Seaburn developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Le Chuck said:
Those business came after new people moved into area. Why are you bringing Sunderlamd Council into it when we're discussing Seaham & your exaggerated claims Len?
Click to expand...
You appear to be numb as they come.

The businesses came as a result of more people being attracted to the sea front.
 


Rainhill said:
You appear to be numb as they come.

The businesses came as a result of more people being attracted to the sea front.
Click to expand...

So answer the question then. What development happened to attract them there?

You had several chances to explain, but you simply cant do it can you?

Anyway ive had enough trying to get an answer from a WUM & off to the match.
 
citybythesea said:
I got to say the development of the marina at seaham with those businesses looks pretty good. The building with all the solar panels as an awning.
seaham
Logon or register to see this image
Click to expand...

Coincidentally, the people who were the main drivers behind getting that built was also the same people who first brought the concept of a container city to the north east (the Co-op centre down Hendon).
 
Le Chuck said:
So answer the question then. What development happened to attract them there?

You had several chances to explain, but you simply cant do it can you?

Anyway ive had enough trying to get an answer from a WUM & off to the match.
Click to expand...
A truly gormless poster.

Anyway, see you there boss.
 
How many houses where built on the marina? What investment did that bring? The council had to practically give the land away. And if the smb len haters are to be believed his two places are empty down there.

The flying pizza as changed hands a few times too.
 
Le Chuck said:
Still avoiding the question. Or should i say can't answer.

New housing creates footfall which brings in business, which in turn the new business attracts new visitors. This is exactly what has happened with Seaham.

There hasnt been any real development down seaham. There's been a gradual gentrification on the back of people moving to the area.
Click to expand...

Mate. Whilst I can see merits in your argument. However it doesn't take in the account of the increased footfall already happening in the area. We need to keep these people coming back. We need developments that will take their money and time. I'm not against more housing. Just it's not a priority as say more shops, restaurants, bars, activities centres.

More housing is a easy cop out for me.

Smoke Me a Kipper said:
I love the beach...as in the actual beach. It's a cracking coastline and why its been recognised in the guardian as one of the 6 most beautiful beaches in the UK but walk across the main road and the sea front is an undeveloped embarrassment. There isn't anything there and a bunch of NIMBYs thinking they can over rule the rest of the city really pisses me off.

Why would anyone not want to have it developed?!
Click to expand...

Backward insular thinking mate. I've met loads of people who are against development. Mainly housing. I've lived in the area for years and it has improved. Especially the promenade and the increased footfall. Be a crying shame that the council can't cash in and development that area properly. We need a indoor activity centre, maybe a water park, a museum type maritime building on top of loads of cafe bars etc. The plans look good. Just need to get it kickstarted. Will extra housing do that? I'm not convinced.
 
Last edited:
ProfessionalMackem said:
Mate. Whilst I can see merits in your argument. However it doesn't take in the account of the increased footfall already happening in the area. We need to keep these people coming back. We need developments that will take their money and time. I'm not against more housing. Just it's not a priority as say more shops, restaurants, bars, activities centres.

More housing is a easy cop out for me.



Backward insular thinking mate. I've met loads of people who are against development. Mainly housing. I've lived in the area for years and it has improved. Especially the promenade and the increased footfall. Be a crying shame that the council can't cash in and development that area properly. We need a indoor activity centre, maybe a water park, a museum type maritime building on top of loads of cafe bars etc. The plans look good. Just need to get it kickstarted. Will extra housing do that? I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...
Thing is, leisure won’t make money for developers. Let them build houses with leisure conditions is the only way it will work.
 
Wilfy said:
Thing is, leisure won’t make money for developers. Let them build houses with leisure conditions is the only way it will work.
Click to expand...

But they ARE building leisure stuff. The miller home are a separate thing and are towards the back. They're still to start on the cafes and flats and what ever else they have planned for leisure developments.
 
Wilfy said:
Thing is, leisure won’t make money for developers. Let them build houses with leisure conditions is the only way it will work.
Click to expand...

Then it's up to the council to sort it mate. Not against more homes but just homes isn't going to get the place buzzing.

Building homes is defo a cop out. With the highest profit margin at the expense of actually developing the area.
 
Smoke Me a Kipper said:
But they ARE building leisure stuff. The miller home are a separate thing and are towards the back. They're still to start on the cafes and flats and what ever else they have planned for leisure developments.
Click to expand...
They have nothing else planned leisure wise, a cafe, a pub and a restaurant. Nothing else
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Mate. Whilst I can see merits in your argument. However it doesn't take in the account of the increased footfall already happening in the area. We need to keep these people coming back. We need developments that will take their money and time. I'm not against more housing. Just it's not a priority as say more shops, restaurants, bars, activities centres.

More housing is a easy cop out for me.



Backward insular thinking mate. I've met loads of people who are against development. Mainly housing. I've lived in the area for years and it has improved. Especially the promenade and the increased footfall. Be a crying shame that the council can't cash in and development that area properly. We need a indoor activity centre, maybe a water park, a museum type maritime building on top of loads of cafe bars etc. The plans look good. Just need to get it kickstarted. Will extra housing do that? I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...

All im doing is commenting whats happened in Seaham. This Rainhill character tells me theres tons that brings in the tourists, yet when challenged is unable to tell me what development has been done.
 
Wilfy said:
Seaham would still be shit if it wasn’t for the east shore development. Why won’t housing in Seaburn kickstart the same way?
Click to expand...
Yes , regeneration is definitely needed at Seaburn, but why can’t they find a good balance between leisure and housing, instead of 279 as planned now, maybe 100 - 150 with an increased leisure offering?
 
Boris Bear said:
Because they don’t want to.

Why don’t you do it if it’s commercially viable?

:lol::lol:


And shops

And community centre
Click to expand...
It is commercially viable, the problem is that they just do not want leisure.
No shops or community centre has been confirmed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top