areas as well as providing an alternative for the residents of Southampton. The demographics are that many residents of Southampton these days are students and young people in further education. Their leisure is unlikely to include regular visits to luxury cinemas offering dining experiences, or the other planned restaurants of whatever quality, because of the cost. The same applies to families. Shopping habits are changing, as people use the internet more, and to be sustainable a development needs to offer something different. I don't deny that something needs to be built to improve this derelict area, but the existing units in West Quay are not all full and the Bargate Centre has been boarded up, how can building more of the same be a massive step in the right direction?[/p][/quote]So you say what you don't want. What do you want and more importantly who is going to pay for it. Property development , whether west quay or bargate is only about making a sustainable property investment so no you can't have an ice rink, you can't have little local shops and restaurants (had them in the past and closed down) they don't make money and you can't finance them. J.P.M...
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Sat 15 Jun 13

G Harfield says...

Here is a video of the Bargate Shopping Centre filmed by my Grandparents in 1993: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=MOEIV3zc
3tg
Here is a video of the Bargate Shopping Centre filmed by my Grandparents in 1993: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=MOEIV3zc 3tg G Harfield
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Sat 15 Jun 13

230 repeat please says...

Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.
Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema. 230 repeat please
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Sat 15 Jun 13

kingnotail says...

230 repeat please wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi





nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse





x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really.

Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication!
the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc

None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade.

All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.
People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.
Doesn't want what most other cities have, but offers no idea of any alternatives.
[quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.[/p][/quote]Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really. Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication![/p][/quote]the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade. All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.[/p][/quote]People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.[/p][/quote]Doesn't want what most other cities have, but offers no idea of any alternatives. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Sat 15 Jun 13

230 repeat please says...

kingnotail wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi






nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse






x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really.

Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication!
the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc

None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade.

All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.
People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.
Doesn't want what most other cities have, but offers no idea of any alternatives.
I take it you haven't bothered to read all of the posts, so I quote from my post above, "A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same." You may not agree with it, but
it is an idea of an alternative.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.[/p][/quote]Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really. Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication![/p][/quote]the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade. All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.[/p][/quote]People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.[/p][/quote]Doesn't want what most other cities have, but offers no idea of any alternatives.[/p][/quote]I take it you haven't bothered to read all of the posts, so I quote from my post above, "A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same." You may not agree with it, but it is an idea of an alternative. 230 repeat please
  • Score: 0

12:23am Sun 16 Jun 13

WoolstonSean says...

lowe esteem wrote:
Southampton used to be 'visitor friendly' -now it's a suicidal and dumbed down shopping town with low calibre drinking outlets. You've got to start addressing the culture to arrest any decline. Get the right mix of tasteful businesses that invite visitors (not all straightforward retail 'houses' ) and get a properly active tourist hub to generate and recycle a healthy footfall. Encourage your big blue chip and flagship players so they don't feel peripheral- embrace and include ABP, Saints De Vere Sunseeker Red Funnel and Festival for a starter.
I take it you actually mean CARNIVAL UK rather then FESTIVAL!

Sunseeker are based in Poole not in Southampton.
[quote][p][bold]lowe esteem[/bold] wrote: Southampton used to be 'visitor friendly' -now it's a suicidal and dumbed down shopping town with low calibre drinking outlets. You've got to start addressing the culture to arrest any decline. Get the right mix of tasteful businesses that invite visitors (not all straightforward retail 'houses' ) and get a properly active tourist hub to generate and recycle a healthy footfall. Encourage your big blue chip and flagship players so they don't feel peripheral- embrace and include ABP, Saints De Vere Sunseeker Red Funnel and Festival for a starter.[/p][/quote]I take it you actually mean CARNIVAL UK rather then FESTIVAL! Sunseeker are based in Poole not in Southampton. WoolstonSean
  • Score: 0

9:20am Sun 16 Jun 13

J.P.M... says...

230 repeat please wrote:
Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.
Actually, their 'focus' is retail and leisure having sold their office portfolio. Anyway, as you have pointed out correctly developers bull things to make money based on the covenant strength of the potential tenant and their lease length.
They also build things that they think will attract people otherwise not tenants and no investment value. As it happens what they are proposing as an overall scheme will benefit southampton. No one feels grateful to Hammerson, they are now going to build I because they they they can get it let.
Tenants in bargate may well have made money as they paid no rent. Just service charge and rates to keep the liability away from Parkridge and subsequently the administrators. It is not a financially viable model.
Look at the arenas etc that were built in Liverpool, Newcastle sheffield etc and check how they were funded. EU or government. Just saying that a development is financially viable does not make it so. Not exactly beating developers off with a stick. Get your head round the basics of property investment and you will the have your answer to why you will never see a multi use value unless the council or government put their hands in their pocket.
[quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.[/p][/quote]Actually, their 'focus' is retail and leisure having sold their office portfolio. Anyway, as you have pointed out correctly developers bull things to make money based on the covenant strength of the potential tenant and their lease length. They also build things that they think will attract people otherwise not tenants and no investment value. As it happens what they are proposing as an overall scheme will benefit southampton. No one feels grateful to Hammerson, they are now going to build I because they they they can get it let. Tenants in bargate may well have made money as they paid no rent. Just service charge and rates to keep the liability away from Parkridge and subsequently the administrators. It is not a financially viable model. Look at the arenas etc that were built in Liverpool, Newcastle sheffield etc and check how they were funded. EU or government. Just saying that a development is financially viable does not make it so. Not exactly beating developers off with a stick. Get your head round the basics of property investment and you will the have your answer to why you will never see a multi use value unless the council or government put their hands in their pocket. J.P.M...
  • Score: 0

2:08pm Sun 16 Jun 13

230 repeat please says...

J.P.M... wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.
Actually, their 'focus' is retail and leisure having sold their office portfolio. Anyway, as you have pointed out correctly developers bull things to make money based on the covenant strength of the potential tenant and their lease length.
They also build things that they think will attract people otherwise not tenants and no investment value. As it happens what they are proposing as an overall scheme will benefit southampton. No one feels grateful to Hammerson, they are now going to build I because they they they can get it let.
Tenants in bargate may well have made money as they paid no rent. Just service charge and rates to keep the liability away from Parkridge and subsequently the administrators. It is not a financially viable model.
Look at the arenas etc that were built in Liverpool, Newcastle sheffield etc and check how they were funded. EU or government. Just saying that a development is financially viable does not make it so. Not exactly beating developers off with a stick. Get your head round the basics of property investment and you will the have your answer to why you will never see a multi use value unless the council or government put their hands in their pocket.
Where to begin? Hammerson's focus is shopping and leisure, BUT their definition of leisure is, as I said, restaurants and cinemas, some of which; like the one proposed for Southampton, are the luxury type where food is also served. If Southampton is ever to improve on its poor record for people dying prematurely from poor diet, we need to encourage other forms of leisure and resist the temptation to make a fast buck by building restaurants and bars, and offering 3 course dining experiences while people watch a film. We have fabulous parks and outdoor spaces, but much less to offer families for exercise in the wet/cold. A multi use centre could offer that, and the ability to host conferences and exhibitions would attract people to the city and boost the tourism and retail economy, as well as raising Southampton's profile nationally, especially if it was of sufficient size that it could attract top performing acts for concerts. My point is, that Hammerson's would not even consider this type of venture, because it does not fall within their definition of leisure.
The reason we are not beating developers off with a stick is, because the Council signed a deal years ago with Hammersons to do the development, preventing other developers putting other ideas forward.
Hammersons said in 2004 that they supported the idea of leisure facilities in Southampton, but not on the site of WQ3. So, will our council negotiate any financial support from them to develop leisure facilities as a condition of allowing the plans for WQ3? I doubt it, as they only negotiated a refurbishment of an office block in return for allowing a new supermarket. This is the basics of property development and investment today. You have cited Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool as receiving EU and Government funding, but there are many other examples of developments, such as those in Milton Keynes and Streatham, where proper leisure facilities are being funded by contributions from supermarket development in the area, as a condition of planning being approved. It works elsewhere, and could work in Southampton, with sponsorship from the industries that could benefit from a multi use venue, and potentially grants from sporting bodies if an alternative sporting option such as skating could be offered occasionally, the council and/or government would not have to contribute.
Although it is not an ideal site, perhaps as a condition of planning for WQ3, Hammersons should strike a deal with Parkridge for a multi use venue to be developed in the Bargate Centre
[quote][p][bold]J.P.M...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.[/p][/quote]Actually, their 'focus' is retail and leisure having sold their office portfolio. Anyway, as you have pointed out correctly developers bull things to make money based on the covenant strength of the potential tenant and their lease length. They also build things that they think will attract people otherwise not tenants and no investment value. As it happens what they are proposing as an overall scheme will benefit southampton. No one feels grateful to Hammerson, they are now going to build I because they they they can get it let. Tenants in bargate may well have made money as they paid no rent. Just service charge and rates to keep the liability away from Parkridge and subsequently the administrators. It is not a financially viable model. Look at the arenas etc that were built in Liverpool, Newcastle sheffield etc and check how they were funded. EU or government. Just saying that a development is financially viable does not make it so. Not exactly beating developers off with a stick. Get your head round the basics of property investment and you will the have your answer to why you will never see a multi use value unless the council or government put their hands in their pocket.[/p][/quote]Where to begin? Hammerson's focus is shopping and leisure, BUT their definition of leisure is, as I said, restaurants and cinemas, some of which; like the one proposed for Southampton, are the luxury type where food is also served. If Southampton is ever to improve on its poor record for people dying prematurely from poor diet, we need to encourage other forms of leisure and resist the temptation to make a fast buck by building restaurants and bars, and offering 3 course dining experiences while people watch a film. We have fabulous parks and outdoor spaces, but much less to offer families for exercise in the wet/cold. A multi use centre could offer that, and the ability to host conferences and exhibitions would attract people to the city and boost the tourism and retail economy, as well as raising Southampton's profile nationally, especially if it was of sufficient size that it could attract top performing acts for concerts. My point is, that Hammerson's would not even consider this type of venture, because it does not fall within their definition of leisure. The reason we are not beating developers off with a stick is, because the Council signed a deal years ago with Hammersons to do the development, preventing other developers putting other ideas forward. Hammersons said in 2004 that they supported the idea of leisure facilities in Southampton, but not on the site of WQ3. So, will our council negotiate any financial support from them to develop leisure facilities as a condition of allowing the plans for WQ3? I doubt it, as they only negotiated a refurbishment of an office block in return for allowing a new supermarket. This is the basics of property development and investment today. You have cited Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool as receiving EU and Government funding, but there are many other examples of developments, such as those in Milton Keynes and Streatham, where proper leisure facilities are being funded by contributions from supermarket development in the area, as a condition of planning being approved. It works elsewhere, and could work in Southampton, with sponsorship from the industries that could benefit from a multi use venue, and potentially grants from sporting bodies if an alternative sporting option such as skating could be offered occasionally, the council and/or government would not have to contribute. Although it is not an ideal site, perhaps as a condition of planning for WQ3, Hammersons should strike a deal with Parkridge for a multi use venue to be developed in the Bargate Centre 230 repeat please
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Sun 16 Jun 13

J.P.M... says...

230 repeat please wrote:
J.P.M... wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.
Actually, their 'focus' is retail and leisure having sold their office portfolio. Anyway, as you have pointed out correctly developers bull things to make money based on the covenant strength of the potential tenant and their lease length.
They also build things that they think will attract people otherwise not tenants and no investment value. As it happens what they are proposing as an overall scheme will benefit southampton. No one feels grateful to Hammerson, they are now going to build I because they they they can get it let.
Tenants in bargate may well have made money as they paid no rent. Just service charge and rates to keep the liability away from Parkridge and subsequently the administrators. It is not a financially viable model.
Look at the arenas etc that were built in Liverpool, Newcastle sheffield etc and check how they were funded. EU or government. Just saying that a development is financially viable does not make it so. Not exactly beating developers off with a stick. Get your head round the basics of property investment and you will the have your answer to why you will never see a multi use value unless the council or government put their hands in their pocket.
Where to begin? Hammerson's focus is shopping and leisure, BUT their definition of leisure is, as I said, restaurants and cinemas, some of which; like the one proposed for Southampton, are the luxury type where food is also served. If Southampton is ever to improve on its poor record for people dying prematurely from poor diet, we need to encourage other forms of leisure and resist the temptation to make a fast buck by building restaurants and bars, and offering 3 course dining experiences while people watch a film. We have fabulous parks and outdoor spaces, but much less to offer families for exercise in the wet/cold. A multi use centre could offer that, and the ability to host conferences and exhibitions would attract people to the city and boost the tourism and retail economy, as well as raising Southampton's profile nationally, especially if it was of sufficient size that it could attract top performing acts for concerts. My point is, that Hammerson's would not even consider this type of venture, because it does not fall within their definition of leisure.
The reason we are not beating developers off with a stick is, because the Council signed a deal years ago with Hammersons to do the development, preventing other developers putting other ideas forward.
Hammersons said in 2004 that they supported the idea of leisure facilities in Southampton, but not on the site of WQ3. So, will our council negotiate any financial support from them to develop leisure facilities as a condition of allowing the plans for WQ3? I doubt it, as they only negotiated a refurbishment of an office block in return for allowing a new supermarket. This is the basics of property development and investment today. You have cited Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool as receiving EU and Government funding, but there are many other examples of developments, such as those in Milton Keynes and Streatham, where proper leisure facilities are being funded by contributions from supermarket development in the area, as a condition of planning being approved. It works elsewhere, and could work in Southampton, with sponsorship from the industries that could benefit from a multi use venue, and potentially grants from sporting bodies if an alternative sporting option such as skating could be offered occasionally, the council and/or government would not have to contribute.
Although it is not an ideal site, perhaps as a condition of planning for WQ3, Hammersons should strike a deal with Parkridge for a multi use venue to be developed in the Bargate Centre
You are referring to section 106 agreements. These only work when they are in scale and proportion to the development in question. So if phase three west quay will cost £35m to build out, asking a developer to chuck, let's say conservatively £5m -7m wipes out any profit for phase three and therefore the development doesn't happen.

As you have pointed out Hammerson are there to make money . Not look into a catchments diet!

Property and sites go to their best highest use.

This Is private development and whatever happens to bargate will be private development. If councils are too greedy and try and blackmail developers they simply move on to the next project.

You need to get an understanding of what these things costs. Allowing a supermarket for 'only' refurbishing an office block- what do you expect?!! How much is that office refurbishment in terms of the GDV? They are property companies not charities!!
[quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.P.M...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.[/p][/quote]Actually, their 'focus' is retail and leisure having sold their office portfolio. Anyway, as you have pointed out correctly developers bull things to make money based on the covenant strength of the potential tenant and their lease length. They also build things that they think will attract people otherwise not tenants and no investment value. As it happens what they are proposing as an overall scheme will benefit southampton. No one feels grateful to Hammerson, they are now going to build I because they they they can get it let. Tenants in bargate may well have made money as they paid no rent. Just service charge and rates to keep the liability away from Parkridge and subsequently the administrators. It is not a financially viable model. Look at the arenas etc that were built in Liverpool, Newcastle sheffield etc and check how they were funded. EU or government. Just saying that a development is financially viable does not make it so. Not exactly beating developers off with a stick. Get your head round the basics of property investment and you will the have your answer to why you will never see a multi use value unless the council or government put their hands in their pocket.[/p][/quote]Where to begin? Hammerson's focus is shopping and leisure, BUT their definition of leisure is, as I said, restaurants and cinemas, some of which; like the one proposed for Southampton, are the luxury type where food is also served. If Southampton is ever to improve on its poor record for people dying prematurely from poor diet, we need to encourage other forms of leisure and resist the temptation to make a fast buck by building restaurants and bars, and offering 3 course dining experiences while people watch a film. We have fabulous parks and outdoor spaces, but much less to offer families for exercise in the wet/cold. A multi use centre could offer that, and the ability to host conferences and exhibitions would attract people to the city and boost the tourism and retail economy, as well as raising Southampton's profile nationally, especially if it was of sufficient size that it could attract top performing acts for concerts. My point is, that Hammerson's would not even consider this type of venture, because it does not fall within their definition of leisure. The reason we are not beating developers off with a stick is, because the Council signed a deal years ago with Hammersons to do the development, preventing other developers putting other ideas forward. Hammersons said in 2004 that they supported the idea of leisure facilities in Southampton, but not on the site of WQ3. So, will our council negotiate any financial support from them to develop leisure facilities as a condition of allowing the plans for WQ3? I doubt it, as they only negotiated a refurbishment of an office block in return for allowing a new supermarket. This is the basics of property development and investment today. You have cited Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool as receiving EU and Government funding, but there are many other examples of developments, such as those in Milton Keynes and Streatham, where proper leisure facilities are being funded by contributions from supermarket development in the area, as a condition of planning being approved. It works elsewhere, and could work in Southampton, with sponsorship from the industries that could benefit from a multi use venue, and potentially grants from sporting bodies if an alternative sporting option such as skating could be offered occasionally, the council and/or government would not have to contribute. Although it is not an ideal site, perhaps as a condition of planning for WQ3, Hammersons should strike a deal with Parkridge for a multi use venue to be developed in the Bargate Centre[/p][/quote]You are referring to section 106 agreements. These only work when they are in scale and proportion to the development in question. So if phase three west quay will cost £35m to build out, asking a developer to chuck, let's say conservatively £5m -7m wipes out any profit for phase three and therefore the development doesn't happen. As you have pointed out Hammerson are there to make money . Not look into a catchments diet! Property and sites go to their best highest use. This Is private development and whatever happens to bargate will be private development. If councils are too greedy and try and blackmail developers they simply move on to the next project. You need to get an understanding of what these things costs. Allowing a supermarket for 'only' refurbishing an office block- what do you expect?!! How much is that office refurbishment in terms of the GDV? They are property companies not charities!! J.P.M...
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Sun 16 Jun 13

230 repeat please says...

J.P.M... wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
J.P.M... wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.
Actually, their 'focus' is retail and leisure having sold their office portfolio. Anyway, as you have pointed out correctly developers bull things to make money based on the covenant strength of the potential tenant and their lease length.
They also build things that they think will attract people otherwise not tenants and no investment value. As it happens what they are proposing as an overall scheme will benefit southampton. No one feels grateful to Hammerson, they are now going to build I because they they they can get it let.
Tenants in bargate may well have made money as they paid no rent. Just service charge and rates to keep the liability away from Parkridge and subsequently the administrators. It is not a financially viable model.
Look at the arenas etc that were built in Liverpool, Newcastle sheffield etc and check how they were funded. EU or government. Just saying that a development is financially viable does not make it so. Not exactly beating developers off with a stick. Get your head round the basics of property investment and you will the have your answer to why you will never see a multi use value unless the council or government put their hands in their pocket.
Where to begin? Hammerson's focus is shopping and leisure, BUT their definition of leisure is, as I said, restaurants and cinemas, some of which; like the one proposed for Southampton, are the luxury type where food is also served. If Southampton is ever to improve on its poor record for people dying prematurely from poor diet, we need to encourage other forms of leisure and resist the temptation to make a fast buck by building restaurants and bars, and offering 3 course dining experiences while people watch a film. We have fabulous parks and outdoor spaces, but much less to offer families for exercise in the wet/cold. A multi use centre could offer that, and the ability to host conferences and exhibitions would attract people to the city and boost the tourism and retail economy, as well as raising Southampton's profile nationally, especially if it was of sufficient size that it could attract top performing acts for concerts. My point is, that Hammerson's would not even consider this type of venture, because it does not fall within their definition of leisure.
The reason we are not beating developers off with a stick is, because the Council signed a deal years ago with Hammersons to do the development, preventing other developers putting other ideas forward.
Hammersons said in 2004 that they supported the idea of leisure facilities in Southampton, but not on the site of WQ3. So, will our council negotiate any financial support from them to develop leisure facilities as a condition of allowing the plans for WQ3? I doubt it, as they only negotiated a refurbishment of an office block in return for allowing a new supermarket. This is the basics of property development and investment today. You have cited Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool as receiving EU and Government funding, but there are many other examples of developments, such as those in Milton Keynes and Streatham, where proper leisure facilities are being funded by contributions from supermarket development in the area, as a condition of planning being approved. It works elsewhere, and could work in Southampton, with sponsorship from the industries that could benefit from a multi use venue, and potentially grants from sporting bodies if an alternative sporting option such as skating could be offered occasionally, the council and/or government would not have to contribute.
Although it is not an ideal site, perhaps as a condition of planning for WQ3, Hammersons should strike a deal with Parkridge for a multi use venue to be developed in the Bargate Centre
You are referring to section 106 agreements. These only work when they are in scale and proportion to the development in question. So if phase three west quay will cost £35m to build out, asking a developer to chuck, let's say conservatively £5m -7m wipes out any profit for phase three and therefore the development doesn't happen.

As you have pointed out Hammerson are there to make money . Not look into a catchments diet!

Property and sites go to their best highest use.

This Is private development and whatever happens to bargate will be private development. If councils are too greedy and try and blackmail developers they simply move on to the next project.

You need to get an understanding of what these things costs. Allowing a supermarket for 'only' refurbishing an office block- what do you expect?!! How much is that office refurbishment in terms of the GDV? They are property companies not charities!!
I am indeed referring to Section 106 payments, which would not usually be in the region of 20% as you are suggesting for 7m spend on a development of £35m.
My feeling is the more usual 10% payment of £3.5m from Hammersons could be put together with contributions from other developments, (including supermarkets) and sponsors who would benefit from a development of a multi use venue, so that something decent can be built. All councils do this, but greedy developers try to blackmail them by negotiating down the contribution, saying they will move on to the next project in another town if the contribution is not reduced. This is what I mean by not being grateful to developers for doing a development, they will make a profit, and the City should benefit from a proportion of that for giving them the opportunity.
It's not charity, it's business, developers will pay if they want to do the development, and Hammersons themselves have said they support the idea. The council is a business too, not a charity, and should not undersell the opportunity of doing a development in Soouthampton.
You obviously consider WQ3 to be good for Southampton, and Hammersons recognise it to be a profitable, money making venture, so they could be reasonably expected to contribute, perhaps as much as the 5-7m you suggest. They would after all get a much greater return than the 7m over time, and it would be less than 5% of their declared pre tax profit, which was in excess of £142m for ye 31/12/12.
[quote][p][bold]J.P.M...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.P.M...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.[/p][/quote]Actually, their 'focus' is retail and leisure having sold their office portfolio. Anyway, as you have pointed out correctly developers bull things to make money based on the covenant strength of the potential tenant and their lease length. They also build things that they think will attract people otherwise not tenants and no investment value. As it happens what they are proposing as an overall scheme will benefit southampton. No one feels grateful to Hammerson, they are now going to build I because they they they can get it let. Tenants in bargate may well have made money as they paid no rent. Just service charge and rates to keep the liability away from Parkridge and subsequently the administrators. It is not a financially viable model. Look at the arenas etc that were built in Liverpool, Newcastle sheffield etc and check how they were funded. EU or government. Just saying that a development is financially viable does not make it so. Not exactly beating developers off with a stick. Get your head round the basics of property investment and you will the have your answer to why you will never see a multi use value unless the council or government put their hands in their pocket.[/p][/quote]Where to begin? Hammerson's focus is shopping and leisure, BUT their definition of leisure is, as I said, restaurants and cinemas, some of which; like the one proposed for Southampton, are the luxury type where food is also served. If Southampton is ever to improve on its poor record for people dying prematurely from poor diet, we need to encourage other forms of leisure and resist the temptation to make a fast buck by building restaurants and bars, and offering 3 course dining experiences while people watch a film. We have fabulous parks and outdoor spaces, but much less to offer families for exercise in the wet/cold. A multi use centre could offer that, and the ability to host conferences and exhibitions would attract people to the city and boost the tourism and retail economy, as well as raising Southampton's profile nationally, especially if it was of sufficient size that it could attract top performing acts for concerts. My point is, that Hammerson's would not even consider this type of venture, because it does not fall within their definition of leisure. The reason we are not beating developers off with a stick is, because the Council signed a deal years ago with Hammersons to do the development, preventing other developers putting other ideas forward. Hammersons said in 2004 that they supported the idea of leisure facilities in Southampton, but not on the site of WQ3. So, will our council negotiate any financial support from them to develop leisure facilities as a condition of allowing the plans for WQ3? I doubt it, as they only negotiated a refurbishment of an office block in return for allowing a new supermarket. This is the basics of property development and investment today. You have cited Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool as receiving EU and Government funding, but there are many other examples of developments, such as those in Milton Keynes and Streatham, where proper leisure facilities are being funded by contributions from supermarket development in the area, as a condition of planning being approved. It works elsewhere, and could work in Southampton, with sponsorship from the industries that could benefit from a multi use venue, and potentially grants from sporting bodies if an alternative sporting option such as skating could be offered occasionally, the council and/or government would not have to contribute. Although it is not an ideal site, perhaps as a condition of planning for WQ3, Hammersons should strike a deal with Parkridge for a multi use venue to be developed in the Bargate Centre[/p][/quote]You are referring to section 106 agreements. These only work when they are in scale and proportion to the development in question. So if phase three west quay will cost £35m to build out, asking a developer to chuck, let's say conservatively £5m -7m wipes out any profit for phase three and therefore the development doesn't happen. As you have pointed out Hammerson are there to make money . Not look into a catchments diet! Property and sites go to their best highest use. This Is private development and whatever happens to bargate will be private development. If councils are too greedy and try and blackmail developers they simply move on to the next project. You need to get an understanding of what these things costs. Allowing a supermarket for 'only' refurbishing an office block- what do you expect?!! How much is that office refurbishment in terms of the GDV? They are property companies not charities!![/p][/quote]I am indeed referring to Section 106 payments, which would not usually be in the region of 20% as you are suggesting for 7m spend on a development of £35m. My feeling is the more usual 10% payment of £3.5m from Hammersons could be put together with contributions from other developments, (including supermarkets) and sponsors who would benefit from a development of a multi use venue, so that something decent can be built. All councils do this, but greedy developers try to blackmail them by negotiating down the contribution, saying they will move on to the next project in another town if the contribution is not reduced. This is what I mean by not being grateful to developers for doing a development, they will make a profit, and the City should benefit from a proportion of that for giving them the opportunity. It's not charity, it's business, developers will pay if they want to do the development, and Hammersons themselves have said they support the idea. The council is a business too, not a charity, and should not undersell the opportunity of doing a development in Soouthampton. You obviously consider WQ3 to be good for Southampton, and Hammersons recognise it to be a profitable, money making venture, so they could be reasonably expected to contribute, perhaps as much as the 5-7m you suggest. They would after all get a much greater return than the 7m over time, and it would be less than 5% of their declared pre tax profit, which was in excess of £142m for ye 31/12/12. 230 repeat please
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Sun 16 Jun 13

loosehead says...

I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it?
They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops.
there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there?
Do you remember the cafe underground?
Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.
I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it? They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops. there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there? Do you remember the cafe underground? Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats. loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:29am Mon 17 Jun 13

kingnotail says...

230 repeat please wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council!
Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice.

The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi







nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse







x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.
unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough.
Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah.

Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.
Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really.

Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication!
the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc

None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade.

All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.
People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.
Doesn't want what most other cities have, but offers no idea of any alternatives.
I take it you haven't bothered to read all of the posts, so I quote from my post above, "A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same." You may not agree with it, but
it is an idea of an alternative.
Nice idea, but never going to happen here! Did you know there are no major arena/exhibition venues in the South of England outside London? The 'biggest' is in Exeter, with a capacity of 7,500 - hardly awe-inspiring!

Whoever does eventually have the guts/money to actually build the first major (10,000+, 15,000+ capacity) arena venue in the South outside London will have a major economic coup on their hands. Southampton is ideally placed for access from both the South East AND South West. But it won't happen here, not in a million years. Not with the eternal lack of vision shown by this city. Southampton will be lucky even if the Watermark project simply comes to fruition! You can forget anything 'better' as this city has ZERO track record!
[quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Actually, scratch that, I feel another bar/restaurant area will fit this site perfectly! Along with all the others we've got and within meters of yet another one at Watermark, what more could you want? More bars/restaurants and nothing we actually want or need please Council![/p][/quote]Please point me in the direction of all these 'bar/restaurant' areas that you appear to think are plentiful in Southampton? I can think of only two areas that could come under such a description; Bedford Place and Oxford Street, and both of those leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety and choice. The rest are just random businesses spread thinly across the city. A few good restaurants granted, but drinking establishments in Southampton are pretty much all lowest-common-denomi nator sub-Only-Way-is-Esse x-chav-nightmare holes! A few more upmarket places to drink in the Bargate area would be welcome, as there is nowhere decent to drink in that area as it stands.[/p][/quote]unusually I agree. Oxford street and Bedford place do not offer enough. Problem is you get rants on here about how phase 3 west Q will be full of fast food restaurants blah blah blah. Seen the list of people they are talking to, anything but. However that would then ruin peoples ability to moan.[/p][/quote]Nowhere in Southampton offers enough. Little choice, and mostly crap, covers all conceivable sectors about right really. Just because a bar or restaurant is part of a chain, doesn't mean it is has to be bad. Carluccio's, Brasserie Blanc, Loch Fyne, La Tasca etc. are all great places to eat. Trouble is, nearly all the chain restaurants in Southampton are bog-standard stuff like Chiquitos and Bella Pasta, so people have never known any better! In its current state, Southampton is not a welcoming place to investment by pub or restaurant chains as the city infrastructure, layout etc. is so poor. Even Fuller's pubs keep a wide berth, and they're hardly the height of sophistication![/p][/quote]the discussions ongoing include, Jamies Italian, giraffe, carliccios, Cau (part of gaucho), Union Jacks, Cote, Las Iguanas, Individual restaurant group etc etc None of these will come to Southampton at the moment as there is nowhere that fits their requirement, strong daytime and strong evening trade. All spot on and none of the fast food. The fact is fast food operators only want drive thru sites at the moment , higher return on investment.[/p][/quote]People don't rant about them being fast food places, just that Watermark will be the same as every other town and city with its restaurant/bars as a poor excuse for leisure. The "spot on" names you quote are all available in other shopping centres, many with links to Hammersmith so not entirely surprising they are suggesting they can bring them to Southampton. You can go to Gunwharf, Winchester or Guildford if you want, (especially Guildford if you want different shops rather than usual high street) but we need something different in Southampton, to attract people to the city, and an alternative to shopping and restaurant leisure activities. No wonder as a City we fall behind others in the health stakes. A luxury cinema with a dining experience, and more shops and restaurants is not the answer.[/p][/quote]Doesn't want what most other cities have, but offers no idea of any alternatives.[/p][/quote]I take it you haven't bothered to read all of the posts, so I quote from my post above, "A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same." You may not agree with it, but it is an idea of an alternative.[/p][/quote]Nice idea, but never going to happen here! Did you know there are no major arena/exhibition venues in the South of England outside London? The 'biggest' is in Exeter, with a capacity of 7,500 - hardly awe-inspiring! Whoever does eventually have the guts/money to actually build the first major (10,000+, 15,000+ capacity) arena venue in the South outside London will have a major economic coup on their hands. Southampton is ideally placed for access from both the South East AND South West. But it won't happen here, not in a million years. Not with the eternal lack of vision shown by this city. Southampton will be lucky even if the Watermark project simply comes to fruition! You can forget anything 'better' as this city has ZERO track record! kingnotail
  • Score: 0

8:07am Mon 17 Jun 13

elvisimo says...

230 repeat please wrote:
J.P.M... wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
J.P.M... wrote:
230 repeat please wrote:
Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.
Actually, their 'focus' is retail and leisure having sold their office portfolio. Anyway, as you have pointed out correctly developers bull things to make money based on the covenant strength of the potential tenant and their lease length.
They also build things that they think will attract people otherwise not tenants and no investment value. As it happens what they are proposing as an overall scheme will benefit southampton. No one feels grateful to Hammerson, they are now going to build I because they they they can get it let.
Tenants in bargate may well have made money as they paid no rent. Just service charge and rates to keep the liability away from Parkridge and subsequently the administrators. It is not a financially viable model.
Look at the arenas etc that were built in Liverpool, Newcastle sheffield etc and check how they were funded. EU or government. Just saying that a development is financially viable does not make it so. Not exactly beating developers off with a stick. Get your head round the basics of property investment and you will the have your answer to why you will never see a multi use value unless the council or government put their hands in their pocket.
Where to begin? Hammerson's focus is shopping and leisure, BUT their definition of leisure is, as I said, restaurants and cinemas, some of which; like the one proposed for Southampton, are the luxury type where food is also served. If Southampton is ever to improve on its poor record for people dying prematurely from poor diet, we need to encourage other forms of leisure and resist the temptation to make a fast buck by building restaurants and bars, and offering 3 course dining experiences while people watch a film. We have fabulous parks and outdoor spaces, but much less to offer families for exercise in the wet/cold. A multi use centre could offer that, and the ability to host conferences and exhibitions would attract people to the city and boost the tourism and retail economy, as well as raising Southampton's profile nationally, especially if it was of sufficient size that it could attract top performing acts for concerts. My point is, that Hammerson's would not even consider this type of venture, because it does not fall within their definition of leisure.
The reason we are not beating developers off with a stick is, because the Council signed a deal years ago with Hammersons to do the development, preventing other developers putting other ideas forward.
Hammersons said in 2004 that they supported the idea of leisure facilities in Southampton, but not on the site of WQ3. So, will our council negotiate any financial support from them to develop leisure facilities as a condition of allowing the plans for WQ3? I doubt it, as they only negotiated a refurbishment of an office block in return for allowing a new supermarket. This is the basics of property development and investment today. You have cited Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool as receiving EU and Government funding, but there are many other examples of developments, such as those in Milton Keynes and Streatham, where proper leisure facilities are being funded by contributions from supermarket development in the area, as a condition of planning being approved. It works elsewhere, and could work in Southampton, with sponsorship from the industries that could benefit from a multi use venue, and potentially grants from sporting bodies if an alternative sporting option such as skating could be offered occasionally, the council and/or government would not have to contribute.
Although it is not an ideal site, perhaps as a condition of planning for WQ3, Hammersons should strike a deal with Parkridge for a multi use venue to be developed in the Bargate Centre
You are referring to section 106 agreements. These only work when they are in scale and proportion to the development in question. So if phase three west quay will cost £35m to build out, asking a developer to chuck, let's say conservatively £5m -7m wipes out any profit for phase three and therefore the development doesn't happen.

As you have pointed out Hammerson are there to make money . Not look into a catchments diet!

Property and sites go to their best highest use.

This Is private development and whatever happens to bargate will be private development. If councils are too greedy and try and blackmail developers they simply move on to the next project.

You need to get an understanding of what these things costs. Allowing a supermarket for 'only' refurbishing an office block- what do you expect?!! How much is that office refurbishment in terms of the GDV? They are property companies not charities!!
I am indeed referring to Section 106 payments, which would not usually be in the region of 20% as you are suggesting for 7m spend on a development of £35m.
My feeling is the more usual 10% payment of £3.5m from Hammersons could be put together with contributions from other developments, (including supermarkets) and sponsors who would benefit from a development of a multi use venue, so that something decent can be built. All councils do this, but greedy developers try to blackmail them by negotiating down the contribution, saying they will move on to the next project in another town if the contribution is not reduced. This is what I mean by not being grateful to developers for doing a development, they will make a profit, and the City should benefit from a proportion of that for giving them the opportunity.
It's not charity, it's business, developers will pay if they want to do the development, and Hammersons themselves have said they support the idea. The council is a business too, not a charity, and should not undersell the opportunity of doing a development in Soouthampton.
You obviously consider WQ3 to be good for Southampton, and Hammersons recognise it to be a profitable, money making venture, so they could be reasonably expected to contribute, perhaps as much as the 5-7m you suggest. They would after all get a much greater return than the 7m over time, and it would be less than 5% of their declared pre tax profit, which was in excess of £142m for ye 31/12/12.
you are missing the point that there will be a section 106 in place - should they pay twice to bail out a fundamentally flawed scheme?

As for developers blackmailing councils , now more than ever we need to see new development. The pipeline for new space across the UK is probably at its lowest for 15 years.
Fortunately, whilst the people running councils will change from one idiot to another, the planning department remains the same so Hammerson or anyone else are not dealing with idiots.
As for "giving them the opportunity" - hmm I think building north of 800 sq.ft. is a pretty brave shout on the part of any developer. Look at what happened to Millers plans for Portsmouth. I don't think Southampton "gave them the opportunity" Hammerson assembled a site to develop and considering what was there before I cant think of anyone but the big 5 scheme developers that would have been in a position to do so.
[quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.P.M...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.P.M...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]230 repeat please[/bold] wrote: Bless you. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but as I said, we need, and I want a different leisure attraction that will bring in people from outside the area as well as providing an alternative leisure facility for the residents of Southampton than that already on offer. Some of the little shops in the Bargate Centre were making money, which is why they have relocated to other units within the City. I don't know why you refer to an ice rink, since I haven't mentioned this, but I think residents should be properly consulted about what to build. Why do people adopt an attitude of feeling grateful for people like Hammersons deciding to invest in Southampton? They are doing it for profit as a business, so can afford to make a contribution to leisure facilities for the residents. A multi use venue that can build on the reputation of the Boat Show by hosting exhibitions, concerts, even a temporary ice rink if you want, would benefit the city in terms of attracting visitors and offering alternative leisure options for residents,than WQ3, which just proposes more of the same. Such a development is financially feasible, and would interest developers, but the council signed a deal with Hammersons, who will not build it, because since 2012 they have changed their focus and only do shopping complexes with restaurants and maybe a cinema.[/p][/quote]Actually, their 'focus' is retail and leisure having sold their office portfolio. Anyway, as you have pointed out correctly developers bull things to make money based on the covenant strength of the potential tenant and their lease length. They also build things that they think will attract people otherwise not tenants and no investment value. As it happens what they are proposing as an overall scheme will benefit southampton. No one feels grateful to Hammerson, they are now going to build I because they they they can get it let. Tenants in bargate may well have made money as they paid no rent. Just service charge and rates to keep the liability away from Parkridge and subsequently the administrators. It is not a financially viable model. Look at the arenas etc that were built in Liverpool, Newcastle sheffield etc and check how they were funded. EU or government. Just saying that a development is financially viable does not make it so. Not exactly beating developers off with a stick. Get your head round the basics of property investment and you will the have your answer to why you will never see a multi use value unless the council or government put their hands in their pocket.[/p][/quote]Where to begin? Hammerson's focus is shopping and leisure, BUT their definition of leisure is, as I said, restaurants and cinemas, some of which; like the one proposed for Southampton, are the luxury type where food is also served. If Southampton is ever to improve on its poor record for people dying prematurely from poor diet, we need to encourage other forms of leisure and resist the temptation to make a fast buck by building restaurants and bars, and offering 3 course dining experiences while people watch a film. We have fabulous parks and outdoor spaces, but much less to offer families for exercise in the wet/cold. A multi use centre could offer that, and the ability to host conferences and exhibitions would attract people to the city and boost the tourism and retail economy, as well as raising Southampton's profile nationally, especially if it was of sufficient size that it could attract top performing acts for concerts. My point is, that Hammerson's would not even consider this type of venture, because it does not fall within their definition of leisure. The reason we are not beating developers off with a stick is, because the Council signed a deal years ago with Hammersons to do the development, preventing other developers putting other ideas forward. Hammersons said in 2004 that they supported the idea of leisure facilities in Southampton, but not on the site of WQ3. So, will our council negotiate any financial support from them to develop leisure facilities as a condition of allowing the plans for WQ3? I doubt it, as they only negotiated a refurbishment of an office block in return for allowing a new supermarket. This is the basics of property development and investment today. You have cited Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool as receiving EU and Government funding, but there are many other examples of developments, such as those in Milton Keynes and Streatham, where proper leisure facilities are being funded by contributions from supermarket development in the area, as a condition of planning being approved. It works elsewhere, and could work in Southampton, with sponsorship from the industries that could benefit from a multi use venue, and potentially grants from sporting bodies if an alternative sporting option such as skating could be offered occasionally, the council and/or government would not have to contribute. Although it is not an ideal site, perhaps as a condition of planning for WQ3, Hammersons should strike a deal with Parkridge for a multi use venue to be developed in the Bargate Centre[/p][/quote]You are referring to section 106 agreements. These only work when they are in scale and proportion to the development in question. So if phase three west quay will cost £35m to build out, asking a developer to chuck, let's say conservatively £5m -7m wipes out any profit for phase three and therefore the development doesn't happen. As you have pointed out Hammerson are there to make money . Not look into a catchments diet! Property and sites go to their best highest use. This Is private development and whatever happens to bargate will be private development. If councils are too greedy and try and blackmail developers they simply move on to the next project. You need to get an understanding of what these things costs. Allowing a supermarket for 'only' refurbishing an office block- what do you expect?!! How much is that office refurbishment in terms of the GDV? They are property companies not charities!![/p][/quote]I am indeed referring to Section 106 payments, which would not usually be in the region of 20% as you are suggesting for 7m spend on a development of £35m. My feeling is the more usual 10% payment of £3.5m from Hammersons could be put together with contributions from other developments, (including supermarkets) and sponsors who would benefit from a development of a multi use venue, so that something decent can be built. All councils do this, but greedy developers try to blackmail them by negotiating down the contribution, saying they will move on to the next project in another town if the contribution is not reduced. This is what I mean by not being grateful to developers for doing a development, they will make a profit, and the City should benefit from a proportion of that for giving them the opportunity. It's not charity, it's business, developers will pay if they want to do the development, and Hammersons themselves have said they support the idea. The council is a business too, not a charity, and should not undersell the opportunity of doing a development in Soouthampton. You obviously consider WQ3 to be good for Southampton, and Hammersons recognise it to be a profitable, money making venture, so they could be reasonably expected to contribute, perhaps as much as the 5-7m you suggest. They would after all get a much greater return than the 7m over time, and it would be less than 5% of their declared pre tax profit, which was in excess of £142m for ye 31/12/12.[/p][/quote]you are missing the point that there will be a section 106 in place - should they pay twice to bail out a fundamentally flawed scheme? As for developers blackmailing councils , now more than ever we need to see new development. The pipeline for new space across the UK is probably at its lowest for 15 years. Fortunately, whilst the people running councils will change from one idiot to another, the planning department remains the same so Hammerson or anyone else are not dealing with idiots. As for "giving them the opportunity" - hmm I think building north of 800 sq.ft. is a pretty brave shout on the part of any developer. Look at what happened to Millers plans for Portsmouth. I don't think Southampton "gave them the opportunity" Hammerson assembled a site to develop and considering what was there before I cant think of anyone but the big 5 scheme developers that would have been in a position to do so. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

8:10am Mon 17 Jun 13

elvisimo says...

loosehead wrote:
I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it?
They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops.
there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there?
Do you remember the cafe underground?
Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.
its not "earmarked" for anything - its a case of who can come up with something to turn a profit.

The wall runs to one side which is why it is quite difficult space and poorly configured. Service yard the other side.

If residential is the highest and best use then that is where it will go, although I would suggest that the ground floor will have to remain commercial in some shape or form.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it? They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops. there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there? Do you remember the cafe underground? Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.[/p][/quote]its not "earmarked" for anything - its a case of who can come up with something to turn a profit. The wall runs to one side which is why it is quite difficult space and poorly configured. Service yard the other side. If residential is the highest and best use then that is where it will go, although I would suggest that the ground floor will have to remain commercial in some shape or form. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

9:04am Mon 17 Jun 13

loosehead says...

elvisimo wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it?
They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops.
there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there?
Do you remember the cafe underground?
Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.
its not "earmarked" for anything - its a case of who can come up with something to turn a profit.

The wall runs to one side which is why it is quite difficult space and poorly configured. Service yard the other side.

If residential is the highest and best use then that is where it will go, although I would suggest that the ground floor will have to remain commercial in some shape or form.
so your ignoring the council plans for the Bargate itself then?
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it? They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops. there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there? Do you remember the cafe underground? Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.[/p][/quote]its not "earmarked" for anything - its a case of who can come up with something to turn a profit. The wall runs to one side which is why it is quite difficult space and poorly configured. Service yard the other side. If residential is the highest and best use then that is where it will go, although I would suggest that the ground floor will have to remain commercial in some shape or form.[/p][/quote]so your ignoring the council plans for the Bargate itself then? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:21am Mon 17 Jun 13

elvisimo says...

loosehead wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it?
They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops.
there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there?
Do you remember the cafe underground?
Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.
its not "earmarked" for anything - its a case of who can come up with something to turn a profit.

The wall runs to one side which is why it is quite difficult space and poorly configured. Service yard the other side.

If residential is the highest and best use then that is where it will go, although I would suggest that the ground floor will have to remain commercial in some shape or form.
so your ignoring the council plans for the Bargate itself then?
I think with their "fund" you have to. They can come up with all sorts of ideas but have no way of paying for it. The bargate centre itself will end up having no involvement with the council unless they have won the lottery!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it? They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops. there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there? Do you remember the cafe underground? Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.[/p][/quote]its not "earmarked" for anything - its a case of who can come up with something to turn a profit. The wall runs to one side which is why it is quite difficult space and poorly configured. Service yard the other side. If residential is the highest and best use then that is where it will go, although I would suggest that the ground floor will have to remain commercial in some shape or form.[/p][/quote]so your ignoring the council plans for the Bargate itself then?[/p][/quote]I think with their "fund" you have to. They can come up with all sorts of ideas but have no way of paying for it. The bargate centre itself will end up having no involvement with the council unless they have won the lottery! elvisimo
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Mon 17 Jun 13

loosehead says...

elvisimo wrote:
loosehead wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it?
They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops.
there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there?
Do you remember the cafe underground?
Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.
its not "earmarked" for anything - its a case of who can come up with something to turn a profit.

The wall runs to one side which is why it is quite difficult space and poorly configured. Service yard the other side.

If residential is the highest and best use then that is where it will go, although I would suggest that the ground floor will have to remain commercial in some shape or form.
so your ignoring the council plans for the Bargate itself then?
I think with their "fund" you have to. They can come up with all sorts of ideas but have no way of paying for it. The bargate centre itself will end up having no involvement with the council unless they have won the lottery!
I lived in Thailand a country with a lot more spare space than ours.
I find it crazy that over there the Marlands would have been built with Asda's as an intricate part of it so making the project economical.
West Quay sprawled out as it is wouldn't happen as it would have been all under one roof.
now why no Tesco's Morrisons or Sainsbury under west Quay's roof?
Now we have this Bargate what was there to attract the numbers they needed?
We are letting shops sprawl all over the city look at IKEA on it's own?
We could have more parkland or more houses(not flats) built on that land instead of building estates of flats couldn't we?
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it? They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops. there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there? Do you remember the cafe underground? Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.[/p][/quote]its not "earmarked" for anything - its a case of who can come up with something to turn a profit. The wall runs to one side which is why it is quite difficult space and poorly configured. Service yard the other side. If residential is the highest and best use then that is where it will go, although I would suggest that the ground floor will have to remain commercial in some shape or form.[/p][/quote]so your ignoring the council plans for the Bargate itself then?[/p][/quote]I think with their "fund" you have to. They can come up with all sorts of ideas but have no way of paying for it. The bargate centre itself will end up having no involvement with the council unless they have won the lottery![/p][/quote]I lived in Thailand a country with a lot more spare space than ours. I find it crazy that over there the Marlands would have been built with Asda's as an intricate part of it so making the project economical. West Quay sprawled out as it is wouldn't happen as it would have been all under one roof. now why no Tesco's Morrisons or Sainsbury under west Quay's roof? Now we have this Bargate what was there to attract the numbers they needed? We are letting shops sprawl all over the city look at IKEA on it's own? We could have more parkland or more houses(not flats) built on that land instead of building estates of flats couldn't we? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Mon 17 Jun 13

elvisimo says...

loosehead wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
loosehead wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it?
They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops.
there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there?
Do you remember the cafe underground?
Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.
its not "earmarked" for anything - its a case of who can come up with something to turn a profit.

The wall runs to one side which is why it is quite difficult space and poorly configured. Service yard the other side.

If residential is the highest and best use then that is where it will go, although I would suggest that the ground floor will have to remain commercial in some shape or form.
so your ignoring the council plans for the Bargate itself then?
I think with their "fund" you have to. They can come up with all sorts of ideas but have no way of paying for it. The bargate centre itself will end up having no involvement with the council unless they have won the lottery!
I lived in Thailand a country with a lot more spare space than ours.
I find it crazy that over there the Marlands would have been built with Asda's as an intricate part of it so making the project economical.
West Quay sprawled out as it is wouldn't happen as it would have been all under one roof.
now why no Tesco's Morrisons or Sainsbury under west Quay's roof?
Now we have this Bargate what was there to attract the numbers they needed?
We are letting shops sprawl all over the city look at IKEA on it's own?
We could have more parkland or more houses(not flats) built on that land instead of building estates of flats couldn't we?
nice idea but no as it doesn't make any money and the administrator for Parkridge is only interested in cash.

Parkridges initial plan was to open the site up all the way down to Debenhams which would have provided big retail units but also a lot of public realm space . I saw the plans and visuals and it looked very good.

However the retail landscape has changed a lot since then. recession and internet has seen whole categories of retail disappear from the high street.

The retail hub will contract and be bordered by bargate at one end the entrance to Marlands at the other.

The rest of the space will go to whatever they can turn a profit from. I like the fact that flats ensures that we have people living centrally and the new leisure development will increase the central cores trading hours.

Its the same story for most uk town and city centres. There just needs to be a well thought out plan as to how this is all managed.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many of you took any notice when this council talked about building the side walls to the Bargate & connecting the City walls to it? They said all the shops along that stretch of road ( Bargate to the Park) would go to be replaced with Flats & a few shops. there's part of the wall alongside this centre isn't there? Do you remember the cafe underground? Sorry but I strongly feel this area is earmarked for Flats unless someone has concrete proof that isn't the case then more flats.[/p][/quote]its not "earmarked" for anything - its a case of who can come up with something to turn a profit. The wall runs to one side which is why it is quite difficult space and poorly configured. Service yard the other side. If residential is the highest and best use then that is where it will go, although I would suggest that the ground floor will have to remain commercial in some shape or form.[/p][/quote]so your ignoring the council plans for the Bargate itself then?[/p][/quote]I think with their "fund" you have to. They can come up with all sorts of ideas but have no way of paying for it. The bargate centre itself will end up having no involvement with the council unless they have won the lottery![/p][/quote]I lived in Thailand a country with a lot more spare space than ours. I find it crazy that over there the Marlands would have been built with Asda's as an intricate part of it so making the project economical. West Quay sprawled out as it is wouldn't happen as it would have been all under one roof. now why no Tesco's Morrisons or Sainsbury under west Quay's roof? Now we have this Bargate what was there to attract the numbers they needed? We are letting shops sprawl all over the city look at IKEA on it's own? We could have more parkland or more houses(not flats) built on that land instead of building estates of flats couldn't we?[/p][/quote]nice idea but no as it doesn't make any money and the administrator for Parkridge is only interested in cash. Parkridges initial plan was to open the site up all the way down to Debenhams which would have provided big retail units but also a lot of public realm space . I saw the plans and visuals and it looked very good. However the retail landscape has changed a lot since then. recession and internet has seen whole categories of retail disappear from the high street. The retail hub will contract and be bordered by bargate at one end the entrance to Marlands at the other. The rest of the space will go to whatever they can turn a profit from. I like the fact that flats ensures that we have people living centrally and the new leisure development will increase the central cores trading hours. Its the same story for most uk town and city centres. There just needs to be a well thought out plan as to how this is all managed. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Mon 17 Jun 13

pantsanon says...

Hey it would make a great location for an ice rink about time we had one. Also council could organize a park an ride from a location like B&Q as there car park is never packed
Hey it would make a great location for an ice rink about time we had one. Also council could organize a park an ride from a location like B&Q as there car park is never packed pantsanon
  • Score: 0

11:31am Tue 2 Jul 13

chrisja says...

CrazyCatGirl1990 wrote:
this is silly, i used to LOVE going into bargate, PunkFish, Roxy, Sega park, shakeaway, rock bottom toystore. that was all fun. now it's all gone apart from Rockbottom as thats moved into the MArlands. i heard it was to be knocked down and changed into a morrisons or knocked down and left alone as no one uses it anymore. no one knows the future for the bulding
Neither do you it seems, being as the Morrisons is going up where the /East Street/ shopping centre was...
[quote][p][bold]CrazyCatGirl1990[/bold] wrote: this is silly, i used to LOVE going into bargate, PunkFish, Roxy, Sega park, shakeaway, rock bottom toystore. that was all fun. now it's all gone apart from Rockbottom as thats moved into the MArlands. i heard it was to be knocked down and changed into a morrisons or knocked down and left alone as no one uses it anymore. no one knows the future for the bulding[/p][/quote]Neither do you it seems, being as the Morrisons is going up where the /East Street/ shopping centre was... chrisja
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree