happyshopper
Well-Known Member
I agree with CH1. The issue is not what posters/commentators are entitled to do. They can be as partisan as they like. The issue is how persuasive they are when they present what is clearly only one side of the story.
Out with the Old... Network Rail tell businesses to vacate Atlantic Road arches
- Thread starter :-D
- Start date
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Of course it will. The Anglo Saxon chronicles are too. Are you suggesting they are written from a dispassionate perspective?We have been told by one of its principle writers that it's going to be "invaluable to future historians and researchers" though
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
It'll certainly be a gold mine to any future PhD candidate writing a thesis entitled "The Drinking Culture of One Small Bit of London in the Early 21st Century"
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
If they were allowed to write such a thesis. Potentially counts as "radicalisation".
Universities not so free these days I hear.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Jason has put links to all the pdfs that he got through the FOI.
Perhaps you could go through them to give another side to the story.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Along with other sources yes Brixton Buzz and Urban75 would be good material to write a thesis on the political culture/ social history of one small bit of London.
Just read a book ( originally a PHD thesis) on the English Civil War in the Devon and Cornwall. Looking at one small area of a larger whole can provide a different angle to see larger political events and how they effect the ordinary person. Rather than focusing on the major figures.
Same goes for the recent work on the Easter Rising in Ireland.
So yes it would be a goldmine.
The problem with internet based sources is the possibility the may just be lost or be unattainable due to changes in technology.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
As Network Rail have made much more clear there plans for the arches have you come to a decision whether you support the existing shopkeepers?
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Not seen the developments. What has NR said now?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Its in the Brixton Buzz article.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
That in six years' time, through phasing, rents will have roughly doubled in inflation-adjusted terms.
Last edited:
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Does it mention when the rents were increased to the current levels so that a per annum rate can be calculated?
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
The only time I have seen the rental figures was in an Evening Standard story.
'Network Rail revealed that rents at Brixton arches will go from a current average of £21 sq ft to £52.89 six years after the renovation is completed.'
No idea how that compares locally
Last edited:
Rushy
basically a scrotum
No idea what the current rate should be. I was just wondering when the current rent of 21 was set.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Be useful to know how long ago they were set at ~£21 and what current market rate is as a comparison. Otherwise you could say "they're raising the rent to Blue pounds a week! Blue! Can you fucking believe it?!" and I'd still not know if it was a criminal rent hike.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
That's almost as vague really. Although I suppose it differs from one unit to the next.
It also suggests that the £52.89 rent will not be across the board for all units (as you'd expect), so it is not clear whether that figure is the higher, lower or median rent.
I think I read that prime prime Brixton high street is over £90.
It also suggests that the £52.89 rent will not be across the board for all units (as you'd expect), so it is not clear whether that figure is the higher, lower or median rent.
I think I read that prime prime Brixton high street is over £90.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I've just spent some time reading through all the documents from the FOI.
It's clear that there's a lot of (largely informal) communication between Lambeth and NR discussing PR strategy and how things are being reported in the media.
To what extent this is acceptable is I guess a matter of opinion.
On the one hand I can see that you might say that Lambeth councillors should be representing the interests of their consituents and the arches businesses and therefore should keep a distance from NR, only communicating with them formally and having nothing to do with how NR deal with the media fallout from their proposals.
On the other hand, you could say that in order to represent those interests it's fair enough to try and set up a less formal level of communication with NR to try and work with them in a more co-operative way to persuade them to provide support to their tenants through the process, and for Lambeth to try and offer them hep in doing this. There are some emails in the correspondence that show Lambeth doing this (which weren't included in the Buzz narrative). I've included a couple below.
Also, if Lambeth are getting a lot of pressure to comment on the arches issue and what they are doing about it, I can see that they want to have as much info as they can about what NR is planning. That doesn't seem unreasonable, and is another reason they would want to keep in close contact with them. There seems to be plenty of evidence in the documents that this was going on - Lambeth asking NR what their latest position is on various issues.
In one of their emails they state that this is a landlord/tenant issue. I think their position is that there's only so much they can do on a formal level - ie there's a limit on what they can force NR to do (outside of planning policy issues, and their comments regarding that are contained in their reponse to the planning pre-enquiry included within the FOI docs). So, I can see that developing a closer relationship with NR is one way of influencing their actions outside of what they can actually enforce. I can see that Lambeth can offer a sort-of trade off where they can co-operate with the media strategy to some extent in return for NR perhaps making various concessions to keep them happy.
There are some exchanges where I feel that maybe the relationship appears a little cosy. I can see that for sure. Especially where those exchanges are presented selectively as is the case in the Brixton Buzz piece. I think it's fair to raise some eyebrows with regard to some of the comments.
I'd recommend anyone interested in gauging things in context reads through the whole set of documents rather than just what Brixton Buzz have presented. Of course we only see part of the story in any case due to all the redacted sections, and all the conversations that would have taken place by phone and in person.
Anyway here are a few extracts that I thought were interesting/significant in some way. These should be read along with the ones presented by BB, some of which I think are rightly highlighted.
It's clear that there's a lot of (largely informal) communication between Lambeth and NR discussing PR strategy and how things are being reported in the media.
To what extent this is acceptable is I guess a matter of opinion.
On the one hand I can see that you might say that Lambeth councillors should be representing the interests of their consituents and the arches businesses and therefore should keep a distance from NR, only communicating with them formally and having nothing to do with how NR deal with the media fallout from their proposals.
On the other hand, you could say that in order to represent those interests it's fair enough to try and set up a less formal level of communication with NR to try and work with them in a more co-operative way to persuade them to provide support to their tenants through the process, and for Lambeth to try and offer them hep in doing this. There are some emails in the correspondence that show Lambeth doing this (which weren't included in the Buzz narrative). I've included a couple below.
Also, if Lambeth are getting a lot of pressure to comment on the arches issue and what they are doing about it, I can see that they want to have as much info as they can about what NR is planning. That doesn't seem unreasonable, and is another reason they would want to keep in close contact with them. There seems to be plenty of evidence in the documents that this was going on - Lambeth asking NR what their latest position is on various issues.
In one of their emails they state that this is a landlord/tenant issue. I think their position is that there's only so much they can do on a formal level - ie there's a limit on what they can force NR to do (outside of planning policy issues, and their comments regarding that are contained in their reponse to the planning pre-enquiry included within the FOI docs). So, I can see that developing a closer relationship with NR is one way of influencing their actions outside of what they can actually enforce. I can see that Lambeth can offer a sort-of trade off where they can co-operate with the media strategy to some extent in return for NR perhaps making various concessions to keep them happy.
There are some exchanges where I feel that maybe the relationship appears a little cosy. I can see that for sure. Especially where those exchanges are presented selectively as is the case in the Brixton Buzz piece. I think it's fair to raise some eyebrows with regard to some of the comments.
I'd recommend anyone interested in gauging things in context reads through the whole set of documents rather than just what Brixton Buzz have presented. Of course we only see part of the story in any case due to all the redacted sections, and all the conversations that would have taken place by phone and in person.
Anyway here are a few extracts that I thought were interesting/significant in some way. These should be read along with the ones presented by BB, some of which I think are rightly highlighted.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Regarding what Lambeth can enforce through planning policy, by the way - this is the relevant part of their pre-planning response (much of the rest deals with appearance and streetscape).
This is where Lambeth can control the use of the units - what kind of businesses can occupy them. They have stated that some of NR's initial proposals would not comply.
I note the bit at the end -
This is a bit vague. Implies that this provision is optional. It would be "supported". Maybe others can comment what this means in practice. It may be that it can be used as a kind of lever in negotiations when a full application is made.
This is where Lambeth can control the use of the units - what kind of businesses can occupy them. They have stated that some of NR's initial proposals would not comply.
I note the bit at the end -
This is a bit vague. Implies that this provision is optional. It would be "supported". Maybe others can comment what this means in practice. It may be that it can be used as a kind of lever in negotiations when a full application is made.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
What happens if there is a "proper" economic downturn, rather than a faked up one designed to save the banks?
Does Network Rail go bust? Or maybe draw their horns in?
This idea property companies (including PubCos) have that it is only right they force tenants into escalating rent agreements has become vicious.
When I bought my first property (in Effra Court) the ground rent was £20 pa for the first 33 years, £40 for the next and £60 for the final 33 years.
In the world of shops and offices it seems that despite there being officially zero inflation, property companies expect maybe 5% increases every year.
This is usury - and a sin. Where is the Pope I want to know?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Property companies expect whatever increases they can get away with can't they?
So the level of those increases depends on when and where they are. NR aren't pretending they are increasing their prices in line with inflation - they are increasing them because they think that tenants generally will be willing to pay more for a relatively prime location in Brixton than they would have ten or fifteen years ago.
If there's an economic downturn NR may have to decrease their rents and the amount of income they recieve from their property arm will reduce. I don't think they will go "bust" because they are state-owned and need to exist to keep the railways running. So that decrease in revenue would have to made up for either by increased state subsidy, increased rail ticket prices or a reduction in investment in railway infrastructure.
I'm not sure what proportion of NR's total revenue comes from their property arm - has that already been covered in this thread?
So the level of those increases depends on when and where they are. NR aren't pretending they are increasing their prices in line with inflation - they are increasing them because they think that tenants generally will be willing to pay more for a relatively prime location in Brixton than they would have ten or fifteen years ago.
If there's an economic downturn NR may have to decrease their rents and the amount of income they recieve from their property arm will reduce. I don't think they will go "bust" because they are state-owned and need to exist to keep the railways running. So that decrease in revenue would have to made up for either by increased state subsidy, increased rail ticket prices or a reduction in investment in railway infrastructure.
I'm not sure what proportion of NR's total revenue comes from their property arm - has that already been covered in this thread?
bimble
floofy
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
They have said explicitly (haven't they?) that they are on a mission to maximise revenue from property. It's an interesting question whether a publicly owned entity is in a different position to a private company when it comes to maximising revenue from its assets. One interpretation is that NR offering tenancies to retail outlets at below market rents is a case of the public sector bailing out the private.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
What about: When you buy a rail ticket you could tick a box saying you would pay an extra £1 to protect arches tenants around the country from market rents.
Carpet man
Active Member
ROUND 2 BEGINS : All the affected traders in Atlantic and Brixton Station Road received letters on Saturday from Solicitors acting on behalf of Network Rail telling them to vacate the Arches by August 19th
editor
hiraethified
Can you maybe email me more? Maybe a scan of the letter? I'd love to publicise this on Buzz. I'd love it even more if some real community resistance was stirred up too!
brixtonbuzz @ gmail.com
