Tiger store open in Stafford

[markpa12003]

I used to live in Shrewsbury. I would love Stafford to be as good as Shrewsbury sadly that's never likely to happen in my opinion because of our inept Council allow developments that no other town would ever entertain; Shrewsbury is a tourist attraction; and it has a wider sphere of influence than Stafford. I do think Stafford is improving. I'm very happy with the Riverside Development and I love the new recent drinking establishments - No.7 and Floodgate.

I hope the Tiger store is a success. I hope it signs a long term lease, employs loads of people and sells more things that I want to buy.

 

[Gareth]

Really thinks hanley is better than Stafford. Sorry mate you haven't been there much.

hanley as a town centre is in disarray propped up by the Intu Centre yet still has MORE EMPTY SHOPS THAN ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY.

If you think stafford's planners are bad people should take look at pics of Hanley and Tunstall before the red brick builds took over.

Stoke as a council is so behind the times and inept local people and buisnesses despair at their lack of funding and forward thinking.

their housing plan is in also in disarray so much so a government inspector has had to allocated to assist. Investment is none existent and the dereliction of brownfield is the top 5 % in the country. Their reaction to investment in Stafford is to put in 11th hour objections to plans ( redhill and mod).

Their train station connects nowhere, did I mention amongst the highest areas with deprivation.

What a great county town it would make lol.

None of that can be aimed at stafford.

 

[bunique]

Without wishing to out myself, I think that's a grossly unfair reflection on Stoke Gareth. You don't "do Stafford up" by doing other places down.

That said, the population of Stafford is positively open minded when it comes to development versus the population of Stoke. The best thing about Primark opening here is that I have no reason to ever visit Hanley at the weekend ever again.

 

[Gramaisc]

Hanley is not something to aspire to - I last went there about ten years ago, when I discovered that everything I had gone for had disappeared.

Webberley's and Black's are all that I might venture into now, if they are still there.

I do look into Machine Mart whenever I have to go up that way, otherwise I have not parted with money in Stoke (possibly) for the whole of this century..

I am not a great shopper, and designing your shopping centres around my wants won't get you far, though, it has to be said.

 

[John Marwood]

 

[Gareth]

Not down on Hanley, I am merely pointing out the floor in Really's reflection of bigging up Hanley compared to 'being down' on Stafford and that Stoke should be the real county town.

Let alone having one business leader in stoke gleeful on the moving out of Staffs Uni from Stafford is that it is fair Stoke gets a fairer slice of the pie in Staffordshire.

I have little sympathy for other councils ineptitude.

I am simply pointing out the counter argument for Stafford.

In fact I have every sympathy for Stoke as an area, the government cuts in money for them are scandalous making them one of the poorest councils in the country.

But the government don't consider them a growth hub, but they for Stafford. That doesn't happen by accident.

But as a council they are letting down their public as they have to get out there like SBC and SCC have. The latter are many things but sitting on their arses is not one of them.

Stoke councils idea of getting out there in the last 3 years and causing outrage in the potteries: is spending 50k for a piece at the chelsea flower show to 'network' and 30k on a private consultancy firm to figure what to do with a car park. Brilliant.

makes anything SBC and SCC look top notch. It's the people I feel sorry for.

 

[proactive]

Without wishing to out myself, I think that's a grossly unfair reflection on Stoke Gareth. You don't "do Stafford up" by doing other places down.

I'm sorry, but @Gareth is bang on the money with his assessment of Stoke.

It is a very sad place to be at the moment.

 

[John Marwood]

I would have said 51k on a flower display was reasonable

( watering cans and all that )

 

[Confused]

...
In fact I have every sympathy for Stoke as an area, the government cuts in money for them are scandalous making them one of the poorest councils in the country.

But the government don't consider them a growth hub, but they for Stafford. That doesn't happen by accident.
...

Something to do with the fact that we have a Tory Borough Council, Tory County Council and a Tory MP would be my bet why Stafford became a growth hub. Gerrymandering, pure and simple. If 2015 is anything to go by it worked too.

 

[proactive]

Something to do with the fact that we have a Tory Borough Council, Tory County Council and a Tory MP would be my bet why Stafford became a growth hub. Gerrymandering, pure and simple. If 2015 is anything to go by it worked too.

Please provide evidence of this.

 

[Wormella]

I'm sorry, but @Gareth is bang on the money with his assessment of Stoke.

It is a very sad place to be at the moment.

I always look at Stoke and Hanley differently, and in both there's some grassroots, independents popping up (artists at Spode in Stoke and a growing independent restaurant / cafe bar culture in Hanley)

What Hanley does have is a thriving market, and a decent ish selection of shops, but nothing very fancy to make it a fantastic destination for shopping and it suffers greatly from being so far from the train station. Some of the brands like Primark's expansion to other places will hit it hard indeed - and it is a shame to see big empty buildings like Webberleys. It's not terrible, it's just not great.

 

[John Marwood]

 

[Really?]

Woah there Gareth. I am not bigging Hanley up - I used to live there - or rather two miles out - and I found it a horrible place. I was commenting on the fact that the burghers of Stoke seem to claim that THEY should be the County Town. Stoke itself is worse than Hanley but they use Hanley as the "shopping centre" of choice. They use the six (or is it seven now) towns to get far more investment/grants/subsidies and they play on the Potteries angle at every opportunity when in actual fact it is a bunch of low quality, neglected towns.

I prefer Stafford, it just depresses me that the Council doesn't seem to.

 

[Gramaisc]

Full of strange lithe things...

I'm surprised that @John Marwood isn't in there regularly...

 

[bunique]

Stoke suffers from its history as 6 towns as its not a very well joined up city and residents have kind of always stuck to their own locale. Add in a low skill workforce and low educational attainment and promoting m any kind of inward investment must be very difficult

@Wormella may know - what percentage of students stick around in the local area after graduation?

 

[Wormella]

Stoke suffers from its history as 6 towns as its not a very well joined up city and residents have kind of always stuck to their own locale. Add in a low skill workforce and low educational attainment and promoting m any kind of inward investment must be very difficult

@Wormella may know - what percentage of students stick around in the local area after graduation?

No idea I'm afraid, that kind of analysis is above my paygrade.

 

[markpa12003]

I had a meeting last week with Stoke city council which demonstrated why the area is in such a sorry state. I was sitting around the table with a planner, a conservation area officer, a well respected architect and an investor that was very keen to redevelop two unsightly sites in his ownership to provide a mix of house types. The 1 site received some mute positivity from the council; the other absolutely none.

The other site comprises of typical c19th century buildings which are in a poor state of repair and located in a run down area of Stoke. Despite this, the conservation area was insistent that these buildings should be retained because of their age - even though she acknowledged they were typical in s- o-t and were unsightly. We sort to explain that the buildings were unsafe and it was financially unviable to redevelop them because they were unsuitable for any alternative use. As such, a redevelopment of the site was the only feasible option. The conservation area then started quoted schemes in London to try and justify why these buildings should remain - she wanted roof gardens and undercroft parking. My retort that she needs to live in the real world and realise we were in stoke didn't go down well. The up short to all this - the developer will not be developing either site and both sites will be left to deteriorate further and much needed housing will not be built.

 

[John Marwood]

I had a meeting last week with Stoke city council which demonstrated why the area is in such a sorry state. I was sitting around the table with a planner, a conservation area officer, a well respected architect and an investor that was very keen to redevelop two unsightly sites in his ownership to provide a mix of house types. The 1 site received some mute positivity from the council; the other absolutely none.

The other site comprises of typical c19th century buildings which are in a poor state of repair and located in a run down area of Stoke. Despite this, the conservation area was insistent that these buildings should be retained because of their age - even though she acknowledged they were typical in s- o-t and were unsightly. We sort to explain that the buildings were unsafe and it was financially unviable to redevelop them because they were unsuitable for any alternative use. As such, a redevelopment of the site was the only feasible option. The conservation area then started quoted schemes in London to try and justify why these buildings should remain - she wanted roof gardens and undercroft parking. My retort that she needs to live in the real world and realise we were in stoke didn't go down well. The up short to all this - the developer will not be developing either site and both sites will be left to deteriorate further and much needed housing will not be built.

Ideological v Commercial

Restoration v Deterioration

Stoke v The World

 

[John Marwood]

I'm surprised that @John Marwood isn't in there regularly...

I've not been lithe for a few years now

 

[Gramaisc]

I had a meeting last week with Stoke city council which demonstrated why the area is in such a sorry state. I was sitting around the table with a planner, a conservation area officer, a well respected architect and an investor that was very keen to redevelop two unsightly sites in his ownership to provide a mix of house types. The 1 site received some mute positivity from the council; the other absolutely none.

The other site comprises of typical c19th century buildings which are in a poor state of repair and located in a run down area of Stoke. Despite this, the conservation area was insistent that these buildings should be retained because of their age - even though she acknowledged they were typical in s- o-t and were unsightly. We sort to explain that the buildings were unsafe and it was financially unviable to redevelop them because they were unsuitable for any alternative use. As such, a redevelopment of the site was the only feasible option. The conservation area then started quoted schemes in London to try and justify why these buildings should remain - she wanted roof gardens and undercroft parking. My retort that she needs to live in the real world and realise we were in stoke didn't go down well. The up short to all this - the developer will not be developing either site and both sites will be left to deteriorate further and much needed housing will not be built.

Time for an accidental fire....