Developers invited to transform city waterfront (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Developers invited to transform Southampton's Mayflower Park and Royal Pier
9:30am Tuesday 11th May 2010 in Royal Pier & Casino
Developers invited to transfrom city waterfront
DEVELOPERS are being invited to express their interest in transforming Southampton’s Royal Pier district into a world-class waterfront.
The 60-acre site, which is owned by Southampton City Council, the Crown Estate and Associated British Ports, could feature offices, hotels, restaurants, shops, luxury flats, a marina, an 8,000-seater indoor arena and a Las Vegas-style casino.
Councillors gave the go ahead for the latest hunt for a developer to revitalise the area around Mayflower Park back in March. It would see the costly reclamation of the seabed to extend the site.
Councillor Royston Smith, cabinet member for economic development, said: “Royal Pier Waterfront is a unique opportunity for prospective development partners, not only to become part of one of the most dynamic cities emerging in Europe, but also to create a legacy in Southampton for which they can be truly proud.”
The council and other land owners are seeking proposals to ensure a permanent and improved site for the International Boat Show and better public pedestrian access to the waterfront.
Work is not expected to start for two or three years.
Comments(33)
says...
allsaintsnocurves
says...
9:50am Tue 11 May 10
hulla baloo
says...
9:52am Tue 11 May 10
sph205
says...
10:00am Tue 11 May 10
Brite Spark
says...
10:15am Tue 11 May 10
The public should be encouraged to use the waterfront, right up to the littoral area, not fenced off and kept at a safe distance. Mayflower Park is a disgrace the only time that it comes to life is during the Boat Show, apart from that it doesn't have any attraction, no wow factor here - more of a boo factor.
Jammy Donut
says...
10:26am Tue 11 May 10
We have heard it all before, last time it was a done deal.
No joined up thinking again by the council again
DCM
says...
10:48am Tue 11 May 10
southy
says...
10:48am Tue 11 May 10
Brite Spark
says...
10:50am Tue 11 May 10
The Wickham Man
says...
10:53am Tue 11 May 10
Linesman
says...
11:25am Tue 11 May 10
As it is Southampton Docks and not Dibden Docks, it would make a lot more sense.
Sotonians want the container port.
Dibden residents do NOT want the container port, so both lots would be happy.
Anyone that wants to walk along the waterfront, I would suggest a ferry service to Dibden Bay and have a walk there!
You know it makes sense.
Lone Ranger
says...
11:35am Tue 11 May 10
The Wickham Man wrote:You are quite right...access to the waterfront has to be a priority. But it wont be, shops offices and flats will be the priority and so reduce the area to a further eye-sore
I agree with Southy. Once again I will mention Liverpool and how they transformed their waterfront - and their city - by ensuring that public access to the waterfront was the first, not the last consideration.
southy
says...
11:38am Tue 11 May 10
Lone Ranger wrote:think its getting close to that time to ask the council to resign. and put up all the council seat for election. because they are destroying this city.
The Wickham Man wrote:You are quite right...access to the waterfront has to be a priority. But it wont be, shops offices and flats will be the priority and so reduce the area to a further eye-sore
I agree with Southy. Once again I will mention Liverpool and how they transformed their waterfront - and their city - by ensuring that public access to the waterfront was the first, not the last consideration.
St.DaveH
says...
11:58am Tue 11 May 10
southy wrote:?
Lone Ranger wrote:think its getting close to that time to ask the council to resign. and put up all the council seat for election. because they are destroying this city.The Wickham Man wrote: I agree with Southy. Once again I will mention Liverpool and how they transformed their waterfront - and their city - by ensuring that public access to the waterfront was the first, not the last consideration.You are quite right...access to the waterfront has to be a priority. But it wont be, shops offices and flats will be the priority and so reduce the area to a further eye-sore
Tommy News
says...
12:17pm Tue 11 May 10
Ian24
says...
12:24pm Tue 11 May 10
All expenses paid trips along with donations pay better than building anything.
Having been enlightened by one of the previous councilors on how he had freebies to Barcelona and did not care for anything to be built as he would have done his time by then. I fear they are all the same.
The long and short of this is that its not feasible or viable.
southy
says...
12:27pm Tue 11 May 10
Tommy News wrote:this land do not belong to the council. the council needs to ask the people of southampton permission, has per agreement, or the true owners of the land could and more likey will step in. and reclaim the land.
The Council needs to keep raising the profile of this site to developers, so as the commercial property market improves Mayflower Park will be correctly identified as a prime site. Developers prefer sites that have clearly been identified in planning terms and have the local authority backing.
biscuit74
says...
12:54pm Tue 11 May 10
DCM
says...
1:41pm Tue 11 May 10
biscuit74 wrote:Royston always was one for fantasy statements!
'one of the most dynamic cities emerging in Europe'???... With our ever expanding number of student flats, and yet more of the same High Street shops popping up, I bet Paris is sh!tting itself.
goard
says...
2:20pm Tue 11 May 10
VERY ANGRY
goard
Zeo
says...
2:40pm Tue 11 May 10
sass
says...
2:45pm Tue 11 May 10
allsaintsnocurves wrote:Wouldn't the residents of the luxury flats enjoy it, and are they not people of the city?
I think there should be a large boardwalk that extends out into the water that could feature a tall viewing tower, concert venue etc...it should not on all accounts have luxury flats this should be a place for the people of the city and tourists to come and enjoy!
Brite Spark
says...
3:51pm Tue 11 May 10
Boatman
says...
5:35pm Tue 11 May 10
What on earth for? What uninspiring c**p
forest hump
says...
6:14pm Tue 11 May 10
Linesman wrote:Wrong, there are people in Dibden who DO want the container Port. It's just a few selfish nimbys who do not
Why not extend the container port? As it is Southampton Docks and not Dibden Docks, it would make a lot more sense. Sotonians want the container port. Dibden residents do NOT want the container port, so both lots would be happy. Anyone that wants to walk along the waterfront, I would suggest a ferry service to Dibden Bay and have a walk there! You know it makes sense.
Linesman
says...
6:23pm Tue 11 May 10
forest hump wrote:Very few.
Linesman wrote: Why not extend the container port? As it is Southampton Docks and not Dibden Docks, it would make a lot more sense. Sotonians want the container port. Dibden residents do NOT want the container port, so both lots would be happy. Anyone that wants to walk along the waterfront, I would suggest a ferry service to Dibden Bay and have a walk there! You know it makes sense.Wrong, there are people in Dibden who DO want the container Port. It's just a few selfish nimbys who do not
The majority are not stupid enough to think that many long-term jobs would be created. Once construction is completed, and the computerised, automated equipment is installed, there will be just a few jobs for people who can push buttons.
Check out how many were employed at ESSO when in opened in 1951 and how many are employed now.
What is termed 'Progress' by these companies is measured by the dividend they pay to their shareholders, not how many people they employ.
Keep Southampton Docks in Southampton.
Ben Doone
says...
7:12pm Tue 11 May 10
southy wrote:Peter
Tommy News wrote:this land do not belong to the council. the council needs to ask the people of southampton permission, has per agreement, or the true owners of the land could and more likey will step in. and reclaim the land.
The Council needs to keep raising the profile of this site to developers, so as the commercial property market improves Mayflower Park will be correctly identified as a prime site. Developers prefer sites that have clearly been identified in planning terms and have the local authority backing.
I had to smile at the possibility of the 'true owners' of Mayflower Park stepping in to reclaim what is in fact reclaimed land
A double act of reclaimation!!!
You and I have had this discussion before. The 'true' owners of Mayflower Park are the citizens of the city as represented by the Soton City Council. As I recollect, the terms of occupation/ownership are covered by the Hampshire Act requiring an Act of Parliament to change.
Again, as I understand it, any development of the area around, and possibly including Mayflower Park, would have to take into full account the legal ownership of Mayflower Park.
As an 'outsider' I would hope any (much needed) development of the Royal Pier/Town Quay/Mayflower Park area (and possibly spreading into the Council owned land at the Holiday Inn, Renault and Honda dealership areas) would improve i) the perception of the area with international standard architecture (altho it will be difficult to achieve a concensus on what this constitutes)
ii) avialbility to the Boat Show and iii)improved access to the waterfront to view the ships.
It could well be that Mayflower Park maintains its existing footprint and waterfront access but moved to a slightly different position
Many people complain about the local Council without realising that, without fail, all local councils throughout the UK are denigrated for their efforts.
So moaning about the local council is not unique to Soton residents
All any Council can do is to 'sell' any concept to potential developers and hope the successful bidder can work to a format that doesnt upset too many local citizens.
Councils themselves (especially in todays difficult economic climate) are unable to fund projects. They have to rely on commercial enterprises who will only invest if they can prove to their shareholders/banks that they can return a reasonable profit from the exercise.
Lets hope for a successful outcome but dont hold your breath!!
Ben Doone
says...
7:38pm Tue 11 May 10
Linesman wrote:Linesman
forest hump wrote:Very few.
Linesman wrote: Why not extend the container port? As it is Southampton Docks and not Dibden Docks, it would make a lot more sense. Sotonians want the container port. Dibden residents do NOT want the container port, so both lots would be happy. Anyone that wants to walk along the waterfront, I would suggest a ferry service to Dibden Bay and have a walk there! You know it makes sense.Wrong, there are people in Dibden who DO want the container Port. It's just a few selfish nimbys who do not
The majority are not stupid enough to think that many long-term jobs would be created. Once construction is completed, and the computerised, automated equipment is installed, there will be just a few jobs for people who can push buttons.
Check out how many were employed at ESSO when in opened in 1951 and how many are employed now.
What is termed 'Progress' by these companies is measured by the dividend they pay to their shareholders, not how many people they employ.
Keep Southampton Docks in Southampton.
This is a point you often make about port development and to some extent you are correct in so far as any work nowadays will look to reduce cost of operation by automation so the days of thousands of people working for one company are more or less gone.
However surely any relatively stable and relatively well paid jobs, which most successful ports provide (the commercial port has been in Soton for over 170 years) are worthy of consideration bearing in mind the 'multiplier' effect these jobs will have on the local economy generally.
Interestingly every other proposed port development in the UK has publicised the potential economic benefit to its hinterland to pass muster with planning etc.
I have said many times before that any potential development at Dibden Bay is some time away. However to dismiss any benefit of future development at this location is narrow minded as future job creation will undoubtedly become a major challenge especially in the Waterside as I expect Exxon to run down the product refining part of their business in the next 10-20 years.
Out of interest what are your views on job/wealth creation for this area or should it become a haven for well heeled retirees?
However if pension funds, which are based almost entirely on profits from commercial activity, give out in the meantime this option may be compromised
southy
says...
8:44pm Tue 11 May 10
i dont know if you are aware of it but the orginal plan was to run the western docks all the way though to the eastern docks, and it was only down to people like the dove family with others that owned land down to the high water mark, between millbrook sidford freemantle and st micheals parish southampton in the bay, that block this from happening. it was all ways ment to be keep has open space for the local people to use. and not to be built on.
there will be a demo over this.
forest hump
says...
9:01pm Tue 11 May 10
Linesman wrote:So presumably you ride a bike and do not buy imported goods? People should be embracing ABP's proposals and make sure they are developed in a sensible way. Also, if Esso did not move with the times there would not be a refinery creating much for the local economy.
forest hump wrote:Very few. The majority are not stupid enough to think that many long-term jobs would be created. Once construction is completed, and the computerised, automated equipment is installed, there will be just a few jobs for people who can push buttons. Check out how many were employed at ESSO when in opened in 1951 and how many are employed now. What is termed 'Progress' by these companies is measured by the dividend they pay to their shareholders, not how many people they employ. Keep Southampton Docks in Southampton.Linesman wrote: Why not extend the container port? As it is Southampton Docks and not Dibden Docks, it would make a lot more sense. Sotonians want the container port. Dibden residents do NOT want the container port, so both lots would be happy. Anyone that wants to walk along the waterfront, I would suggest a ferry service to Dibden Bay and have a walk there! You know it makes sense.Wrong, there are people in Dibden who DO want the container Port. It's just a few selfish nimbys who do not
freefinker
says...
9:09pm Tue 11 May 10
Brite Spark wrote:Ar, yes, a tunnel from one virtual peninsular to another.
Whilst we're at it and on a very practical note, how about a road tunnel between Hill Head and the New Forest? It's less than 3 miles from Hill Head to Calshot as the seagull flys, but 33 miles by road, a round trip of 5 miles is in fact a road trip of 66 for me.
I mean, neither Hill Head nor Calshot are actually located on the way to or from anywhere significant.
But, at least the NIMBY's would have nothing much to complain about - it would generate almost zero extra traffic.
.
s/w mile-from
goard
says...
2:54pm Wed 12 May 10
goard
says...