Afflecks Palace

[flange]

Bid to break Afflecks deadlock



Afflecks Palace
A CRISIS summit has been called in an effort to break the deadlock over the future of Afflecks Palace.

Coun Pat Karney has summoned building owners Bruntwood and Afflecks bosses to a meeting to discuss what will happen when the lease runs out in four months.

Earlier this week, the M.E.N revealed fears for the future of the iconic shopping emporium in Manchester's Northern Quarter because no agreement has been reached over the terms of the lease, which ends on June 14.

Traders believe they may fall victim to Manchester's property boom. They fear their building may be sold and redeveloped or, if the lease is renewed, rents may spiral - putting many out of business.

An unconnected plan to knock down the neighbouring NCP multi-storey car park and redevelop the site has only added to their concerns.

Bruntwood says management at the 25-year-old centre are refusing to meet them. But Afflecks say they want written terms before discussions proceed.

Because of the situation, about 100 traders are unable to carry out simple planning such as ordering stock for later in the year.

Solution

Coun Karney has vowed to find a solution which safeguards the survival of Afflecks, one of the last remaining independent retail centres in Manchester and a massive cultural draw.

He said the two sides involved in the dispute would meet on neutral territory at the town hall next week to discuss the new lease.

He said: "At present the two sides are not talking. So I have called representatives from both to a meeting at the town hall on Tuesday to go through the issues.

"Bruntwood is a very responsible company, which I know has great affection for the Northern Quarter.

"I am very much hoping they have no big plans for changing the character of Afflecks Palace, which is key to Manchester's identity.

"Unfortunately, all British cities are getting very similar but visitors to Manchester always enjoy the Northern Quarter, which is an interesting and unique place.

"Afflecks Palace is central to this and must be protected."

[Northbeach]

Don't today's students shop at Selfridges and Harvey Nicks?
As I mentioned before, my daughter is just starting to appreciate this place, it would be a shame to lose something else of the city's soul. This is the place I first visited on my migration from the midlands all them years ago...a fancy collared blue cagool (remember them....I still have it somewhere...I'll where it on the next meet up!).
Hoping this is just hot air and it's future is guaranteed soon enough. The independents are doing well in this area at the moment (places like Odd bar and the Bay Horse)...but the area is circled by developers...

[Isaac Newell]

Originally Posted by macc

hmm... I find that hard to believe. Some books cite Camden market as the 3rd most popluar tourist attraction in London. You'd be pretty stupid to want to get rid of that.

They as in 'some people' in the council I could believe, but a majority? I'm not sure. I need evidence Mr newell

Can't give you any, it just appears in the Standard from time to time. That's prime development land in a market skewed by city bonuses (4,000 people got 1 million pound bonuses this year)

There more money to be made building flats and upmarket shops than selling tat to Italian goths.

[The Longford]

Got to back Isaac up on this. Isnt the market sporting a huge 'Save The Market' banner at the moment - i know ive seen one recently.
There was a big proposal to clear the whole area wasnt there, including the nice 30's tube station and bank at ground level, and make it all swishy?

[Isaac Newell]

Possibly an O2 centre type thing. Redevelopment seems to permanently hang over the market.

[Awayo]

Yes, it would have obliteratorated "Camden Market", which is the relatively small collection of stalls just north of the Tube station. However, what most people think of as Camden market is actually the large and sprawling Camden Lock market further up Camden High Street. The latter would not have been affected.

In fact Camden Town has a problem in that its Tube station is fair too small and cramped to serve the millions who want to visit the market at Camden Lock each Sunday - a new Tube station is vital really.

[macc]

Originally Posted by Awayo

Yes, it would have obliteratorated "Camden Market", which is the relatively small collection of stalls just north of the Tube station. However, what most people think of as Camden market is actually, the large and sprawling Camden Lock market further up Camden High Street. The latter would not have been affected.

I was about to say yes I'm sure that some people do want to flatten the markets but it would never happen. Then I read this, which sound infinately more believeable. Camden Market is the crap one, the small one, the one on the high street and probably the one eaiest to turn into something else.

I admit I'm not at all up to date with the news on this though.

[Mackem]

Originally Posted by The Longford

Was speaking to someone 'close' to this yesterday.
Bloxham knew that one day he would have to spend some cash on the building and at some point would have to put up rents to pay for it - pissing off the tenants who are on very small margins (unlike urban splash!).
Bruntwood had their beedy eye on the building, eyeing it up for the obvious perhaps under estimating its cultural worth.
Bloxham was happy to get rid of a troublesome asset and Bruntwood thought they would be getting a nice bit of real estate.
IMO Bruntwood were a bit naive to imagine that this wasnt going to happen. I'm sure they dont give a shit about the people who make their livliehoods from the place or how public opinion sees them, but as a PR exercise this will be a disaster. Remember nothing has happened yet so its a bit of a non story at the moment but i can imagine Bruntwood will be keen to maximise any investement they have made.
At the root of this i think Bloxham was a bit of a twat for selling to the highest bidder (should have offered to the tenants as a co-op), Bruntwood are twats for buying it and not realising its real cultural worth but most of all i feel bad for the people in there (a couple of close friends of mine have businesses in there) who are getting the worst of both worlds in that the building needs money spent on it and they have an evil landlord who would kick them out at the drop of a felt, floppy hat.

Things like Afflecks have an unquantifiable worth that doesnt show up on a balance sheet in office in City Tower. To lose it would be killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

but hey - thats capitaism and market forces for you. We cant sit here wetting ourselves about developer built skyscrapers and then moan when the same developers want to make some money to build more skyscrapers can we? (well i can cos i'm a fucking hypocrite)

To a degree hasn't Afflecks served its' purpose ?? These smaller retail areas were created to bring life (& money & developers) to dead or dying ares of cities. The fact that the Northern quarter is successful is a tribute to it, but do you leave it as a museum (in need of investment as everyone seems to agree) or does it move on to continue with the revitalisation of the area? Maybe an alternative (surely popular in NQ) would be to move to another building in the area where the traders can have some degree of ownership/control as this is what seems to worry them ? I'm sure the council would love to be involved and this could bring more of the buildings back into public use. It seems a tad naiive to try to attract money to an area then complain when it arrives. As regards Afflecks, Bruntwood aren't completely stupid, but isn't this the inevitable result of trying to attract money from a rented building ?

[The Longford]

I had a wonder round today and was doing a bit of Fantasy Property Developing (as you do!) and there are several buildings that could accomodate Afflecks should they have to move. You'd be surprised how many upper floors of buidings are empty. Where Slaters was for example.
Whether the Afflecks traders could negoitiate securing these upper floors is another story and a move often unsettles things irrevocably.
Bruntwood bought a poisoned chalice when they bought Afflecks and they were daft IMO.

[Mackem]

I'm just not convinced that the status quo is sustainable. All sides want to see money spent on the building but it has to be paid for. Perhaps a move would allow development to proceed and help the push demolition and replacement of the car-park to bring more life into the NQ. Either this or some sort of charitable landlord is required to sort out this mis-match.

The Afflecks reps are doing themselves no favours with the cry wolf tactics and not talking though.

[future.architect]

getting rid of that abomination of the car park will be the best thing ever to happen in manchester. i will crack open the champagne the day its demolished. obviously if its replacement adds to the northern quarter

[hammerb24]

When I was younger I used to make a monthly trip to Afflecks from Brum, went there in December, it maybe my age but it's not what it used to be.

One or 2 decent areas but lot's of crap dotted around that never used to be there. That said I hope it stays, equally I hope it regains what it used to have, a reputation accross the country as an independant shopping mecca.

[GShutty]

Originally Posted by golddigga18

getting rid of that abomination of the car park will be the best thing ever to happen in manchester. i will crack open the champagne the day its demolished. obviously if its replacement adds to the northern quarter

That and developing the surface car park opposite. they've both had plans floating around for the last few years. The impact that these two developments would have on the Northern Quarter would be huge!

[jrb]

New hope for Afflecks' future

THE future of Manchester's Afflecks Palace looks brighter with a new lease proposal on the table.

Bosses from the Northern Quarter shopping emporium have met advisers to discuss terms after the contract expires in June.

The M.E.N. revealed a standoff with building owners Bruntwood left traders worried for their future.

With just four months left on the lease, the 100 stallholders feared the building might be sold for redevelopment or a rent hike would force many out of business. The crisis sparked an outcry and Manchester council stepped in to protect one of the few independent retail centres left in the city.

Unclear

Now representatives from the two sides have met and Afflecks management has been offered a renewed lease but not the written terms they claim they have been requesting since last summer. It remains unclear how much rents will rise.

Bruntwood managing director Chris Oglesby dismissed fears that the building could be turned into luxury apartments.

He said: "Our intention is not to redevelop the Afflecks building. But we cannot make any firm assurances."

John Chapman, a chartered surveyor working for Afflecks, said the new lease proposal would be given due consideration by the management.

He said: "While we haven't had anything in writing we have had a proposal for a renewed lease, which we are considering."

Coun Pat Karney said: "The council has been inundated with letters and phone calls about the future of Afflecks.

"I am quite confident that the original character of Afflecks will be retained."

[b4mmy]

Nice one jerb

Pat Karney saves the world again!

[WeasteDevil]

So? What happened?

[uklad1979]

Originally Posted by WeasteDevil

So? What happened?

Nothng it was aload of drama and a queen came to save the day.

[b4mmy]

Afflecks Palace might close very shortly. John Chapman, the surveyor fielding all the enquiries on behalf of Afflecks Palace management company, has issued a very worrying letter. This states that unless Bruntwood, who own the building, start talking about the future of the site before 19 January then traders will be given a week to leave.

Thus by the end of the month one of Manchester prime retail assets, famous across the globe may close. Afflecks has more than 100 traders dealing in everything from new designer clothes, through dance, fetish and retro wear, to antiques, knick-knacks, hairdresser and cafés.

The deadlock, between the shopping bazaar and property giant, Bruntwood, lies over the future tenancy of the building particularly a new lease. Afflecks claim that notice served on Bruntwood for a tenancy request notice has been ignored which must mean that they don’t wish Afflecks to continue trading on the site. The dark spectre of yet more flats rears its ugly head.

An Afflecks stall-holder, who didn’t wish to be named, said: “It’s scandalous. People have their livelihoods tied up in their shops here. We have to plan for the future. It’s causing a lot of fear and uncertainty. And can Manchester really afford to lose a place like this? Afflecks created the Northern Quarter. What does it say about the city if it closes?”


“Problem is,” she continued, “I have no idea what’s going on. And we’ve not known for months. I know a lot of us have been looking for other sites because of the situation. I’m very confused. I’m not even sure who the good guys are and who are the bad guys anymore. Is it the management or Bruntwood who are holding out over the lease?”

In a statement to Confidential, property giant Bruntwood said: “Afflecks Palace management company have a legal right to continue to occupy the building and to a new lease. All decisions regarding the future will be at the discretion of the Afflecks Palace management company.”

This implies any future agreement lies entirely with Afflecks Palace.

Wherever the fault lies the impasse casts doubt on the future of one of Manchester’s most recognised modern institutions.

[The Longford]

Someone in Bruntwood's PR department had better get their thinking caps on.

Have Bruntwood actually got a PR department?

Or are they scared of mirrors and sleep in lead lined boxes (like Peel do)?

Not really doing their "We Love Manchester" image much good is it?

[uklad1979]

They have a PR person but since they are not actully evicting anybody or have even give any notice that they intend to this is yet again more drama from the fools that run Afflecks. Bruntwood at some point need to fix up the building but the management of the Afflecks and Bruntwood are at a stalemate as to when it will be done and how Bruntwood factors this into it's rent. Bruntwood don't want to get into a petty press battle with this guy that keeps crying to the media.