Stadium’s a big boost (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Stadium’s a big boost
10:48am Thursday 9th February 2012 in Letters
AS A son of York marooned on the wrong side of the Pennines, I’ve been following the Monks Cross story with interest.
The stance taken by the so-called Campaign For York seems utterly bizarre. For a group that professes to love the city, they don’t seem to hold it in high regard or understand its appeal.
York city centre continues to have such high footfall thanks to its heritage. I worked in this sector in York for several years. The Minster, the walls, the museums, the historic streets – as long as these stand, people will flock to the centre. Two large stores at Monks Cross will not change this.
York is not a clone town and never will be. A John Lewis, a chain department store, will neither add to nor detract from its appeal.
As such, positioning it out-of-town and allowing the city centre to thrive as a home of distinctive retail and leisure opportunities seems a great model.
Residents who want the standard high street experience can go out-of-town, and the city centre can service the tourist industry the city relies upon. The community facilities offered by the stadium development would also be a huge boost to the city.
David Craven, Bolton.
• ADAM SINCLAIR takes a principled stance against out-of-town retail. So just when is out-of-town retail justified?
When it involves Mr Sinclair’s own business at McArthur Glen, of course.
Tom Williams, South Bank, York.
• THE owners of Coppergate Centre rightly warn City York City Council of the impossibility of proceeding with their development (The Press, February 3) if the plans proceed for Monks Cross by extending existing shopping units, plus the community stadium and superstores.
Coppergate Centre has been on the desk for developing for many years; this has been delayed by several organisations including City of York Council having their say.
No wonder another developer has decided to try somewhere else for its future. As often happens, the Monks Cross plan has become embroiled in extras, such as in the inclusion of the community stadium.
It should be obvious that both these developments are in conflict. The council should take heed the owners of the Coppergate Centre, who are best situated to make planned improvements this tourist centre of attraction.
They must support the Coppergate centre first and let the Monks Cross project follow if it can. The present state of indecision could mean nothing done, as it has happened for several other attempts to improve the city centre.
J Beisly, Osprey Close, York.
Comments(27)
yorkonafork
says...
11:49am Thu 9 Feb 12
Why cast off a perfectly good plan here and now in hope that a company, who's done nothing to help the City Centre in over 10 years, may or may not put some sort of plan forward in the future?
By all means develop both, but let's do this the logical way round. Losing out on a John Lewis, for example, is not something the City wants to be risking, and at the moment, it's a risk that would be over literally nothing.
TerryYork
says...
1:32pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
1:33pm Thu 9 Feb 12
The point is the shops that exist in York, in the main, are there to serve residents. Tourists don't pop into Barnitts for a lightbulb, pot of paint, a new hammer etc... tourists don't pop into Browns department store for a new sofa / bed / set of dining implements.
If only tourists were served it might as well close from October to April.
What '2 new stores' out of town would do is decimate all the independent York owned businesses who rely on residents. Exist to serve residents. The consequence would be loss of jobs in the hundreds.
You need to think a little harder and beyond the headlines.
Tom: That argument is a dead duck. Whether AS owns a shop in and out of town is irrelevant. It's a much bigger campaign than just MulberryHall.
Mr Beisly is correct. Coppergate first. Afterall it's what CYC wrote in their LDF and have been encouraging LaSalle to do for years before Oakgate turned up with a bribe.
yorkonafork: There is a planning application on the table, but I think you'll find not a plan for how / who / viability of YCFC at a community stadium.
Lasalle haven't owned the land for 10 years... I think you'll find they bought it from Land Securities in Feb 2008, so you can't acuse them of doing nothing for 10 years.
It is not logical to do MX first. That argument is redundant. Lasalle said so.
yorkonafork
says...
1:56pm Thu 9 Feb 12
There's a one off chance to get a John Lewis, Community Stadium, Athletics track etc waiting to go through in March that IS planned. Just do it now. Why bother losing out when there's very little that is opposing it.
You also seem to keep thinking 'out of town' = 'out of city'. It's not. Monks Cross is a part of York and locals live there, work there, shop there, they have as much right to new jobs, new facilities as much as anyone. It's all the same City.
Again York's got on just dandy while 3 other shopping centres have been built over years, there's simply no proof or logic to suggest two new store, one of which is a massive company that will so blindly-obviously boost York's economy, will sudden ruin 100s of shops and 100s of jobs. We can all read off various reports to back up any little opinion we may have, but sometimes engaging the brain and looking around surffices . Something which a minority don't see capable of for some reason.
speaks99
says...
2:49pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Sounds like you've got your eyes closed really.
Explain to me again how Yorks main industry ISN'T tourism. Oh. You can't can you. One BIG HOLE in your argument there.
Adam Sinclair. Dead Duck. Sitting Duck more like. Its only dead to those who want to gloss over the double standards and hypocracy.
Coppergate first? When? It's a minimum of 5 years away (probably well over 5 years). Monks Cross can provide actual jobs now. Of course, the city centre is going to have to evolve. Your precious Grimleys have admitted that themselves, about the change in use of city centres.
La Salle have not issued a planning application to York Council for approval. They say they have "plans". That's not the same thing though, is it? Plans which have failed to materialise over the past 15 years. But when a development threatens to devalue its land, then suddenly they're spending £200m. Forgive me if I'm sceptical.
Of course its logical to do Monks Cross first. Because plans are already being delivered. We can do something NOW for Yorks economy, rather than in 5 - 10 years time. Perhaps you can go down the job centre, and explain to those wanting to work why you are standing in their way.
"LaSalle said so" - WTF?
Septimius Severus
says...
2:54pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Except they've only had 3 years to work something out. YCFC and CYC have had nearly 10 years.
The MM lit the blue touch paper of 'no plan b' and are standing back watching the fireworks. They caused this 'fight'. They are to blame.
Your rant above ignores all the facts and common sense.
It's only blindingly obvious to all those who are not blinded by desperation over losing a football ground / club.
There is massive evidence and support for the objection.
"We can all read off reports" sounds like you haven't.
You also need to look at the map. Huntington Stadium used to be in Ryedale, so I'd say that wasn't in York.
The minority are less than the 1% who are committed to YCFC. Rather than the 1000s that would have their jobs threatened.
Even if planning permission is granted it will get called in to a public enquiry. The delay will not help YCFC. Best look at a plan b now.
York isn't desperate for a John Lewis.
Having a JL would be nice, but in the city centre. If John Lewis actually talked to Lasalle they'd find there is plenty of room. Just not as cheap nor with loads of free parking spaces. so they can't make as much money as they'd like.
It would be even better if YCFC stayed in the city too.
yorkonafork
says...
3:04pm Thu 9 Feb 12
At the end of the day, here, there, everywhere you are in the mass minority and no one, will ever listen to you.
Everything you say is ifs, buts, maybes, slander and opinion. We'll leave you to it, because it's clear that 1,000s of people could tell you the same thing and you'll refuse to listen.
Ignoring your one post in a sea of common sense isn't too hard so I won't lose sleep over it.
All the best for the future.
speaks99
says...
3:07pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Please, list out this "massive evidence" list... We have a GVA Grimleys report (which has not undertaken any of its own research) and a few questionaires which are highly disputable. If that's your "massive evidence" then I would laugh you off the streets.
You have no facts. You have no common sense. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how your "common sense" comes to the conclusion that Yorks main industry isn't tourism.
Has anyone asked the residents of York what they want? Or are you just assuming that nobody wants this because you've sat in a couple of campaign for york meetings and that's what you're hearing from the city centre traders. The majority of people DO want this development. go out on the street and ask people. Anyone - not just city fans.
Go down to the job centre and ask what 400 or so extra jobs will do for the city (plus 275 construction jobs over 2 years).
John Lewis have never expressed an interest in York City centre. Perhaps its just they aren't interested. Marks and Spencers definitely aren't.
Septimius Severus
says...
3:16pm Thu 9 Feb 12
The 'letter' talks about york as a tourist venue. I merely pointed out that there is another side to the coin. Yes Betty's serve tea to tourists, but also to me a resident, so I didn't use them as an example for that reason. you to make a clever point ignore that. The Shambles! There are plenty of citizens shopping there. open your eyes. Retail and leisure are York's biggest emploment sector. Granted. but only because of the successful balance of meeting different market segments. Sorry. I don't mean to patronise you. Your argument is pathetic.
Adam is irrelevant. But we like someone to point the finger at it's nice and simple for simple people.
Grimleys did say in 2008 that York must evolve, so they recommended developing the city centre. Jeez. Read it again, rather than pulling out a sentence or word out of context.
Lasalle have only owned the land for 3 years. YCFC and CYC have know for 9 that something needed to happen. you can point the finger at another 'bad man' if you want, but get your facts straight.
Doing something 'now' as you say would have the reverse effect on York's economy, but I forgot you choose to believe the guesses of the people who will make £millions out of obscuring the downside.
I'll explain the 'WTF' if you like...
Lasalle are N O T going to develop castle/piccadilly if MX2 goes ahead.
So if MX2 goes ahead 'first' it will not lead to Lasalle going 2nd. There will be no 2nd. That's logic for you.
It's commonsense I know. Hard for you to get.
Septimius Severus
says...
3:40pm Thu 9 Feb 12
yorkonafork wrote:The vast majority of people commenting on here 'for' the plans are YCFC fans. Fact.
Yeah, we get it. Only those for the retail plans are football fans. That's pretty much the only argument you've got really isn't it?
At the end of the day, here, there, everywhere you are in the mass minority and no one, will ever listen to you.
Everything you say is ifs, buts, maybes, slander and opinion. We'll leave you to it, because it's clear that 1,000s of people could tell you the same thing and you'll refuse to listen.
Ignoring your one post in a sea of common sense isn't too hard so I won't lose sleep over it.
All the best for the future.
Not 1000s either.
And only a small subset of the few hundred regulars at BC.
Mostly the same names.
Anonymous and cowardly threats included.
I'm only a minority in your world. Not the real world.
Everything anyone says about 'evidence' is 'ifs buts and maybes', you obviously have come to the opinion / comments late or you would know that. I agree.
Slander. (Think you'll find it might be liable or defammation) Hmm. Never. Only asking questions behind the statements of the key perpatrators. It's wrong to post anything false, abusive or malicious. If you think it is any of those things you should report the post you believe is contrary to that.
Or better still ask the questions.
Sea of common sense this place isn't.
All the best to you. In your dreams.
speaks99
says...
3:50pm Thu 9 Feb 12
"The point is the shops that exist in York, in the main, are there to serve residents." - since when is that showing two sides of a coin? You're trying to con people into believing that shops are there for residents. I called you out on the fact because you were wrong. Now you're quickly backtracking on what you said. That's what's pathetic.
Still waiting for the "massive evidence".
AS is a prominent figure leading calls against the development. People casting doubts on his motivation is not irrelevant. there's nothing simple about his trying to profiteer out of this. Greed is not simple, nor is it pretty.
Grimleys said in 2011 that city centres were moving away from retail. Perhaps you aught to do some further reading.
*pendant alert* Feb 2008 was 4 years ago. We've had nothing in those 4 years. Perhaps had they made any progress what-so-ever in those 4 years it might have been a different matter. Perhaps I'm a cynic. I've not heard anything from the opposition to the plans which makes me change my mind though.
I prefer the words "independent research" to "guesses". Even still - it's more than you are offering. Where's your research which spells out the destruction of the city centre? The best you've got is a report based on those "guesses". Nothing in other words. But don't let that stop your lobbying. Oh I forgot about your "questionaire". Ask leading questions you'll get the answer you want - even if only 15% of people respond.
LaSalle not developing the land. Fine - sell it and let someone else make $$ from it. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Either that or its called "empty threats". Whichever.
speaks99
says...
3:54pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Fact? Please back up this statement with proof. Oh you cant. So that would be an opinion then. Fool.
"I'm only a minority in your world. Not the real world."
Go on - point us to the research showing us how the majority of York DONT want this. Oh, sorry, your opinion again.
Really, you make arguments that you can't back up. You make statements that you then backtrack on. You really should go and have a lie down
Septimius Severus
says...
4:09pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Offering anything different? And you are? Nah.
You still forget that the post was about ‘tourism’. Another side of the coin is fair comment. It was one sided. There is plenty of counter to the claim.
I’d say that the GVA research, the YCT research and the ‘fact’ that LaSalle made that statement are all evidence. A £200million development being ‘lost’ is quite massive evidence.
‘A’ prominent figure being bullied and name called. Pathetic.
That he’s profiteering is ridiculous.
I think you’ll find the definition of ‘profiteer’ is relevant to pirates. People taking other peoples property.
He’s just fighting for existing businesses and their employees. I think you’ll find the profiteers are the ones offering the sweetner.
GVA said it first in 2008. ‘Expert independant research’. More ‘expert’ than you. Or me.
I think you’ll find it’s ‘pedant alert’...
The planning application for MX2 was 2011. Lasalle bought the land in 2008. Just because it’s now 2012 doesn’t make a blind bit of difference.
Lets count months shall we to be more ‘pedantic’. You’re diversion from the irresponsibility of CYC / YCFC to sort this out hasn’t gone unnoticed. Blame someone else.
speaks99
says...
6:00pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Your evidence claim is incorrect. There is not massive evidence. The LaSalle statement is not evidence. Its a statement. The YCT questionnaire is highly questionable. Given the 15% response rate. Given the leading question asked. Given the very flawed basis of extrapolating the result to incorporate the whole of York. Given that htey made no adjustment for the questionnaires they didn't get back. It isn't worth the paper its printed on. The only credible information you have is the Grimleys report, which is full of coulds, mights, etc. Plus it was commissioned by the anti brigade. In your books that makes it as suspect as the evidence offered by Oakgate.
AS is not being bullied and no one is calling him names. Were simply saying what is there in black and white for anyone to see, but you lot would be happy to gloss over that.
Profiteer - making an unfair profit. Tick.
GVA also said in 2011 about the change in city centre usage from retail to leisure. Why fight it when your very own analysts are stating this.
The fact that LaSalle have done nothing in 4 years, and even if they were to put together something tomorrow - we'd still be looking at 5 further years ahead (thats assuming your pal AS doesn't throw his toys out of the pram again at the competition in the city...)
Pendant/Pedant - Darn spell checker.
o2binibiza
says...
6:34pm Thu 9 Feb 12
At no point in those 4 years have they put any plans for redevelopment forwards or provided any indication of their plans for the site.
Presumably they have realised that they bought at the height of the market and have decided to sit on the land until such a point whereby they can make some money from a deal.
Frankly they've missed the boat and by doing nothing have ruled themselves out of contributing to the future of York.
Septimius Severus
says...
6:41pm Thu 9 Feb 12
There is massive evidence. Check out tomorrow's Press for the latest letter from GVA that the application has an absense of key information and 'flawed supporting analysis'.
It twists GVA's original reports to suit it's argument, and ignores evidence required.
And GVA are not suspect at all.
This analysis is beyond reproach.
No one currently in business in the city centre will profit more than they do now if a massive retail centre is not built. They are simply protecting the status quo. Unfair profit. You make me laugh.. Are Oakgate going to make a fair profit. It's not a fair fight.
'The Monks Cross area already comprises a major, unplanned concentration of out of centre shopping. Taken together with Clifton Moor and the Designer Outlet Centre, York is already served by one of the largest concentrations of out of centre retail development in the UK. Including the Oakgate proposals, this would be 94% of the space available at Meadowhall, by comparison.'
On a city 1/3 the size of Sheffield.
GVA did not state the city centre should be turned over to leisure.
'The City of York Retail Study (CYRS) 2008 identified no need for additional out of centre shopping in the area, and as detailed previously, current and emerging planning policies make no provision to further extend the out of centre retail offer.'
speaks99
says...
7:42pm Thu 9 Feb 12
It does not "twist" GVA's findings. It quotes them in the planning report. You might try to fool people into thinking this, but having read the report myself I know that is not the case.
If GVA's analysis is beyond reproach then so is Oakgates using your very own logic.
On the same note, GVA's analysis is basically a critique of the planning docs and supporting statements. They have not done any research themselves. Their report is not underpinned with any findings of their own. "Evidence" with some of there own research? Yes. "Opinion" using other peoples research.
Are Oakgate making a fair profit? Yes. It is a mutually beneficial development for Oakgate and the City of York. What's the problem in that.
I take your figures on face value about meadowhall, because I haven't researched them, but We're not talking about opening up a Meadowhall, are we. York is coping handsomely as it is with the majority of this development already in place. We're talking about an additional 30,000m sq of retail space. In fact - its two department stores. Not a new meadowhall, but don't let that stop you trying to scaremonger readers. Shall we start comparing it to all the success stories there are out there - trafford centre, White Rose, Metro centre... There is a longer list of success stories than meadowhall.
The 2008 retail study identified the need for retail development in York. In the years since the report was published there have been no major changes. it's fair to conclude that York will continue to lose market share unless something is done. Since there are no firm plans in place for the centre of York (not even LaSalle) its hardly "twisting the facts" to say that development of Monks Cross is a suitable alternative.
I suggest you do a bit more reading regarding your beloved GVA. They have reported in 2011 that the very nature of city centres is moving away from retail and towards leisure. Basically evolve or die (as TGB would say).
Even AndyD
says...
8:19pm Thu 9 Feb 12
A 'whoops' moment their SS?
Even AndyD
says...
8:20pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Malcolm
says...
10:19pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
11:06pm Thu 9 Feb 12
Even AndyD: Because unlike you lot I'm in the loop.
Speaks: You don't half repeat your rubbish. HOW can a report commisioned by the applicant and 'beneficiary' be independent.
Your supposition is incredulous. I am refraining from calling you names because that would stoop to the level of some of your accolytes.
Just because GVA were commisioned by someone who doesn't benefit, doesn't in it self make them independent. But the fact that they wrote the primary research that Oakgate rely on, and and were misquoted in it, gives them every right to comment and anhililate the subjective analysis made by Oakgate.
I can read.
You see but do not observe.
You, Sir, are blinded by subjectivity.
Your judgement is clouded by acceptance of the integrity of millionaire developers, naive council officers and members, and incompetent owners of a football club to live within their means.
Your comments do not stand the rigour of evidence.
You are not an expert and therefore are making conjecture.
(For the idiots reading this I'm saying that what he says is b*ll*cks!).
Even AndyD
says...
8:02am Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99
says...
8:31am Fri 10 Feb 12
You claim that Oakgates research is skewed because Oakgate commissioned it. I am simply stating that if that's the case for Oakgate, then it is a reasonable assumption that the GVA report can also be skewed by those commissioning it. Hang on - here's one of your quotes,
"HOW can a report commisioned by the applicant and 'beneficiary' be independent."
Penny dropped yet?
GVA didn't write the primary research - perhaps you should revisit the planning docs (again!). Regeneris and HOW wrote the basis. The 2008 GVA report is quoted in several places, to support the application. Are you now saying that GVA's 2008 research was incorrect? If thats the case then what makes the recent GVA outburst true?
In 2008 GVA stated that York were losing market share to other nearby towns and citys. You are now telling me this is not the case? That they were misinformed?? Perhaps they were wrong?? You can't make your mind up on who to trust can you?
And what major development has taken place since 2008 to stop this slide? Nothing. And what is in the pipeline for the next 5 years? Monks Cross, thats what. Not coppergate. Not Castle Picadilly.
Your problem is you see York as being within the city walls, not as one whole district. Your previous comments regarding "Ryedale" confirms this...
"You see but do not observe". What a pile of tosh. I have read extensively on this subject. I think this project would be worthwhile even without the stadium. The prosperity and economic growth of York is what's mainly important. The stadium is the cherry on top.
The simple fact is you have NO evidence to back up your claims. The Grimley report is simply opinion, based on someone elses research. They even go on to contradict themselves earlier last year regarding the changing face of cityscapes. You've basically been hoodwinked by a bunch of traders who tell you that businesses will be damaged by the development. (In that, read THEIR businesses will lose 10% of their revenue)
My judgement is based upon the current economic situation of York. My judgement is based on current market trends proving the resiliance of York. My judgement is based on the main industry which will not disappear due to this scheme. My judgement is based on forecasts. My judgement is based on the fact cityscapes are already evolving toward leisure purposes.
Your judgement is based on a number of traders telling you how much it will hurt THEM. Not the City of York. THEM.
You claim your an expert - forgive me for not believing this - isn't the internet wonderful! You come accross as very niaive and easily lead. Or are you too one of these city centre traders with a vested interest??
speaks99
says...
4:58pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Septimius Severus
says...
6:08pm Fri 10 Feb 12
speaks99 wrote:My 'judgement'. LMAO
A bit disappointed not to get a reply from you SS. Nevermind.
How's that for a reply?
We'll see who's being hoodwinked?
Watch this space.
Even AndyD
says...
8:28am Sat 11 Feb 12
The Great Buda says...
11:44am Thu 9 Feb 12