Piccadilly Tower | Ducie Street | 188m | 58 floors

[joshwebb]

Originally Posted by VoldemortBlack

They started groundwork in 2008. It involved the demolishion of some old railway(?) arches. However work was put "on hold" towards the start of the 'crunch.

I doubt this scheme will ever arise again. Skyscrapernews website still have it as On Hold though, so I remain in high hopes

i hope so mate, all the renders i saw where great

[js1000]

Anyway, the site is still a good plot. If Gateway House, London Road Fire Station and Piccadilly extension can be renovated/extended by 2018 then a skyscraper will be a possibility. The Council should really focus on pushing Gateway House and London Road renovation, there fantastic buildings and renovation would be excellent for the area.

[Pit-yacker]

Originally Posted by js1000

Anyway, the site is still a good plot. If Gateway House, London Road Fire Station and Piccadilly extension can be renovated/extended by 2018 then a skyscraper will be a possibility. The Council should really focus on pushing Gateway House and London Road renovation, there fantastic buildings and renovation would be excellent for the area.

The problem with that is the big IF over London Road Fire Station. With the CPO over-ruled the council are almost powerless.

It's a close call as to which is more likely.

[js1000]

Originally Posted by Pit-yacker

The problem with that is the big IF over London Road Fire Station. With the CPO over-ruled the council are almost powerless.

It's a close call as to which is more likely.

You'd imagine something will be done with London Road within five years. Hopefully Britannia will be forced to do something positive with it if MCC can't get a CPO.

[Pit-yacker]

Originally Posted by js1000

You'd imagine something will be done with London Road within five years. Hopefully Britannia will be forced to do something positive with it if MCC can't get a CPO.

Britannia have managed to go over 25-years without doing anything. Those 25 years included the biggest property boom seen (or likely to be seen) in a century.

If you missed the news the CPO was rejected at the end of 2011 and last month Britannia reneged on their promise to redevelop the building as soon as the threat of the CPO was lifted.

Britannia want to go back to an earlier proposal that was rejected by the Council and English Heritage as completely unsuitable. That in itself looks like a stalling tactic.

With the CPO rejected, I dont see that MCC have any weapons left that they can use to force Britannia to act.

[js1000]

Originally Posted by Pit-yacker

Britannia have managed to go over 25-years without doing anything. Those 25 years included the biggest property boom seen (or likely to be seen) in a century.

If you missed the news the CPO was rejected at the end of 2011 and last month Britannia reneged on their promise to redevelop the building as soon as the threat of the CPO was lifted.

Britannia want to go back to an earlier proposal that was rejected by the Council and English Heritage as completely unsuitable. That in itself looks like a stalling tactic.

With the CPO rejected, I dont see that MCC have any weapons left that they can use to force Britannia to act.

It's very sad.

English Heritage have cocked up big time and should have the balls to apologise. They should have never back Britannia as they were always going to renege. Touche for fat lard Pickles. What an almighty waste of space.

[js1000]

A very minor change with the new scheme, leaving a gap by the station, previously to be filled with additional retail. This is after comments from Ballymore.

From NQ on the Gateway House thread. I see Ballymore haven't cut their losses by selling the site as many developers would do.

[moveupandon]

Originally Posted by js1000

From NQ on the Gateway House thread. I see Ballymore haven't cut their losses by selling the site as many developers would do.

Hi, can you be kind and explain the plans? I'm looking at them and can't make out what is being proposed!

[nq]

Those are related to the Gateway House app. There's no movement on plans for the Piccadilly Tower site, it's just Ballymore got a small mention in Realty's proposal, with them leaving possible access at the top end of Station Approach.

[moveupandon]

Originally Posted by nq

Those are related to the Gateway House app. There's no movement on plans for the Piccadilly Tower site, it's just Ballymore got a small mention in Realty's proposal, with them leaving possible access at the top end of Station Approach.

I see, shame. I was hesitantly excited. Damn this recession!

[LNGCats]

Originally Posted by moveupandon

I see, shame. I was hesitantly excited. Damn this recession!

Welcome back to reality, the economic conditions that allowed Beetham etc were the unusual conditions, the lending conditions today are the norm.

[nicky2tu]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

Welcome back to reality, the economic conditions that allowed Beetham etc were the unusual conditions, the lending conditions today are the norm.

S******. "...the lending conditions today are the norm". What planet is this guy on? We have interest rates at an historic low and this is normal?
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/stati...s/baserate.xls

What this means is that banks can borrow at a little over 0.5% yet they don't. The reason is not the cost of money (interest rates) but the lack of money which has made the banks ultra risk adverse with what little they have got. These are not usual or normal times but more akin to the conditions following the Wall Street slump in the thirties - although a lot of lessons have been learned from the thirties http://www.economist.com/node/21541388.

You see Cats doesn't like facts and good analysis to get in the way of his 'I told you so' narrative because he is at war with the majority of us lay people who like to hold the experts to account though this forum. Do not be bullied by him and keep posting and questioning. The logic of his position is that forum shouldn't exist or just be a glee club for the technocrats.

[LNGCats]

We will see.

It's four years now the banks have not been willing to lend.

When are you expecting banks to start lending in the same manner they used to? To fund such developments?

Oh and my logic is we know bugger all on most of the discussions on here. Very few of us are experts in any of the areas we discuss, whilst many pretend to be an expert.

[nicky2tu]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

We will see.

It's four years now the banks have not been willing to lend.

When are you expecting banks to start lending in the same manner they used to? To fund such developments?

Oh and my logic is we know bugger all on most of the discussions on here. Very few of us are experts in any of the areas we discuss, whilst many pretend to be an expert.

The banks will lend when it is profitable for them to do so. They are capitalists - albeit bad ones - after all. When that will be who knows or cares.

You don't really like skyscrapers Cats which is why you have such fun on here I suppose. But there are at least 2 100m buildings going up / built since 2008 - so it can be done. People like you always extrapolate from the here without understanding inflection points and how things can quickly can change. For example there has been a series of reports this week on the BBC World News on skyscrapers. Check it out here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20578262

The reports discuss a lot of the stuff we discuss on here much of it relevant to this thread. Now one such claim being made is the ability to build the world tallest building in less than three months. Yes you read that correctly. Some game changer if its true and would make financial modelling of such schemes a whole lot easier to execute one would imagine.

It used to be thought during the early twentieth century by people like the Webbs and so on that the local state, and later on by people such as Wilson and even Heath that local or national progress of infrastructure could be developed through a managerial technocratic hierarchy. Just about nobody believes this anymore apart from you. Take some time out Cats and learn why it failed. You will soon realise that it is always necessary to call the so called experts to account.

[js1000]

Originally Posted by nicky2tu

The banks will lend when it is profitable for them to do so. They are capitalists - albeit bad ones - after all. When that will be who knows or cares.

You don't really like skyscrapers Cats which is why you have such fun on here I suppose. But there are at least 2 100m buildings going up / built since 2008 - so it can be done. People like you always extrapolate from the here without understanding inflection points and how things can quickly can change. For example there has been a series of reports this week on the BBC World News on skyscrapers. Check it out here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20578262

The reports discuss a lot of the stuff we discuss on here much of it relevant to this thread. Now one such claim being made is the ability to build the world tallest building in less than three months. Yes you read that correctly. Some game changer if its true and would make financial modelling of such schemes a whole lot easier to execute one would imagine.

It used to be thought during the early twentieth century by people like the Webbs and so on that the local state, and later on by people such as Wilson and even Heath that local or national progress of infrastructure could be developed through a managerial technocratic hierarchy. Just about nobody believes this anymore apart from you. Take some time out Cats and learn why it failed. You will soon realise that it is always necessary to call the so called experts to account.

If you're are referring to the new skyscrapers in Asia (China particularly) then the banks are not the ones who lend. They are built from the money Asia has built from the exports we now buy - essentially they are now the creditors. The point about building skyscrapers in months rather than years is flawed. Two words: cheap labour.

[LNGCats]

Originally Posted by nicky2tu

The banks will lend when it is profitable for them to do so. They are capitalists - albeit bad ones - after all. When that will be who knows or cares.

You don't really like skyscrapers Cats which is why you have such fun on here I suppose. But there are at least 2 100m buildings going up / built since 2008 - so it can be done. People like you always extrapolate from the here without understanding inflection points and how things can quickly can change. For example there has been a series of reports this week on the BBC World News on skyscrapers. Check it out here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20578262

The reports discuss a lot of the stuff we discuss on here much of it relevant to this thread. Now one such claim being made is the ability to build the world tallest building in less than three months. Yes you read that correctly. Some game changer if its true and would make financial modelling of such schemes a whole lot easier to execute one would imagine.

It used to be thought during the early twentieth century by people like the Webbs and so on that the local state, and later on by people such as Wilson and even Heath that local or national progress of infrastructure could be developed through a managerial technocratic hierarchy. Just about nobody believes this anymore apart from you. Take some time out Cats and learn why it failed. You will soon realise that it is always necessary to call the so called experts to account.

Yes and my position is skyscrapers won't be profitable in the cities like Manchester for ages and the risks in such a development far too high for a bank.

How long with it take for the negative equity, the toxic debt, to work its way through the system fit all those city centre apartments?

Just like it took 40 years to get from the CIS to Beetham in my opinion it could take a similar length of time for the toxic debt to work its easy through and for the banks to regain confidence in such developments.

What is the current loan to income multiple retired fit a mortgage on a city centre flat theses days, with what deposit? In my opinion the customers for such a development are going to struggle to get the money in the same way as before the crash, hence making the building of such developments far too risky.

Ask yourself why so fee such developments happened when debt was being given away with no risk analysis? Why will the debt Niue be made available when the bands are so risk adverse?

[nicky2tu]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

Yes and my position is skyscrapers won't be profitable in the cities like Manchester for ages and the risks in such a development far too high for a bank.

How long with it take for the negative equity, the toxic debt, to work its way through the system fit all those city centre apartments?

Just like it took 40 years to get from the CIS to Beetham in my opinion it could take a similar length of time for the toxic debt to work its easy through and for the banks to regain confidence in such developments.

What is the current loan to income multiple retired fit a mortgage on a city centre flat theses days, with what deposit? In my opinion the customers for such a development are going to struggle to get the money in the same way as before the crash, hence making the building of such developments far too risky.

Ask yourself why so fee such developments happened when debt was being given away with no risk analysis? Why will the debt Niue be made available when the bands are so risk adverse?

What toxic debt? Figures please? Stop recycling your Radio 5 commonplaces for proper analysis. Start with facts or just shut up.

There was not an oversupply new build in Manchester, far from it, mostly the demand was driven by real need - no so in Spain and Ireland where banks over lent and went bust causing their governments to absorb the debt creating a sovereign debt issue and Euro crises. Stop confusing these two separate issues.

Manchester building stopped because the money dried up due to the losses in the world banking system not because of anything structurally inherent in the Manchester economy. There was a surplus of cash sloshing around the world up to 2007 due to the gross trade imbalances with China. That surplus cash has been squandered by the banks and is no more. This affects us here in Manchester badly. That is my analysis vs your simple minded one size fits all argument that it was due to a local over supply problem. My view states that banks made good profits out of the Manchester building boom overall.

Now CIS: when this was built it was the latest building in Europe. Soon after the fashion changed and high rises were out not to come back in vogue until relatively recently. So again your analysis is flawed moreover you confidently forget that we have just built a similar sized building with another one in planning. So much for you analysis: it is literally blinkered I.e. raise your gaze from street level and you might have noticed something.

The risk associated with lending is not so much on the ability to repay the mortgage but on value of the property vs the loan. Provided the former is greater then the loan is sound. What underpins risk here is that assessment of residual property values. Currently these are uncertain or are still declining which makes loans like these more risky especially given the paucity of available funds to lend. Once property values start rising - which they will - expect the bandwagon to start rolling again. This is capitalism this is how it works.

[LNGCats]

The toxic debt that is in the mortgages of higher value than the value of the apartments right across the city centre.

There are loans all over the place in the city centre to people who are now in negative equity - toxic debt.

Look, we are not going to agree. I have been saying the same thing for a couple of years now, ever since 2008 people have been telling me I am wrong, how things have not changed.

Ever since 2008 I have been right, people like yourself are never able to tell us when you think we will go back to those days - I maintain they won't, the last decade was the abnormality, not now.

I'll come back next year, then the year after and remind you of this discussion, as just like all those who have been telling me I am wrong about this for 4 years, I strongly suspect you'll still be waiting for a return to another property bubble.

Anyway, will leave it to you to reply to this and have the final word, I am not getting into a long debate over something so trivial - it doesn't matter.


EDIT - the BBC report showing that city centre flats were the worst hit at the start of the crisis http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7661303.stm as a consequence it is these properties that the banks have a greater level of toxic loans in relation to.

All I am saying is in a new banking world, with banks far much more risk adverse than when these loans were being handed out, is not going to go anywhere near them compared to previously.

I'd still love to know what the maximum loan / value ratio was in 2007 and what deposit was required for a city centre flat, then have the comparison for today - showing how much harder it is to get a property in the city centre, hence fewer customers, hence more risky for a developer - hence more risk to a risk adverse bank.

[nicky2tu]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

The toxic debt that is in the mortgages of higher value than the value of the apartments right across the city centre.

There are loans all over the place in the city centre to people who are now in negative equity - toxic debt.

Look, we are not going to agree. I have been saying the same thing for a couple of years now, ever since 2008 people have been telling me I am wrong, how things have not changed.

Ever since 2008 I have been right, people like yourself are never able to tell us when you think we will go back to those days - I maintain they won't, the last decade was the abnormality, not now.

I'll come back next year, then the year after and remind you of this discussion, as just like all those who have been telling me I am wrong about this for 4 years, I strongly suspect you'll still be waiting for a return to another property bubble.

Anyway, will leave it to you to reply to this and have the final word, I am not getting into a long debate over something so trivial - it doesn't matter.

EDIT - the BBC report showing that city centre flats were the worst hit at the start of the crisis http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7661303.stm as a consequence it is these properties that the banks have a greater level of toxic loans in relation to.

All I am saying is in a new banking world, with banks far much more risk adverse than when these loans were being handed out, is not going to go anywhere near them compared to previously.

I'd still love to know what the maximum loan / value ratio was in 2007 and what deposit was required for a city centre flat, then have the comparison for today - showing how much harder it is to get a property in the city centre, hence fewer customers, hence more risky for a developer - hence more risk to a risk adverse bank.

Toxic debt is not negative equity. They are two totally different things. The former is an asset that unlikely to be repaid in full or substantial part and represents downside on the lender. The latter is where the value of the borrowers asset's market value is less than the loan outstanding and is downside on the borrower. You can be in negative equity but provided you are meeting the agreed payment schedule the loan is not toxic. Pretty simple definitions there Cats. Blimey.

Cats you have been saying nothing over the last 4 years that is new. It is the conclusions you draw that are wrong headed and fail to grasp the essential characteristics of the situation. These are NOT normal times; it is because of the banks that the present property market is in such a slump; when property prices undergo a persistent recovery then confidence in lending will return together with sensible loan to risk ratios. When that will be I don't know but it will happen. This is capitalism and this is how it works just check the economic history books before putting your simple minded analysis on line and do us all a favour.

[Sir Miles Platting]

I think it's time everyone put LNG on ignore. Then he can spend the rest of his days on a slow train commuting to London bitching and complaining and posting to himself.

It would just be a matter of time before he put himself on ignore.