Poll Do you think Stafford is "Run Down" ?

Do you think Stafford is "Run Down" ?

  • Yes it is

    Votes: 11 22.0%

  • No it isn't

    Votes: 39 78.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
highguyuk

highguyuk

Well-Known Forumite
As is the case in a lot of towns and cities across the UK, there is too much retail space in town centres. Shops have moved to out of town premises and customers are shopping more and more online.

There are shops in Stafford that have never been occupied since construction - those near the old New Look for example and perhaps some in the Guildhall if gossip is to be believed. More and more shops are becoming vacant, Argos for example will soon be moving. I do think the answer is bulldozing...

...to create housing and remove retail. Not only would this naturally bring more people in to the centre, it would help with housing demand and reduce the retail space available which there just isn't the demand for. It's a rough map, but would Stafford miss any of the space in the red area of the attached image?

The problem is the finance isn't available. I don't believe that the council can do a lot, so much is privately owned and outside of their remit. At a former company I worked for, we looked at the potential to develop the former Connexions (spelling may not be accurate) building on Foregate Street opposite Currys. As the current owners want close to £1m, it just wasn't financially viable.
 

Attachments

  • TownCentreHousing1.jpg
    TownCentreHousing1.jpg
    261.9 KB · Views: 262
HopesDad

HopesDad

Don't feed the troll
highguyuk said:
As is the case in a lot of towns and cities across the UK, there is too much retail space in town centres. Shops have moved to out of town premises and customers are shopping more and more online.

There are shops in Stafford that have never been occupied since construction - those near the old New Look for example and perhaps some in the Guildhall if gossip is to be believed. More and more shops are becoming vacant, Argos for example will soon be moving. I do think the answer is bulldozing...

...to create housing and remove retail. Not only would this naturally bring more people in to the centre, it would help with housing demand and reduce the retail space available which there just isn't the demand for. It's a rough map, but would Stafford miss any of the space in the red area of the attached image?

The problem is the finance isn't available. I don't believe that the council can do a lot, so much is privately owned and outside of their remit. At a former company I worked for, we looked at the potential to develop the former Connexions (spelling may not be accurate) building on Foregate Street opposite Currys. As the current owners want close to £1m, it just wasn't financially viable.
Click to expand...
Quite correct. All of the red area on your map could be bulldozed and most people would not even notice, let alone care. Hardly anyone goes in that area anyway. But that is totally the fault of the council for allowing more and more development on the edge of the town Centre rather than forcing shops to locate in the existing shopping area.
The red area could have been demolished and the riverside development built there. Would have totally regenerated the town Centre. But the council are too weak and small minded to do it.
 
HopesDad

HopesDad

Don't feed the troll
alphagamma said:
Certainly agree with that. The councils and most of the cllrs were worse than useless when the hospital was falling apart. They should have been removed or resigned in shame when the Francis Inquiry came out, but instead just continued scratching each others backs, led by someone with vested interests in virtually everything in Stafford.

On of our 'local' councillors apparently lives in London, which says it all.
Click to expand...
An effective and committed MP would help, but we don't even have that. Lefroy has no interest in Stafford and sees it simply as his meal ticket. He will never deviate from the party line and has not once in his entire career ever voted against his party. He is only visible in Stafford at election time.
 
Frontal

Frontal

Well-Known Forumite
highguyuk said:
There are shops in Stafford that have never been occupied since construction - those near the old New Look for example and perhaps some in the Guildhall if gossip is to be believed.
Click to expand...
#

I can't think of a single premise in either of these places that has 'never been occupied since construction'.
Some have been empty for quite some time. That is not the same.
 
Dabbler

Dabbler

Well-Known Forumite
Sorry HopesDad, but I believe you are wrong. The Council cannot force privately owned businesses to move to a location. Yes, they can prevent them from locating in certain areas, though even then, their hands are tied by national planning legislation. However, it is a commercial decision for a business as to where it locates and if that business uses set criteria, and there is nowhere in Stafford that meets that criteria, then they will not locate here.

Would Marks and Spencer have remained in Stafford if they were in their old building? We will never know. Businesses, not Council's, choose where they will locate.

I do agree though, that the area in red could be demolished and regenerated. I have always thought that a mix of residential, social and retail space would be a better use of the available space.
 
highguyuk

highguyuk

Well-Known Forumite
HopesDad said:
Quite correct. All of the red area on your map could be bulldozed and most people would not even notice, let alone care. Hardly anyone goes in that area anyway. But that is totally the fault of the council for allowing more and more development on the edge of the town Centre rather than forcing shops to locate in the existing shopping area.
The red area could have been demolished and the riverside development built there. Would have totally regenerated the town Centre. But the council are too weak and small minded to do it.
Click to expand...

No, I'm afraid the council couldn't do it. The council has no power to tell shops where to locate/relocate, and why should they? Those businesses have a right to decide where they believe it is best that they set up business, just as we have the right to decide where to live that's best for us. For example, Tiger had the right to decide to a short term let over Christmas and the landlord of the premises had the right to allow it. No-one has done anything wrong, other than perhaps not enough people in Stafford supporting the shop.

The council do not own the land highlighted in red and therefore can't decide that it can and should be developed. They owned the land on Riverside and made the decision to sell it for redevelopment, just as they did for "Morrisons".

It is so annoying when people blame organisations that have little to no control over the things that they are being blamed for.
 
Dabbler

Dabbler

Well-Known Forumite
As I said on the other thread, why don't you stand for Council so that you can see some of the changes you would like to be implemented in the town?
 
highguyuk

highguyuk

Well-Known Forumite
Frontal said:
#

I can't think of a single premise in either of these places that has 'never been occupied since construction'.
Some have been empty for quite some time. That is not the same.
Click to expand...

The unit next door to Home Bargains has never been occupied.
 
Frontal

Frontal

Well-Known Forumite
highguyuk said:
The unit next door to Home Bargains has never been occupied.
Click to expand...

Well, firstly, that is neither of the locations indicated .... and I can't recollect an empty unit there? They have the gym next door one side, argos the other, and the clothes shop opposite ?
 
highguyuk

highguyuk

Well-Known Forumite
Frontal said:
Well, firstly, that is neither of the locations indicated .... and I can't recollect an empty unit there? They have the gym next door one side, argos the other, and the clothes shop opposite ?
Click to expand...

If a gym has moved in I'll quite happily say I was wrong there! There is still a lot of empty units that end of the town though, as there is on the outskirts of most towns and cities.

But I'm only chatting and passing the time, no need to be quite so defensive - I think we're all friends (apart from 1 perhaps!) I assumed everyone thought of everything from H&B to (old) New Look as being together, as they were all built as part of the same development.
 
Mikinton

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
I voted "No it isn't" but that may be because my definition of "run down" (i.e. somewhere I would never want to shop) may be different to HopesDad's.

And I wouldn't classify 'him' as a troll either. He's spent too much time over the last couple of days arguing his position.
 
HopesDad

HopesDad

Don't feed the troll
Mikinton said:
I voted "No it isn't" but that may be because my definition of "run down" (i.e. somewhere I would never want to shop) may be different to HopesDad's.

And I wouldn't classify 'him' as a troll either. He's spent too much time over the last couple of days arguing his position.
Click to expand...
I don't really see the link between an area being run down and your wanting to shop there. One of my favourite shops in the country is a continental grocers in Moss Side, Manchester. 'Run down' doesn't even come close as a description of that area.
 
S

Stevo

Active Member
Voted no as there are developments which are renewing areas of Stafford. The unwanted retail units often long-term vacant are in private hands, Highguyuk's map being the prime example.

The real lack of natural spaces (ie grass, flowers, trees) is a problem, I'd love for the Tipping Street offices once vacated in the new year to be torn down with a small park in its place but they don't make money.
 
kyoto49

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
highguyuk said:
As is the case in a lot of towns and cities across the UK, there is too much retail space in town centres. Shops have moved to out of town premises and customers are shopping more and more online.

There are shops in Stafford that have never been occupied since construction - those near the old New Look for example and perhaps some in the Guildhall if gossip is to be believed. More and more shops are becoming vacant, Argos for example will soon be moving. I do think the answer is bulldozing...

...to create housing and remove retail. Not only would this naturally bring more people in to the centre, it would help with housing demand and reduce the retail space available which there just isn't the demand for. It's a rough map, but would Stafford miss any of the space in the red area of the attached image?

The problem is the finance isn't available. I don't believe that the council can do a lot, so much is privately owned and outside of their remit. At a former company I worked for, we looked at the potential to develop the former Connexions (spelling may not be accurate) building on Foregate Street opposite Currys. As the current owners want close to £1m, it just wasn't financially viable.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the whole of the area in red and all of Gaolgate street, both sides could go. Any shops worth keeping could easily move to an empty unit further towards our new town centre. Infact @HopesDad should run on that platform as a councillor. All vacant shops erased from the map and houses built on the brownfield site that we gain. Kill 2 birds with one stone, save our fields going under more and more housing, and the removal of the now defunct half of the town centre. Genius!!
 
kyoto49

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
highguyuk said:
No, I'm afraid the council couldn't do it. The council has no power to tell shops where to locate/relocate, and why should they? Those businesses have a right to decide where they believe it is best that they set up business, just as we have the right to decide where to live that's best for us. For example, Tiger had the right to decide to a short term let over Christmas and the landlord of the premises had the right to allow it. No-one has done anything wrong, other than perhaps not enough people in Stafford supporting the shop.

The council do not own the land highlighted in red and therefore can't decide that it can and should be developed. They owned the land on Riverside and made the decision to sell it for redevelopment, just as they did for "Morrisons".

It is so annoying when people blame organisations that have little to no control over the things that they are being blamed for.
Click to expand...

What did they do for the people of Stafford with all the money from this sale?
 
HopesDad

HopesDad

Don't feed the troll
kyoto49 said:
I'd argue that the whole of the area in red and all of Gaolgate street, both sides could go. Any shops worth keeping could easily move to an empty unit further towards our new town centre. Infact @HopesDad should run on that platform as a councillor. All vacant shops erased from the map and houses built on the brownfield site that we gain. Kill 2 birds with one stone, save our fields going under more and more housing, and the removal of the now defunct half of the town centre. Genius!!
Click to expand...
If I ever did go on the council there would be big changes in Stafford. I would certainly get things done and stand no messing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top