City centre is just perfect for store (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
City centre is just perfect for store
10:16am Friday 27th January 2012 in Letters
ALTHOUGH our business operates from the city centre, an increasingly small proportion of our trade comes from customers who visit our offices – the vast majority contact us by phone or email. My only concern is for the vitality of the City of York.
I think all would agree that a John Lewis store would be hugely beneficial to our city. An expansion of Monks Cross on this scale, however, would create jobs and economic activity in the short-term, but must be balanced against any potential negative impact on the city centre.
If this application meets local and national planning policy then fair enough, but the impact of increased out-of-town retail space is already being felt on retail demand for the city centre.
The jobs argument should be balanced between new and existing – what would be the point in generating new roles at Monks Cross if it resulted in a similar amount of job losses elsewhere?
The perfect solution would to bring John Lewis to the Piccadilly site. This would encourage more local people to shop in the city, and would also attract many thousands of visitors from further afield.
Kevin Hollinrake, managing director, Hunters, Colliergate, York.
Comments(49)
The Great Buda
says...
10:36am Fri 27 Jan 12
speaks99
says...
10:42am Fri 27 Jan 12
However, the only reason anyone is talking about the Picadilly site as a potential for development is because of the Monks Cross proposal. Those who counter the proposal would have you believe that Picadilly is an alternative. As things stand it isn't. No planning is under discussion. Marks and Spencers do not want anything to do with that site. John Lewis hasn't expressed an interest in it.
The owners sat on this site without proposals put forward during the retail boom, why would things change now that its a much harsher environment.
Some people would have you believe this is a viable alternative. If so we would be seeing some activity from Centros about developing it before planning on Monks Cross is agreed. We haven't.
It isn't an either or scenario. Either take advantage now or risk missing out forever.
keithcarol
says...
12:25pm Fri 27 Jan 12
bolero
says...
1:05pm Fri 27 Jan 12
newscritic
says...
1:45pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Funnyian
says...
2:55pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Septimius Severus
says...
2:56pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Buda, Speaks and Fruittom (sorry Tom fruit - same dif)
Kevin is a clever businessman. No vested interest. Sees this for what it is. Short-term bribe that would pillage the city centre.
Piccadilly might take 2 or 3 years to come off. What's that in the scale of the next 50?
Oh. Yes. I remember. No £60m to £90m in the pocket of Oakgate. And unless a new buyer or investor or loan extension - no YCFC.
Sarah York
says...
3:28pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Absolutely should both the centre and outer receive planning and ideas to move forward, but at the same time neither should have things simply stopped in both parts. As has been pointed out, JL isn't going to the City Centre for a host of reasons. They are going to MX and this in-turn pushing the York Outer climate and jobs there/opportunities for local people will increase (no at the expense of the City centre as some would like to believe).
The plan in place for MX is what the City should be looking at for outer. It's not to small yet in no way is it so ridiculously big that it goes over what York has been told to develop in order to keep up with other Cities.
Obviously the letter specifically points to ‘would people prefer JL in the centre or outer’ which is a fair enough question, one which will probably split people depending on where they live or what they feel about traffic/parking etc at both locations. The reality is, however, that JL is planned to move to MX and MX alone. It’s certainly not an opportunity to be wasted, especially when no one is saying extra units and store won’t be added to the Centre in the upcoming years.
Septimius Severus
says...
3:55pm Fri 27 Jan 12
JL going into MX is not a done deal.
And if 'called in' could take years to resolve.
As for 'an 'either / or', unfortunately if MX2 did come off no developer in the current climate would invest in developing Piccadilly. There just isn't the demand or economy for both.
No matter what anyone says.
Granted JL want to come to York, but I suspect they want the quickest route in via MX2 and not have to wait.
The company is one of the few retailers to grow revenue in the last quarter and needs to 'invest' quickly.
No-one knows whether JL would still wait if planning is declined or goes to the Secretary of State as would be the next stage of the fight.
You make the same claim that the 3 Stooges do. How on earth can you guarantee jobs will not be lost in the city centre? You can't. It's just a wish. There is no solid foundation for such a theory unless you believe the devlopers own hype.
Which as has been said already - is not worth a pinch.
Sarah York
says...
4:54pm Fri 27 Jan 12
How can a development which HAS to provide jobs to be built and provide jobs for it's upkeep result in people losing jobs?
The whole point of the development is to increase York's portfolio and increase custom and visitors cross the board. People go on about central York may lose x amount while MX will gain this and that like it's two separate Cities. It's not, it's all still York, all still people who live in York with jobs and shopping opportunities for everyone. I don't see why some people are so upset that York as a whole is trying to develop.
It's not like the centre of York which has been standing for 1000s of years and has millions upon millions of visitors each year is suddenly going to fall apart.
lis0r
says...
5:08pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Justinheaven
says...
5:39pm Fri 27 Jan 12
The good thing about Monks cross is the stores can be restocked at night without it effecting people .
York Centre should be a relaxing Haven , with boutique shops / coffee houses and eateries by day , and the place for entertainment by night - keep the HGV s out .
Knock down Slash Palace , and most of Piccadilly and have green space , an arts centre , an outdoor cinema , a fair and bandstand - We can shop anywhere , York is better than just shopping ?
Justinheaven
says...
5:41pm Fri 27 Jan 12
far2bizzy
says...
6:05pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Justinheaven wrote:“York Centre should be a relaxing Haven , with boutique shops / coffee houses and eateries by day , and the place for entertainment by night”
York , and Piccadilly are not suitable for large stores !! People do not seem to think about the practicalities of running these sort of stores - how do they take deliveries ?? Residents would soon complain about lorries doing night deliveries , it bad enough with M+S . The good thing about Monks cross is the stores can be restocked at night without it effecting people . York Centre should be a relaxing Haven , with boutique shops / coffee houses and eateries by day , and the place for entertainment by night - keep the HGV s out . Knock down Slash Palace , and most of Piccadilly and have green space , an arts centre , an outdoor cinema , a fair and bandstand - We can shop anywhere , York is better than just shopping ?
I totally agree.
York centre has got immense potential: far more than could be knocked back by the absence of the odd department store here or there. Let’s do what is needed to make it a world class tourist attraction. And if that means banishing the super-stores to the margins then so be it.
maggiemay9
says...
6:19pm Fri 27 Jan 12
The beauty of York City Centre is the eccentric mix of small independent retail outlets which give the shopping experience in the City Centre an uniqueness that other city centres do not have.
These independents should be encouraged and helped as much as possible as they do attract people to the City Centre as do the different cultural festivals that take place on a regular basis.
I hardly think it is fair for Thomas Fruit to say that these retailers have not got the business accumen as traders, more accurate would be the fact that they do not have the financial resources that other large multi national retailers have.
With regard to John Lewis going to Monks Cross, I welcome it with open arms. I think it is the ideal place for them to be sited. "Out of town shopping" offers a completely different type of shopping experience to consumers and the Monks Cross site is ideal from a John Lewis point of view and also a consumer's point of view.
Both the city centre and Monks Cross appeal to different consumer needs and both are vital to the vibrancy and economic growth of York. I do firmly believe that one does help the other in a variety of ways and that perhaps people should think of York on more global terms.
The development of Monks Cross will bring jobs and people and money which otherwise York would not have had. I think rather than condemn John Lewis's choice of sites we should be delighted that they have expressed a desire to come to York.
However it is important to remember that York City Council should also consider measures to ensure that the City Centre does not suffer by offering incentives and enticements to shoppers, visitors and businesses to come into the centre.
The benefits of the siting of John Lewis at Monks Cross far outweigh the disadvantages and the financial rewards that can be reaped from such a development should not be missed.
Surely it is better to have shoppers visit York wherever it is rather than simply shop online.
The Great Buda
says...
6:28pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Justinheaven wrote:Very well put and likewise to maggiemay9.
York , and Piccadilly are not suitable for large stores !! People do not seem to think about the practicalities of running these sort of stores - how do they take deliveries ?? Residents would soon complain about lorries doing night deliveries , it bad enough with M+S .
The good thing about Monks cross is the stores can be restocked at night without it effecting people .
York Centre should be a relaxing Haven , with boutique shops / coffee houses and eateries by day , and the place for entertainment by night - keep the HGV s out .
Knock down Slash Palace , and most of Piccadilly and have green space , an arts centre , an outdoor cinema , a fair and bandstand - We can shop anywhere , York is better than just shopping ?
Its refreshing to see some common sense being posted on here.
Even AndyD
says...
6:31pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Justinheaven
says...
6:46pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Too many people are against change , and do not want to imagine York in 2020 , 2040 or 2060 - i'd like to see more green public areas in York centre - but also a larger Monks Cross , a new Cinema / Theatre near the designer outlet and the ring road needs to be duelled .
Septimius Severus
says...
11:52pm Fri 27 Jan 12
You stooges are deluded.
You do not understand that a city is a living organism.
It is more than just a golden goose to kill for a golden community stadium.
You 'cityfansindisguise' fool no-one.
Your tactics on 'red&blue' to storm the citadel of free speech are anathema to a democratic society.
Kill the comments. Over run the arguments. Bully the opponents.
We know what you are up to.
Your selfish, ignorant and patronising words will just provide the evidence needed.
Change is only good when it suits the majority.
Not 2400 hopeless happy with 5th rate football fans.
This isn't about York Outer vs York Inner.
This isn't about the proletariat consumer vs the bourgeoisie owner.
This isn't a class war or revolution. Get a grip. It's about you lot arguing on behalf of greedy desperate capitalists.
The principle is about fair competition.
Because fair competition is ok.
But 2000 free car parking spaces on a retail site the size of half the city centre isn't fair competition.
Independent retail (or estate agents - lest you all forget who wrote the letter you are all commenting on) cannot spend the £ms that a developer can to shift the market even if it could. So it's not about evolution. It's about anihilation.
You lot say greedy traders.
Those greedy traders employ 1000s of people in the city and run on very small margins.
The tourism industry employs more than 10,000 people here. Is that worth jeopardising?
The stooges obviously think so.
It's not the big shop owners bank balances that will be hit.
It's the micro businesses. The ones who employ 2 or 3 people.
To call out 'traders' and assert knowledge of their bank balances just shows you know nowt about how retail works.
Or about business in general.
Or the basics of the economic situation.
Sarah, you can believe what you want. But there is research from York Civic Trust that backs the argument that a significant % loss in revenue will cost jobs. 3600 to be precise.
Many more so than Oakgate allow for in their impact assessment.
Oakgate claim a gain for '400 jobs here'. We show research for losing '3600 jobs there'. Is that good sense?
Oakgate 'claim' a net gain in employment. But they have no choice.
It's just a guess, to suit the fact that if they win, they win big. Around £100million profit big.
The 'traders' mentioned are not going to make the £100million in the next 30 - 50 years that Oakgate will.
They can't compete with that.
'Community facility' my bottom. This is an escape route for the Malton Mafia.
If you think millions of tourists come to York for chain coffee shops, charity shops or bookies you must be stupid.
They are the only shops opening and the only shops that will open.
Visitors do come for the 'boutique' shopping. But how can a boutique compete with John Lewis and free parking. Idiots.
If it ain't broke - don't fix it!
JorvikUK
says...
7:50am Sat 28 Jan 12
Pretty much all shopping in the city closes at 1730 each day, which is no fun for those of us who still have jobs.
Out of town shops generally stay open until 2000.
I think this is an important detail that people should consider when thinking about "where" they want their new big shops.
speaks99
says...
9:02am Sat 28 Jan 12
Just to pick some of the worst points in your arguments above:
"But 2000 free car parking spaces on a retail site the size of half the city centre isn't fair competition."
Show me where on Monks Cross there are the tourist attractions, buildings, parks that the city centre has - Oh, that's not fair competition either! You make this into a contest between the city centre and OOT retail. It isn't - its two segments of one large pie.
"Sarah, you can believe what you want. But there is research from York Civic Trust that backs the argument that a significant % loss in revenue will cost jobs. 3600 to be precise."
You and I know that this "research" is nothing more than a scare tactic without a shred of foundation.
1) The sample size of this survey was so small that no meaningful information can be concluded from it.
2) The response rate of the questionnaire was minuscule - something like 100+ responses from 700+ questionnaires - hardly a deluge of support for the civic trust
3) The questions within the questionnaire were highly leading and not at all subjective.
"It's just a guess, to suit the fact that if they win, they win big. Around £100million profit big."
And I have proved on a different thread that this works out to be somewhere between 3.5% and 4.5% per year - hardly the evil capitalists that you'd have us believe.
"The 'traders' mentioned are not going to make the £100million in the next 30 - 50 years that Oakgate will."
Erm. Yes they could. Any savings account offers the same rate of interest as what Oakgate appear to be getting if they had the money to invest.
"If you think millions of tourists come to York for chain coffee shops, charity shops or bookies you must be stupid."
GVA Grimleys suggest the very nature of town centres is changing anyway from retail to leisure. You can either fight against that and lose or embrace it.
"If it ain't broke - don't fix it!"
But the economy (as a whole) is broke which is why we are seeing austerity measures. This project will bring in a £12m boost to the economy, 400 extra jobs, the promotion of health and well-being. The only people who are burying their head in the sand are those of the city centre traders who say that everything is fine.
Finally you talk of a level playing field in which to debate. With such scare tactics of "York in Peril" (melodramatic to say the least and scaremongering), and "Campaign for York" (Not MY campaign) all I am doing is providing an opposition to those clowns.
o2binibiza
says...
11:53am Sat 28 Jan 12
Septimius Severus wrote:I love late night, drunk posts. All rationality goes out of the window. How's the head this morning?
You stooges lot are fantasists.
You stooges are deluded.
You do not understand that a city is a living organism.
It is more than just a golden goose to kill for a golden community stadium.
You 'cityfansindisguise' fool no-one.
Your tactics on 'red&blue' to storm the citadel of free speech are anathema to a democratic society.
Kill the comments. Over run the arguments. Bully the opponents.
We know what you are up to.
Your selfish, ignorant and patronising words will just provide the evidence needed.
Change is only good when it suits the majority.
Not 2400 hopeless happy with 5th rate football fans.
This isn't about York Outer vs York Inner.
This isn't about the proletariat consumer vs the bourgeoisie owner.
This isn't a class war or revolution. Get a grip. It's about you lot arguing on behalf of greedy desperate capitalists.
The principle is about fair competition.
Because fair competition is ok.
But 2000 free car parking spaces on a retail site the size of half the city centre isn't fair competition.
Independent retail (or estate agents - lest you all forget who wrote the letter you are all commenting on) cannot spend the £ms that a developer can to shift the market even if it could. So it's not about evolution. It's about anihilation.
You lot say greedy traders.
Those greedy traders employ 1000s of people in the city and run on very small margins.
The tourism industry employs more than 10,000 people here. Is that worth jeopardising?
The stooges obviously think so.
It's not the big shop owners bank balances that will be hit.
It's the micro businesses. The ones who employ 2 or 3 people.
To call out 'traders' and assert knowledge of their bank balances just shows you know nowt about how retail works.
Or about business in general.
Or the basics of the economic situation.
Sarah, you can believe what you want. But there is research from York Civic Trust that backs the argument that a significant % loss in revenue will cost jobs. 3600 to be precise.
Many more so than Oakgate allow for in their impact assessment.
Oakgate claim a gain for '400 jobs here'. We show research for losing '3600 jobs there'. Is that good sense?
Oakgate 'claim' a net gain in employment. But they have no choice.
It's just a guess, to suit the fact that if they win, they win big. Around £100million profit big.
The 'traders' mentioned are not going to make the £100million in the next 30 - 50 years that Oakgate will.
They can't compete with that.
'Community facility' my bottom. This is an escape route for the Malton Mafia.
If you think millions of tourists come to York for chain coffee shops, charity shops or bookies you must be stupid.
They are the only shops opening and the only shops that will open.
Visitors do come for the 'boutique' shopping. But how can a boutique compete with John Lewis and free parking. Idiots.
If it ain't broke - don't fix it!
Sarah York
says...
1:06pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Come up with something decent to stave of the clear majority and people might take you seriously. Bullying people, giving them names and dismissing their opinions based on their background is getting you nowhere pet.
nickeggleton
says...
4:17pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Your arguments look pretty sober to me.
Looks like the lunatics have taken over the asylum!
Said it before. You cannot use logic to overturn an illogical argument.
The reason passions of the the MX clowns, sorry crowd, are irked is that they are using emotion to try to win an argument.
They are not typical citizens.
They are not the majority. Nor are they the planning committee.
Calling you a bully because you spoke out about their bullying is a farce. You are one against a few here. They are the bullies.
I'm not surprised you feel they are stooges. They are plainly connected to the club or the developer. No-one else would be so angry at small business people or attack 1 or 2 medium sized businesses because they are only interested in shopping at JL.
If their point is Leeds will have one and people will go there, why don't they!
This isn't about JL. This is about a community stadium.
Speaks: a 14% response to a mailed questionnaire is a good response.
A clear unambiguous question was asked and answered.
Result a good indication of concern for jobs.
The £12m boost from 400 new jobs again! No evidence or even calculation of this - anywhere. It's hearsay.
The 'Campaign For York' are far from being the clowns. Far from being only 'traders'.
Friends of the earth, York Conservation Trust, York Civic Trust, oh and Kevin from Hunters... The only organisations supporting the application are cronies of CYC or Oakgate. Or YCFC.
Someone has to stand up for all those people who have jobs in the city centre that are threatened.
I'm happy to say I am one of them.
The Great Buda
says...
4:21pm Sat 28 Jan 12
o2binibiza
says...
6:28pm Sat 28 Jan 12
city_view
says...
7:22pm Sat 28 Jan 12
I doubt either camp represents the majority view - the reason we have the phrase 'silent majority' is because the majority usually are ... as in this case. Both sides arguing here are representing a minority group and their own interests. Fair enough.
Who are the 'typical citizens'? The majority who don't really care one way or another and aren't spending hours arguing on here.
I guess they might prefer to see York City FC stay at Bootham Crescent, but might be vaguely interested if a John Lewis opened. Most of the people arguing most strongly about this appear to be men - have you asked women you know what they feel about shopping in the city centre versus out of town? In my experience women do far more shopping than men.
Another thing that's not being mentioned much is whether this really is the only option re the football club. I thought so, have thought that was the case since Craig & co acquired Bootham Crescent a decade or so ago, with the club having to agree to relocating by 2014. A recent email from the Campaign for York made vague reference to other possibilities, including 'planning gain' being used. No further explanation given, but it's a shame that these vague suggested alternatives weren't pursued at some point over the last 8 years, as we've known since 2004 that YCFC would have to leave Bootham Crescent.
Perhaps instead of arguing with each other someone could elucidate for those who don't know what happened at BC before the 'Malton mafia' arrived?
speaks99
says...
7:24pm Sat 28 Jan 12
14% response rate is awful. Seriously awful.
Someone has to stand up for the unemployed who risk being unemployed longer because of you and your cronies.
speaks99
says...
8:09pm Sat 28 Jan 12
There has been a fairly detailed report regarding various other sites around York. If I find the link I'll post it on here. Monks cross was the most feasible in terms of practicality and economically. Other sites, from memory, were redeveloping Bootham crescent, Teardrop site in York, Hull road (??!?) among others.
Sarah York
says...
9:49pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Well I'm glad that's been sorted then.
It's you two against the rest. Deal with it soon before it consumes you and you end up in a mad house
city_view
says...
10:07pm Sat 28 Jan 12
If there's a chance that those on the 'anti Monks Cross / community stadium' side would read the document you mention, please include the link, but that effort might be wasted I fear.
Septimius Severus
says...
11:19pm Sat 28 Jan 12
How can it be. No research was done. It's a wet finger in the air.
One that suits the developer.
Someone is standing up for the unemployed. Me. Not neccessarily those currently out of work, but those likely to be added to the numbers by this outrageous development.
I think cityview is right to ask for detail.
It's also right to ask current shoppers.
"Would you like a free stadium and lots of free car parking next to a massive John Lewis and M&S?"
I know what they'll say.
Most people asked those questions will only understand the headline. Not the consequences.
How would any of you, I doubt any of you employ people or run a small business.
It's kind of obvious. employers are bad people, employees are good, unemployed people are so because evil employers won't employ them.
Read a book.
Sarah, look back and see who started calling whom names first.
Look at the vitriol coming from your camp.
Look at all the comments and then ignore them, cos that' doesn't suit your world view.
Name calling... 'stooges'. It's hardly abusive.
speaks99
says...
9:28am Sun 29 Jan 12
Well, it is calculated as fair as one possibly can without the benefit of a crystal ball, but I suspect you know that but choose to throw doubt on it anyway. They've obviously calculated the impact in terms of revenue on the city centre. They have then used fairly rigorous statistical evidence to extrapolate this to provide a figure for loss in jobs. Its based on sound principles, whether you like it or not.
How do I know this? Because it has to be to go in front the planning committee. If they just stuck a wet finger in the air like you allude to, then it would be thrown out of the planners office with the rubbish.
I suggest you revisit the retail analysis to familiarise yourself with this before you comment on it next time.
Septimius Severus
says...
12:43pm Sun 29 Jan 12
See Table 4.1 or 4.2 Source 'How Planning' (commisioned by Oakgate)and Regeneris 'calculations'.
Hardly the 'rigourous statistical evidence' you describe.
speaks99
says...
1:32pm Sun 29 Jan 12
The basis of the job loss estimate is that there is a linear, statistical relationship between the turnover of a town/city and the number of jobs that this translates to. The research suggests that if you can predict the loss in turnover, then you can predict the loss in employment figures.
For me this makes strong statistical sense. Do you disagree so far?
Oakgate/HOW/Regenris have predicted the loss in turnover. From this, using the above theory, you can predict the number of job losses this will create.
Whether you choose to believe this or not is up to you, however, it is a country mile away from "sticking a wet finger in the air".
speaks99
says...
3:35pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Therefore, according to the worst case scenario provided by Grimleys, there would still be a net GAIN of jobs of 163 FTE's.
nickeggleton
says...
5:05pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Says it all.
Just enough of a prediction to suit their calculation.
If the theory is linear it stinks.
I would imagine that the statistical relationship is anything but linear.
It's more likely to be a curve...
A loss in revenues leads to a loss in jobs is unarguable.
A small loss and no jobs lost.
A medium sized loss (£40m) from the city and then 'acceptable losses' are calculated.
(NB those are real people with no guarantee they will be re-employed by the 'displacement')
A huge loss (£90m) is not a scalable proportion. How many people have to lose their jobs to pay for this stadium?
Even now you are saying that only 163 nett fte jobs 'will' be 'created'!
I contend this is close to the margin or error of a net zero effect.
I think it's time that I studied the 'algorithm' behind this to further confound these estimates!
speaks99
says...
5:28pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Given that neither you or I are experts I suggest we leave it to the planning office to decide whether this is the industry standard or not. The technicality of this makes it almost pointless to debate.
"It's more likely to be a curve..."
I personally think you are right in some respects, that the graph will curve, but unless you can point me to some evidence to prove this one way or another, again, its a bit technical.
"How many people have to lose their jobs to pay for this stadium?
Even now you are saying that only 163 nett fte jobs 'will' be 'created'!
I contend this is close to the margin or error of a net zero effect."
Again this is all conjecture without any evidence to support your opinion. In the same way I quite happily admit my calculation was conjecture. You can't prove this and neither can I - we can just guess at the realities.
"(NB those are real people with no guarantee they will be re-employed by the 'displacement')"
As are the jobs that are being created. If one offsets the other what is the dilemma. It's still a net gain one way or the other. Yes sad for those who lost their jobs but if for every one job lost one and a half were created then its a worthwhile exercise.
Septimius Severus
says...
6:58pm Sun 29 Jan 12
You admit conjecture. Hallelujah
You are guessing. They are guessing.
There is no 'rigourous statistical evidence'.
No proof. Just estimates.
And justifying 'acceptable collateral damage'.
Shame.
The Great Buda
says...
7:01pm Sun 29 Jan 12
speaks99
says...
8:00pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Septimius Severus wrote:Whilst you're getting carried away with your gloating a point that doesn't exist, I suggest you re-read my original post.
Argument destroyed.
You admit conjecture. Hallelujah
You are guessing. They are guessing.
There is no 'rigourous statistical evidence'.
No proof. Just estimates.
And justifying 'acceptable collateral damage'.
Shame.
I admit conjecture - well, it would be difficult to get actual figures BEFORE the thing is built - you talk so much of common sense yet display so little of it.
"There is no rigorous statistical evidence" - I went to point out, in very simple steps, how the report came to the figures statistically. This, by definition, is statistical evidence.
I made the point that arguing the fact is very difficulty for either Nick or I because none of US have the actual industry knowledge in order to make those arguments. I didn't say they were invalid at any point. I assume the planning committee will know the industry standard though so I'm sure, if Oakgate really are pulling a swift one, they'll be found out quite easily.
"and justifying 'acceptable collateral damage'. - No shame, just realism. Is it better for 1000 people to be out of work or for 600 people to be out of work. Its really is that simple.
Next time Septimus I would choose carefully who and what you argue over, because this little remark goes to show how out of your depth you are.
paintitred
says...
4:30pm Mon 30 Jan 12
no idea if this has been posted before but.
people are saying that if John Lewis are allowed to bullid at Mx. It will be the end of the city centre.
However surfing the John Lewis website its clear they sell a wide range of goods at cheaper prices than that of the independants in the city centre. All the goods under one roof and at cheaper prices hmmmmm i wonder where i would choose to shop.No one is saying that MX2 Wont have any effect on the city centre its bound too,but not too the extent people would have us beileve.becarefull what u wish for or you may indeed invite the end of the city independants in the long run or you could JL at arms length and retain business for those who perefer city centre shopping.
just my thought oh yes iam a city fan.just thought i would throw my thoughts in to a long running debate.
thanks
nickeggleton
says...
11:06pm Mon 30 Jan 12
Just because statistics can be manipulated doesn't make them evidence. That sounds like predictions are fact.
No wonder SS is misunderstanding the paradox you describe.
It's either 'fact' or not!
You and Buda (the intelligent ones on here) appear to make sense but at the same time make up none sense to suit an argument that is based on guesswork, while at least the campaign for York uses independent expert opinion.
Sorry for repeating this, but we all know that the principle of OOT is wrong. You all just make excuses and accept collateral damage as the reason to see it through.
All for the sake of an idea with no actual plans, only dreams.
I believe it will be a nightmare.
speaks99
says...
8:30am Tue 31 Jan 12
Very much in the same way you are claiming the questionnaires sent out by the York Civic Trust is also statistical evidence - its not fact, but it is statistical evidence against the development (though you know I argue that this is unreliable - but that's a whole different issue which I'm sure we could write pages about going back and forth!)
When I mentioned "rigorous statistical evidence" I was more referring to the way the job losses were calculated, as apposed to "waving a wet finger in the air". As a one time statistics student, the process used makes fairly sound sense to me. No I don't have the industry knowledge to say if a linear approach is correct or not, but the machinations of the way they have gone about it appear sound (to me in any case).
The campaign for York does use their own experts, but again, their opinion is also conjecture, not facts.
I think OOT retail can be wrong in circumstances where the neighbouring principalities cannot sustain this growth. I just don't buy that argument where York is concerned. There is a lot of historical evidence which suggests York can manage to handle a development of this size.
I also think that the campaign for York was started under false pretences, and that a lot of people who are involved in that campaign have made statements in the past which contradict what they say now. There appears to be a lot of duplicity there for me. But again, I'm getting sidetracked again!
Septimius Severus
says...
8:47am Tue 31 Jan 12
Rigourous statistical 'calculations' are one thing, but 'evidence' they are not.
Evidence is historical.
Trends are forecasts.
Evidence of a trend to use as a forecast is still estimating.
Sorry to bring out the pedant stick.
rogue84
says...
11:30am Tue 31 Jan 12
isn't that just the same argument turned on it's head. arguing against it because it's a new football ground, which in all honesty is what a lot of people are doing.
if JL and M&S had just announced that they were opening 2 large stores without the stadium, there wouldn't be such a problem.
as a York fan myself I know that plenty of people in the city (shown by attendances) don't have any interest in the football team. as sad as this is, it shouldn't stand in the way of the club's progression - and if JL were only planning on opening in York due to the stadium then surely that is an advantage to the city as a whole.
the effect on the city's central businesses surely won't be affected by the shoppers who are going out to MX purely to shop at JL!
they aren't the people who are in the city centre, nobody goes into the middle of town to buy a cabinet or a sofa!
some people complain that York City fans ruin the town centre on match days due to crowds, drinking, noise, litter etc, so they are getting their way, but it appears the club can't win no matter where they go.
speaks99
says...
4:09pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Not sure whether evidence has to be historical, and whether forecasts can also be described as evidence. Will have to think that over a bit more. Interesting discussion point though!
PinzaC55
says...
6:13pm Tue 31 Jan 12
far2bizzy wrote:No "York Centre" should not "be a relaxing Haven , with boutique shops / coffee houses and eateries by day , and the place for entertainment by night"
Justinheaven wrote:“York Centre should be a relaxing Haven , with boutique shops / coffee houses and eateries by day , and the place for entertainment by night”
York , and Piccadilly are not suitable for large stores !! People do not seem to think about the practicalities of running these sort of stores - how do they take deliveries ?? Residents would soon complain about lorries doing night deliveries , it bad enough with M+S . The good thing about Monks cross is the stores can be restocked at night without it effecting people . York Centre should be a relaxing Haven , with boutique shops / coffee houses and eateries by day , and the place for entertainment by night - keep the HGV s out . Knock down Slash Palace , and most of Piccadilly and have green space , an arts centre , an outdoor cinema , a fair and bandstand - We can shop anywhere , York is better than just shopping ?
I totally agree.
York centre has got immense potential: far more than could be knocked back by the absence of the odd department store here or there. Let’s do what is needed to make it a world class tourist attraction. And if that means banishing the super-stores to the margins then so be it.
It should be a real city centre where real people can buy things they really need at affordable prices.
At the moment it is being overrun by chain coffee shops and overpriced clothes shops.
After 8 at night the drunks take over. That is reality.
The Great Buda
says...
10:06am Wed 1 Feb 12
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with