Vaux site......

[royaldragon]

it's the central government (Tories) who have slashed budgets to councils all over the UK. any lack of money or spending is because it's down to the central government in power no matter who the local council is.

This argument is flawed, as the centre of Sunderland has been in decline for at least 30 plus years, which was under the power of long serving Governments during that period, both of Labour and Tory, for Sunderland they are as bad as each other, ironically in the last 5 years Sunderland seems to be getting more money from Central Government while at the same time the local Labour council seems to have upped their game. Long may this continue.

 

[citybythesea]

This argument is flawed, as the centre of Sunderland has been in decline for at least 30 plus years, which was under the power of long serving Governments during that period, both of Labour and Tory, for Sunderland they are as bad as each other, ironically in the last 5 years Sunderland seems to be getting more money from Central Government while at the same time the local Labour council seems to have upped their game. Long may this continue.

The city centre has been crying out for development/ investment

It's been badly neglected over the years, and people are rightly angry about it

There's been nothing ambitious added to it for years.

Perhaps some of the things that were planned but failed to come off e.g the spirit of Sunderland building showed ambition. But they didn't come off....

 

[42]

This argument is flawed, as the centre of Sunderland has been in decline for at least 30 plus years, which was under the power of long serving Governments during that period, both of Labour and Tory, for Sunderland they are as bad as each other, ironically in the last 5 years Sunderland seems to be getting more money from Central Government while at the same time the local Labour council seems to have upped their game. Long may this continue.

It is & it isnt. I think the difference between the 2 parties when in government is this.
Labour funded the day to day stuff like education & social care, built new schools etc. But there wasnt any great incentive for any ambition for the city as the money was coming in from central government to pay for the main services

What the tories want to do is reduce local authorities dependance on central government. Theyve absolutly slashed the funding for the day to day stuff but the idea is to incentivise councils to grow their area to generate more funds locally in the way of council tax & business rates eventually becoming self sufficient. And obviously you cant achieve this without any funding for large capital projects, so the city has seen quite a bit of money to fund some ambitious projects.

 

[Osklen]

The city centre has been crying out for development/ investment

It's been badly neglected over the years, and people are rightly angry about it

There's been nothing ambitious added to it for years.

Perhaps some of the things that were planned but failed to come off e.g the spirit of Sunderland building showed ambition. But they didn't come off....

Probably the failure of Sunderland Council has been its reliance on or assumptions that the private sector would deliver the various development sites across the city when the sites are arguably not viable from a private investor stand point. Due to sites not being viable developers (Carillion, thornfield etc..) couldn’t get schemes to stack up so would either have to wait for economic conditions to change or expect the council to underwrite any risk.

Whilst the council haven’t actually owned fully some of the sites they wished to develop until recently (Vaux), It would appear that to date that the council have taken a very much risk averse stand point but this may have changed following the buy out of Siglion. That is assuming of course they use the company to continue to
Build on the momentum of the Beam and the new civic.

Also it must be put into context that secondary regional towns and cities up and down the country are struggling and Sunderland is no exception to that.

 

[Reptilia]

DWP and others are going to be housed in the new city hall not just the council.

 

[Kingdom Bhoy]

It is & it isnt. I think the difference between the 2 parties when in government is this.
Labour funded the day to day stuff like education & social care, built new schools etc. But there wasnt any great incentive for any ambition for the city as the money was coming in from central government to pay for the main services

What the tories want to do is reduce local authorities dependance on central government. Theyve absolutly slashed the funding for the day to day stuff but the idea is to incentivise councils to grow their area to generate more funds locally in the way of council tax & business rates eventually becoming self sufficient. And obviously you cant achieve this without any funding for large capital projects, so the city has seen quite a bit of money to fund some ambitious projects.

Nail on the head.

 

[citybythesea]

Probably the failure of Sunderland Council has been its reliance on or assumptions that the private sector would deliver the various development sites across the city when the sites are arguably not viable from a private investor stand point. Due to sites not being viable developers (Carillion, thornfield etc..) couldn’t get schemes to stack up so would either have to wait for economic conditions to change or expect the council to underwrite any risk.

Whilst the council haven’t actually owned fully some of the sites they wished to develop until recently (Vaux), It would appear that to date that the council have taken a very much risk averse stand point but this may have changed following the buy out of Siglion. That is assuming of course they use the company to continue to
Build on the momentum of the Beam and the new civic.

Also it must be put into context that secondary regional towns and cities up and down the country are struggling and Sunderland is no exception to that.

It begs the question, why aren't the sites viable? For what reason exactly?
I take the point about secondary cities, however this is surely a fluid concept as city could never grow if development isn't speculated on

 

[Osklen]

It begs the question, why aren't the sites viable? For what reason exactly?
I take the point about secondary cities, however this is surely a fluid concept as city could never grow if development isn't speculated on

It’s because the rent that office development can achieve in Sunderland is less than the cost to build, due in the main to demand and to a degree the quality of office accommodation available.

For instance a rent for office space in Newcastle is probably north of £22sq ft maybe even £25sq ft these days whereas in it Sunderland would be c. £16 sq ft, but build cost is largely the same between both areas. Land values will be higher in Newcastle but not significantly more than Sunderland. This allows the developer a sufficient profit to commit capital to the scheme with enough comfort that they can let space. It’s worth noting that even in Newcastle I don’t think there has been much speculative office buildings been constructed, as developers tend only to build once they have a pre-let of a sufficient percentage of the building.

similarly it’s why apartment developments tend not to work in Sunderland as the cost to build is too high against the market value.

 

[Mackem00]

The eye infirmary relocation sounds like it might well be a goer. Some canny prime land for house building there like.

 

[citybythesea]

It’s because the rent that office development can achieve in Sunderland is less than the cost to build, due in the main to demand and to a degree the quality of office accommodation available.

For instance a rent for office space in Newcastle is probably north of £22sq ft maybe even £25sq ft these days whereas in it Sunderland would be c. £16 sq ft, but build cost is largely the same between both areas. Land values will be higher in Newcastle but not significantly more than Sunderland. This allows the developer a sufficient profit to commit capital to the scheme with enough comfort that they can let space. It’s worth noting that even in Newcastle I don’t think there has been much speculative office buildings been constructed, as developers tend only to build once they have a pre-let of a sufficient percentage of the building.

similarly it’s why apartment developments tend not to work in Sunderland as the cost to build is too high against the market value.

So it's basically down difference in profit? So why is there a difference in profit?

You see my point about how places can grow...e.g York was once upon a time the capital of England much bigger than say Manchester....the latter now is the capital of the north

 

[42]

So it's basically down difference in profit? So why is there a difference in profit?

Greater demand to be located in the bigger cities. Its why so many companies locate in London even though its cheaper elsewhere.

 

[Wilfy]

The eye infirmary relocation sounds like it might well be a goer. Some canny prime land for house building there like.

Massive site that.

 

[Osklen]

So it's basically down difference in profit? So why is there a difference in profit?

You see my point about how places can grow...e.g York was once upon a time the capital of England much bigger than say Manchester....the latter now is the capital of the north

Companies collocate themselves to win work and where the biggest spend is going to be - so for instance architects, engineers lawyers etc position themselves in major cities as that is where the biggest spend tends to be and to build relationships with organisations. Organisations also locate themselves in places where it is easiest to recruit and more importantly retain staff. More and more companies are therefore looking at city centre sites rather than out of town as staff get the benefit of being able to personal things easily outside of work ie shop, socialise and also commuting tends to be easier.

Because companies want to been a specific location to collocate, demand increases for the limited space that is available and thus increases rents. If there is too much empty office space then rents will reduce, this is simply supply and demand. Hence why Newcastle has the strongest rents in the North East as it’s the centre of commerce in the region.

Sunderland struggles as the city centre is in decline and there is little business or industry in the city outside of manufacturing, which has limited need for office accommodation. This along with developments such as wessington way, doxford international and rainton has meant that business have tended to be on the periphery of the city. The business locating themselves on the periphery do so predominantly as rents should be cheaper than city centres. Also they provide much greater quantum of parking provision compared to city centres and are usually free, good for call centre type jobs ie doxford park. Sunderland city centre is just a bit too risky at the momentum as there is little evidence or confidence that business will locate in the city - that said someone like Ocado coming has changed that somewhat.

As for Manchester I’m not sure what changed but it has grown exponentially but has done so by swallowing some of the surrounding areas with developed focused on centre of Manchester and then latterly Salford. Perhaps the reason why York has not continued to grow is due to the constraints of the historic city which has meant development was / has been blocked by council, residents or viability. Manchester on the other hand was probably much easier to develop. Manchester has also been helped probably by the success of the football club(s) and has become the second city in England.

 

[citybythesea]

Companies collocate themselves to win work and where the biggest spend is going to be - so for instance architects, engineers lawyers etc position themselves in major cities as that is where the biggest spend tends to be and to build relationships with organisations. Organisations also locate themselves in places where it is easiest to recruit and more importantly retain staff. More and more companies are therefore looking at city centre sites rather than out of town as staff get the benefit of being able to personal things easily outside of work ie shop, socialise and also commuting tends to be easier.

Because companies want to been a specific location to collocate, demand increases for the limited space that is available and thus increases rents. If there is too much empty office space then rents will reduce, this is simply supply and demand. Hence why Newcastle has the strongest rents in the North East as it’s the centre of commerce in the region.

Sunderland struggles as the city centre is in decline and there is little business or industry in the city outside of manufacturing, which has limited need for office accommodation. This along with developments such as wessington way, doxford international and rainton has meant that business have tended to be on the periphery of the city. The business locating themselves on the periphery do so predominantly as rents should be cheaper than city centres. Also they provide much greater quantum of parking provision compared to city centres and are usually free, good for call centre type jobs ie doxford park. Sunderland city centre is just a bit too risky at the momentum as there is little evidence or confidence that business will locate in the city - that said someone like Ocado coming has changed that somewhat.

As for Manchester I’m not sure what changed but it has grown exponentially but has done so by swallowing some of the surrounding areas with developed focused on centre of Manchester and then latterly Salford. Perhaps the reason why York has not continued to grow is due to the constraints of the historic city which has meant development was / has been blocked by council, residents or viability. Manchester on the other hand was probably much easier to develop. Manchester has also been helped probably by the success of the football club(s) and has become the second city in England.

Well maybe Sunderland needs to develop its city centre office portfolio in a fledgling way, but with the intent of competing for office based businesses. The periphery of the city is for manufacturing like the iAMP and Nissan. Maybe the next business park like doxford or rainton bridge should actually be on the vaux site or sheepfolds. The new road infrastructure is getting built to assist its accessibility.
Sunderland needs to be a cheaper alternative to locate businesses.

Manchester is the de facto capital of the north and any move from central gov will see them strengthened

 

[Sid James Park]

High rise,imposing buildings required for the Vaux site and quality leisure and recreation facilities for Seaburn seafront.The lacking in vision and ambition muppets on here (most likely Labour councillors or supporters) want low rise buildings on Vaux site and predominantly housing for Seaburn seafront.You all have zilch,zero vision and ambition for your home town ( city?).What a pathetic bunch you all are.

 

[citybythesea]

High rise,imposing buildings required for the Vaux site and quality leisure and recreation facilities for Seaburn seafront.The lacking in vision and ambition muppets on here (most likely Labour councillors or supporters) want low rise buildings on Vaux site and predominantly housing for Seaburn seafront.You all have zilch,zero vision and ambition for your home town ( city?).What a pathetic bunch you all are.

I agree there's a distinct lack of ambition

 

[Osklen]

Well maybe Sunderland needs to develop its city centre office portfolio in a fledgling way, but with the intent of competing for office based businesses. The periphery of the city is for manufacturing like the iAMP and Nissan. Maybe the next business park like doxford or rainton bridge should actually be on the vaux site or sheepfolds. The new road infrastructure is getting built to assist its accessibility.
Sunderland needs to be a cheaper alternative to locate businesses.

Manchester is the de facto capital of the north and any move from central gov will see them strengthened

Agreed that the likes of Doxford Park should be built in the city, although there are distinct differences in that I believe Doxford Park when built was one of the very first enterprise zones which basically meant that business rates were exempt for something like 5 years or that the developer could get capital allowances back as part of the build which incentivised the developers at that time to build. Vaux is not and has not been allocated such a status (this needs to be done I believe either through national government or local enterprise partnership these days) but the A19 corridor has been.

Also to add that doxford park was successful in attracting businesses as it could offer a parking space for ever 200 sq ft built, which is considerable, against city centre sites which is something like 1 space per 1000 sq ft built. Parking is also generally free as it is cheap surface level parking.

Finally you can’t just pick doxford park up and move it into the city centre as many of the businesses will have 10 or 15 year leases.

Just in respect to your point that Sunderland should be a cheaper alternative to locate businesses then it currently is, the issue is two fold one that it is currently too cheap for developers to make a development viable, and secondly it’s trying to persuade businesses to locate in the city centre when it is competing with many other places even in the region nevermind nationally.

 

[johnna]

love this board me like, grown men arguing about a bit of wasteland, i have absolutely no idea whatsoever what buildings are going up around me , get a life man ffs, no matter what you do, Sunderland is never going to be anything , just accept it

 

[Osklen]

High rise,imposing buildings required for the Vaux site and quality leisure and recreation facilities for Seaburn seafront.The lacking in vision and ambition muppets on here (most likely Labour councillors or supporters) want low rise buildings on Vaux site and predominantly housing for Seaburn seafront.You all have zilch,zero vision and ambition for your home town ( city?).What a pathetic bunch you all are.

I agree that we should have high rise buildings on Vaux and would love to see buildings of the size and scale of say Echo 24 m, but what do you deem to be high rise?

You do realise however that building over 8+ stories becomes extremely expensive due to the design and construction method of building said buildings. Also the amount of floor space created will then likely be more difficult to let, thus taking longer to do so?

A building over 10 stories at say a building footprint will be in excess of 150,000 sq ft. which will be difficult to get a viable appraisal to work purely on the amount of time it would take to let (amount of time the space will likely be void for) and also amount of space available (potentially reducing rental levels due to potential lack of demand).

 

[Paddy O'Dors]

This argument is flawed, as the centre of Sunderland has been in decline for at least 30 plus years, which was under the power of long serving Governments during that period, both of Labour and Tory, for Sunderland they are as bad as each other, ironically in the last 5 years Sunderland seems to be getting more money from Central Government while at the same time the local Labour council seems to have upped their game. Long may this continue.

When did ONE NE disappear? It's no coincidence.